News

Nebraska judge Peter Bataillon goes easy on gun crime but won’t tolerate abortion

A WHILE back, according to outraged cops in Omaha, a judge gave a convicted gun offender a probationary sentence.

The felon – one Lafayette Reed – was arrested by OPD officers for carrying a concealed weapon  –  a felony punishable by up to five years in prison. It was his second offence.

He promptly broke the terms of his probation, was again hauled up before Douglas County District Judge Peter Bataillon … and was given probation – AGAIN!

Judge Bataillon is again in the news, this time over his refusal to allow an abortion for a 16-year-old in foster care who had been physically abused and neglected by her parents.

In a closed hearing this summer, the teen told the judge she was ten weeks pregnant and asked for a court order allowing an abortion. She said she would not be able to financially support a child and feared she might lose her foster placement if her foster parents, whom she described as having “strong religious beliefs”, were to find out about her pregnancy.

Bataillon found that the girl had not shown she was mature enough to make the decision to seek an abortion, and asked the girl if she knew that:

When you have the abortion, it’s going to kill the child inside you.      

Pro-choice supporters in Nebraska

Pro-choice supporters in Nebraska

The case took another disturbing turn this week when the Nebraska Supreme Court, hearing an appeal against the judge’s decision, upheld his verdict.

This, despite being told that by the girl’s legal representative Catherine Mahern that the judge failed to recognise the exception for abuse in Nebraska’s parental consent law, and that Bataillon should have recused himself because he was not impartial, as evidenced by his “killing a child” remark.

But the high court did not consider the girl’s argument that Bataillon should have recused himself, because she did not ask him to do so or question his impartiality at trial.

Court records found online make reference to a Peter Bataillon who served in the 1980s on a committee for Metro Right to Life, an Omaha anti-abortion group.

Nebraska has the strictest laws on abortion of any state in the US. In 2010 a Nebraska mum Danielle was denied an abortion even though the child would not survive. Her doctors told her “she’d just have to wait.” So she did, in “torture,” and gave birth to Elizabeth at 3 pm, watched her gasp for breath, and then watched her die at 3:15 pm on December 8, 2010.

The outcome of my pregnancy, that choice was made by God [but] how to handle the end of my pregnancy, that choice should’ve been mine.

Inspired by Nebraska, abortion opponents in five other states have won passage of measures banning virtually all abortions after five months of pregnancy.

35 Responses to “Nebraska judge Peter Bataillon goes easy on gun crime but won’t tolerate abortion”

  1. Annette says:

    Evil bastards all. We are going back into the dark ages.

  2. barriejohn says:

    When you have the abortion, it’s going to kill the child inside you.

    So as well as the foetus she was hiding a tiny child inside her? Wow!

  3. T says:

    How does a pious bigot like that get to be a judge? Or is that a dumb question?

  4. barriejohn says:

    Peter Bataillon: Able potent liar

  5. barriejohn says:

    T: I read this yesterday. I’m not an expert, but if I were an American I would be very uneasy!

    http://www.religionnews.com/2013/10/03/supreme-court-poised-turn-right-2013-term/

  6. L.Long says:

    George said it well…
    As a fetus they give you all consideration, once born…You’re phucked!!!!

  7. AgentCormac says:

    Absolute disgrace. How can this man, this judge, be impartial when he clearly has an agenda of his own?

  8. Ryan morrigan says:

    Welcome to America. Where guns are a right but healthcare is a privilege. Where fetuses are coddled but children aren’t invested in until they’re military age. Where religion is automatic, while proper education is an afterthought. I think I’m gonna move to Iceland.

  9. JohnMWhite says:

    Until violating one’s oath of office comes with some kind of penalty rather than the reward of the support of zealots, this will continue to happen. Judges get away with ignoring the law and abusing those before them all the time, because nobody is around to hold them to account except other judges who do the exact same thing. It’s the same with politicians who lie endlessly, like the current nonsense in the US with Republicans blaming Democrats for their own refusal to fund the government. Until these people are held to account, they’ll just keep screwing people over and claiming black is white, as the judges here decided that Nebraska’s exemption for abuse doesn’t count and a notably anti-choice judge isn’t biased because fuck you again, you 16-year-old slut.

    They are as malicious as they are mendacious, and I cannot imagine how to stop them when, to quote George again, they’re all part of a great big club and you ain’t in it.

  10. barriejohn says:

    JMW: How did we (UK as well as USA) arrive at this position where judges seem to be making the law rather than interpreting it? Talk about taking liberties!

  11. JohnMWhite says:

    @barriejohn: It has long been that way, it is kind of the natural consequence of corruptable individuals wielding institutional power. However, I do think there has been a marked increase in judicial powers taking things into their own hands and going with their own agenda since around the time the political ruling class got away with invading Afghanistan and Iraq for no good reason and were never held to account for simply throwing away the rule of law and lying through their teeth as they produced half-baked arguments and made-up evidence. Torture and rendition, which the UK willingly participated in, were made legal by a lawyer writing a note that said “yeah, this is legal now”. The crimes of the Catholic Church and other bodies regarding sexual abuse came to light in the same era and again a great capacity for ignoring what is right there was demonstrated.

    Long story short: powerful people have been getting away with a hell of a lot lately, so why wouldn’t petty tyrants like judges think they might as well get in on the game?

  12. Bob says:

    @barriejohn. I understand that you used to be in the Brethren. Did you ever come across an evangelist called John Maxwell. I believe he used to be with the Open Air Mission in the 1980s and 90s? I believe he lived in the Swindon area.

  13. AgentCormac says:

    @barriejohn. I understand that you used to be in the Brethren. Did you ever come across an evangelist called John Maxwell. I believe he used to be with the Open Air Mission in the 1980s and 90s? I believe he lived in the Swindon area.

    Oh, so suddenly Bob Hutton thinks he can start being all matey with the very people he hates, denounces and refuses to allow to comment on his own blog? Just fuck off, Bob. Seriously. Fuck off. You are a contemptible, loathsome little arse; a man with neither a spine or an ounce of intelligence. Yes, I’m sure you will reply saying that this post of mine proves everything you have ever said about atheists being foul-mouthed and aggressive. Ask me if I care. I don’t. I think you are contemptible beyond belief, a wicked, immoral and hate-filled excuse for a human being. Post your views here by all means – they only go to prove everything that I and many others here have ever said about xtians being ignorant, bigoted scum. But don’t you ever, ever think that you can somehow come on this blog and act like we accept you or consider you to be anything other than the embodiment of all we hold to be contemptible, unjust and plain fucking wrong.

  14. Barry Duke says:

    AgentCormac, I strongly suspect that our attention-seeking Hutton has become regarded as a major embarrassment to those who actually fall into the same camp as he does (Loony Central), and that they are pointedly ignoring him.

    The utter failure of his “Gospel Truth” which must attract … oooh, around three hits a week … is testimony to his failure both as an “evangelist” and a human being.

    Recently, after I posted a mercy comment on his blog he replied: “Thank you for putting another comment on my blog without profanity – I’m enjoying these exchanges!”

    His obsession with me “doing gay stuff” suggests that it’s bodily fluids he’d much rather we exchange. Ain’t ever gonna happen, Bob, you pathetic old closet queen.

    Now be a good boy and do what AC says: FUCK OFF!

  15. remigius says:

    But Barry, Bob seems to have you so well trained on his blog. Obediently posting comments without profanity, just like he wants.

    Dr Pavlov would be so happy! (Ring a bell? Must be dinner time!)

    Why not just apply his own rules to this blog?

    Bob can only post comments here if he includes profanity. I will be happy to consider repenting if he asks me to fucking repent.

    I’ll consider Jesus as my personal saviour if he gives a valid reason why I should worship the cunt. In those words!

    And if, and only if, he fucking, cuntin’ shittingly agrees to post all comments on his blog.

    Hey, Bob. How’s about it eh!

    Isn’t such abuse your key to the Kingdom of Narnia, or wherever!

  16. remigius says:

    How did we (UK as well as USA) arrive at this position where judges seem to be making the law rather than interpreting it? Talk about taking liberties!

    barriejohn, judge made law has been the norm for many hundreds of years. The legal system of England and Wales is a common law system primarily based on case law.

    The legislature, Parliament, enacts statutes that prohibit certain acts. However, they cannot legislate for every act that falls within the aegis of such an Act. It would be impracticable.

    It is up to the judiciary to interpret those Acts, according to such rules laid down by common practice. The judges use the rules of Statutory Interpretation, such as the Golden Rule, the Literal Rule, and, my personal favourite, the Mischief Rule, to seek to apply both the perceived wishes of Parliament, and to prevent a very obvious misapplication of such a law.

    And through such judge made law is the main body of English Law based. In a Civil Law system they have only recourse to the enacted statute, but in our system each case is tried upon it’s merits.

    That’s why we get counsel putting forward cases for the court to consider, Hutton v Reality etc, rather than just quoting from legislation.

    Those cases decided by the judges are then binding, through the doctrine of stare decisis, on both later, and lower courts.

    It works for me, it’s worked for nearly a thousand years. I wouldn’t wanna change it. Would you?

  17. Gary Williams says:

    Nebraska is a joke. Whenever I have the urge to visit the Cornholer State I simply whatch an episode of the Beverly Hillbillys and the desire goes away.

  18. barriejohn says:

    AC: Does he think this is fucking Facebook or something?

  19. barriejohn says:

    remigius: There is considerable difference of opinion over whether judges do actually MAKE law. Obviously, they have to interpret the law, and, more controversially at times, decide what parliament INTENDED when it passed certain acts. However, I am not alone in thinking that there has been a sea change in the UK in recent years, especially where libel laws and family courts are concerned. You must be aware of claims that Mr Justice Eady was “creating a libel law by the back door”, and that he seemed to have an agenda of his own in this respect. If you read that Religion News article to which I linked above you will see that there are similar concerns in the USA. We need a strong judiciary to stand up for our rights, but politicians do least have to present themselves for election and provide the public with a manifesto that declares very publicly what their policies and principles are!

    http://www.parents4protest.co.uk/p4p/judges_making_laws.htm

  20. barriejohn says:

    PS I’ve come across this fascinating article, which probably does nothing to shed light on the matter!

    http://www.sixthformlaw.info/01_modules/mod2/2_4_law_reform/22_judges_declaratory_theory.htm

  21. AgentCormac says:

    AC: Does he think this is fucking Facebook or something?

    You’d be forgiven for thinking so, barriejohn.

  22. Barry Duke says:

    Genius idea, Remigius.

    New rule will be enforced with immediate effect.

    Got that, Bobby boy, no profanity, no publish. Or better still, we’ll randomly insert a few for you.

    BarrieJohn, you asked whether our Bob thinks that this place is “fucking Facebook or something?” Well, he was briefly (and facelessly) on FB a while back, then announced in an email to me that he was removing his profile. No reason was offered, but I guess people were leaving nasty, profanity-filled messages on his page.

  23. barriejohn says:

    Bob can only post comments here if he includes profanity.

    Best suggestion I’ve come across in ages. Remember that foul-mouthed mayor in League of Gentlemen (Roy “Chubby” Brown)?

    http://youtu.be/KGXeF8YlEgw

    Magic!

  24. Barry Duke says:

    Well, BarrieJohn, as I said, henceforth only comments from Bob Hutton containing profanities and blasphemy will be allowed. And the rule will be applied retroactively. So, for example, I have fixed his recent question to you thus:

    @barriejohn. By St Boogar and all the saints at the backside door of purgatory, I understand that you used to be in the russet-banger Brethren. Did you ever come across a bogle-clencher of an evangelist called John Maxwell. I believe the woggler’s moulie used to be with the Open Air Mission in Gropecunte Lane in the 1980s and 90s? I also believe the poxy wazzack lived in the Swindon area.

    See how much more entertaining that is?

  25. barriejohn says:

    Perhaps you could do that with ALL nadgering comments that lack that little bit of colour. It would enhance the cordwangling site enormously!

  26. Matt+Westwood says:

    I would fucking hate it if some cunt put bollocking swearwords in my wankfesting comments.

  27. Trevor Blake says:

    “Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.” – Psalm 137:9

    Abortion doesn’t kill children, God kills children.

  28. Bob says:

    Agent Cormac – you are fucking filth and the flame-spurting cocks of Hell will be your end if you don’t repent, you cunt!

  29. Barry Duke says:

    There Bob, I fixed it for you as I promised I would!

  30. Andy says:

    No, I think the good judge has a point. Push up the birth rate, makes for more targets for his gun toting mates a few years later.

  31. AgentCormac says:

    Agent Cormac – you are fucking filth and the flame-spurting cocks of Hell will be your end if you don’t repent, you cunt!

    There are no such things as the flames of hell, Bob – it was a story made up in the Iron Age to scare ignorant people into believing the unbelievable. Sadly it seems it still has you quaking in your shoes and pulling the covers up over your head in fear each night. Which is sad, and also rather pathetic.

  32. barriejohn says:

    In some places, molten lava, flames, boiling water, etc, are emitted from deep within the earth. In ancient religious tomes, hell is a place of fiery torment, with an unquenchable flame, deep within the earth. What an amazing coincidence!

  33. Mike Petrik says:

    Judge won’t let girl kill inconvenient baby, but lets guy walk around with an unused gun. Oh, the humanity!