A question that I have raised in the Jones v Pollard case, is
exactly who is the victim?
exactly who is the victim?
Certainly there is a cleric predator, sex addict, preacher, and a manipulated and manipulative woman that have stood up both claiming that they have been treated unjustly. While, from all available evidence, it is clear that the accuser, Ms. Pollard was treated unjustly during her younger and adolescent years, and clearly used as a sex object, by an adult, male pedophile and pervert. What is unclear is the level of abuse that she actually suffered over or during her adult years and just how much she may have contributed toward her condition over that time. Both of them, the abuser and the abused, claim to have been treated unfairly and wrong by one another if noone else.
To her credit, Ms. Pollard admits that her relationship with Jones continued past the initial time when she was a minor at age 15 for the next 20 years. Jones doesn't even dare to admit that much, at least publicly. Pollard, who also experienced a failed marriage over the course of those 20 years, remained in this twisted relationship to some degree until she felt that her 6 year old daughter was being threatened by the same predator that threatened her. Remember, this was and is the same predator that she continued in relationship with for 20 years and even a marriage could not break her ties to the man and his sexual perversion for her.
Although people have all kinds of opinions, very little attention has been paid to who has really been victimized by this fiasco. The assumption of most is that Ms. Pollard, because she claims to have been "manipulated" by a church "leader" of a large organization, is automatically the victim. Certainly we must agree that as a minor, she was a victim. However, even at that age and according to her own accounting of events, she had a choice in the matter, although possibly overwhelmed by appearance of fantasy and what "could be". The point is that there was an age or time at which Ms. Pollard began to contribute to her own victimization by participating in certain activities and being seen publicly with a married man. There is no question that she identified these things a being wrong. To be clear, as I have stated, Jones has the greater wrong and will be judged accordingly, but the hands of choice are not innocent hands if that choice is evil. The person who has committed such, must also stand in judgment if there has been no repentance.
Certainly there is a child, who has had her picture paraded all over the internet which should never have occurred. To parade a child around in the light of such a volatile issue is ridiculous and perpetuates the sins that have occurred by bringing the innocent into examination by the world. This child will grow and she will see the ridiculous set of circumstances surrounding her and will ask those, her elders, why they were so careless as to be caught up in such a ridiculous mess and not protect her?
Then there is the wife. Rosalinda Sanders-Jones or "Roz" as the adulteress Kim Pollard referred to her in her email to William McCray. What is not considered as often is that Mrs. Jones was the one damaged, harmed and wronged by the actions of both Jones (her husband) and Ms. Pollard.
Heb. 13:4 ~ Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous.
It is supposed that Pollard had no obligation to acknowledge Mrs. Jones and the sanctity of marriage. Like a "Jerry Spinger Show" sentiment, "she shoulda took care of her business and handled her man"...Some say only her husband had a responsibility to respect her. Now, I understand when the world is confused and has no clue how to discern what is right, because folk blind in their sins, are just that, blind and in their sins...Unfortunately, it is church people who have many of these same sort of sentiments. People rightfully condemn L'Keith for his adulterous actions. There is no question about that, and I will not ever defend a pedophile. However, few individuals offer the same moral value equivalence as to Ms. Pollard's obligations to Mrs. Jones, her marriage and ultimately to God.
Marriage is HONORABLE. It is blessed. Although Jones did not honor his marriage or his spouse, Mrs. Jones was the person offended in this and brought low, not only by the actions of an adulterous husband, but by the actions of an adulteress who at some point transitioned from victim to victimizer. The adulteress too will face judgement for unrepentant actions because she offended and contributed to the offense of a blessed and sacred estate of marriage which is ordained by God.
There is a total difference here between one who had no control or choice over actions they were forced into and to participate in and one who weighed the differences and implications of their actions and proceeded to engage in ungodly activity against their own conscience. While we pray for the restoration and repentance of all involved, we acknowledge that God will be God and that he will have mercy on the truly repentant. However, the law of restitution still yet exists, and at true repentance, there will also be some form of restitution.
With that said, I want to mention and examine something that I have never mentioned or examined before...
Spousal Civil Justice
What is interesting about this case is that Ms. Pollard has asked the court to pay of $12 Million for the actions of Jones, who, from the evidence, is certainly guilty of multiple perversions and pedophilia. Without asking for money, the thought probably never would have come to mind. The problem is that Jones did not act alone. In fact Pollard acted in accord and at the sick direction of Jones and kept and displayed all kinds of video evidence of Jones interactions with her and her daughter. In other words Pollard, by displaying the evidence that condemns Jones, also simultaneously condemns herself as it pertains to the issue of spousal justice.
What is often overlooked is that in some States, and New Mexico is one, the innocent spouse, who has been victimized by the extramarital affair of a spouse, has rights. Those rights often called "home-wrecker laws and provisions" include being able to sue the adulteress for one of two reasons:
1- Criminal Conversation
2- Alienation Of Affection
Criminal Conversation is not a criminal act, it is a civil offense that requires proof of an adulterous act or actions by either pictures, or video. This is similar work to the work of the TV Show "Cheaters" who has caught various individuals and even church officials in compromising situations. These claims are usually always brought against the third party who entered the marriage unbeknownst to the innocent spouse. In this case Ms. Pollard has been her own version of "Cheaters" claiming to be the one videotaping Jones in action in hotel rooms and in other circumstances.
While I am sure that there are those who don't care about the security of the innocent spouse, believe me God does! When we talk victim's advocacy, one cannot do so without discussing the needs of the innocent spouse and family. The innocent spouse is blessed because marriage is ordained by God, sanctioned by God and blessed by God. I certainly don't know what will happen in this case, but I can only pray that all involved and those hoping for the demise of individuals would simply repent and do their first works over again. There is still room at the cross for ALL of us and although I may take up some space, there is room for you too!
1- States that have "home-Wrecker" laws as of 2014: Hawaii, Illinois, New Mexico, North Carolina, Mississippi, South Dakota, and Utah.
2- "Can I sue The Other Woman For Destroying My Marriage?": DivorceNet.Com
3- "Ho Rules & The Woman With No Conscience Or Brain": The Dunamis Word
(Disclaimer: Neither Supt. Harvey Burnett nor the Dunamis Word renders legal advice. We take no responsibility for either the failure or success of the concepts used here. The thoughts and concepts here should be reviewed by an attorney and legal advice received only from duly authorized and licensed members o the legal profession.)