Family Terrorized as Michigan Teachers Support Colleague Who Molested Boy

Posted on Comments

Former middle-school teacher Neal Erickson, 38, pleaded guilty in May to having sex with a boy beginning in 2006 — when the boy was a 14-year-old eighth-grader — until 2009. His fellow teachers in Ogemaw County, Michigan, supported Erickson, writing letters to the judge asking for a lenient sentence. Any parent would be horrified by the sentiments expressed, for example, by Rose City teacher Sally Campbell:

“Neal made a mistake. He allowed a mutual friendship to develop into much more. He realized his mistake and ended it years before someone anonymously sent something to the authorities which began this legal process. . . . Please also consider that this was a one-time relationship with only one student and ended long before being found out. Both parties have gone on with their lives.”

He molested a 14-year-old boy, ma’am. To call this “a one-time relationship” — words fail. A relationship? A middle-school teacher and a 14-year-old boy in a “relationship”? Are you insane?

The parents of the victim in this case were outraged to see Erickson’s fellow teachers supporting this confessed criminal pervert, whose molestation of their son caused horrible problems:

The victim’s mother also spoke prior to sentencing, telling Erickson he violated her son and caused a rift in the family. She said the family appeared happy on the outside, but on the inside, the home was a “battle zone.”
“We couldn’t figure out why (the victim) hated us,” she said. “He went after his father. There were physical fights.” . . .
“You were his teacher,” she said. “You were his mentor. You were his friend. And you violated him.”
She added the victim kept the sexual encounters a secret and suffered because of it.
“He kept all of this a secret, and he went through emotional pains,” she said.

Permit me to digress: Do you think there might be . . . oh, I don’t know, an agenda involved here? Do you think Neal Erickson’s fellow teachers would have supported him like this if he had carried on a secret three-year sexual affair with an underaged girl? I think not.

Because it was a gay thing, see, Neal Erickson has “rights,” just like Kaitlyn Hunt has a “right” to have lesbian sex with a 14-year-old.

Nobody in the gay-rights movement or the educational establishment wants to admit that this is what is going on, that they are making excuses for gay people to have sex with minors, but that’s what it’s really about. It’s a good thing Neal Erickson isn’t a Catholic priest, or else this might be an actual scandal. But I digress . . .

Thank God, Circuit Court Judge Michael Baumgartner disregarded the pleas for leniency and imposed a 15-30-year sentence:

After making a decision on the sentencing, Baumgartner said he could not believe people were supporting Erickson after the issue came to light.
“I’m appalled and ashamed that the community could rally around, in this case, you,” he said.
“What you did was a jab in the eye with a sharp stick to every parent who trusts a teacher,” Baumgartner added.

 The family of the victim has demanded that the teachers who supported criminal pervert Neal Erickson be fired, and have begun a petition drive to recall school board members who supported the criminal pervert. And guess what happened next?

A garage fire at John and Lori Janczewski’s house on Grandjean Road near Rose City destroyed the couple’s garage and melted the siding on their home early Saturday morning.
Lt. Melvin Matthews, post commander for the Michigan State Police Post in West Branch, said the fire is being ruled as arson. He said evidence gathered at the scene is being analyzed by the MSP crime lab, and new leads gathered since the incident occurred are being investigated.
The Janczewskis believe it was someone responding to their outspokenness against several West Branch-Rose City teachers and a board member, who they said publicly supported Neal Erickson, a former WB-RC teacher who recently pleaded guilty to first-degree criminal sexual conduct against the Janczewski’s son. . . .
John Janczewski said he doesn’t understand why someone would do something like this to his family.
“We don’t deserve this,” he said in tears. “We’re not a bad family. We’ve done nothing but stand up for our son, the victim. They could have killed my whole family. Whoever’s done this has no remorse. They have no soul.”
John Janczewski said he and his wife do not plan to stop. They are currently circulating petitions for the recall of WB-RC board member Mike Eagan.
“Whoever’s done this, we’re not going to quit,” he said. “We’re not giving up. We’re going to continue to fight, until the end.”

School teachers who are insane enough to support a criminal pervert are insane enough to commit any crime themselves.

Erica Ritz told the Janszewski family’s story Monday at The Blaze.

It’s time to wake up, America: Our country is now so close to the gates of Hell you can feel the heat and smell the brimstone.

 

 


518 comments

  1. That film was made back in the odd 90s period that Michael Keaton and Marlon Brando were both widely disliked by many popular critics, burying the possibility of success for their work.

    Or so I’ve heard. Celebrity status on who’s hot versus not perplexes but also fascinates me.

  5. This makes me think of some talk radio line that sticks with me:

    ‘Best teacher practices’ are to ‘teachers’ unions’ as ‘child’s best welfare’ are to ‘the Childcatchers of Chitty, Chitty Bang Bang’.

  6. I hope I’m proud of the Church, not of my status (undeserved) as a member of Her. I have nothing to trumpet or be especially proud of. What I do have, I received from Her. Obviously, I’ve never gotten over my conversion. I’ll try not to mention it again.

  7. And you’re always following your own opinions which have never been shaped by any book? BWAAHAAAAA!! Fine comedy

    And you clearly don’t understand what is meant by the separation of church and state, which BTW isn’t in the Constitution, and what IS in the constitution and is about the State not having a STATE church, ie, like they did in Europe.

    You’re a bore to argue with. Go pat yourself on the back with the other militant atheists.

  8. 1. Think what you will, I have argued them and I will argue them. No, I currently do not have to use the restroom.

    2.no you told me that I had to prove god didn’t exist. It was covering all the points. I hope you got it.

    Are you talking about muslims here, or muslims elsewhere?

    If here, I will continue to push legislation since this country is a democracy.

    Many places elsewhere (the middle eastern countries) have yet a lot of developing to do before we can even touch on the homosexual subject. It seems hopeful though, they are gaining womens rights ^.^.

  10. Don’t know much about the Bible do you? It’s not a bronze aged book. It spans many centuries or did you think the first century CE was the Bronze age?

    Pathetic troll.

  13. Perhaps a few, but a great majority are my own. My experiences and encounters allow me to shape my morals through reasoning and trial and error. We all do it. Erikson’s stages describes it, many of us have experienced it.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_Constitution_of_the_United_States

    There have also been many ruling backing that wikipedia article (yes I know it is wiki, I don’t have my politics book on the web). You clearly do not know what our forefathers intended for this country, in the letters that they have written and the documents they signed.

    Who is being militant. I am expressing my first amendment right, not killing anyone.

  14. Your fellow conservatives such as Jonah Goldberg in this “Tyranny of Cliches” book have already 100% debunked the cliche line that you believe in– the ‘slippery slope’ / ‘ocean shore’ / etc fallacy.

    A slope isn’t slippery if you STOP WHERE YOU NEED TO STOP. And that’s exactly how modern, constitutional law should exist– bright line distinctions where we refuse to accept the progressive cliche that there’s a continuum of behaviors from kind of deviant to deviant to really deviant, and that how you treat one group should be influenced by how you treat the other. As people like Goldberg point out, there are clear bright lines to be drawn between eccentric behavior (such as having long hair, bright colored clothes, etc) and behavior that actively harms others (pedophilia, drunk driving, etc). Progressives want to pretend to that there’s a slippery slope so that the guy with long hair and feminine nails has to feel “ideological kinship” with the pedophile and drunk driver.

    But there is no such slope. The progressive ideology of viewing the law as based on “feelings” and “kinship” is nonsense. There ARE bright lines that should be set in legal stone between what’s just eccentric and what’s actively involving hurting people.

    You seem too intelligent of a person to accept progressive cliches. At least I hope you are. If you are, then there’s no reason to talk to you.

  15. yes, bullying is a problem. i consider forcing beliefs on me to be a bullying, not tolerance. i have no problem with homosexuals, i have several friends who are. my problem begins when i start being told what i can or can’t think, or being accused of bigotry for not marching lockstep or giving in to every demand, no matter how outrageous it may be.

  19. Perhaps this is true… There are indeed homosexuals who are “fiscal conservatives” and they may even consider themselves socially conservative as well. I don’t know what to make of that, except to recall that there is a not insignificant number of homosexuals who do not self-identify as “gay”, nor participate in the gay subculture

  20. *cough* Actually, you specifically have contributed lots to the Muslim Brotherhood just for being an American taxpayer– such has been our foreign policy under Bush + Obama *cough*

    / depressing things about the U.S. lately :I

  21. Actually, I was once again trying to be “funny.” Ever see “The Wizard of Oz?” The Scarecrow (straw man) sings a song: Oh I could tell you why the ocean’s near the shore…if I only had a brain.” Wasnt refering to any slippery slope. The straw man (men) are: conservatives as a matter of course are self-righteous bigots who believe simplistic nonsense about Jews, Blacks, and Gays, and damn sinnners to hell for drinking, carousing and having fun. Surely you are capable of seeing through these cliches? If not, well…I’m going to bed.

  22. Do you know how to read? I said: “And you have yet to prove he doesn’t”. You claimed that someone else had not proven God’s existence. I was pointing out that you had not proven he didn’t exist.

    The simple fact, is it would take the entirety of all universal knowledge for you to prove or disprove God’s existence. Knowledge which you don’t have and will NEVER have. There’s no smoking gun that atheists or Christians will one day discover. No secreted evidence. No special argument that will one day win the great debate. So any attempt on anyone’s part is a fool’s errand.

    The real truth is, you took a leap of faith in choosing NOT to believe (whether you realize it or not). Same as the Christians did in choosing TO believe. As an agnostic, I didn’t have the courage to take that leap of faith. Because the few things we can be certain of, are vastly overshadowed by the infinite expanse of things we can’t be certain of. And that’s why you purchased your atheism on faith.

    And there’s nothing wrong with that. I may think you’re a colossal asshole, but I do admire your choice to take that leap. Because the only thing good about being an agnostic is that I have a rational view of both sides. And I don’t really see that getting me into any great parties.

  24. My comment was not meant as a swipe at anyone on this blog, rather a general comment about folks like Nan Pelosi and others of that ilk …
    Converts, especially those who have made an intellectual conversion, are the lifeblood of the true Church.

  27. All subcultures are, by definition, pretty blurry in terms of lines.

    I would call myself a fan of the ‘country / redneck subculture’ in the sense of that, say, a number of songs I adore are sung by proud Christians in cowboy hats wearing blue jeans that lean on the side of their trucks and have a twang in their voice. And the fact that I’m happy to live in a low-tax southern state. But I don’t wear hats myself (head seems not well shaped for basically any size of any hat), drive a sedan (eh, gas mileage), and tend to wear cargo shorts (pockets are a good thing). Still, that doesn’t mean I would hesitate to run into a Jack Ingram concert and cheer alongside everyone else, being sort of “one of them”. Whatever “them” means. Subcultures are amorphous blobs that are hard to define.

  29. Isn’t it funny how this idiot keeps claiming to be one thing and is yet another? This is a textbook atheisim activist. Comes to an unabashedly Christian conservative blog and set about ocntradicting everyone and spewing their agenda.
    Sorry excuse for a putative human being, standard issue/base model assclown (no accessories or options).

  32. I essentially answered your question, but since you are not grabbing it out of the text here it is: You are never called upon in science to prove a negative. Then anything is up for grabs. Men were the ones who created the idea of god, I am the one who rejecting it. I do not have to have faith in order to reject-theistic principles. I am not saying there is not a god, once again I am claiming nothing. I am simply rejecting the notion of theism and then living my life. What I am claiming is their is this universe, but that is self-evident. Do you reject my principles of unicorn land? If so disprove it. (this is a rhetorical question).

  33. How would you know? You are not intelligent enough to see the wonder and order of all that is and see God’s hand in it. You are so conceited as to believe you are the pinnacle, that there is nothing greater than you.
    How sad to be so limited and unenlightened.

  36. Oh, by the way, when you call atheism a faith – you are calling it a religion. Therefore, my spiel on how it isn’t, is completely relevant to this argument.

    faith- strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

  40. If you are not denying the possibility of God, nor denying the impossibility. Then you are not an atheist. You are an agnostic. Essentially saying you don’t know.

    However, you’ve been saying you’re an atheist. Atheists specifically hold the position there is no God. Which is a assertion. So, yes they are being called on (just like theists) to prove their assertion. Which I contend is a fool’s errand. Agnostics do not assert such a thing. Which is why nobody invites an agnostic to a debate.

    What are you? Do you even know?

  43. My mom actually just read that comment and said to me “I am very proud of you for being an analytical thinker and not a sheep who believes anything anyone tells you.” Btw she has a PhD. =]

  48. Do you see any downside to starting from scratch every time your moral schema breaks down. Without moral absolutes, it is impossible to navigate. In other words, trial and error is a very expensive and uncertain way to go, e.g. are we on the wrong road, or is utopia just over the horizon. Are we experiencing difficulties because because we’ve gone too far, or because we’ve not gone far enough? If we destroy the basic building block of civilization, the nuclear family, will it be easy to fix, if it turns out to be a blunder? The civil society takes much longer to build than to destroy.

  49. I didn’t call atheism a faith/religion. I said you took a leap of faith when you chose to NOT believe in God. You need to stop twisting my words into what you want them to mean. Read more. Post less. Seriously. You are really starting to look like a pedantic idiot.

    But I’ll tell you what, since you need me to dumb it down for you, I will. Ok, special ed boy…when you decided to become an atheist, you had no “proof” that God did not exist. So, you had to rely on belief and trust in whatever led you to atheism. Now, you couldn’t know for sure that God didn’t exist, but something or someone told you he didn’t. And eventually that was confirmed inside you by something. That something is…

    BAM!

    Feel better special ed boy? I mean, now that it’s all been explained to you.

    …and the atheists think they’re so damn enlightened.

  50. Intelligence is based on knowledge, knowledge is based on facts. What you have stated aren’t facts but assumptions, assumptions aren’t intelligent, they are premature, they are irrational, they are emotional, they are childlike, they are redundant, and irrelevant to this universe; assumptions are for individualistic personal situations, not general relativistic principles.

Comments are closed.