October 24, 1994 - Part IV

October 24, 1994

Orange County Superior Court

Case #93P4783

Part IV

As the Hearing wound down Jack Ray was trying to persuade the Court that he could be trusted with visitation, even though he had just been convicted of violently assaulting his child's mother, pled guilty to felony Child Abduction (June 7, 1994) but wouldn't be sentenced until December 16, 1994.

Here on Page 34 Jack tries to give casual, stupid listeners (I'm looking at you, Teresa Solomon-Billings) the impression he is accepting some nominal degree of responsibility for his hateful, criminal actions towards his child's mother.

Page 34, Line 12:  (The Court speaking)  "Did you not plead guilty to some assault on Plaintiff?

Mr. Ray:  No I did not.

Mr Giddens (Plaintiff's legal counsel):  He was found guilty of it, your Honor.

Mr. Ray:  Well, It's under appeal, your Honor.  That sin was forgiven on September 9th when they ordered three and a half days to me on that day."

The Court:  The sin was not forgiven if -- if you assaulted her."

On April 8, 2004, Riverside County social "worker" Sensitive Ben Slagter furnished a report to Judge Becky Dugan in which he knowingly, willingly and completely failed to address all of the dishonest claims Jack presented to Teresa Solomon-Billings 22 days before.  Slagter's fairy tale included a report from a contracted psychologist who reviewed the false narrative and -- shocked face! -- agreed that Jack must be an ideal parent.

Now intelligent readers must wonder what Dr. Ryan's "professional opinion" would have been if Slagter had actually done investigative work and gave the doctor the facts of the case alongside the falsifications reported by Solomon-Billings?  In this matter here from October 24, 1994, what does it say about Jack that he tells the Court his "sin" has been "forgiven" because he was found guilty, was sentenced to jail and served time in jail?  A realistic evaluation of Jack's mentality would surely reveal that he has no remorse or sense of personal responsibility for his actions.  This is still a dangerously unstable person who was in no way fit to be left alone in the presence of a child.

Isolated incident?

Poor choice of words?

Jack's arguing with the Court continued (emetic warning, Lines 9 and 10):

Page 35, Line 2 and 3:

"I'm not playing games.  I haven't played any games since last year when my mistake happened."

Does this sound like a person accepting responsibility for their actions?

Not only was his violent assault merely a 'mistake'...

Not only was his conscientious act of violating a Court Order merely a 'mistake'...

Not only was his planned and prepared abduction of a child merely a 'mistake'...

...these were things that just 'happened,' and he had no involvement in the decision making process at all.

Page 35, Line 22 thru 24:  (Jack Ray speaking):  "On that matter I don't want her address then.  I don't want her to accuse me of knowing where she is.  I'm sorry."

I give you Jack Ray, Professional Victim.

He beat her up.

He violated the Court Order.

He abducted her son.

But she is the mean, scary antagonist because she reported it and caused him inconvenience.

He's scared he might be victimized again by her reporting his crimes to the police.