2009 January | Confessions of a Canadian Stripper

Australian Gunpowder Rapist Should Have Received Life Sentence With No Parole

Posted January 31st, 2009 by CG

As almost anybody who has even a lick of common sense knows, criminal court judges just don’t go far enough sometimes in their sentencing of criminals convicted of horrible crimes.

I’m one of those people that believe the more heinous the crime, the tougher the sentence imposed should be, especially when it comes to cold-blooded murder and rape.

I’m all for imposing the maximum sentence allowable under law without parole, to keep the most vile, evil, despicable people in our society off the streets. I should mention that I am pro capital punishment too, though I agree that capital punishment isn’t a deterrent.

As far as I’m concerned, the only way cold-blooded killers and rapists should be leaving prison is in a body bag. They should be left to die in prison.

Of course, in Commonwealth countries like Canada and Australia to name just two, some judges don’t see it the way I do, and I don’t expect them too.

Judge Penelope Hock is one of those judges, the proof of which lies in the sentence she gave to a man who poured gunpowder in a woman’s eyes before raping her in front of her four-year-old son, and then ignited that gunpowder, not to mention he also abducted at knifepoint and sexually assaulted another woman and a schoolgirl.

The guy is a danger to society. There’s no doubt about that, and when he is released from prison (and he will be if police can’t charge him with other similar crimes), I have no doubt he will re-offend.

Judge Hock doesn’t think so however. She sentenced Mark James Dennis to 18-24 years in prison, and get this, he will be eligible for parole in 14 years.

Ah yes, doesn’t that sentencing recommendation reflect the evilness of his heinous crimes, and wasn’t it generous of Judge Hock to ensure that Dennis, now 38, will be free to roam the streets of a Australian city, town,  or village when he is 62-years-old, when is no lesser of a threat to society than he is today?

In sentencing Dennis, the judge had this to say, “This offense is so abhorrent that a substantial sentence must be imposed.”

I agree with her on that point, but in this particular instance, the sentence she imposed doesn’t reflect the severity of Dennis’ crime,  and it certainly doesn’t her statement sincere.

She should have ensured that he serve his full sentence instead of allowing him to apply for parole after serving just 14 years for the 13 sex and robbery charges he was convicted of.

The judge when imposing sentence took in time served. Wasn’t that sweet of her.

Dennis should not see the light of day outside of prison walls, and maybe he won’t if police can charge him with previous sex crimes he has committed, but has yet to be caught for.

I’ll keep my fingers crossed.

The comment below while it is not well written (none of Kimberlee’s  comments and emails were by the way), says that at that particular time I didn’t have all the information about her case.

Kimberlee was right about that, but that’s only because the information I had about her case was the information she was passing along on the worldwide web to anybody willing to listen to her. I was however aware that one of Kimberlee’s co-workers had been fired from the New Locomotion at the same time she was, but unlike Kimberlee, that co-worker wasn’t going out of her way to draw attention to herself.

She also mentions that two more witnesses were about to come forward (also co-workers I’m assuming), and that once I read the story in the Mississauga News about the other stripper being fired, I would change my opinion about Kimberlee’s motivation for filing a discrimination complaint against John Sit (owner of New Locomotion) with the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal.

I have read the Mississauga News article, and many more articles since then, and I haven’t changed my mind yet.

It is this email where Kimberlee begins to open up a little, and it is this email that all but confirms for me that Kimberlee is up to no good, that she is going to go out of her way to nail John Sit’s ass to the wall.

Below you will find the first of three comments she left at Crooked in Canada on November 9, 2008, the day after I wrote and published that “Exotic Dancing Dinosaur” bit.

Note how there is nothing in her comment that indicates how angry or upset she is about that article.

I mention this because later on she claims that it is that particular article that pushes her over the edge, causing her to have sleepless, and tearful nights.

My response to her comment immediately follows hers, and I make it perfectly clear to her that I am only interested in her complaint, nobody else’s.

Kimberlee:
cj; the hard truth here; is that you don’t have all the information o.k. Example; look at the Mississauga News story today re: 2nd witness; I think you are going to start changing your mind; remember there are two now; a 3rd on the way; and perhaps 4th; plus others fired that week for same reason.
We have lots of evidence; due to the info. on internet; and second witness was fired due to internet posting which related to age. I was a part of a larger group of people fired…all over age 40.
I think you should look at the 2nd case, before you start claiming that ‘human rights’ is wasting it’s time with this case. YOu seem really intellegent; but extremely quick to judge; and extremely negative about something that you simply don’t have enugh facts. I am not worried about being sued by Mr. Sit C.J. because I claim everything that I said here or any place in the documents that human rights have; as did the other girl. I wish I could say other stuff that I know; but that I can’t. There are 3 men also suing him; former long term employee’s he fired them in a group too., and have a ‘wrongful dismissal’ too. Many people c.j. not just dancers. So read the 2nd witness article; and start to think about going around to our side. I’m too tired to reply to your long long list of thoughts. I am glad you wish us good luck; because if this was your case…I’d support you.
bb.
Kimberlee
CG:
Two questions for you Kimberlee:
When you decided at 40 years of age you were going to become a stripper did you not think that your age might be a problem?
Would you have a lodged a complaint if while you were looking for your first stripper job if you were told by the club owner that you were too old to work for him?
Also the argument is about your age discrimination complaint, nothing else. Let’s stick to that for now shall we.

I once knew a guy who was cross-dresser, and when he was all gussied up, you couldn’t tell he was a man unless he had a 5 o’clock shadow and saw a lump in his throat.

Hi, my name is Bandida and today I officially became a blogger.

There is a lot you don’t know about me, and you never will, but the one thing I will share with you is this; I am not afraid to speak my mind. That can be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on what kind of mood I’m in, and whether the person I am speaking to is hearing what I am saying.

That’s enough about me. Let’s get back on topic.

A sex offender from San Jose, California was arrested at a shopping center  in Campbell, California after police received a call from a concerned citizen telling them that he saw a man getting of a car wearing fake breasts, a wig and carrying a purse. The caller thought it was a little weird seeing a man in disguise near a bank. I guess he thought the guy was going to stick up the bank. I would have thought the same thing.

Sixty-year-old Richard Rendler, a cross-dressing registered sex offender, has since been charged with misdemeanor loitering charges.

It’s a good thing somebody called this guy into cops, because if what it says on the Megan’s Law website about Render being previously arrested and charged for child molestation is true, and nobody called the cops on the perv, there is every possibility he could have molested another child.

Thank God for the guy who called the police.

Megan’s Law

University grads have it tough in their first few years after graduating, the toughest thing being finding employment to pay back the grants they received from the government to help pay for their formal education.

Cristina Warthen (nee Schultz), a Stanford law school graduate knows what I am talking about, and being the smart chick that I think she is she decided to explore the sex-trade industry to see if she could make enough money to pay for her college education, and then leave the industry all together to pursue her law career.

That’s what I first thought when I heard about her story.

Good on her putting her “hot bod” to good use, but too bad for her that she was eventually busted and now owes $313.000 to cover taxes she didn’t pay on her earnings. She avoided a prison sentence though.

I’m sure her law degree, with the help of a “qualified” lawyer of course,  went a long way in her securing herself a plea agreement in which she will serve one year of home detention, and pay back what amounts to nothing more than “chump change” for her and her husband.

The news story I read says the 34-year-old owner of the steamy website “TouchofBrazil.net” didn’t pay tax on the more than $133,000 she earned servicing men in Washington, D.C, Chicago, and New York among other cities she jetted off to for her sexual liaisons with “cash paying” clients.

But what I find the most interesting about “her story” is that she was married to the wealthy co-founder of search engine Ask Jeeves, now known as Ask.com. So why did she get into the escort business, and furthermore why would her husband David Warthen condone such a thing?

There are many answers to those questions, but I highly doubt those of us who are interested in this story will ever know the truth, not unless the Warthens decide to cash in on their story and do the talk show circuit, which if my wife and I were in their shoes, we would likely do.

Money, money, money…That’s what it’s all about sometimes.

The $313,000 the court ordered to pay apparently isn’t easy for Brazil to come by either, at least according to her lawyer Brian Getz it isn’t. He claims that his client needs some time to raise that kind of cash, which of course begs the questions what did she do with all the money she made, and how good was the product she was selling.

I am going to assume if she can’t raise the cash right then and there, it’s because she squandered her profits travelling in circles where she could meet a man like her wealthy husband. It’s either that or the product she was selling wasn’t good quality.

From what I understand Mrs. Warthen had been in the business for quite some time; from 2001 until she was busted a few years ago (2004?), and if the product she was selling was any good, she should have a stash of cash hidden somewhere that she can dip into to pay what she owes.

Her overhead in 2003 was only $51,000 and you can bet that she made a hell of a lot more than if she her product was good. Needs more time to come up with the money she owes… Yeah right! She’s got that kind of cash stashed somewhere.

I’m thinking that by claiming she doesn’t have the money, Mrs. Warthen might be trying to prevent the discovery of other “undisclosed assets” from the IRS. She could still ask her husband for the money though, and not raise any more flags with the IRS. The latter making a hell of a lot of sense to me.

And what about that husband? Surely he is cashed up enough to fork over the $313,000 his wife has been ordered to pay without her having to even ask, at least he should be.

For whatever reason that must not be the case if his wife’s lawyer is asking the judge for more time to come up with the payment. Hard to say really, as I don’t know much about him other than a fact he obviously didn’t have a problem with his wife spreading her legs for other men.

Then again, maybe he didn’t know about his wife’s exploits. Oblivious to the fact perhaps?

At the end of the day, it would appear that Brazil is getting off with a slap on the wrist, while her clients will have to make do “getting off” with somebody else.

Brazil is also a fitness model, having been pictured in Iron Man, Muscular Development, Maxim and Playboy Lingerie. Her story first appeared on the front page of the Los Angeles Daily Journal in October of 2004.

When I published my second article about the stripper who was suing her former boss at “New Locomotion” strip club my intention was to bait her to come into Crooked in Canada because I wanted her to share her story with the people who read my stuff.

The way I saw it, if she was willing to share her story with the folks who commented at CBC, then why not in Crooked in Crooked in Canada.

I got my wish, and two days after I published “Exotic Dancing Dinosaur Visits CBC Website: Kimberlee Ouwroulis Defends Herself,” she didn’t disappoint me.

Since that time she hasn’t let up on telling me her life story (the past 12 days the exception), telling me what she thinks of me, and threatening me with physical bodily harm, along with the usual “I know people.”

Kimberlee was responding to comments left by myself and another person. We were the only two people who had commented at the time.

Below is the comments she was responding too, followed by her first ever comment in Crooked in Canada.

Jaime says:

I think that Kim posted in the CBC attempting to clear her name and explain herself, possibly out of naivete doing so might negatively affect her case.
Looking at her sentence structures and word choices, it doesn’t seem to me that she’s used to being highly articulate in public concerning a legal matter. Then again few people are.

Taking at least part of what she’s saying at face value, it would seem to me that there are possibly more factors at play here then the simple fact that she was dismissed because she “looks too old for the job.” She actually said that if that was the only reason, then she would have been upset but would have moved on and found work elsewhere.

The “other factors” must have been somewhat compelling, or else the human rights commission would probably not have taken the case. The “other factors” cannot be published outside of the context of a hearing now, because they could, I’m guessing, libel the club owner, if the allegations became public and were eventually dismissed.

This actually could become an important case. The only other similar scenario that comes to mind are the changes that came about concerning airline stewardesses a number of years ago. It used to be the case that they were obligatorily retired at a certain age, couldn’t be married, couldn’t work if they were pregnant and so on. We see mature airline stewardesses quite commonly now-a-days, because a legal battle or series of legal battles upheld their rights to do so….
CG says:
Hey Jaime, thanks for your comment.
I was of the impression that this was merely a case of age discrimination. While I am sure that Kimberlee made other allegations, the age discrimination complaint appears to be the only one that HRTO is pursuing, though as you implied they may have not laid all their cards on the table.
I don’t doubt that she was motivated by other factors to lodge her age discrimination complaint, that there were other reasons for pursuing legal avenues, but I still think (of course I could be wrong) that she is motivated by money more than anything else.
Like I said, I don’t think she’ll win this one, but that doesn’t mean that strip club owners won’t be put on notice by the HRTO when it comes to dismissals based on age.
It will be interesting to see how this turns out.
Jaime:
Hi CG,
Kim has responded to my similar comment on the CBC blog, and I’ve asked her to post a copy of her complaint on Scrib.com
If she complies then we may have a better idea of her choice of action. Filing an HRC complaint is usually a difficult choice for someone, and it’s often more about dignity than money, but it’s too early to tell.
CG:
Hey Jaime, not to be a smart ass, but given her choice of occupation, dignity? Hmm, that’s a tough one for me to swallow. Don’t get me wrong I’m not saying that all exotic dancers are lacking in dignity but for some reason I get the impression that when it comes to Kimberlee her dignity has a lot of dollar signs following it.
I know how difficult the choice can be filing a complaint with Human Rights having done so myself on one occasion and helped another file one as well, though in my complaint I got no where.
As for her posting a copy of her complaint on CBC, I really doubt that will happen, but hey you never know.
Jaime:
CG wrote: “…I get the impression that when it comes to Kimberlee her dignity has a lot of dollar signs following it. …”
My sense of it is that she’s no more or less chasing a buck or a fair shake then anyone else who found themselves turfed from a workplace that they’d been a part of for a settled period of time.
If it’s not an illegal activity, and she pays her taxes just like everybody else, then I think she’s entitled to the same kick at the can as everyone else without being ridiculed for selling a wanted service, in this case : entertainment.
Do actors sue movie producers because they didn’t pass the audition? No. Are TV stations required to pay for entertainers who they feel are no longer profitable or fit their corporate vision? No. But if someone has been engaged for a substantial length of time; and I believe in Kim’s case it has been years, then there are certain generally recognized protocols of fairness that an employer should practice concerning dismissal. I’m not suggesting that Kim’s former employer did or didn’t do so, I’m just speaking generally to the topic.
CG:
She is in a business where for employers, appearance is, and means everything to their bottom-line. Kimberlee knew that going into the business. Her augmented breasts (I am assuming they are), and whatever other cosmetic procedures she might have had is testament to that. She has sculpted herself to fit the industry’s standards, and had she not done that, she probably wouldn’t have gotten a job as a stripper in the first place. She knew going in that her age was a factor and she also knew she looked her age.
That’s just my opinion of course.
She entered that industry at the age of 40, so she says anyway.
I could be oh so wrong about this, but I also sense vindictiveness apart from the money she is chasing.
The thing that really gets me about this is that she has alleged in the CBC blog that her employer has done other things to her. If that were the case then why just the age discrimination thing? If the OHRT thinks her case has merit, why wasn’t there any mention of that when, this story made headlines for the first time?
The employer might have some legal standing when it comes to making a case for himself against Kimberlee, starting with the fact that she made statements about the way she treated her, but offered no evidence, not even the slightest indication of what it is she is alleging. Libel, defamation?
Her argument is moot given that there is a mandatory age for retirement in Canada, though one is not forced to retire at 65.
She seems to be going out of her way to tell her side of the story while avoiding disclosing facts to back up her claim. I was amused that she went out of her way to let others know that “the other stripper’s” story will be told shortly too, again an indication that she is trying awfully hard to convince others that her story has merit, that her story is the right one.
I haven’t heard her former employer make his case yet, and I am assuming that’s because he knows that he doesn’t need the public arena via the media to make his case for him, or attract unnecessary attention to the case being brought against him.
You would think that Kimberlee’s “legal advisors” would have suggested that she do same, but according to her, they said she can tell the story to whomever and whenever she feels like it. At least she implied as much in her last response to you at the CBC website.
Don’t you find that a little bit odd? I certainly do.
Can you say publicity hound?
Sorry, but until I hear her former employer’s side of the story, she has no more credibility than he does.

Enter Kimberlee.

Kimberlee:
I think that above writers have it all wrong. There are certain things about the ‘tribunal’ that I should discuss. I have had many offers for further media; which I am haven’t pursued yet…there is a money loss; of income; I do not work at club that is as busy; nothing under the table about work. As for my looks; I never sculpted anything; that is my body; I haven’t worked out in a gym for 10 years! For the record, who really cares about anyone that buys boobs….I just got them last year! I haven’t had any facial reconstruction either; I have scar on my lip which is fixed up with injections fr. time to time; from car crash….which I survived, but mother & step father did not. I just had my eyes refreshed by the way; (nothing unusual there) would have done that if dancing or not. Good thing I made money at the bars; to be able to afford those things. YOu guys have it all wrong. There are no offers as you suggest I’m some media hound, just offers for more interviews ….besides all that; don’t bother to over analyze everything. The case has merit; and evidence. Lots and Lots of both; or human rights would have hung up the phone when I called.
CG:
Kimberlee, I find it rather curious that while your complaint is about “age discrimination” you went out of your way to tell readers at the CBC blog that your employer had done more than just “lay you off because of your age” but you failed to offer anything to those readers to qualify your allegations.
You seem to be going out of your way to perpetuate the story the OHRT has taken up on your behalf. I find the legal action to frivolous, and bordering on the absurd at best, especially since the ‘exotic dancing business’ is a business that relies heavily on physical appearance. Do you not think you look in your 40s by the way?
A part of from being a patron of more than a few strip bars before my marriage, and having developed friendships with exotic dancers and bar owners, I know nothing about what it takes to run a strip bar, but there are two things I do know; 1. a lot of strippers would not back you up on this ‘age discrimination’ thing, and 2. when it comes to strip bars appearance does the talking when it comes to making money for owners.
Human rights didn’t hang up the phone because you are stripper claiming age discrimination. When and how often does a case like this come across their desk. They took on your case because you told them you were let go because of your age (I think you were looking to stick it to your boss when you called human rights by the way-that you wanted to get even and acted out of anger). A case like this would be a feather in their cap, though it is highly unlikely they will win it.
Nevertheless you have done what you have done and now you will have to live with the consequences of your actions, one of which will be criticism from people like me. I commend you for standing up for yourself in the many forums you have likely visited after googling your name, but you might be better served to “zip it” until your case is actually heard. The last thing you need is to say something that could jeopardize your case, and that you could regret later in the form of a lawsuit against yourself.
Your are walking on thin ice every time you utter something in a blog or forum. You should learn to choose your words more carefully and stick to the argument of age discrimination instead of going out of your way to convince everybody to jump on your bandwagon.
It is right to sue, but nobody has a right to win just because they say have been done wrong, which by the way I think you expect.
You’re in over your head. You know it, I know it and so does the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal, not to mention your former employer.
It was very brave of you to come in here by the way given how you know I feel about your case. Good on ya for that, and I wish you well with your case but, like I said earlier you don’t have an exotic dancing leg to stand on as far as the age discrimination complaint goes.
As for my mention of your breast enhancements and cosmetic procedures I believe you have had; I was merely qualifying my statement that you knew appearance and age meant everything in the business.
Thanks for stopping by.
Regards and good luck.

The next day Kimberlee responded to my response to her comment with two more of her own.

SEO Powered by Platinum SEO from Techblissonline