10/15/2007
Wisconsin GOP Chair Resigns Following Child Sex Charges
Donald Fleischman, 37, of Allouez, Wisconsin, has been charged with two counts of child enticement, two counts of contributing to the delinquency of a child and a single charge of exposing himself to a child, after it was discovered that he had offered marijuana and a place to stay to two at-risk boys living in a juvenile treatment center across the street from his home. He was also charged with exposing himself and performing sexual acts on one of the boys.
Fleischman has resigned from his position as the chair of the Republican Party in Brown County.
According to the Green Bay Press Gazette, "Green Bay police went to Fleischman's Goodell Street home Nov. 19, 2006, looking for two runaways from Ethan House, a juvenile facility on nearby Emilie Street, according to the criminal complaint filed Sept. 7. Fleischman opened the door and allowed officers inside where they found a 16-year-old boy hiding on the floor of a walk-in closet wearing only underwear and a T-shirt, the complaint said. Officers found a black, purple and blue-swirled glass pipe in the living room, which tested positive for marijuana residue, the complaint said. Police returned to Fleischman's home on Dec. 8, 2006, and found the boy there again. He had been a runaway from Ethan House for eight days. The teen, now 17, told authorities Fleischman took him to a hotel in Appleton during that time and then to a cabin near Florence for several days before returning to Fleischman's Allouez home. The boy said Fleischman provided him with beer and marijuana, the complaint said. The boy told police that when he would go to bed, Fleischman would fondle him and that on one occasion he awoke to find Fleischman at the foot of his bed masturbating."
Read the criminal complaint here. If Fleischman is convicted, he faces 52 years in prison.
Brown County Republican Party chairman faces sex charges [green bay press gazette]
Brown County GOP chair charged with child enticement, contributing to delinquency of a child [wisconsin politics]
Posted 9:05 AM EST by Andy in Crime, News, Republican Party, Wisconsin | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
And that's why you can't let Democrats allow the gays to destroy -- what? Republican? Oh, oh dear. Well then, ummm.... Damn liberal media!
Posted by: tjc | Oct 15, 2007 9:52:59 AM
Honestly, now... this is getting ridiculous... did someone rub a lamp and use one of the three wishes to request that republican "values based" hypocrisy be exposed nationwide? What were the other two wishes? A fur jacket and a planet full of unicorns?
Posted by: Brian | Oct 15, 2007 9:59:37 AM
This is getting more bizarre by the day?
Seriously!
Posted by: dc20008 | Oct 15, 2007 10:08:36 AM
If the Republicans ever decide to put their Log Cabin on the market they'll be able to honestly market it as being bigger on the inside than it seems from the outside and absolutely chock FULL of CLOSET space.
Posted by: Zeke | Oct 15, 2007 10:35:40 AM
Ah, nothing like a nice cup of coffee and the weekly GOP hypocritical sex scandal to start off a monday.
Any democrat in a tough race should just spend 10 or 15 minutes of a speech listing all this (thats how long it'd take to just LIST the scandals)
Posted by: Donnie | Oct 15, 2007 10:54:24 AM
Yet another fine example of 'do what I say and not what I do'. Hypocrites.
Posted by: Gary | Oct 15, 2007 11:04:03 AM
Although I too initially relished reading this latest exposure of Republican filth, we must carefully consider the terminology used and, once again, the intent of publishing these sordid reports. First, the "boy" in question was 16 at the time. Deeming someone 16 years of age a "boy" is pushing it -- use of the term "boy" here is quite charged. A 16 year old is neither a boy nor an adult man yet. Most people probably consider this ambiguous territory, and so calling the victim here a "boy" can only reinforce the association of homosexuality with pedophilia. Alternately, the term "teenager," or "youth," or "young person" could have been used. It would have been more accurate and would have avoided the implication that gay men are child predators.
Now, was the solicitation of a vulnerable young person with the promise/reward of drugs and booze a completely reprehensible thing to do, both because of the discrepancy in their ages and the manipulation of the victim's substance abuse problem? Yes. Should this creep be punished? Yes. Do we need to be more critical in our reading of such reports, pick away at the unforeseen effects of their publication, and question their underlying intent? Hell yes. And to that I will add that we also need to be less ready to jump for joy when we read about these hypocritical jerks. It damages all of us.
Posted by: Michael | Oct 15, 2007 11:12:28 AM
I'm happy to see Repugs fall. But I hate seeing 16/17 year olds referred to as "children" as far as sex goes. They're minors, but not "children".
Posted by: Gregg | Oct 15, 2007 11:12:50 AM
So are there any Republicans who aren't closeted homos? This is becoming ludicrous. It's fascinating to see the hypocrisy coming home to roost, but all these closet cases are also doing what so many straights believe about us gays...that we can't keep it in our pants. It doesn't make any difference that straight men can't keep it in their pants either. We're the ones under the microscope. And rather than view this phenomena as a reason to be open and out of the closet, straights see this behavior as proof of their belief of gays doing what they do best...having sex at any cost.
Posted by: Bill | Oct 15, 2007 1:00:16 PM
Sorry, Michael, but anything <18 = boy.
And your hair-splitting argument on semantics = pathetic.
Posted by: tservo | Oct 15, 2007 1:05:37 PM
I am the last person to defend the log cabinites, BUT craig, this dude, folley, etc are not nor ever were log cabinites. The log cabin members are out and proud though VERY CONFUSED (being repub and all)gay men where as these repub scandal freaks are closet cases.
Posted by: jimmyboyo | Oct 15, 2007 1:29:37 PM
@ TSERVO - Not to get into a whole semantic debate, but "boy" is a very nebulous term. According to the American Heritage dictionary, the first definition for Boy is "a male child" and Child is defined as "A person between birth and puberty." A 16/17 year old is NOT prepubescent.
I'm really not trying to defend the corruption of minors. I just hate the jump that is so often made from "gay" to "pedophile", and MICHAEL is right that the words we choose are potentially dangerous.
Posted by: Gregg | Oct 15, 2007 1:38:22 PM
JIMMYBOYO, they may not be in the Log Cabin but they're sure as hell in the Log Closet.
Posted by: Zeke | Oct 15, 2007 2:32:10 PM
TSERVO: My point was not whether seducing a young person/minor is right or wrong. An adult man seducing someone who is 16 years old is not, in my opinion, right. And depending on the relative ages of the people involved, as well as the circumstances, even the seduction of someone "of age" (as defined by the law) by an "adult" can be, and usually is, creepy and suspect. The law makes some very strange, arbitrary decisions about who is mentally, psychologically, and emotionally fit to make good and healthy decisions about sex -- based on the idea that, for example, all 18-year-olds are have made it to an acceptable level of maturity to make sound choices. For me, tangible evidence to the contrary is that I was not able to make good decisions all the time when I was 18. In any event, this was not what I was trying to get at.
So I am left to assume that you have completely misread my actual point, that choosing specific words over others tendentiously shades our understanding of facts that are presented as "objective." Often enough, these are willful choices that are intended to produce secondary effects or resonances. Additionally, specific words are used precisely because they are ambiguous, such as "boy" in this story. One could make the argument that "we all know what the writer meant by 'boy' here", but I find it to be too slippery a word, one rife with potentially charged meanings in this context, to let it slide by without note.
So with regard to this story, I understood there to be an ambiguity that potentially indexes a link between pedophilia and homosexuality. I offered alternative words that could have been used to avoid this implication. Others in this blog have pointed to further implications to be drawn from the text of this story -- e.g., Bill's comment on the reinforcement of the stereotype that all gay men are sex fiends.
To quote you: "And your hair-splitting argument on semantics = pathetic."
This is not hair-splitting in the least. It's actually called "critical thinking." However, if you wish to keep your head buried in the sand about how the media manipulates words and ideas through veiled (and sometimes not so veiled) implications, please be my guest. I prefer to remain in the company of my "pathetic" friends and peers above ground.
Posted by: Michael | Oct 15, 2007 4:28:16 PM
according to applicable law, a human male who has not reached the age of majority is a boy.
michael, are you suggesting that the term "boy" was deliberately used by the "green bay press gazette" and "wispolitics.com" to imply a connection between homosexuality and pedophilia? don't forget that the criminal complaint refers to the victim as a child numerous times.
Posted by: nic | Oct 15, 2007 5:09:25 PM
In Wisconsin, no unmarried juvenilecan give consent for sexual intercourse. Sexual assault occurs when the victim has not reached the age of 16 - the age of consent for WI, but clearly, when more than 75-percent of all sexual assault victims are juveniles, and more than 15-percent of victims are males you are splitting hairs in Wisconsin, accordinbg to the data and law.
Posted by: Andrew | Oct 15, 2007 6:12:05 PM
I don't know if the green bay press chose words deliberately or not. If they are a generally conservative paper, then it would be no surprise.
As far as the actual complaint, of course the complaining lawyer would use the word "child". He is trying to win a case, and if he can stir up emotion using the biased assumption that there is some connection between homosexuality and pedophilia, that works to his advantage.
Like it or not, many people still connect pedophilia and gay men, thanks partly no doubt to the Catholic church priest scandals. I am surprised to see the story reported here, by Andy, without any suggestion that "child" sex abuse in this case could be seen as extreme wording.
Posted by: Gregg | Oct 15, 2007 6:37:15 PM
may the gods spare us from literalists who can't tell the difference between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. we may disagree on interpretation, but the letter of the law is what's enforceable. everything else is rationalization. you apologistd may want to check out the irish/british debate on a later post.
Posted by: nic | Oct 15, 2007 11:33:39 PM
There's a difference between pedophilia and ephebephilia. Once again the toxic air in the Republican closet claims another victim. The first reaction is to gloat. Somehow, gloating doesn't seem to work anymore.
Posted by: mike | Oct 16, 2007 5:00:40 AM
Why are they not plastering these guys' faces (the molesters) all over the news?
Posted by: shane | Oct 16, 2007 8:22:15 AM