Naghmeh Abedini files for legal separation

Saeed is learning another rule. Never plead guilty to a charge that you don’t think you committed just to make it go away or to try to look repentant, etc. It will come back to haunt you, as Saeed is learning.

Are you implying that Saeed pled guilty to a charge that he did not commit? Really?

It seems that certain people are determined to make this incident a symbol against spousal abuse in the church.

Who, me??? It’s okay to say my name if you think so. You haven’t held back before, why now? This “incident” was public before I put my $.02. I hope we all are against spousal abuse in the church.

And no honoring wife throws her husband under the bus first, Julie Anne.

Right back at ya…

See, I can do that to.

What does it prove? Nothing.

But you say he is an abuser. I say, how do you know? All you have is the claims of Naghmeh. OK. But you don’t know that it is true.

So, I suggest you lay off. But you won’t….

Men plead guilty all the time to crimes they didn’t commit in a false attempt to try to get an issue over with or to “protect” those around them.

I have no idea what Saeed did that day in 2007. I do know he pled guilty, so the law treats him like he did it… and Naghmeh (and you and others) keeps reminding us of that fact!

Finally, Julie Anne, there are others who were/are attacking Saeed just like you, both here at SI and out there in the general blogosphere. I was addressing them all.

And no honoring wife … Julie Anne

And no honoring wife throws her husband under the bus first, Julie Anne.

Right back at ya…

See, I can do that to.

It is always honoring to speak truth. Naghmeh is a woman of incredible strength. She stood by her man as she sought his release from Iranian prison. She was a pillar of strength these last 3-1/2 years. She loves Saeed. But when the reality hit that her husband was returning, and thus, his abusive ways, she had to make the very difficult decision after private e-mails were leaked. She was forced to acknowledge the truth or deny the e-mails. She chose the latter. She also chose to make sure that there is no more abuse in the family and separate until he can get the help he needs.

[Mark_Smith]

Men plead guilty all the time to crimes they didn’t commit in a false attempt to try to get an issue over with or to “protect” those around them.

I have no idea what Saeed did that day in 2007. I do know he pled guilty, so the law treats him like he did it… and Naghmeh (and you and others) keeps reminding us of that fact!

Mark,

I’m very sympathetic to your argument that in general, most of us don’t know enough to really comment on this, and that even those who have talked to one side do not have the complete story.

However, if one pleads guilty, even to get something over with, or to protect someone else, at that point, the person is guilty before the law, and has no right to expect to be treated as anything other than guilty. I may know nothing about Saeed’s current situation, but his plea is a matter of public record, so lacking other knowledge, I would have to assume that he did what he pled guilty to.

That is why I commented earlier for people to not plead guilty to “get on” with life.

Yes, people do that. Ask any lawyer who deals with “minor” criminal cases.

Says you, while accusing Saeed of being unrepentent, etc… Interesting.

[Mark_Smith]

Yes, people do that. Ask any lawyer who deals with “minor” criminal cases.

I know people plead guilty for a number of reasons. However, if they knowingly plead guilty to something they did not do (essentially lying), then in my opinion, they have to deal with the consequences of that action without later trying to claim something like they are not really guilty but “had no other choice.” It’s probably a bit different if someone is tricked into making a plea without understanding what they are doing, but that is exactly why they need a lawyer they can trust.

It’s worth noting that domestic violence convictions are felonies in all but name since the Lautenberg amendment. You will get locked out of firearm ownership (federal law), and you will have a lot of explaining to do in order to get any job beyond entry level. That fuels my skepticism that Abedini plead guilty for any reason besides being guilty. The cost of such a plea is just too high if he’s innocent, so any decent lawyer would plead it down to a non-Lautenberg conviction or at least enter no contest or an Alford plea.

But really, that doesn’t matter that much to our discussion. Again, if he’s actually innocent/had a bad lawyer and copped a plea to end the difficulty, he would still be a liar with a bad reputation in the community whose family was divided and rancorous. So whether he did it or not, he should not have been ordained.

I would submit that each of us needs to really take a good, hard look at what kind of things we’re overlooking in pastoral/deaconal leadership in our churches. If we overlook criminal convictions as “little things”, or argue that “he must of just plead guilty to be done with it”, we do in fact risk much bigger issues.

A nasty picture of this is the lawsuit just modified against IBLP and Bill Gothard. They had all kinds of warnings that basic accountability for the Gothards was being ignored, from brother Steve’s fornication to complaints of petting by Bill, and did nothing….and now the allegations include forcible rape and wrongful imprisonment. It is remotely possible that a good defense lawyer will eviscerate all of these claims, but it’s far more likely that a great portion of them are true, and hundreds of people knew about the problem, but took no action to solve it.

Want to run the manure spreader all over the church and the name of God? Ignore this kind of thing when selecting church leaders.