Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
THE LEADER OF a Mexican mega-church who pleaded guilty to sexually assaulting three young girls was sentenced in Los Angeles on Wednesday to nearly 17 years in prison.
But the ruling, following a plea deal Naason Joaquin Garcia struck with prosecutors last week, was met with anger by victims, who at an emotional hearing called for their abuser to face trial and the maximum possible sentence.
One victim in court Wednesday condemned officials for “negotiating with this rapist” while another said in a statement read to the court that the justice system “failed us.”
Garcia, head of the La Luz Del Mundo church which claims five million followers worldwide, coerced underage girls into performing sexual acts by telling them that going against his wishes would be acting against God, prosecutors said.
He was arrested at a Los Angeles airport in June 2019. An initial human trafficking and child rape case was thrown out on a technicality, and charges were re-filed.
Last Friday, on the eve of his trial, the 53-year-old — who claims to be the last apostle of Jesus, and had initially denied all wrongdoing — pleaded guilty to felony crimes of sexual assault of three minors.
These included forcible oral copulation and a lewd act upon a 15-year-old, but not counts of rape, extortion and child pornography.
California attorney general Rob Bonta hailed the sentence as a “critical step forward for justice.”
“While it will never undo the harm and trauma he caused as the leader of La Luz del Mundo, this sentence makes it crystal clear that abusers — no matter who they are — will be held accountable,” he said Wednesday.
Still, Garcia’s church continued to back its leader, issuing a statement Wednesday to “publicly express our support for the Apostle of Jesus Christ” and praising his “integrity, his conduct and his work.”
The Spanish-language statement said evidence against Garcia had been fabricated and that the leader had no choice but to strike a deal as he would not have received a “fair and just” trial.
In court, one victim who said Garcia had stolen both her virginity and her faith begged the judge to “make sure that this man is put away for life.”
“How is this justice?” she asked.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Once a cl0wn, always a cl0wn.
@Greg Ward: over 4 hours before he called off the mob that stormed congress. The documentary on Netflix was a real eye opener
@Darren Mc Mahon: What’s that documentary called?
@Gerry from the Block: 4 hours at the capitol
So much winning. Bigly winning.
He’s so well known for only hiring the best, that it’s quite hard to understand what case they thought they had under 1st Amendment against a private company with terms and conditions of service, when.. some of the posts could be interpreted as actually breaking the 1st Amendment directly.
@Ixtrix Net:
He’s more well known for being a complete bullzh1ter.
Presumably the best law firms prefer to be sure of payment? They might not have much use for IOUs in spare rubles.
Twitter/Facebook etc. is the modern public forum more now than ever. It’s fascinating that a private company can shut up and ‘cancel’ a former president and a potential contender in a future election in a democratic society. These multimillion dollar companies have no democratic legitimately. It seems unsatisfactory that the state must comply with the requirements of the First Amendment but private companies of this nature and scale are free to regulate speech as they wish.
@Eamonn O’Hanrahan:
You do know the !st amendment is protection of most speech by and from the government? Like, nothing about private companies?
@Ixtrix Net: indeed, I had not suggested otherwise. It just seems unsatisfactory that speech can be regulated by private entities of such scale.
@Eamonn O’Hanrahan:
Private companies provide their Terms & Conditions you would be agreeing to abide by, in order to use the service. Or End Use Licence Agreement for other services, Or both.
@Eamonn O’Hanrahan: nothing stopping him launching his own free speech site if he doesn’t like the existing ones. OH WAIT
@Sean Nihill:
Oddly, that one bans accounts if criticize him, and I don’t just mean profanity laden rants.
@Eamonn O’Hanrahan: you don’t get this very simple concept, do you?
@Ixtrix Net: yeah! Eamon says that in his last sentence if you bothered to read it properly.
@james s:
Okay, I’ll bite, what do you mean? since I did read it.
@Eamonn O’Hanrahan: While still president of the US, he incited an angry mob to storm the Whitehouse and attempt a coup. Free speech has to have limits especially when the stability of a nation is at stake. But bedside’s all of that, he signed the T&C’s when he joined Twitter, just like everyone else.
@Declan Doherty:
Capitol building rather than Whitehouse, but yes,
What is interesting with this case being somehow about 1st amendment, rather than free speech on a platform, is there is an exception to the 1st amendment for ‘speech that incites imminent lawless action’
@Eamonn O’Hanrahan: it is actually pretty simple really, Eamonn. Their site, their rules, and if you don’t like it, you dont use their site.
It is probably explained better it the terms and conditions that you agree to when joining.
He broke their rules so they banned him.
Same thing would happen to you or I, if we did similar.
Now if you don’t understand that, well did you read the T&Cs when joining here? Or did you just click yes?
This man should be longtime in jail and never be involved in government not Evan lower level
@Anthony Ross: curious, in jail for what?
@james s: you really can’t think of one thing he should be in prison for?
@Craic_a_tower: don’t leave it up to me, give us an example. Without any name calling.
Best news I’ve read all day..
What a Looser, thought he had his own social network now
El Lon Musktard’s deal can’t be completed until October 24th at the earliest, so it’s unlikely to have much effect on the midterms.
have your say