Suzanne M. Corona adultery

Suzanne M. Corona adultery, Suzanne M. Corona, a New York woman accused of having sex on a picnic table in a public park, appeared in court Tuesday and told the judge that she planned to challenge the constitutionality of one of the charges against her -- adultery. According to ABC News, she refused to enter a plea.

Along with the charge of adultery, Suzanne Corona was charged with public lewdness. Her partner at the time was 29-year-old Justin Amend, who was also charged with public lewdness. By Corona's side during her court appearance, holding her hand, was her husband.
Corona is only the 13th individual in the history of New York to be charged with adultery. Only five people have been convicted.

According to CBS News, she 41-year-old told reporters afterward, "You could have been a passerby and not have known there was anything going on."

She said even her husband had forgiven her and wanted the charge dropped. Joseph Corona had called the district attorney himself.

"I wish that the charges were dropped so that we could resolve this as a man and wife, more of a private matter," he told The Batavian, as reported by AOL News.

But the matter was not private when the act of alleged adultery occurred that precipitated the charge.

In fact, after both participants denied having sex -- they told the police officer that they were "just talking" -- Corona later admitted that the two were actually having sex. According to court records obtained by WHAM in Rochester, Corona said to the arresting officer, "Officer, I know what I did was inappropriate and I apologize but you'd understand if you knew what my life was like. I have a transgender husband and we never have sex. One thing led to another."

Corona also says that Batavia police are painting an inaccurate picture. She says there was no one around to see them.

But if no one was around to see them or know what the couple was doing, why did a mother of two children playing nearby call the police?

Corona told reporters that Amend's "genitals were exposed perhaps by the zipper, but that's it."

But, exposed genitals are not the same thing as being engaged in sexual congress.

ABC News reported that Officer Eric Hill of the Batavia Police Department told a press conference Friday that Officer Matthew Baldwin was the responding officer. Baldwin approached the scene at 5:15 p.m. on June 4 and found two people engaged in sexual intercourse on a picnic table.

"He asked them what they were doing," Hill said, "and they said, 'Just talking,' and obviously they weren't just talking."

Baldwin knew Suzanne Corona was married because of prior encounters with her and her husband. He charged her with adultery and public lewdness. Amend was only charged with public lewdness, claiming he had not known Corona was married.

According to Buffalo.edu, New York State penal law Section 255.17 states, "A person is guilty of adultery when he engages in sexual intercourse with another person at a time he has a living spouse, or the other person has a living spouse."

Although the charge is a rarity -- for obvious reasons -- it would seem that, unless Corona can prove the unconstitutionality of the law as it stands, she, by her own admission and by being caught in flagrante delicto by a police officer (not to mention the witness who phoned in the complaint), will face conviction as defined by the existing law when her case goes to trial. If convicted, Corona could go to jail for up to 90 days or be charged a $500 fine.

As for Joseph Corona and his wish for the matter to remain private, it seems that the decision to make it a public matter was made by his wife in the park that day. And, her decision to challenge the constitutionality of the law also seems at odds with keeping the matter private. But, he plans to stand by his wife: "I've got 40 something more years to spend with my wife," he told reporters, according to CBS News. "I'm not gonna throw it out over one incident."

It isn't the same as being branded with a scarlet letter and having everyone know of a seeming indiscretion, but it does not appear that national exposure via the media would be much different -- besides the brand, that i

Adultery law took effect on Sept. 1, 1907 new york

Adultery law took effect on Sept. 1, 1907 new york, 1 next the law making adultery a misdemeanor goes into effect, and a person convicted of the offense is subject imprisonment for a year or to a fine not exceeding $500 or to both. In this State adultery is the only ground on which an absolute divorce may be granted: and it is necessary to prove not only adultery, but the complaining husband or wife must also satisfy the court that the offending husband and wife has committed adultery without the knowledge, consent, privity, connivance, or procurement of the complainant. In other words, there must be no collusion between husband and wife to obtain a divorce.

The new statute declares the very ground for a divorce a criminal act. It is intended to put a stop to collusive divorces. The court calendar in New York and Kings Counties is overcrowded with uncontested divorce cases; many of them are instituted where either the husband or the wife has furnished the other with the necessary evidence of adultery and an agreement has been made between the parties that the alleged offender should not contest the charge. In these cases the court, on detecting such collusion, could merely refuse a divorce; at present the court may direct a criminal proceeding to be instituted against the alleged offender.

The divorce cases in this State may be divided into three classes. Firstly, we find those cases which are contested. These are comparatively few. Take the instance of a husband seeking a divorce from his wife on the ground of her adultery. She denies the charge and defends the action. Under the new statute the husband may also set into motion the machinery of a criminal court against her. Such proceedings may even be oppressive. The Police Court Magistrate, having information before him, must issue a warrant and hold the person charged for trial. Thus, a criminal proceeding may be conducted simultaneously with the civil suit for a divorce; it may also be instituted before or after the divorce action. A judgment in the divorce case in favor of the complainant is no proof of the crime in the criminal court; and, under the rules giving the defendant the benefit of a reasonable doubt, it may not be possible to obtain a conviction although a civil court may find the defendant guilty of adultery.

Again, a vindictive wife will not free her husband of the marital relations though she can readily do so on the ground of his adultery; but she will seek to have her husband convicted of the crime. These are instances were the new statute may be made subservient to private personal ends. The second class of cases arises where there is no collusion between the parties; one is living in adulterous intercourse or has committed an act of adultery.

In such a case a divorce should be obtained by the innocent party. Take the instance where the husband and wife do not and cannot live together; the home is broken up, there is no chance for a reunion; it is better for them, and their children, if there are any, that the bonds of matrimony should be dissolved. Yet, in such a case a divorce will be very difficult and sometimes impossible. The adulterer will fret criminal prosecution. He may be held upon the initiative of the court or of any person having a private grievance against him.

He will leave the jurisdiction of the court, will avoid process thereof, and will make every possible obstacle to the divorce action, which in the absence of the new statute, he would not contest. It is true that the State is the guardian of the home and should preserve its sanctity. Our State is the most difficult for divorces. It has established the hardest ground for divorce. There is, then, no reason for a statute that makes it difficult or impossible to get a divorce where there exists the legal ground therefore.

Adultery is illegal in 23 states

Adultery is illegal in 23 states, When David H. Petraeus resigned as CIA director because of adultery, he was widely understood to be acknowledging a misdeed but not a crime. Yet in his state of residence, Virginia, as in 22 others including Massachusetts, adultery remains a criminal act, a vestige of the way US law has anchored legitimate sexual activity within marriage.

In most of those states, including New York, adultery is a misdemeanor. But in others — Massachusetts, Idaho, Michigan, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin — it is a felony, though rarely prosecuted. In the armed forces, it can be punished severely, although usually in combination with greater wrongdoing.

In nearly all the rest of the industrialized world, adultery is not covered by criminal code.

Like other US state laws related to sex — sodomy, fornication, rape — adultery laws date to the Old Testament, onetime capital offenses stemming at least partly from a concern about male property. Peter Nicolas of the University of Washington Law School said the term stemmed from the notion of ‘‘adulterating’’ or polluting the bloodline of a family when a married woman had sex with someone other than her husband and ran the risk of having another man’s child.

Linda C. McClain, who teaches family law at Boston University, likes to give her students two decisions from New Jersey courts, the first from 1838 and the second from 1992, to demonstrate how things have changed.

In the 1838 decision, the court said that the harm of adultery lay not in ‘‘the alienation of the wife’s affections, and loss of comfort in her company,’’ but in ‘‘its tendency to adulterate the issue of an innocent husband, and to turn the inheritance away from his own blood, to that of a stranger.’’

In the 1992 civil case, the court said that ‘‘adultery exists when one spouse rejects the other by entering into a personal intimate sexual relationship with any other person.’’

Most states have purged their codes of laws regulating cohabitation, homosexual sodomy, and fornication — sex between unmarried adults — especially after the 2003 Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas that made sexual activity by consenting adults in private legal across the country. But the question of how that ruling affects adultery remains unanswered because others may be harmed by adultery — a spouse and children. Several courts have alluded to the constitutionality of adultery laws since the Lawrence decision.

But Melissa Murray, a University of California Berkeley law professor, said she thought ‘‘most courts in light of Lawrence are going to give adultery a wide berth.’’ She added: ‘‘It is an open question whether adultery continues to be viable as criminal law even though it remains on the books.”

Some law professors, including Joanna L. Grossman of Hofstra University, said one reason that adultery laws remain on the books is that getting rid of them would require politicians to declare their opposition to them, which few would do. In addition, many like the idea of the criminal code serving as a kind of moral guide even if certain laws are almost never applied.

Petraeus is a retired four-star general who gets a military pension and remains subject to military codes of conduct that prohibit adultery. But Diane H. Mazur, a professor of law at the University of Florida and a former Air Force officer, said that the chances of the Army calling Petraeus back to active service in order to court-martial him in an adultery case are zero, as are any chances of state criminal charges being brought.

Even within the military code, she added, adultery is charged as a criminal offense only when ‘‘the conduct of the accused was to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces,’’ she read from the manual for courts-martial. That meant something larger than seemed at stake here.

Animal hoarding in the US

Animal hoarding in the US, What is Animal Hoarding? Animal hoarding is defined as a compulsive need to possess and control animals.

Animal Hoarding by the Numbers:

- Animal hoarding impacts communities across the U.S. on a daily basis with approximately 3,500 reported new cases discovered each year. However, there are many cases that go unreported.

- There are approximately 250,000 reported animals that are victims of animal hoarding every year. However, there are many cases that go unreported.

- Animal hoarding in adults often is triggered by an event or situation such as the loss of or stress in a relationship, economic hardship or a major health issue.

- Animal hoarders have also been known to hoard objects; approximately 40 percent of object hoarders also hoard animals.

What Defines Someone as an Animal Hoarder?

Some animal hoarders deny that they are hoarders. They maintain a state of denial because they emphasize to themselves and to others that they acquire a high and unmanageable number of animals because they love animals and the animals need their love. Often, they confuse good intentions with their actions.

- There are three key indicators that define someone as an animal hoarder:

- The person has more than the typical number of animals in the home.

- The person has an inability to provide even the minimum standard of care related to diet, cleanliness, shelter and veterinary care.

- The person is in a state of denial regarding his/her inability to provide this minimum care and denies the impact this has on the animals and other people that live in the home.

- There's no such thing as "the typical" animal hoarder. Hoarders can be all ages, from several socio-economic backgrounds, and are both male and female.

- Animal hoarders often fall into one of the following three categories but can sometimes exhibit characteristics across categories:

- The Overwhelmed Caregiver: The overwhelmed caregiver initially provides adequate care for the animals and believes that while a problem has slowly developed, it's not as serious as others think it is. The overwhelmed caregiver may be socially isolated but is willing to accept intervention.

- The Rescuer Hoarder: The rescuer hoarder develops a compulsion based on a strong desire to rescue animals from possibly deadly situations. He/she actively acquires animals and believes no one else is capable of caring for them. Often working with a network of enablers, the rescuer hoarder gains proximity to the animals and finds it difficult to refuse taking in any new animals.

- The Exploiter Hoarder: The exploiter hoarder takes in animals to serve his/her own needs and is indifferent to any harm caused to the animals. Typically denying a problem exists, this type of hoarder rejects authority figures or any outside help and has a strong need to be in control while expressed very little remorse or guilt. The exploiter hoarder may continue to acquire animals over time.

- Individuals at the beginning stages of hoarding exhibit some ability to care for their animals. If they are aware a problem is developing, they are unable to correct it. Therefore, conditions for the animals continue to deteriorate.

- The breeder-hoarder initially breeds animals for sale and becomes overwhelmed with the amount of care they require and the sheer number of animals in the home. This type of hoarder doesn't recognize the severity of the conditions to which the animals are subjected.

What Types of Animals do People Hoard?

- People hoard all types of animals, not just cats and dogs. There are cases of those who hoard rabbits, birds, ferrets and farm animals such as chickens and goats. There are even cases of exotic animal hoarding, such as snakes and lizards.

- Domestic pets are the largest group of animals represented in hoarding cases, most likely because they are easier to acquire and care for. Cats are very common and contribute to the "cat lady stereotype" often associated with animal hoarding. Cats not only are easy to obtain, they are also easier to conceal than dogs.

- In most hoarding cases, individuals tend to concentrate on one species, but it's not uncommon for a person to hoard a range of animals.

How are the Animals Affected?

The consequences for hoarded animals vary in each case depending on how long the behavior remains undiscovered. In some cases, there are few visible signs of animal suffering, though animals suffer from lack of exercise, the stress of chronic confinement, crowding, fear and lack of socialization. Physical signs of suffering include weight loss, poor hair coat and parasites. As conditions deteriorate and animals accumulate, ammonia levels increase from feces and urine, and infectious diseases spread. Additionally, injuries, illnesses and starvation may begin to set in.

Families in the area are now barred from owning more than 4 cats. The new restriction matches the number of dogs each household is allowed.

Families in the area are now barred from owning more than 4 cats. The new restriction matches the number of dogs each household is allowed., Wellington, Kansas passed an ordinance last month that regulates the number of cats each household can own.

Families in the area are now barred from owning more than 4 cats. The new restriction matches the number of dogs each household is allowed.

Police from the area have noted that in November of 2012 alone, 231 cats were picked up. According to Wellington Daily News, Police Chief Tracy Heath expressed that 87% of those cats were put down. “…Those are cats that go to the animal clinic, they’re there for the allotted time, and then unfortunately they are euthanized.”

The ordinance also set conditions for adopted cats. Cats shall be vaccinated for rabies; they must also be spayed or neutered by a licensed veterinarian, unless the cat is being adopted to a home outside of the city, according to Wellington Daily News.

While reactions to the ordinance are mixed, it remains unclear exactly how the new limit will impact the number of cats being euthanized.

Cat law in kansas 87 percent of the cats rescued from homes in 2012 had to be put down

Cat law in kansas 87 percent of the cats rescued from homes in 2012 had to be put down, Sometimes laws are put into place for good reason. Such was the case in Kansas when cat lovers where proving to be negligent to their pets.

In the town of Wellington the police had picked up an incredible 231 cats in one year’s time. 87 percent of those cats, sadly, had to be put down. It’s the reason they instated the law that each household was limited to 4 cats.

Cat law in kansas 87 percent of the cats rescued from homes in 2012 had to be put down

Out of all the “bizarre laws” out there I’d say this one is by the far the most logical. Animals don’t deserve to be hoarded and kept in extreme situations.

Weird laws in England

Weird laws in England, Laws are supposed to be rooted in logic and yet some of the strangest seem to have been written without a drop of it. Who gets to write some of these bizarre laws and the stories behind them must be absolutely fascinating. Did you know that it’s illegal to whistle underwater in Vermont? I wonder how anyone gets caught and I’m especially curious as to what the punishment is…

Weird Laws in England

Every country has their own set of weird laws, and England is no exception. Consider some of these bizarre English laws:

Eating mince pies on Christmas Day is illegal throughout England.
If a postage stamp with the Queens head on is placed upside down it is counted as Treason, which still carries the death penalty.
In York it is still legal to shoot a Scotsman with a bow and arrow, on all days except Sundays.
It is very illegal to stand within one hundred yards of a ruling Monarch if you are not wearing any socks.
It is illegal for an MP to enter Parliament, wearing a suit of armor.
Interestingly enough it is illegal to die within the houses of Parliament.
The law allows any pregnant women to relieve themselves in public.
It is illegal to wrestle an untrained bull in public.
It is against the law to allow your pet to get it on with any pet of the Royal House.