James Dobson’s Voice of Jesus Bagged in Sting Operation Chasing Apparent Near Pre-Teen For Sex

Twisted Jesus Freak Bagged On His Way to Meet Agent Posing as Pre-pubescent Girl

Twisted Jesus Freak Juan Alberto Ovalle Bagged On His Way to Meet Agent Posing as Nearly Pre-pubescent Girl, as Sick as He Is Jesufied, As If There Is a Fuckng Difference. Die, Alberto! Die!

Focus on the Family’s own Voice of Jesus, Juan Alberto Ovalle, was bagged by the Jefferson County, CO. District Attorney’s Office on his way to meet a near-pre-teen girl on Monday, a blithe, alluring and dewy vessel of pre-womanhood – who turned out to be a cop who had to listen to him describe how she was going to sit on his face –  and arrested for unspeakable monstrosities.

Ovalle, narrator of the snakehandler cult’s bible CDs for Spanish language Jesus freaks, has been arrested on suspicion of using the Internet to arrange sex with a teenage girl and attempted sexual assault on a child.  The assholes from Focus on the Family pretended to be surprised, as if this isn’t part of the whole fucking snakehandler ethos. “We’re shocked,” Focus on the Family prevaricator in residence, Gary Schneeberger, told the Denver Post, no doubt to peels of laughter.

Focus on the Family’s hero apparently was baited and hooked online around April 2 and 3 in a chatroom where a bunch of agents from Jefferson County apparently hang out pretending to be little girls in dire need of a pestorking. Ovalle, 42, got right to the point like an honest disciple of Jesus and savagely suggested that the little girl suck his dick and swallow, just like Jesus would want!

Ovalle has made no statements whether or not he learned all his foul language and twisted sexual preferences from James Dobson, focus on the family’s founder, but it is clear that Dobson will have to lay out some heavy cash to keep Ovalle happy and out of jail if there is any part of this case that can end up placing liability on Dobson’s cult.

22 comments:

11:37 pm • Monday • April 6, 2009

With any luck, we’ll have more and more GOP politicians and Professional Christians exposing their deviate selves as we approach Cocktober. It’s my favorite time of the year, as you know.

11:50 pm • Monday • April 6, 2009

I’m sure the GOPers will turn on him and say he’s an ILLEGAL! MEXICAN! WITH AN ETHNIC NAME! ZOMFG HIDE THE DAUGHTERS!

11:53 pm • Monday • April 6, 2009

Meanwhile, I suspect that I am about to join JamieSommers and baked and JNOV on the list of banned Jezebel commenters after I was purposely mean to an earnest Jezebel commenter with a poor grasp of grammar and spelling who was saying the Jezzies were “so mean” to Levi and Mercede Johnston.

11:56 pm • Monday • April 6, 2009

And meanwhile meanwhile (am I the only one still awake?), my favorite kooky Governor (Jim Gibbons, R-NV) has embarrassing details spilled out in divorce papers from the wife who was tired of being a prop.

Then again, what happens in Vegas…

12:05 am • Tuesday • April 7, 2009

@SanFranLefty: Yeah, Vegas? If the Governor wasn’t having an affair with a former Playmate I’d feel totally let down.

12:10 am • Tuesday • April 7, 2009

@SanFranLefty:
The real life equivalent of not so honorable Gov. William J. Le Petomane?

“Hrrumph! Hrrrumph! Hrrumph!”

12:12 am • Tuesday • April 7, 2009

@SanFranLefty: ‘sup Lefty?

12:25 am • Tuesday • April 7, 2009

@SanFranLefty: Hahaha..hope you’re “thinking about the emptiness in your life that causes you to be so mean.”
How do you stand that place? I can’t deal with it at all. The whole site has a permanent–and severe–case of PMS.

12:39 am • Tuesday • April 7, 2009

@SanFranLefty: You EVIL BITCH! I love you, don’t ever, EVER change.

12:43 am • Tuesday • April 7, 2009

@SanFranLefty: My favorite part? His trying to claim that they’re “just good friends.”

1:02 am • Tuesday • April 7, 2009

san fran lefty is purposely mean! YEP!!!

oh, why don’t they just as well come out and say, “this is what jeebus wants!” this is the coctober i’m waiting for. to quote the fabulous margaret cho, maybe then jeeb will make an actual appearance and say, “that NOT what i MEANT!”

1:05 am • Tuesday • April 7, 2009

@SanFranLefty: @SanFranLefty:

“I the only one still awake?

Awake, but between taxes and a second place finish, I’m ready to kill myself. I did take a break to pile on at your favorite site, but I have to get back to figuring out how much I can pay to help accelerate our new socialist paradise now.

1:55 am • Tuesday • April 7, 2009

teenage gir

Corrected.

Look, Gir is on my desktop and iPhone. Don’t make me imagine him going all taco over a creep.

7:07 am • Tuesday • April 7, 2009

Not that I’m advocating anything here but this is entrapment. Would the crime have existed if it had not been for the police? Has he actually done anything?

9:22 am • Tuesday • April 7, 2009

@Benedick: It is and it is funded every year by the federal government. The hard work of chasing down the kids who are showing up being raped in child porn gets some of this money but a lot of it is shunted off to cheap collar churning operations like this. It makes the numbers move and that is what policing is all about.

9:51 am • Tuesday • April 7, 2009

@Benedick: On the other hand, is it ever appropriate to respond, “Oh yeah baby” when someone says they’re a 14 yo girl urging for a throat full of your throbbing cock? Even more, is it appropriate to then act on that reaction by going to meet the aforesaid 14 yo girl?

10:10 am • Tuesday • April 7, 2009

@IanJ: Of course not. But what if the ‘girl’ came on to him and led the conversation? And if there had been no cop there would have been no ‘girl’? These cases make me think of the day-care panic in the 80s.

11:09 am • Tuesday • April 7, 2009

@Hose Manikin: Your man Arnie is taking my money, Unicorn is giving me some of my money back.

11:31 am • Tuesday • April 7, 2009

@Benedick: I actually agree with you, and I think this is a sticky issue at the moment, and has been as long as there have been police stings. Would I be stupid enough to broker a deal to sell arms to Al Qaeda? No. But should someone be prosecuted for taking advantage of a situation that would have never existed without the cops leading it on? I don’t know.

But then, how dumb do you have to be to A) agree to meet a 14 yo to have sex, and B) not realize that 100% of sex-soliciting teenage girls on the internet are chubby cops? Or from the law enforcement point of view, how do you catch the real lowlifes who are making and selling child pornography, or pressing girls into prostitution? And how do you catch them before they’ve done it, instead of after the damage has been done?

This is an interesting legal argument, and I’d love to hear from some of the Stinquely lawyers on it. I don’t know enough about intent and how that factors into things, but I remember my mom (a lawyer) saying that there’s no legal quandary involved in this kind of operation, if it’s done correctly.

11:37 am • Tuesday • April 7, 2009

@IanJ: I couldn’t agree more about the stupidity. And that’s the most charitable light one can cast on the man’s actions. I’m just reminded of all the entrapment cases dreamed up by cops over the years. I’d lump Larry Craig in with it. He was set up by a cop.

12:14 pm • Tuesday • April 7, 2009

In some of my professional reading, there is a case some years back in the UK to make it a public health issue after the cops realized, actually one activist executive detective, came to the conclusion that the forensics of his craft were so based on blind luck that they could gain much more ground in protecting kids by getting the people to seek professional help at the first instance. The real good work is grossly underfunded and, like anywhere, it depends on luck, forensic insight and brutal grind, like seeing a tartan in one picture and the edge of a license plate in another and surmising the possible states and then searching patterns of local catholic school uniforms in those states for 100 hours without sleep. This takes the passion of the artisan and those types rarely end up as cops. Therefore, the money goes into cheap stings that keep the numbers up.

@IanJ: And how do you catch them before they’ve done it, instead of after the damage has been done?

1:00 am • Wednesday • April 8, 2009

@FlyingChainSaw: My intended implication was that this kind of sting/entrapment is one way to catch an offender before they’ve actually done damage.

That is, (from a policely point of view) if a given dude has the propensity to diddle underage girls, and may some day do it, by leading him into the situation (which he wouldn’t allow himself to be led into if he didn’t already lean this way), we can catch him and prevent any future interaction with actual 14 yo cockgobblers.

That’s the impression I get of the trail of logic that leads to this kind of sting. Please correct me if I’ve got it wrong: I am often incorrect about this kind of thing.

Add a comment