My letter to the local sheriff

ShowImageNathan Larson
9270 Prospect Avenue
Catlett, VA 20119
(540) 341-5911
4 October 2018

Sheriff Bob Mosier:

I am writing to make a formal complaint against Detective Candyce Shaw and request that my property, which was seized pursuant to a 28 August 2018 search warrant, be returned to me.

I am enclosing a letter that I wrote to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) officer, summarizing the relationship with my now-ex wife, Meshelle Embodo, which led up to this search warrant being issued as part of a rape, forcible sodomy, and computer trespass investigation. The bottom line is, Meshelle left me because she was displeased with our financial situation, and she decided to make a false accusation as a way of coercing me into signing off on divorce paperwork and bolstering her case for why USCIS should give her a 10-year green card. The case was assigned to Detective Shaw, who has taken a pretty aggressive approach to trying to gather evidence, despite the fact that there will never be proof beyond a reasonable doubt of these allegations.

Trying to sort out rape from consensual sex, in this modern era, is a pointless endeavor, because the intent of the woman is subjective and open to interpretation, and there are so many incentives for women to make false accusations. This is especially true in relationships between husbands and wives, which was why the legislature was reluctant for so many years to pass a law against marital rape. They knew that such a law would be abused by women who wanted to gain an advantage in divorce proceedings; and sure enough, that is what is happening.

Even if there were a recording of a sexual act, in which a woman were screaming “no” and trying to resist, an observer would still have no way of knowing whether that was rape or consensual BDSM sex play. Even if she were to have bruises afterwards, that could just be the result of particularly rough sex play. This is similar to how boxers will emerge from a fight with bruises, despite the fact that they consented to participate in the sport and risk getting punched.

There are even some women who will purposefully try to provoke men into “raping” them. See, for example, the descriptions of rape baiting at the r/Rapekink subreddit, . Women will go to parties and act drunker than they really are, in hopes of tempting men to sexually assault them. Rape is a common kink in women, as demonstrated by the popularity of the Fifty Shades of Grey series of novels.

Imagine if men had a fetish for leaving their cars unlocked in bad neighborhoods where thieves would be likely to break into them and steal their car stereos. It would be hard to enforce laws against theft, wouldn’t it? For the same reason, it is hard to enforce laws against rape when women have such a strong urge to seek out the attention of strong, aggressive men and put themselves in situations where they will be vulnerable to getting raped.

Women could, if they wanted, hang out with meek, kind, gentle men who would not rape them; but they find those men unattractive and boring, and therefore reject them. Ironically, it is those nice men who are more likely to get accused of rape, because (1) women want to get rid of them (so they can replace them with someone more exciting), and they know that one convenient way of doing so is to make a false allegation of sexual assault; and (2) women are not afraid of receiving any serious retribution (e.g. being sent to the hospital) for this. In contrast, they might be scared to get on the bad side of a truly dangerous man.

Even if I were to confess to raping Meshelle, that might prove my intent, but wouldn’t prove the sex was really against her will. You can’t rape the willing, so if she was willing, then it wasn’t rape. Willingness can be inferred from behavior sometimes, but not always. Women will often, for instance, claim that they submitted to sex because they felt coerced, so that to an outside observer, it could have looked consensual even though it wasn’t; but on the other hand, they may also resist or say “no” for a number of reasons besides being unwilling (e.g. BDSM or rape-baiting scenarios, which are very common), as I mentioned above.

Women are submissive by nature; they want to be overpowered and taken forcefully by a dominant man, which requires them to behave in a way that to an outside observer might resemble that of a bona fide rape victim. But for all anyone knows, if the “rapist” had stopped when she said “Stop,” maybe she would have asked, “Why did you stop? I wanted you to keep going.” It is normal for women to scream and moan during sex, which often is actually a sign of pleasure rather than pain, and a signal that they want to be slammed even harder, faster, and deeper, rather than an indication that they want the man to stop.

I don’t think the female mind really thinks in terms of sex being consensual or non-consensual. It’s more like, women think of sex as being either regretted or not regretted. Since the law has no term or remedy for regretted sex, women will just call sex they regret “rape” or “sexual abuse” because that is what will get people to pay attention and do something about what happened. It also allows them to feel like they weren’t responsible for making sexual and relationship decisions that turned out to have outcomes they didn’t like.

In their view, it is the job of men to make them happy, so if a relationship doesn’t make them happy, that means they were raped. The word “rape” is used as a metaphor for all male behavior that leaves them feeling bad, regardless of what the legal definition may be. Conversely, if she were to actually be raped, but later decide it wasn’t a big deal, she would probably reclassify what happened as “not-regretted sex” and therefore not rape.

Criminalizing marital rape was one of the last reforms to be brought about by the women’s rights movement. Women obtained the right to vote, to own property, to get a no-fault divorce, and so on, long before they were given the right to make a police report for marital rape. There was probably a reason for that.

Marriage used to be a way by which rape could be objectively proven or disproven. If a woman were married to the man she had sex with, that meant that the sex was consensual. If she weren’t married to him, then the sex was non-consensual. This could be proven through documentary evidence (i.e. the marriage certificate); there was no need to weigh the credibility of the two parties in he-said, she-said cases and try to figure out who was telling the truth. There was no need to seize a bunch of computer equipment and sift through emails to find some clues as to the parties’ intent.

Every time a right or privilege of husbands is taken away, it makes the institution of marriage seem more pointless. It was originally a framework by which a man and woman could form a permanent union for raising kids in a stable household. If the spouses are not fulfilling their responsibilities to each other (such as to show each other love, e.g. through sex), that creates problems in the marriage, and maybe even a marital breakdown. But now the law turns morality on its head by saying wives have a right to refuse their husbands, rather than a responsibility to accept them.

Marriage used to be how women could be sexually active in a respectable way (i.e. without being considered a slut), and men could obtain sex (since a lot of women would be reluctant to have sex except in exchange for a commitment). If men are able to obtain sex without getting married, and if wives are allowed to refuse sex, then that makes marriage seem worse than useless, from the man’s point of view. Not only that, but if the wife can accuse her husband of causing the marriage’s failure by raping her, then she can escape any consequences for abandoning the relationship, and place all the blame on her husband. This too makes marriage more of a liability than an asset for men.

No wonder, then, that so many men prefer to have children outside of wedlock these days; marriage is all downside for them, with no upside. In the old days, part of the marital promise was that a wife would give her husband sex; and if she then refused to give him sex, then she was the one who was at fault for a breach of the marital contract. Now, the husband is considered a rapist if he tries to hold her to the promise that was made. His only remedy, if she refuses sex, is to divorce her and find another woman to have sex with; but if the marital promises are not binding, and the two are free to divorce without consequences, then the institution of marriage has little purpose. It has become obsolete. A knot that easily comes undone at inconvenient times is not a very useful knot; it does not fulfill its reason for existence.

There are, however, some husbands who will put up with a sexless marriage either because they believe they are morally bound to stay in the marriage, or because they feel it is their duty for the good of the kids. But even those men are not necessarily safe from false rape allegations. To the extent society still would be inclined to shame a woman for being disloyal to her husband, this actually can work against men, by making women who want to leave their husbands feel compelled to accuse him of something, so they can shift blame for the relationship’s failure onto him. And that is exactly what’s happening.

If Meshelle wants to remain in the U.S., then in the next few months, she will need to file a petition (form I-751) with USCIS for a 10-year green card. Normally, she and I would need to file that petition together; since we’re divorced, she’ll need to instead ask for a divorce waiver, and offer proof that she married me in good faith rather than as a way of immigrating to the U.S.

As I alluded to earlier, the real reason for the divorce is her dissatisfaction with the fact that I’m unemployed. She may not want to tell the immigration officer that, though, because given the fact that before she came to the U.S., she promised that she would be fine with being the family’s sole breadwinner, it might seem like she didn’t get married in good faith. It might seem like she just told me whatever I wanted to hear, so that she could come over here and get her green card; and then expected that she could pull a bait-and-switch by demanding I get a job if she was going to stay in the relationship.

Not only that, she herself has a history of occasionally being violent with me. Our bedroom door had a sliding lock on it, and once when she was punching me, and I locked myself in the bedroom, she hit the door hard enough from the outside to break the lock. Would she feel confident that she could get away with doing that, if she thought I were dangerous? I think that behavior suggests that she wasn’t afraid of me.

Detective Shaw also accuses me of committing computer trespass, by getting into Meshelle’s email account. If it was a Gmail account, then Google would have records of IP addresses and other information about devices that logged into her account, and probably Meshelle also would’ve received an email informing her of a new device logging into her account, if that had happened. Meshelle should have had access to that information already, without the need for a search warrant.

Also, Meshelle has logged into my email and Facebook accounts many times to delete messages (often after she wrote something nasty to me, that she didn’t want me keeping a copy of); yet I don’t see her being investigated for computer trespass. So, I see another double standard here, just like with the assaults and batteries that were never investigated (and which I wouldn’t be bringing up now if she hadn’t made accusations against me).

We’re at a point now where even President Trump is acknowledging that this country has a problem with false allegations destroying men’s lives. We’re going to find out soon whether Brett Kavanaugh is going to be taken down by an unsubstantiated allegation.

His situation is similar to mine, in that my accuser too probably can’t name any specific dates on which these sexual assaults allegedly happened, nor is there any corroboration. I don’t think she has any contemporaneous diary entries that talk about getting raped; or any emails from when she was living with me, talking about getting raped; or anything like that. The allegations were made up after the fact. I know that, because it wasn’t till several months after she moved out that she ever told me she considered anything that I did to have been sexually abusive.

For some reason, the usual principles by which investigators determine whether an accusation is credible seem to be set aside when the case involves sexual assault. If I told you that my car got stolen six months ago, but I couldn’t remember the date that it happened or anything like that, you would probably wonder why I didn’t report it sooner. Yet, Meshelle can go to the police and say that I raped her six months ago, and they don’t wonder why she didn’t report it sooner.

Oh, she was supposedly “scared”. Why would she be scared? She had a car, a driver’s license, etc., so she was free to go away whenever she wanted. There are plenty of agencies, churches, etc. that will help a woman who claims that she’s being abused. She could have left at any time, and she did in fact eventually leave (although her reasons for leaving were financial, not because of abuse; notice it wasn’t till after I had been out of work for a few months that she left; and then it wasn’t till some time after that, when she was ready to completely throw in the towel on the relationship, that she decided that she had been raped).

If you don’t start pushing back against these false rape accusations, you’re probably going to see more of them. Women will get emboldened to fabricate more stories of sexual abuse, when they see that it gets them the results they want. Already, because of the search and seizure of my property, I decided to just surrender to Meshelle’s demands by signing off on the divorce papers (she had threatened to accuse me of rape if I didn’t sign). What else could I have really done, given that the local police and the magistrate were siding with her?


Anyway, I would like to have my computer equipment back, which was taken by your detective. My family is still paying installments on, and wireless service for, some of those devices (the iPad and mobile phone). Even if the data does have some evidentiary value, it could be copied off the devices, and the devices returned to me.

In my view, there wasn’t probable cause to support a warrant, but I don’t necessarily have the resource to go to court to challenge the magistrate’s decision. However, voting costs nothing, and you are up for election next year. If I soon get back the property that Detective Shaw seized from my house, maybe I’ll let this incident slide, but if not, that’s probably going to affect my vote, and maybe the votes of my family members too, because they’ve been inconvenienced by this incident as well.

Come to think of it, it only takes 125 valid signatures to get on the ballot for sheriff. You don’t want to have a libertarian running next year and splitting the vote; that’s usually not good for the Republican candidate. The last Republican who ran against me, Scott Lingamfelter, didn’t do too well last year.


Nathan Larson

5 thoughts on “My letter to the local sheriff

  1. Wait a minute… A libertarian candidate running the police!? Shit, that’s a great idea! That’s like a libertarian candidates DREAM. Because all a libertarian really cares about is stopping the police from arresting all the good folk, so in a way running as a libertarian candidate for Sheriff could be better than running as a general candiate – it would give you more focus on the important things.

    Mind, not being American I’m not that familiar with what the Sheriff does or indeed how such elections are held. Do Sheriff elections occur at the same time as General elections? How many people vote for Sheriff elections vs General elections? I guess if the turnout is lower then it’s easier to influence the vote, so if you just got the most “dangerous” 1% of the population to vote for you e.g. paedophiles, rapists, wife beaters and misogynists then you could win!

    But your mum would probably kick you out… Damn.


    1. Yeah, given my situation, it’s an empty threat to run against him, but that would be an interesting position to run for.

      The way it works in Virginia is that some counties (like Fauquier, where I live) have the sheriff in charge of all law enforcement for the county, and other counties have the Board of County Supervisors appoint a police chief, so that the sheriff is relegated just to running the jail and handling a few other duties. That’s intended to limit the sheriff’s power.

      In a place like Fauquier, the sheriff has a lot of power; he could theoretically tell his deputies to make investigating drug crimes, for instance, the last priority. Essentially he could tell them that unless they see drugs being openly dealt right in front of them, they’re not to put resources into trying to catch drug dealers. However, the state police can still come in and enforce laws on their own initiative; they just don’t happen to have a lot of manpower in the county for doing that, compared to the sheriff.

      Another good position to run for would be Commonwealth’s Attorney, i.e. the local prosecutor. A prosecutor can decide to simply not prosecute certain offenses; he has a lot of discretion. That’s a very powerful role as well, for that reason; arguably he’s more powerful than law enforcement in that respect. The police will not even make an arrest if they know the local Commonwealth’s Attorney won’t prosecute the case. But I think you have to have a law degree to hold that office.

      The federal system works a lot differently, because the federal law enforcement agencies and the federal prosecutors aren’t directly elected by the people; they’re only accountable to the President.


      1. Interesting background. It surprises me, in a way, that with such a system America locks up so many. You would have thought that lots of people would want to fuck and take drugs and so would vote in someone sensible as a Sheriff. Though, perhaps the root of the problem, is that no sensible Sheriff’s have ever run!


        1. Yeah, that’s an interesting question. I always thought that I would never want to run for an executive branch position, but some specialized role like that could be more fun than being, say, Governor.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s