Indexes
February 8th, 2010
February 6th, 2010
February 5th, 2010
February 4th, 2010
February 3rd, 2010
February 2nd, 2010
February 1st, 2010
The following stories have received the most reader comments during the last 7 days.
- Will terrorists be given Miranda warnings? (70)
- President Obama's first year (67)
- Lodi Unified School District president issues warning to speakers over cuts (64)
- Local business leaders say tourism, Costco, Home Depot may play roles in city's future (60)
- Islamic symbol in mosaic — what is all the fuss? (49)
- Writer comments on Neely column (42)
- The Home Depot hopes to join Costco at Reynolds Ranch (41)
- Many reject the politics of 'no' (35)
- Police: Train victim was a Lodi teen (31)
- We need to conduct respectful conversations (30)
ADVERTISEMENT
Lodi High teacher arrested
A Lodi High School teacher accused of starting a sexual relationship with a student three years ago was arrested Thursday afternoon.
Andrew Krienke, 35, was booked into the Lodi jail on suspicion of statutory rape and contributing to the delinquency of a minor, police said.
The female student was 17 and attending one of Krienke's history classes when the relationship started, Detective Steve Maynard said. The two now live together and have a 5-month-old baby, he said.
Police learned of the allegations through rumors circulating around the Pacific Avenue campus, where classes resumed this week. Investigators interviewed Krienke and arrested him Thursday afternoon.
Krienke has since posted bail and is scheduled to appear in court Aug. 20.
For more on this story, see Saturday's News-Sentinel.
Contact reporter Layla Bohm at layla@lodinews.com.
First published: Friday, July 31, 2009
Search for Ads 
Today’s Print Ads 
RSS Feeds
Reader Feedback
Lodian wrote on Aug 10, 2009 12:17 AM:
Lodian wrote on Aug 10, 2009 12:14 AM:
IMO, comments here on this forum should include some of the following... intelligence, humor, respect, wisdom and wit! And if you can fit that within 1 to 2 sentences more power to ya!
Always remember that you will receive what you dish out here on these blogs. The comments do not always have to be so incredibly intense and uptight. The long-winded angry rants leave no room for discussion or tolerance for the views of others. They stifle any debate and even light discussion. In other words, you just look like a nut. I can see heads nodding right now. lol!
Sometimes, if you actually shut-up (back away from the keyboard), you can hear others agree with you. Some people just don't get it. I can’t help but sit back and chuckle when the angry are attacking those that seem to actually agree with them. Can you say "dim".
Oh well....happy blogging!
"It is a characteristic of wisdom not to do desperate things"(Henry David Thoreau). "
Lodian wrote on Aug 9, 2009 11:31 PM:
Lodian wrote on Aug 9, 2009 11:27 PM:
If only that were the case here. "
Lou wrote on Aug 8, 2009 1:55 PM:
Lou, Lodian, lovefest? Hardly. She just got something right for a change and I thought that should be acknowedged.
I hope the rest of her comments are likewise improved. Comments, here, in this forum should be complete thoughts not cheap one-liners.
At any rate, I almost feel that I know you. I picture an older guy with a good education and a successful life. I hope I am right. Lastly, and it is lastly, I will be out of town for a week or so. Therefore, I will be blogging with any regularity. Besides, I think most everyone knows how I feel about these issues and I don't want "Lou fatigue" to set in.
You know what they say: "Always leave em' wanting more." Carpe Diem Vita Brevis! "
Lou wrote on Aug 8, 2009 1:46 PM:
You may assume that I have an inside track about "what's happening" because of what I do and who I know. I really can't tell you anything right now regarding personal matters, i,e., whether or not I have children in the system. However, I am worried about all 29,000 students because it is my duty to be worried; then, do something about it.
This is everyone's problem not just mine. Your children (you said) have been through the system and are now part of the world of work; good for you.
However, the citizenry of Lodi should take an active interest in all children, how they are taught and administered. I am trying to change the hearts and minds of anyone who is willing to listen. You Sir, seem willing to listen. I telling you, this District has big problems, those problems must be met head-on and eventually solved. The District super stars have failed, are failing and will continue to fail. Why? Because their more interested in money and power than education. That must change. "
edumacation wrote on Aug 8, 2009 1:04 PM:
"...researchers found that injuries to the spine, knee, wrist, shoulder and ankle were common..."
SEVENTY percent said they'd suffer dan gerous overuse injury, such as carpal tunnel syndrome and tenosynovitis, an inflammation of the sheath that surrounds a tendon....
But while injuries were common, many breakers did not give themselves the needed healing time for they returned to dancing, ..
It looks like the Administrators at these two high schools are setting the LUSD up for Risk Managment problems and TORT claim law suits!
Way to go Superintendent!~ Lets get all the grant money we can no matter what the consequences to students. "
edumacation wrote on Aug 8, 2009 12:39 PM:
Lets see what this is?
Here is a quote from the Urban Dictionaru which defines this slang and street talk:
"...The poetry that thrives in a culture of non-readers. Very sincere, bad poetry. Delivered in front of and given encouragement from a small group of people who are also bad poets. Slam poets think that their poetry is more powerful if they just YELL IT. Sincerely painful to listen to. It's bad poetry. They try hard, but they have no idea what they're doing..."
Saul Williams infamous "Slam poet" said this about slam poetry---
"...[H]ip-hop filled a tremendous void for me and my friends growing up..."
Thats all he could say about his "poetry"
What academic standards include the following:
"slap poetry" (slam poetry)
break dancing
hip-hop
hyphy
mobbin'
thizzn
gettin' dumb
I would like to see an educator respond to this.
I don't know any CAHSEE HS exit exam questions about the above activities.
How will this help our youth learn to read, write and stay in school to LEARN? "
edumacation wrote on Aug 8, 2009 12:29 PM:
and there is more----
"...The enrichment block will be TEAM PRACTICE OR LEAGUE GAMES FOR ATHLETES.
"...."Other students" will have choices such as a book club, SLAM POETRY, BREAK DANCING or music.
"STUDY HALL WILL BE AN OPTION!!!!"
And more of this pandering quoted here---
"One of the main components is that we're going to use the tutoring for our student-athletes to make sure they remain eligible to play," Young said. "We want to stress to them that academics come first."
My questions are:
What are the academic standards?
Why is "study hall" an option instead of a requirement?
With the lousy test scores, poor graduation rates, and lack of academic progress, how can we afford to throw away another 2.5 million dollars on the following---
"slap poetry"
and
"Break dancing"
continued "
edumacation wrote on Aug 8, 2009 12:14 PM:
The following is objective evidence that should burn all of our ears.
Today in the Stockton Record--front page is an article by Keith Reid about the after school program at McNair and Bear Creek HS.
A 2.5 million government grant is paying for the program at these two schools.
background information: There is a rigid requirement at the LUSD that ALL lesson plans and teaching activities be based on grade and subject appropriate academic standards and frameworks approved by the CDE and the LUSD.
If a teacher uses unapproved teaching materials or lessons that do not support district, school and department standards and benchmarks, all hell breaks lose.
But lets see what the article says about the after school program. It is NOT A BABYSITTING program---supposedly.
Read this direct QUOTE:
The after-school program is being implemented with two major components: a one-hour tutoring session and a two-hour block of what educators call "enrichment." The grant requires tutoring sessions be held in classrooms of no more than 20 students per teacher.
continued "
edumacation wrote on Aug 8, 2009 11:44 AM:
Observer wrote on Aug 8, 2009 9:36 AM:
Lou wrote on Aug 7, 2009 6:33 PM:
Congratulations! You have finally said something that is interesting, innovative, provocative and probably correct. You are right, there is something that stinks about this whole deal. I am curious as well.
I am wondering who in the administration is targeting this guy. Not to detract from "a extremely poor choice of conduct" that must have consequences of course. Nothing here really adds up. Lodian you got one other thing right about me, I am targeting corrupt and incompetent administrators because they're a dime-a-dozen and need to be smoked-out, identified and flushed.
Don't you get the feeling that there is something smarmy, oily and unctuous about this whole crowd? They are arrogant, dismissive, and believe themselves to be entitled to a big pay check and lots of perks for doing next to nothing. They protect each other. Usually one lies the other's swear to it. Worse yet, they're bully's; I don't like it. And, in the end, I think if we look hard enough we might find a crook or two. In fact, I know we will.
That's it for me, this story is played out. "
Lodian wrote on Aug 7, 2009 2:23 PM:
Lodian wrote on Aug 7, 2009 2:23 PM:
These accusations are suspicious because if rumors went through the school this fast (in one week) then why wouldn't these same rumors have been circulating in the last three years? That many people cannot keep this big of a secret as someone is sure to let it slip, if in fact these accusations are even true.
This sounds like someone wants to set up this teacher. This should definitely be investigated (no doubt!), but it is highly suspicious that this "all of the sudden" comes out three years after the alleged incident. Very curious. "
Lodian wrote on Aug 7, 2009 2:15 PM:
Lou: You are having trouble controlling yourself. Stop blaming others for your actions. "
Lodian wrote on Aug 7, 2009 2:13 PM:
Lou: What is your obsession with this scenario? "
Lodian wrote on Aug 7, 2009 2:12 PM:
You can demand I answer some faux question all you like, but I will not give you the satisfaction of an adult conversation, with questions answered and all, until you can behave like a big boy. That would include answering my questions, which were posed to you before you yelled out this recent made up question of yours.
Are you going to bully me into answering your faux questions now? lol! Geez, go outside and get some air "Lou".
It's interesting how you try to turn every blog about a teacher being arrested on suspicion of abuse against a student into another attack on administrators. Can't you stay on task with the topic at hand "Lou"?
One more thing... your obsession with anal sex questions, and your demands that others converse on the topic, is quite disturbing. "
Lou wrote on Aug 7, 2009 6:38 AM:
YOU NEVER ANSWERED THE QUESTION: WHERE DO YOU STAND ON SOME ADMINISTRATOR TELLING A YOUNG BOY ABOUT THE FINE NAUNCES OF ANAL SEX?? It's a simple question really, are you for it or against it. We've already heard from Word Slug...he says, "Nothing is off limits if you put it in the proper context." Word Slug is wrong and he knows he's wrong.
Yes, I have tried to ignore you. Yet, and still, you make that impossible. By the way, is there a name for the sickness you have?
Please answer both questions, let that big mouth of yours be heard. "
Lou wrote on Aug 6, 2009 6:46 PM:
A very good friend (who knows me) just called and said that in some cases there is little or no real effective supervision in the after school program(s) at some schools...so it's not even good baby sitting.
I have it on solid authority that one of the after school programs at one of the schools didn't even know that some of the kids (in the program) were smoking grass during the program. I wonder how many people know that their children are being subjected to dope peddlers who are actually in the after school program. Wow! That's what I call baby sitting.
So, I disagree with you (in a small way) yet again. I don't call allowing 13-year olds to smoke dope out on the school yard good baby sitting, I'd call it gross negligence. "
Lodian wrote on Aug 6, 2009 1:24 PM:
"Lodi High teacher arrested"
If these charges are true then I can't help wonder why this teacher wasn't caught three years ago when this alleged crime took place. Kids and teachers talk up a storm so how could this have been completely kept quiet? It just doesn't seem likely. So either it was a miracle that this was kept a secret three years ago or something's fishy and there isn't any truth to the accusations. There's more to this story and it is just a matter of time before more comes out. "
Lodian wrote on Aug 6, 2009 1:14 PM:
I'll be happy to engage you and answer your questions when you have some respect and answer my questions as well, and without the barrage of personal attacks and incessant bullying. Until then, enjoy talking to yourself with all the other handles.
I have a feeling that you are a very lonely man in your "real" life. Does anyone really want to talk to you for more than 2 minutes before they've got your number down pat? (rhetorical)
Ciao
P.S. I thought you weren't going to talk to me anymore. Please stick to your word next time. "
edumacation wrote on Aug 6, 2009 11:45 AM:
Lou wrote on Aug 6, 2009 10:18 AM:
I don't believe that habitually violent children should be in any public school.
How do you feel about the after-school program? Should criminal behavior be tolerated in a District sponsored after-school programs? Do you know the guy that runs at least some of the after-school programs is the same guy that runs L.U.S.D.? Do the same rules apply? You'd be very surprised to know how these programs are supervised; because in some cases, they're not.
Doesn't the District have any responsibility, any ownership of the problem of how to protect our children, our teachers and the staff?
Anyway, this interchange will put an end to the speculation that you and I are one in the same person, yes? :)
Got to go... "
edumacation wrote on Aug 6, 2009 8:32 AM:
Where are these kids during the day?----in public school. How did the police learn about the crimes? From the kids boasting of their crimes in public school. What happened to education? It seems some of the young criminals use schools as a meeting and training location to plan the next crime spree. Where are the administrators? (including LUSD). These antics have been going on for at least 3 years.
Much of it is video recorded and posted on Youtube---I guess that is someones senior project? These are major felony crimes(robbery+conspiracy). But you don't think these poor little darlings should be expelled?? "
edumacation wrote on Aug 6, 2009 8:20 AM:
Where are the children of gangbangers? In public school, spreading their gang culture!
Is it a childs fault that their parents are criminals? Of course not!
My question is this: "Would you EVER place yourself in a position to be physically near criminals? I wouldn't either.
Then why would you have YOUR children sitting next to kids who have learned violence (verbal and physical) as the ONLY way to solve problems?
This borders on child abuse. "Good kids" are legally FORCED (through public schools) to be the punching bags for abused children? If your kid is assaulted and fights back---they become the problem. You better believe that for every young adult criminal on the streets, they have been involved in HUNDREDS of similar incidents in public schools. Why condone criminality? Kids emulate people they see. Do you want good role models around your child? Every parent has a choice: public schools, private schools or home schools. "
edumacation wrote on Aug 6, 2009 7:59 AM:
One of the reasons I home schooled my kids is because of the violence in the public schools. Vulgar language may not be condoned, but it it NOT discouraged. From "white Wednesdays" at Bear Creek HS to other borderline behaviors.
The state law requires that all eligible chldren attend public school unless other legal educational arrangments have been made. The real reason for this law, is to provide more money to local school districts, because of the way they are funded. This means that a district must make a decision between tax money and safety for every proposed expulsion.
This week, in the LNS there were headlines about an adult who allegedly committed crimes using a handgun. Where was that "little angel" only a few years ago? In school ---possibly sitting next to your child. Do you think this is the first time they used a gun? Look at the dad (another crime).
The question becomes does the district want $6,500/year from taxes or is the student costing more than that. Most of the time, these kids are NOT expelled. "
edumacation wrote on Aug 6, 2009 7:46 AM:
1) That was an interesting point about two of the board members. I agree, they all must go!!
The million dollar handshake given away last year to an old cronie for 100 days of "work" as an INTERIM Superintendent, was only voted against by ONE of the board members. Was this a REAL vote or just political posturing? The board member should have held press conferences and complained about the giveaway if he really believed it was outrageous. We were in a budget crisis at the time, and had just termninated some classified positions because of "no money" in the budget. LOL Guess who said that? The person who got the golden handshake.
First you lay people off because of insufficient funds, then you promote another Ooompa Loompa beyond their wildest dreams. Oh I know the excuse---that money is CALSTRS money, not the local budget! But CALSTRS lost 40% of its value over the last two years, and guess who will have to bail them out? Taxpayers!
cont'd "
Lou wrote on Aug 6, 2009 5:44 AM:
You completely disappeared, you never answered the question. Answer! Although Word Slug answer was a poor one...at least he answered.
Lodian, again your knowledge base is a mile wide and an inch deep. I asked you a straight forward question. You never answered. Is it because the administrator that is harrassing boys at LHS is a friend of yours? Or, you have decided to agree with someone for the first time in your life.
My last comments on this subject...these people are sickos and should not be alone with any child. The top administrators know all these things (as well as the principal) yet choose to do nothing. Why's that? "
Lou wrote on Aug 6, 2009 5:23 AM:
I don't think the Board is completely corrupt, however, I believe at least two have their hands in the cookie-jar.
In other words, they're stealing from the public.
I know for sure that non of the current board members have children in the system and be surprised if any one of them know more than 10 students between them. The only way the board has contact is while they're busy expelling them. At least half the expulsions are completely unnecessary and usually involve negligence on the part of the site-administrator who recommends them for expulsion.
We must get rid of the board... "
edumacation wrote on Aug 5, 2009 7:21 PM:
Lou wrote on Aug 5, 2009 7:02 PM:
Perhaps you are right, however, most study's show that professionals are usually sued for malpractice and negligence because they don't address the complaint up-front, they hide out...people get upset, assume their only remedy is to file, serve and litigate.
LUSD is currently named as a defendant in 40 such lawsuits. Almost always they are sued and lose because some super star at ESC just ignores a problem like: teachers and administrators who do inappropriate things to students. In other words, the "top-line" administrators have a duty to student safety (physical, psychological, emotional and otherwise)...and something like this situation they breach that duty and in doing so cause a damage because the damage was foreseeable all elements are met and they lose.
The best defense against negligence and malpractice is diligent supervision of the mid-level site administrators. That supervision never happens because they are lazy and useless and refuse to terminate someone who should be terminated. "
Mrs. S. wrote on Aug 5, 2009 6:28 PM:
I think one reason administration doesn't apologize, even if they're found to be in the wrong, is legal liability.
I haven't complained much, but I've written a letter or two concerning my kids, etc. I've experienced no retaliation. It may very well happen to those who are more up front, though.
My kids have gone through Tokay HS. My youngest is still there. I'm very happy with Tokay. It just seems like a different climate. There may be insiders with their own gossip there; who knows? But Tokay seems more "by the book". "
Lodian wrote on Aug 5, 2009 5:53 PM:
Lodian wrote on Aug 5, 2009 5:53 PM:
Lodian wrote on Aug 5, 2009 5:49 PM:
Lou wrote on Aug 5, 2009 4:10 PM:
As hard as it is to believe, the folks at ESC don't seem to give a damn. They know these things are happening at Lodi High. Yet, and still, they do nothing.
It is almost as if they have an agreement not to bother each other, in fact support each other even if laws are being broken. ESC, from the Board down, is starting to look a lot more like a criminal enterprise than one dedicated to educating children.
And, nobody's going to believe this, however, I have evidence here-and-there throughout the District that parents who complain, who want their rights, who don't want their children gratuitiously harrassed are often made into targets for even more harrassment and retaliation.
Arrogance, a sence of entitlement, dismissive attitudes, misplaced superiority complexes seems to permeate ESC. Tell me, has anyone out "there" ever heard any of these kleptocrats actually apologize or say they made a mistake about anything, ever? Needless to say, servant leadership is hard to find down at ESC. They are unaccountable and are willing to tell you as much. "
Mrs. S. wrote on Aug 5, 2009 3:07 PM:
If so, then the personnel dept. at ESC has a job to do. They should hold a meeting with LHS personnel (and perhaps those from other schools as well) and refresh them on the definitions of sexual harrassment and their implications in the classroom.
As I said before, I went to LHS years and years ago. I witnessed one female English teacher make a guy very uncomfortable by flirting with him during class. This has been a problem for years. "
Mrs. S. wrote on Aug 5, 2009 3:03 PM:
What you state is 100% correct. Whether or not sexual harrassment occurs depends on how it is perceived by the *victim*, not the perpetrator. That's in the legal definition, as well as the handouts school personnel receive.
It's unwise for an adult to continue with inappropriate language, physical contact (well, that one goes without saying), showing materials, etc., if a child states he/she is uncomfortable. High school students are minors, but they have civil rights the same as any other citizens. "
Lou wrote on Aug 5, 2009 1:27 PM:
It is of no particular moment to me what you think of my claims. Anyone who who believes as you assert: "I do not believe that any subject is taboo if it is discussed in the appropriate context." Then, we have a serious difference of opinion.
As I don't believe the subject of anal sex should be discussed by an administrator with a child under any context, period. What's wrong with you?
Also, it appears that you don't get the harrassment thing. Let me explain, the determination of whether or not sexual harrassment occurred IS NOT IN THE MIND OF THE PERPETRATOR or their boss. It is only in the mind of the one being harrassed, get it.
If someone, anyone wants to talk to you about anal sex, you have the right not to hear it. If this is so, then it is obvious to most of us that if a child does not want to hear it (and says so) then the administrator should not force the student to continue listening to that kind of repulsive filth. "
Lodian wrote on Aug 5, 2009 1:11 PM:
Lodian wrote on Aug 5, 2009 1:10 PM:
freespeech wrote on Aug 5, 2009 12:40 PM:
Word Slugs wrote on Aug 5, 2009 9:43 AM:
I think your claims are baseless. I do not believe that any subject is taboo if it is discussed in the appropriate context. I believe the principal would confirm the subject matter of the discussion, but I doubt he would say harrassment occurred. Your "yes or no only" question is a fallacy. Your allegation is that harrassment occurred and that Mr. Atterberry, the district, and the federal government have turned a blind eye to it. "If" what you asserted was 100% true in context, then it would certainly be wrong. But, since you failed to divulge the context and are only relying on what others have told you, your claims hold no weight. How and why the discussion occured is important. The fact that the federal government has investigated and done nothing is important. You give part of the story and expect us to pass some sort of judgement. As far as the F-word policy goes, I'd have to see it in writing. If it is as you say it is, I am okay with it as long as it stays out of the classroom. "
Lou wrote on Aug 5, 2009 8:45 AM:
I have just a second, however, you have answered a very clear question with four more questions. You are dodging the question; it's a stand alone, it speaks for itself. Answer it.
You sound like a L.U.S.D. administrator, they use lots of words but say next to nothing or answer "easy" questions with more questions, yes?
Are you a L.U.S.D. administrator. Hey, if you don't believe me pick up the phone and call Mr. Atterberry. He can confirm everything I have asserted.
Also, comment on the F-word policy. Let us know where you stand.
Answer. "
Word Slugs wrote on Aug 5, 2009 8:09 AM:
Lou wrote on Aug 5, 2009 5:57 AM:
Almost forgot. Did you know that the "policy" at LHS regarding the "F-word" is: "We don't attempt to enforce any rule against using the F-word on campus unless that word is pointed in the direction of a teacher or administrator."
If you don't believe me, pick-up the phone call Mr. Atterberry and ask him if the aforementioned statement is true.
It appears that there is no expectation whatsoever about what comes out of the mouths' of students when speaking to each other. I asked this question when I happened to be in the building and heard the F-word at least 20 times from various students in the space of about a 100-yard walk. It appears they use the word as a noun, adjective, preposition or when they can't think of anything else to say.
Again, given all that we have heard and all that we know, why should we be surprised? Again, we need a new Board and some new administrators, yes? There is no real leadership from the top down at Lodi Unified School District. "
Lou wrote on Aug 5, 2009 5:43 AM:
You just read my comment (answer) to Mr. Word Slug below. Please enlighten all of us on your personal preference for listening to someone talk about "anal sex" after "they" have been told not to talk about it; and told in no uncertain terms that you don't want to hear it.
Lodian, I will make this as simple as I can, just for you: Do you think that it is appropriate for an administrator to talk to a student about anal sex (after that student told you he/she didn't want to hear your comments). Jeff, same question. Again, you may preface your answer with: "If what Lou states is true."
If you do not approve of administrators talking about anal sex with students then say so. If you approve, call the high school shop around for "that" administrator and maybe you can get an earfull, if that's what you prefer.
This one's easy for most of us. Subjectively, objectively or somewhere in between, grown-ups attempting to initiate a conversation about anal sex with a minor is just plain wrong.
Please don't try and dodge the question. "
Lou wrote on Aug 5, 2009 5:26 AM:
Your other question was: "Do you have any proof (other than hearsay)to back your claims about the LHS Admin"?
Answer: Yes, I talked to a Federal investigator yesterday regarding this matter. This Federal agent confirmed to me that comments made by a LHS administrator are true and correct and were corroborated by the Principal.
Now, Mr. Word Slug it is time for you to take a position. Do you believe that it is appropriate for any administrator to discuss the fine naunces of anal sex with a male student?
This is a very simple question Mr. Slug and a yes or no answer will suffice. If you wish you may preface your statement with: If what Lou said is true then I, _________________...
PLEASE TAKE A POSITION "
jeff wrote on Aug 4, 2009 9:04 PM:
Lodian wrote on Aug 4, 2009 8:54 PM:
Lodian wrote on Aug 4, 2009 8:53 PM:
Word Slugs wrote on Aug 4, 2009 7:52 PM:
1) Do you have any proof (other than hearsay) to back your claims about the LHS Admin?
2) Do you have spell-check? "
Lou wrote on Aug 4, 2009 2:12 PM:
What if your student explained to you in no uncertain terms that he knew exactly what douche meant and told you in no uncertain terms not to continue your explaination. Let's say that child happened to be a girl (same situation). Would you feel comfortable bringing a girl to your office and grituitiously educating that child on subjects she knew or should have known, told you they knew (self-explanatory) and told you not to talk about it.
Yet, and still, you continued with a inappropriate, highly graphic, totally unnecessary, vulgar, and salacious commentary. Sexual harrassment is a subject test, that is to say it is in the eye's and the ears of the one being harrassed. It matters not what the perpetrator things of their actions or words. Nor does it matter what you think about the impact of various vugarities. As the supreme court has rightfully said about pornography: "You will know it when you see it."
Children are not questioned by admin. they are questioned grown men and women.
Yes, fourth hand indeed. "
jeff wrote on Aug 4, 2009 1:00 PM:
Several years ago I had a student who called someone a douche. I admonished him and after class I asked him if he knew what it was. He did not. I explained it to him in technical, straight forward terms. Did I commit sexual harrassment because I used the word vagina? "
Lou wrote on Aug 4, 2009 11:17 AM:
I assume the administrator knows who she is, if she believes she has a case for slander then bring it. As to your other question, who knows these things? The principal knows, some of the most senior administrators know. What have they done to date? Nothing!
You should know that even if OCR had a report (of anykind) they do not have jurisdiction over sexual harrassment until it becomes persistant and pervasive; one times enough for me.
If you think talking to a young (boy or girl) about subjects that are completely inappropriate, vulgar and salacious is something that's "okay" for an administrator to do; we have a disagreement. "
shockedinlodi wrote on Aug 4, 2009 9:29 AM:
" Shocked,
Who's OCR, do you mean the Office of Civil Rights...that's the only OCR I know of. You administrators use so many acronyms, what are you talking about? "
I am not an administrator. In fact, I am a main voice against LUSD. If I don't agree with you or question you because what you said is in question, then I work for LUSD. That is a joke. If you want to post here and have creditability when you are asked a question then answer it, otherwise you are just another trouble maker with a bunch of hot air in my opinion. If you don’t answer the question I will assume that Jeff is correct and you took it as far as you could and did not get the answer you wanted and now you have no where to go but the blogs. "
shockedinlodi wrote on Aug 4, 2009 9:18 AM:
Was the person at Lodi High you said was Sexual harrassing students already cleared by OCR?
You dance around as bad LUSD on subjects. This is a yes or no question, Yes she was cleared, no she was not. If she was cleared then you need to DROP IT and if not call the police and don't ask them to read the blogs. You need to report a crime not just want someone to read a blog and report it. "
vegan21 wrote on Aug 4, 2009 2:14 AM:
Lodian wrote on Aug 4, 2009 12:06 AM:
Lodian wrote on Aug 4, 2009 12:06 AM:
LOL! "
essayjay wrote on Aug 3, 2009 10:24 PM:
This little action just let everyone take a peek a how we all fell and things aren't pretty in liveable loveable Lodi. I wonder if the Supt. ever reads thes things "
Lou wrote on Aug 3, 2009 7:25 PM:
Who's OCR, do you mean the Office of Civil Rights...that's the only OCR I know of. You administrators use so many acronyms, what are you talking about? "
edumacation wrote on Aug 3, 2009 6:00 PM:
I understand that a few big shots at the ESC have organized a new club! -- The Lodi chapter of DENSA---the low IQ society.
According to National DENSA-
"...It's a fact, in the world there are smart people and, let's just say, people who've maintained a closer relationship with lead paint than is considered healthy..."
DENSA is an inclusive diverse group of edumcators who have gradumacated from a school of Edumacation or equivalent.
Most can tie their own shoes!...They are "smart"---just ask them. LOL
"...Lets celebrate and sing (or clap your hands) to KUMBAYA around the campfire...in any way you want."
DENSA membership applications are available at the DENSA website.
In the spirit of diversity and inclusiveness, you can even anonymously enroll your friends.
The next cabinet meeting of DENSA will have a powerpoint lecture on burping.
See below.
http://home.comcast.net/~czell/densa.htm# "
shockedinlodi wrote on Aug 3, 2009 5:17 PM:
" shocked-didn't that go to OCR and they found nothing? that's what I heard through the lusd grapevine" "
Lou wrote on Aug 3, 2009 5:02 PM:
I don't know Edumacation from Adam, however, he/she must be very bright: he/she seems to agree with most things I say.
Thanks... whoever you are "
Lou wrote on Aug 3, 2009 4:53 PM:
There is no slander here. The truth is a complete defense to slander, liable or defamation of anykind whatsoever.
If someone thinks they have been slandered, they can merely subpoena the paper's records find the name that corresponds to the blogger and sue.
I hope the administrator that everyone has in mind will defend herself by saying she has been slandered. "
Lodian wrote on Aug 3, 2009 3:46 PM:
Lodian wrote on Aug 3, 2009 3:24 PM:
Lodian wrote on Aug 3, 2009 3:20 PM:
"Lou, get off your high horse. Legal peril? Give me a break."
jeff: I see him as just a bully. "
shockedinlodi wrote on Aug 3, 2009 2:57 PM:
Thank you Jeff for telling me the whole story. "
shockedinlodi wrote on Aug 3, 2009 2:41 PM:
Jeff wrote on Aug 3, 2009 2:03 PM:
aimee-the comments in question that lodian posted are not libelous.
come on this is small town newspaper blog. the overwhelming number of people are anonymous. libel, one would think, needs a defined person. i have no idea who lou is (or lodian for that matter). I, too, did wonder if lou & edumacation were the same people. "
Aimee wrote on Aug 3, 2009 12:43 PM:
shockedinlodi wrote on Aug 3, 2009 12:39 PM:
CAN YOU PLEASE ANSWER MY QUESTIONS:
No, the one I have in mind is a women and likes to talk dirty to 14-year old boys. Evidently, its okay with Atterberry and the "Top-Administrators" as it has been brought to their attention...they barely yawned.
You need to make sure someone is taking care of this Administrator. I think all of us with children at Lodi High know who you are talking about. I have heard the rumours, but they are just that.
Can you tell us if you have contacted the Superintendent or Assit. Superintendent and if so can you tell us when? Who have you told in the district office? I would like to know who is ignoring this information. " "
jeff wrote on Aug 3, 2009 12:16 PM:
Lodian wrote on Aug 3, 2009 11:28 AM:
Uh, I have only engaged you a handful of times, Lou, so please clarify on how you have been forced to read or address my comments. Have you addressed me under another name? Perhaps you could let me know all of your handles so I can keep up with you. Thanks. "
Lodian wrote on Aug 3, 2009 11:19 AM:
Thanks for the response. :-) "
Lodian wrote on Aug 3, 2009 11:18 AM:
edumacation wrote on Aug 3, 2009 11:08 AM:
My kids have won the battle with the ESC via home schooling. When you encourage kids to be the best that they can be, they will often surpass your expectations.
Why settle for the lowest common denominator and celebrate failure and excuses?
It takes less energy and resources to celebrate REAL student achievement and success instead of worshipping mediocrity and political correctness.
I understand the goal to help less-abled students feel good about themselves. However, punishing most other students by stifling success, intelligence, creativity, individuality, and civic pride is counter productive.
Childhood is only a brief part of life. The LUSD has 11 years age 6-17 to help our kids become educated and mature adults. The question is: Have they done the best that they can do with their available resources?
IMHO: To some parents, the answer is yes. To most parents the answer is a deafening "NO".
The implied question then beocmes WHY?
We need concerned adults who can see the whole process, not educrats working who care mainly about their little fiefdoms. "
Lou wrote on Aug 3, 2009 8:03 AM:
I have tried to ignore your hyperbolic, often-breathless presentations of boundless stupidity over the past few months.
Your latest statements misrepresenting what I have clearly stated has crossed the line from reckless ignorance born of "after midnight alcoholism, visions and hallucinations" to liable and slander and will no longer be tolerated. Henceforth, slander me again at your own legal peril. You have problems, get help! "
edumacation wrote on Aug 3, 2009 7:56 AM:
Some people think extreme leverage for the average wage earner is good. I disagree. Look around at the foreclosure problems that I predicted 5 years ago. "
Lou wrote on Aug 3, 2009 7:49 AM:
I can tell by your writing that you are a good man. Please stay in the game, when you see an opportunity to join a group of other good men and women that want to make changes from top-to-bottom, please join us.
A grassroots organization is forming, hundreds of us ("the one's that are as mad as hell, and will take it no more") will be gathering soon pursuant to three objectives: Investigate the Board and the Administrators, recall the Board if the evidence is there [and it appears to be] and lastly, to elect four new Board members who are interested in servant leadership as opposed to educational Mafia's.
These people are damaging the lives of innocent children that have been put in their trust. We are not going to allow that to happen.
So, if you are an administrator or a Board member who doesn't care about children, who allows innocent children to be targeted, harrassed and driven-out by your actions; pack your bags.
You will see things in the paper by September 1, 2009, we intend to clean house. "
Observer wrote on Aug 3, 2009 6:08 AM:
" Observer, you seem to have a genuine interest in these subjects and I believe you are looking for educated comments from educated people."
Absolutely correct. I've been/was a self-employed business person in Lodi since the early 70's having retired now for about ten years. I was very interested in local politics because of the impact it could have on local business. Of course my wife and I became very involved with the educational side when our children were in school. Although those decisions don't impact me as much as they may have 25 years ago, I'm still very interested. "
Lodian wrote on Aug 3, 2009 12:11 AM:
Lodian wrote on Aug 3, 2009 12:10 AM:
No! Why would you not think that a teacher that will have sex with a student is not an important issue? Ridiculous. "
Lodian wrote on Aug 2, 2009 11:59 PM:
Lou wrote on Aug 2, 2009 9:27 PM:
It's late, for brevity's sake, I will tell you in a few well chosen words what I think about "L.U.S.D. bashing" as you call it.
First, it is well deserved, starting with the board, working down through the kleptocrats at the top and trickling down through the on-site administrators; I think this District is corrupt and completely disinterested in teaching and learning. I think most of these folks are only interested in power-mongering, academic thuggery, more money and perks.
I believe they think they are untouchable (by the common folk) and are hold up at kleptocrat central doing next to nothing of any use to anyone interested in educating children. They are arrogant, dismissive, and attempt to evade any accountability whatsoever.
In short, the District looks a lot more like a criminal enterprise than an educational one. "
Lou wrote on Aug 2, 2009 9:13 PM:
First, and foremost, no I do not work for or with L.U.S.D.
Second, you and your family are fortunate indeed. I don't know how old your children are (its none of my business), however, my guess is they went through the system some time ago when many of the political influences that dominate the thinking at L.U.S.D. did not exist.
Nowadays, if your children are bright, obedient, don't rock the boat, don't challenge authority, don't ask difficult questions, don't have parents who object (to anything) you'd be in good shape; generally speaking.
This is just a guess, nevertheless and educated one, I believe that the Disrict is doing a great job with about 30% of the students at most. The next strata (the average student about 30%) is getting an average education, owing only to some great efforts by some great teachers.
The other 40% are being written off completely. Out of those 40% at least 10% are being targeted for non-service and de-facto expulsion. These students are english language learners, disabled or have become high maintence in some way for the powers-that-be. "
edumacation wrote on Aug 2, 2009 8:01 PM:
In our case, we did had minimal support from the district and plenty of political barriers, but excelled in spite of their game laying and empire building. If my kids remained in the LUSD they probabnly would not have gone on to UC Berkeley.
As you know collaboration is the goal of the district. In this way slow or lazy kids get boosted by the work of the kids who really do the work. There is minimal accountability and a bias against excellence, competition, accountability and responsibility. There is NO room for individual achievement only "group think" and PC propaganda that will serve to encourage kids to lose rather than to win. "
Observer wrote on Aug 2, 2009 7:23 PM:
Observer wrote on Aug 2, 2009 7:20 PM:
edumacation wrote on Aug 2, 2009 7:04 PM:
I pay taxes like everyone else, but don't see he benefit of my taxes helping my kids. Parents need to start taking responsibilitry to teach their own kids to read, write and to produce instead of veging out like we have today at the LUSD, where the lowest of the low are praised and competition and excellence is a dirty word. It is ALWAYS easier to make excuses for failure rather than to take responsibilty and try to make the world a better place. "
Lou wrote on Aug 2, 2009 12:47 PM:
I agree. These people are spending $245,000,000 of our dollars and in charge of the educations (and in some cases, lives) of 29,000 students. THEY MUST BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE. WE MUST HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE. "
shockedinlodi wrote on Aug 2, 2009 11:44 AM:
I've come and gone and, ooh I love to sweep around the wide step,
cut a little swathe and lead the people on.
THIS IS LUSD THEME SONG. They don't have to answer the questions. Until someone holds them accountable it will be the same day after day. "
edumacation wrote on Aug 2, 2009 10:35 AM:
"...Three former Christa McAuliffe Middle School teachers have filed a lawsuit against the school's former principal, Russom Mesfun, and Lodi Unified School District...
it "says Mesfun favored minority and young, female employees. The teachers are seeking more than $25,000 each for damages and attorney's fees...."
http://www.lodinews.com/articles/2008/03/23/news/4_suit_080322.txt
The original allegations started in 2006 and another was later reported in June 2007- The Principal was accused of "....making "grossly inappropriate" comments that were "of a sexual nature" to a Parent and former prseident of the local PTA...."
http://www.lodinews.com/articles/2007/06/20/news/8_accusation_070620.txt
The principal voluntarily resigned .
Guess what happened? The Superintendent and the Assistant Superintendent of Personnel defiantly closed ranks and unequivocally supported the principal!
A synopsis of this was reported in
www.Seelodi.com
http://seelodi.groupee.net/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/6851076412/m/153107331
The following questions were asked and not answered---and quoting from the article in relevant part
"What would have happened if the top administrators or school board members would have taken action when first put on notice? What if someone listened, then appropriately intervened? We will never know..." "
Lou wrote on Aug 2, 2009 10:15 AM:
These comments have given me the strength to go public. Mr. Hanner, I invite you to call me. Sexual harrassment by administrators against unwilling students is a crime too. It's happening now, not three years ago. "
freespeech wrote on Aug 2, 2009 9:25 AM:
That said, it was completely inappropriate and wrong AT THE TIME - THREE YEARS AGO. It's a waste of time and money to pursue this victimless crime NOW. If the current situation was different and the girl was accusing him of these things, it would justify all this time, money and attention but with all of the other MAJOR PROBLEMS we have in LUSD, it's crazy to pursue a situation from the PAST because of gossip and hearsay.... "
Word Slugs wrote on Aug 2, 2009 9:24 AM:
I understand that many have issues with the principal and/or the district. But, that doesn't mean that they are at fault here (Though, the facts of the case are yet to be fully known). This is not about Atterberry! "
edumacation wrote on Aug 2, 2009 9:16 AM:
The state law REQUIRES that ALL Mandated Reporters first telephone CPS, or law enforcement and then complete and sign Department of Justice form SS8572 within 36 hours, or it is a misdemeanor. Investigations are conducted by qualified people from law enforcement or CPS.
That's not how the system works locally.
District staff who investigate have TWO potentially conflicting objectives: The safety of the child and RISK MANAGEMENT. As a result, the CPS and law enforcement should be the only investigating agencies. "
edumacation wrote on Aug 2, 2009 8:42 AM:
They are now a family. It looks like the alleged behavior issue has been resolved.
I never condone the alleged behavior, but why the hypocrisy?
There seems to be similar behaviors occurring with the tacit approval of the board. The question seems to be "why discus this now"?
The question should be why are questionable behaviors so pervasive within the LUSD?
The fact that some illegal or inappropriate behaviors are permitted, while others are not must be examined.
Where is the "line"? "Do as I say, not as I do" seems to be the message.
Deception(lying), cheating, and immoral behavior is subborned or encouraged in some areas but punished in others.
We need to see clarity and direction from the board or superintendent.
Instead, we get political posturing, business as usual, hubris and defensiveness. This does not help our kids learn. "
Lets Be Real wrote on Aug 1, 2009 11:05 PM:
At this point, I am so ashamed and SCARED to death that some of you who believe that the conversation should be about the school's principal rather than the disgusting conduct of a teacher who violated his duty to teach and chose rather to molest! It really makes me wonder what is up with my town. For those who don't know or care for that matter, this is RAPE! I don't care if it happed 3 years ago or 20 years ago. Oh, the girl being ok with it when it happened makes it ok. So, we now think that this impressionable person was intelligent enough to make this call when she was being manipulated by a person who was put in a position of trust and power over her.
Let's be real - this is not about the principal, district politics, or anything else which happens to be on some bloggers agenda. This is about a criminal who got caught, PLAIN AND SIMPLE! "
edumacation wrote on Aug 1, 2009 10:41 PM:
The LUSD has additional secrets. In 1956, when the novel was written, small town America didn't have domestic partners or same sex marriages.
We have even seen school kids bussed to watch Lesbian teacher weddings in San Francisco. Oh goody?
Today, our educrats have rights that transcend student rights, and parents who send their children to public school must deal with it.
Today we have Golf Tours identified by sexual preference. REALLY
http://www.foreus.com/index.php
Lesbian Golf Tour (how would anyone know?)
How do you explain to kids that some adults have peculiar interests? "
essayjay wrote on Aug 1, 2009 10:33 PM:
essayjay wrote on Aug 1, 2009 10:29 PM:
essayjay wrote on Aug 1, 2009 10:28 PM:
tosh conn wrote on Aug 1, 2009 8:25 PM:
tosh conn wrote on Aug 1, 2009 8:17 PM:
makes you think wrote on Aug 1, 2009 7:49 PM:
dyan wrote on Aug 1, 2009 7:45 PM:
veritas wrote on Aug 1, 2009 7:43 PM:
veritas wrote on Aug 1, 2009 7:39 PM:
edumacation wrote on Aug 1, 2009 4:05 PM:
Also it is not gender specific. Same sex situations are more common in public school systems than most people believe. Just because an adminsitrator is still "in the closet", does not mean they are protected from the law. "
Lodian wrote on Aug 1, 2009 3:18 PM:
Lodian wrote on Aug 1, 2009 3:18 PM:
jeff wrote on Aug 1, 2009 2:59 PM:
jeff wrote on Aug 1, 2009 2:58 PM:
tiptoe wrote on Aug 1, 2009 2:58 PM:
jeff wrote on Aug 1, 2009 2:54 PM:
danielh wrote on Aug 1, 2009 2:13 PM:
danielh wrote on Aug 1, 2009 2:13 PM:
We are not GI military chattel where the US Military does have a right to forbid such relationships. "
edumacation wrote on Aug 1, 2009 1:09 PM:
Please define co-worker. Look at the job descriptions. It was obviously betweeen a superior and a subordinate. Although this is not specifically prohibited by board rules, try looking at this from a different perspective.
If the subordinate said "NO" or in because of a disagreement witht eh superior, she could have EASILY filed a lawsuit for violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights ACT. In a relevant US Supreme court case the justices voted 9 to 0 to define "hostile work environment".
In fact the subordinate and co-workers can still file such a claim whether married or not.
It look like Mr. A will have to walk very carefully. There is no statute of limitations on Civil Rights violations.
The subordinate ALWAYS defines whether they felt exploited or intimidated---at the time.
Read Sexual Harassment of Working Women by Catharine MacKinnon. "
tiptoe wrote on Aug 1, 2009 12:41 PM:
danielh wrote on Aug 1, 2009 12:10 PM:
Still apology again.
I see it is Inspector Clouseau. "
danielh wrote on Aug 1, 2009 12:05 PM:
danielh wrote on Aug 1, 2009 12:05 PM:
Jeff: I apologize. I see that was gator. "
danielh wrote on Aug 1, 2009 12:02 PM:
How would you like it if someone said that about you or your family? "
Word Slugs wrote on Aug 1, 2009 10:21 AM:
Word Slugs wrote on Aug 1, 2009 10:14 AM:
jeff wrote on Aug 1, 2009 9:58 AM:
jeff wrote on Aug 1, 2009 9:58 AM:
dyan wrote on Aug 1, 2009 9:21 AM:
jeff wrote on Aug 1, 2009 9:18 AM:
jeff wrote on Aug 1, 2009 9:17 AM:
jeff wrote on Aug 1, 2009 9:15 AM:
And leave the Mother and child with out support.'
while he was arrested, he has not been charged, and charges may or may not be filed. Also, regardless of charges he may not be required to register as a sex offender. As for his job, regardless of legal charges, he may have just lost his job and possibly his career for crossing the teacher-student boundaries. There is a certain amount of trust expected in a high school teacher and he may have violated that trust; albeit, three years ago. "
dyan wrote on Aug 1, 2009 8:31 AM:
Gator wrote on Aug 1, 2009 7:51 AM:
come home from college, we accepted it And gave our daughter all the
help and support she needed…So now the Police feel it’s necessary to
Stir the pot, put the man in Jail, lose his job, register as a sexual predator
And leave the Mother and child with out support. Sounds like Inspector
Clouseau is on the Case… "
danielh wrote on Aug 1, 2009 1:16 AM:
We all make a lot of mistakes, and I sure have made a lot of them myself.
I don't care how easy it is to make assumptions, or how obvious it looks. In society, a lot of comments and judgements go around and around, people making judgements about one another all the time, and I am guilty of this one also.
It is really difficult when I have to go back to people with my tail between my legs to issue an official apology. Ouch that hurts. "
Lodian wrote on Aug 1, 2009 1:08 AM:
" I am afraid this isn't the end of the bad news that will be coming out of Lodi High. Things are out of hand, the site-administrators may need to be replaced.
Like I said before, what did they know, and when did they know it. "
You go straight for the admin. Why not the teacher? "
danielh wrote on Aug 1, 2009 1:05 AM:
Lodian wrote on Aug 1, 2009 1:04 AM:
" Congradulations to the happy couple, when the youngster is 10 and has friends over, a simple question keeps coming up, is that your grandfather, since daddy will be close to 50. "
LOL! You must be very young or do not know many people with children/families. A 45-year-old man with a 10-year-old child is not unusual at all. "
danielh wrote on Aug 1, 2009 1:02 AM:
I disagree. This is the highest priority, even if it is an allegation. "
danielh wrote on Aug 1, 2009 12:59 AM:
I don't know how you can say that it was obvious. If it was obvious, why didn't you call for any action 3 years ago?
If there was so little as an allegation, the teacher is supposed to be removed on administrative leave pending outcome of investigation.
If he was not removed, I would say that the information or evidence was not presented to the administration.
Obviously, a rumor did not spread until now.
This looks like the girl from 3-years ago grew up a little bit in the meantime. "
edumacation wrote on Jul 31, 2009 11:50 PM:
The nerve of "captain fidget" to throw stones?! "
essayjay wrote on Jul 31, 2009 11:37 PM:
Whoa Nellie! wrote on Jul 31, 2009 9:56 PM:
Lou wrote on Jul 31, 2009 9:32 PM:
Like I said before, what did they know, and when did they know it. "
getreal wrote on Jul 31, 2009 9:15 PM:
makes you think wrote on Jul 31, 2009 9:14 PM:
An administrator on the warpath.... I've heard that Atterberry is well known for that. Plus, didn't he live with the school secretary for many years? I think they finally got married. Just as messed up as Kreinke sounds like he could be. Time will tell.
How is it possible that the administration and other teachers didn't know (assuming the details released publicly are accurate.)
How unfortunate for the baby to have to grow up under such circumstances. If it is true, the baby will be the child of a registered sex offender, maybe in prison? A young girl doesn't have enough life experience to as easily understand what a potential problem this can be. She may have thought that it was 'cool' to get involved or 'fall in love' with someone so much older, but he should have known better and not taken advantage. Is it true that the 5 month old is her 2nd baby? "
Mrs. S. wrote on Jul 31, 2009 7:50 PM:
It could be true love, though - who knows? "
dogs4you wrote on Jul 31, 2009 7:27 PM:
lodivice wrote on Jul 31, 2009 6:27 PM:
If Only We Had A Page Of Shame In Our News Paper Where The Many Could Point Fingers & Somehow Feel A Little Better About Oneself, That Is ....Until Your Turn On The Wheel Comes Up. Buy The Ticket, Take The Ride. "
shockedinlodi wrote on Jul 31, 2009 5:41 PM:
Well it is sad a 5 month old child is involved that needs a mother and a father. The child may also have a father who will be on the sex offender registery and that will follow them for the rest of their life. However, these are all things that should have been thought about. We will need to wait and see what happens and that is if we ever hear. Still don't know what happened to the teacher that was buying drugs on his lunch hour. Seems like I never get the end of the stories. "
Lodian wrote on Jul 31, 2009 5:37 PM:
That's a good point. "
Lodian wrote on Jul 31, 2009 5:35 PM:
It's hard to trust anyone with our children today. "
Lodian wrote on Jul 31, 2009 5:33 PM:
" What did the site-administrators know, and when did they know it? "
His fellow teachers may have known well before the administration. "
Lodian wrote on Jul 31, 2009 5:30 PM:
" feel free to elaborate, lodian. "
LOL! That's for me to know and you to find out. "
TheMediator wrote on Jul 31, 2009 5:25 PM:
triumph110 wrote on Jul 31, 2009 4:26 PM:
freespeech wrote on Jul 31, 2009 4:11 PM:
kellyj wrote on Jul 31, 2009 3:51 PM:
The baby is 5 months old, not 3 years old. And I don't understand why they are deciding to deal with this now either. She's been legal for two years! "
edumacation wrote on Jul 31, 2009 3:38 PM:
protectorMC09 wrote on Jul 31, 2009 3:37 PM:
granted involving yourself with a student of yours is not ideal, I don't and refuse to ever view him as a monster for having or possibly having these relations with her. No one is ever perfect and y'all should know that it takes two to tango.
Let's all remember the rights, "Innocent until proven guilty!"
Yes, he should not be allowed to work in any district because he did violate teacher student rules, but give the man a break and give him the chance to provide for this kid.
We all like a city wide drama scandal, and everyone loves to be in a frenzy..
After leaving for sometime to the military and coming back to Lodi, nothing has changed. Still the small town looking to stick it's nose up everyone's business.
Shame on you for trying to ruin anothers life...
To sum it all up,
I have full faith and trust in Krienke, let's see how this plays out before everyone get's the story twisted.
Semper Fi. "
Lou wrote on Jul 31, 2009 2:35 PM:
dogs4you wrote on Jul 31, 2009 2:04 PM:
loditeacher wrote on Jul 31, 2009 2:01 PM:
jeff wrote on Jul 31, 2009 2:00 PM:
ameriCAN wrote on Jul 31, 2009 1:52 PM:
Lodian wrote on Jul 31, 2009 1:51 PM:
jeff wrote on Jul 31, 2009 1:48 PM:
http://teenadvice.about.com/od/sexuallyactive/a/statutoryrape1.htm "
jeff wrote on Jul 31, 2009 1:48 PM:
...
[I]n California the statute of limitations on misdemeanor statutory rape is one year and is charged when the two people involved are less than three years apart in age at the time of the crime, if the two people are more than three years apart at the time of the crime the charge become a felony and the statute of limitations increases to three years. "
collegegirl wrote on Jul 31, 2009 1:22 PM:
jeff wrote on Jul 31, 2009 1:15 PM:
'It is well known that if a teacher makes a PR mistake that reflects badly on LHS Atterberry does his best to get you off campus ASAP. Just ask one of Varsity coaches.'
a) he does not and has not remove teachers or coaches for bad PR, so how can it be well known?
b) the teacher, that I believe you're talking about, left on his own accord.
this is all from very reliable LHS staff. "
shockedinlodi wrote on Jul 31, 2009 1:11 PM:
WCPatty wrote on Jul 31, 2009 1:06 PM:
dogs4you wrote on Jul 31, 2009 12:54 PM:
Whoa Nellie! wrote on Jul 31, 2009 12:35 PM:
Two of my three kids have had Mr K. and the third is currently in his history class. Both really enjoyed his class and said he was a good & fair teacher.
The comment about the Prosecutor being a pawn could be right on. It is well known that if a teacher makes a PR mistake that reflects badly on LHS Atterberry does his best to get you off campus ASAP. Just ask one of Varsity coaches. "
jeff wrote on Jul 31, 2009 12:19 PM:
Hrtz wrote on Jul 31, 2009 12:16 PM:
Journey wrote on Jul 31, 2009 11:49 AM:
plmd wrote on Jul 31, 2009 11:24 AM:
He's only 35 years old and sure she's young, but....???? It sounds like they are doing what two people in love do. But now they have 'Lodi' all up in their business, good luck with that! I guess we all love a story about a teacher and student and baby and the police and the school board! Sounds like a sitcom...
I hope they are able to stay on track together so they can continue to raise their little child together. I think that would be best. If he loses his job.....that's not good.
I wanna see a picture of the baby, is that gonna happen??? "
Galtguy wrote on Jul 31, 2009 10:54 AM:
And yes, a little pointless at this juncture. Obviously there is a bit more to this story than first reported.
Note to the Prosecutor, don't waste your time and our money on this frivilous case. You're being used as a pawn. "
mark wrote on Jul 31, 2009 10:47 AM:
mark wrote on Jul 31, 2009 10:46 AM:
jeff wrote on Jul 31, 2009 10:33 AM:
Comments on this story are now closed.