Hunger Striker and Father, Bill Coleman, Fights Feminist Jurisprudence from Jail

If a women says it, that's all that's needed for depriving you of your rights. That's feminist jurisprudence. Today, much of the legal system caters directly to accusations by women without regard to the protection of a 'fair process' for those men accused. To simply be accused is sufficient to be denied your rights. Bill Coleman's story typifies many cases.

Bill Coleman, a father seeking custody of his 2 children, has been in jail for some 5 years for the conviction of the rape of his wife carrying an 8 year sentence. Now, he refuses parole because he says he's innocent of that rape. The condition for parole is signing an admission of his crime. He won't sign since he's innocent and is protesting the injustice done to him and his children by the present judicial system. Bill had been on a hunger strike during his jail time to protest his innocence. He was force-fed through his nostrils by the authorities.

In 2005, he was convicted of sexual assault in a spousal relationship, unlawful restraint, breach of the peace, second-degree threatening, and sixth-degree larceny. Sexual assault needn't be rape but depends on the local jurisdiction laws and social attitudes. Unlawful restraint in the first degree occurs when someone restrains another person under circumstances which expose the person to a substantial risk of physical injury. Second degree threatening is a misdemeanour for placing another person in fear of imminent serious physical injury. Sixth-degree larceny is when less that $250 is involved and generally considered a misdemeanor and dismissed if whatever was stolen was paid back. Breach of peace is making a disturbance.

The rape allegation by Coleman's wife was made after Bill Coleman filed for sole custody of their children, and the 'alleged' victim (his wife) hired a divorce lawyer before reporting the rape to police. She testified she did not go to the hospital after the assault to have a sexual assault kit performed because "it wasn't a priority." So there was no forensic evidence of a rape. That means no physical proof of any kind.

Nevertheless, Assistant state's attorney Cynthia Serafini, who prosecuted the case stated that 'an absence of forensic evidence {as in this case} is not necessarily conclusive to whether or not a crime took place." She also said during her closing arguments to the jury, "The testimony of one witness is sufficient to convict."

The wife testified that Coleman was controlling and she felt like a prisoner before he raped her in October 2002. The testimony of six other witnesses -- three friends, a divorce lawyer and two police officers -- showed the victim's accusations against Coleman were consistent. So the jury voted to convict.

Coleman's lawyers had argued that the victim made the rape allegation as a ploy to gain sole custody of their two children. It's hard to believe that conviction without some sort of forensic evidence would bring a verdict that was presumably 'beyond a reasonable doubt' where such a strong ulterior motive for alleging rape by the wife existed and its timing following a trip to her divorce lawyer.

In 2007 Bill stopped eating solid food as a form of protest. He said, "I am protesting a broken judicial system that is incapable of providing justice as well as protesting the State of Connecticut assisting in the abuse of my children. The system has failed my children and me... My case in not an isolated incident; countless others have been subjected to the injustice of the judicial system. Innocent people do not belong in prison." He went on to say, "The system is broken and corrupt and is also void of any moral or ethical values for the truth… What Connecticut citizens should know, even if they don't care about my children and me, is that they are one 'falsely accused' arrest, themselves, away from my nightmare. Make no mistake, your arrest is your conviction in the State of Connecticut." "What surrounds my conviction is filled with suspicious wrongdoing of many types. Having explored every avenue to save my children and prove my innocence, I now believe the system is not an option for the truth to come out and I choose to fight to the maximum with my life. I do not want to die, but I am willing to die. Force feeding only prolongs death as my organs, after a period of time, will eventually give out. This means the Department of Corrections will have to force feed me until my death." He said, "Finally, I forgive those who have wronged me and I ask forgiveness especially to those I have troubled. My family, friends and supporters vowed to never stop until my children are saved and what surrounded my case and conviction is exposed…"

Recently this October, 2010, Bill refused to sign parole papers for early release. He chooses to remain in prison rather than to compromise his values and integrity.

The key point to note here is that the legal process related to domestic affairs is geared to make a woman's accusation immediately deprive a man of his rights; 'He says' versus 'She says' means what 'She says' is true. Without a truly fair process, you have no rights - only the illusion of rights.

Shane Flait gives you the capability you need to fight for your rights.
Get his FREE Downloads at
Take his ecourse: How to Handle Your Family Court Case at

This article was published on 24 Jan 2011 and has been viewed 980 times
EasyPublish™ - re-publish this article for free
Click here for information on how to create the type of site Google LOVES, while building your authority, influence and visibility.