quinnie wrote on Aug 21, 2007 5:31 AM:this makes no sense. it takes time to recover from abuse of any form, then to get the strength to fight back. the ruling also assumes that this student was the only victim here. the law stinks and needs to be changed. who cares about paperwork when a human life is involved?

estaban wrote on Aug 21, 2007 5:32 AM:where is this teacher now? Is he teaching in any kind of form?

to Estaban wrote on Aug 21, 2007 7:39 AM:do you ever read an article or do you just have a knee jerk reaction and start typing? GO BACK AND READ IT

Alf wrote on Aug 21, 2007 8:48 AM:Thirty years. "What's in YOUR wallet?" If there are statutory time limits and if that limit had been exceeded, then it is tough luck. Either change the statutory time or accept the fact that you can not "wait around" and then blame your problems on someone decades later whether or not they hurt you physically or emotionally. Them's the choices, this is life and that's the law. Regards, Alf.

esteban wrote on Aug 21, 2007 10:57 AM:To "To Esteban" your ignorance does you no good! It says he is not teaching in Vista since 2003? Then what is he doing? Does he still live local or out of state? Is he involved with children?!

Alf wrote on Aug 21, 2007 11:46 AM:"esteban", for the sake of discussion, What if the guy never did it again? Regards, Alf.

Also to Esteban wrote on Aug 21, 2007 11:50 AM:the artical says that the STATE commission on teaching has REVOKED his teaching credentials, which means he CAN NOT TEACH in the state of California. Since he can't teach here, I would assume he left the state.

Erin wrote on Aug 21, 2007 12:45 PM:... As I recall the legislation's intent was to allow victims to prosecute cases regardless of whether the predators were �Public Employees� or not. It appears people need to get a hold of their local legislators so that they can go back and fix the ruling; this is done in congress all the time. Congress has to rewrite the regs specifying that they disagree with the Supreme Court ruling and thereby making the Supreme Court ruling invalid. I am sure it will happen it is just a matter of time and effort, insurance companies cannot continue to protect criminals with complete immunity.

To Erin wrote on Aug 21, 2007 3:48 PM:SImply rewriting based on intent is not allowed. The bill that was passed would have language in it that covered public entities. It would have to address the claims procedure that is required before a lawsuit is filed.

sad sad sad wrote on Aug 21, 2007 9:50 PM:he lives locally but does not teach anywhere and will not teach again. this has been very painful for everyone involved on all sides -- to the woman who was so needy as a young girl that she didn't even know she was being manipulated, and to the guilty instructor who totally reformed his life and got on with living and being a very successful teacher, and then had this come back decades later to ruin him.

Erin wrote on Aug 21, 2007 10:24 PM:To--To Erin-- Hah so you understood what I was saying. Now do you recall reading in a previous NCT article that the AUTHOR of the "bill" was specifically asked if it included "public agencies." He answered, "yes" so if yes was the intent in the bill, it needs to go back and there needs to be an amendment to the same bill. This is very typical of bureaucracy and the insurance controlled State. The objective of public insurance companies particularly the unnamed one is to challenge technicalities like “EXACT WORDS” usage in the law. The objective is to accrue millions of dollars in billable hours at public’s expense. It also includes a lot of hours playing golf, donating to the right causes and campaigns etc.

WOW, Freaky Freaky wrote on Aug 21, 2007 10:29 PM:This was a victory but for who? Who won and who lost? The only ones cashing in are the VUSD JPA's. I wonder if our children will be safer by this ruling? I wonder if these lawyers will have this teacher tutor thier kids at home?

Information is Power wrote on Aug 22, 2007 9:26 AM:When one reads the decision of the California Supreme Court these conclusions can be certain that opinion says that, “the legislation mentions only the general principle that “a SCHOOL DISTRICT, church, or other organization engaging in the care and custody of a child owes a duty of care to that child to reasonably ensure its safety.” (Assem. Com. on Judiciary, Rep. on Sen. Bill No. 1779 (2001-2002 Reg. Sess.) as amended June 6, 2002, p. 6.) The Court says, “the bill makes no mention of an intent to revive/extend the deadline by which to present a claim to a public agency.” The California Supreme Court shows its true colors and motive in the middle of page 11 of the opinion: The Court’s main concern says “nor have we found any mention of the POTENTIAL FISCAL IMPACT of REVIVING PUBLIC LIABILITY for incidents that occurred, as here, decades ago.” Lets see first the CA Court is so out of tough of what is really going on inside these Public Agencies. The Court is not only clueless, it shows little interest in protecting children; rather they focus on the DOLLAR amount the damages the insurance companies would have to pay. Clearly the California courts are not representing victims but rather INSURANCE COMPANIES. I just wonder if this decision opens the door wide open for a class action lawsuit against the STATE and its INSURANCE COMPANIES?

good sup court wrote on Aug 26, 2007 2:27 AM:well, it's OBVIOUS this 'victim' was simply trying to cash in (years later) on something that probably didn't even affect her that much. how convenient of her to blame all of her problems on something so trivial. it takes two to tango... and i am a firm believer that most teenage girls KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THEY ARE DOING. still, it was very bad judgment on his part to get involved with a student/minor. i feel more sorry for jeff jones because i knew he loved teaching and was one of the best teachers at VHS. it's a shame that his old indiscretions ruined all of his hard work over the years. i hope that both jeff and the woman can find peace and move on with their lives.