Lakota Perspectives 

 

Ch 2, Jami victimized

2.      Jami victimized and set up as rape victim 

 

          Once Guthrie, Riedinger, and Tiokiason discovered that I knew about the rape because I had told them, they realized that they might be discovered for having not reported the rape, so they expelled the rape victim as a means of getting rid of the evidence.  But then they had to come up with a pretend rape victim. Jami Jetty, a new student, 12 years old, provided that opportunity. 

          Rather than report a rape as required by law, defendants Supt. Guthrie and Principal Riedinger chose not to report that a student told me she had been raped, in defiance of NDCC Child Abuse laws.[1]  Instead, they expelled the rape victim.     Defendants Supt. Guthrie, Principal Riedinger, Counselor Tiokiason, and Michels, a member of Warwick’s “Sexual Harassment Investigative Team”[2] then became child abusers instead of protectors, when they singled out a newly enrolled, 12-year-old 7th grader, a young Native American girl, Jami, and deceived her into believing that I had told administrators that she had been raped.   (Ex #1)

           J J, a new student, 12 years old,  enrolled in both of my 7th grade classes sometime in early November of 06.   Jami, age 12,  had told me in confidence in November of 2006, that neither parent (who were divorced) never had time to play with her or even talk to her.  She said they both had boyfriend/girlfriend whom they spent more time with, and she felt she was in the way.  She said that she had taken a drink at a party, passed out on the sofa,  and that some kids stripped her naked.  When she woke up, they were all laughing at her.  I asked if she had been sexually assaulted.  She said no.  I asked what her parents permitted her drinking.  She said they were drinking themselves with their boyfriend/girlfriend, and that they didn’t care about her.  I found that hard to believe, but it was the way Jami perceived her home situation.  She said that’s why she liked me and my homeroom, because I let the kids play games, something she never had an opportunity to do growing up.  It was a very emotional moment.   I comforted her and told her what a smart girl she was, very bright, and that if she could just get beyond these teenage years, she would discover there was a whole world of people out there who would understand and appreciate her.  She then told me that she wanted to do something for her people, that she wanted to fight for their rights, like Anna Mae and AIM.  She asked about Leonard Peltier, to whom she was related on Jetty side, although I did not know that at the time.  Jami showed me a book she was reading about AIM and Wounded Knee, Lakota Woman.   She said she wanted to be just like Mary Crow Dog, with whom she really related.  She wanted to shake people out of their stupor, and have them act more like real Indians.

          Without revealing any confidences, I asked the counselor, Shirley Tiokiason, to talk with Jami.  Instead Supt. Guthrie, Principal Riedinger, and Tiokiason seized this opportunity to make it appear that I had told Ms. Tiokiason that Jami, 12 years old, had been raped.   Mr. Riedinger and Mr. Michels decided to  question Jami  about a rape.  They did so without the knowledge or permission of Social Services or James Jetty or myself, in violation of NDCC Child Abuse Laws.[3]   (Ex #1)

          I noticed a marked change in J J who was exhibiting moods of humiliation and despair.  In December of 06, when I confronted Ms. Tiokiason, she admitted that Riedinger and Michels had questioned Jami concerning a rape.  (Ex #1) I only discovered that Jami had been questioned about a rape after defendants Guthrie and Riedinger had performed sex talks to all students grade 7th-12th , taking a whole class period, in violation of Child abuse law NDCC 50-25.1-01.[4]  (Exhibit #2, Guthrie’s memo to staff on sex talks)   In fact, Principal Riedinger held my whole 7th grade English students from class without informing me, to talk to them about sex. (Exhibit #1-A, 7th grade statements threatened with police)  I was excluded from this event.  Why didn’t Guthrie and Riedinger meet in my room with my class, which Jami was a part of?   What was said in that room when 7th graders were supposed to be in English class with me?   The damage had been done in an irreversible sort of way, and Riedinger and Guthrie were fueling the fire by talking to my 7th graders behind my back. (Ex #1) 

          In order to set Jami up as the rape victim, Mr. Riedinger and Mr. Michels, music teacher and NEA representative, along with Ms. Tiokiason, all acting in their official capacity, did question Jami in Ms. Tiokiason’s office, about a rape, without the knowledge or permission of Social Services, Jami’s father, the custodial parent, or myself, in violation of Child Abuse laws concerning privacy and that only Social Services is authorized to investigate, NDCC 50-25.1-02(14)[5] and criminal laws, NDCC 12.1-16-04.  (see footnote #7)  Outraged, I accused Tiokiason of damaging a 12 year old who was having difficulty adjusting to a new school, and stormed out of her office.   Together, she and Mr. Guthrie came to my room and explained that I had a duty to report, and that Jami had admitted to them that she had been raped, when in fact, Jami had made no such admission to me.   (Ex #1)  Even if this were thue It was very important to Mr. Guthrie to make me believe that Jami had admitted to them that she had been raped, just as it was very important to make Jami believe that I said she had been raped.  That way they could cover up the fact that they expelled the real rape victim, M H, whom they had expelled illegally, and set up Jami as the rape victim.  At the same time, Principal Riedinger found reasons to keep Jami out of my classes during the month of December of 06.   Questioning Jami whether or not she had been raped was a criminal act, causing Jami pain and humiliation, and the questioning caused Jami and her parents to believe Guthrie’s false and fraudulent story that I said Jami had been raped,  to spread around the school and Indian community, with Guthrie constantly fanning the story. 

          Jami had been attending two classes I taught.  Following this incident, she was removed from both my classes without explanation.     The record shows that Supt. Guthrie gave conflicting accounts concerning Jami’s “confession” and my role in it.  The undermining of me professionally and personally had entered a new chapter.

          One must always remember that James Jetty, the father, was the custodial parent of Jami.  Cora Tiger, Jami’s mother, worked for tribal chairwoman, Myra Pearson.  I saw James Jetty one day in December of 2007, and I asked him if he was aware that administrators had questioned Jami about a rape.  He was furious, and this was the first he had heard of it.  He said he was getting a lawyer to come and talk to Guthrie. 

          I saw Jami and her mother, Cora Tiger, coming out of Riedinger’s office on the night of teacher conferences in December of 06.  It is the first time I saw her, and since Jami was with her, I knew her to be Jami’s mother.  She had not been to teacher conference.   I followed her into the hallway, hoping to get away from Riedinger, but he followed right along.  I shook her hand and gave her my phone number, and told her to call me.  But she never did, because she obviously believed Riedinger’s lies about me.   Riedinger never explained why she wasn’t at teacher conferences, considering that Jami was missing so much class.  I did not realize that Riedinger had deliberately removed Jami from my classes.  I began to suspect that Riedinger had been telling Jami and her mother how I was spreading the story that J J had been raped. (Schmidt v. Warwick Public School District #29, Doc 204, Statement of facts, Ex. 2, p. 23, #34)   Ms. Tiger was being victimized by Principal Riedinger and Supt. Guthrie to believe that I had started a pernicious rumor that Jami had been raped. Riedinger worked especially hard to convince Ms. Tiger of this lie because of Ms. Tiger’s close association with the tribal chairwoman, Myra Pearson.  Administrators ruthlessly cultivated this lie to disguise the fact that they had not reported a rape of student M H when it became known to them in August of 2006.  Ms. Tiger was not the custodial parent of Jami, but lived with a man, Tiger Dubois, who was convicted of raping a young girl.

         

          This lie believed by Jami’s mother and eventually her father, would eventually be the cause of Jami’s suicide death, after Jami discovered the truth and couldn’t get her parents to believe her that this was Guthrie’s lie.  (Ex 33, audiotape)  For 2 years, Jami had suffered the stigma of a rape victim. She was taunted and tormented mercilessly by Riedinger’s “special” girls, saying,  “We heard you were raped at Warwick School.”  There was no investigation into the nonexistent rape of Jami by Social Services because there was no rape, just the lie perpetuated by Guthrie, Riedinger, Michels, and Tiokiason.   (Ex #33, audiotape of Four Winds student) 



[1] 50-25.1-13. Penalty for failure to report - Penalty and civil liability for false reports.

Any person required by this chapter to report or to supply information concerning a case of

known or suspected child abuse, neglect, or death resulting from abuse or neglect who willfully,

as defined in section 12.1-02-02, fails to do so is guilty of a class B misdemeanor. Any person

who willfully, as defined in section 12.1-02-02, makes a false report, or provides false information which causes a report to be made, under this chapter is guilty of a class B misdemeanor unless the false report is made to a law enforcement official, in which case the person who causes the false report to be made is guilty of a class A misdemeanor. A person who willfully makes a false report, or willfully provides false information that causes a report to be made, under this chapter is also liable in a civil action for all damages suffered by the person reported, including exemplary damages.

 

[2] The Century Code does not provide for a “Sexual Harassment Team” to investigate child abuse.  Steve Michels, the NEA Rep, headed up this “team” by threatening and intimidating teachers such as Melissa Erickson.  See Ex #3.

[3] 50-25.1-11. Confidentiality of records - Authorized disclosures. A report made

under this chapter, as well as any other information obtained, is confidential and must be made

available to:

9. A parent or a legally appointed guardian of the child identified in the report as

suspected of being, or having been, abused or neglected, provided the identity of

persons making the report or supplying information under this chapter is protected.

Unless the information is confidential under section 44-04-18.7, when a decision is

made under section 50-25.1-05.1 that services are required to provide for the

protection and treatment of an abused or neglected child, the department shall make

a good-faith effort to provide written notice of the decision to persons identified in this

subsection. The department shall consider any known domestic violence when

providing notification under this section.

 

[4]60-25.1-01(5). "Authorized agent" means the county social service board, unless another entity is designated by the department.

 

[5] 14. "State child protection team" means a multidisciplinary team consisting of the

designee of the department and, where possible, of a physician, a representative of

a child-placing agency, a representative of the state department of health, a

representative of the attorney general, a representative of the superintendent of

public instruction, a representative of the department of corrections and

rehabilitation, one or more representatives of the lay community, and, as an ad hoc

member, the designee of the chief executive official of any institution named in a

report of institutional abuse or neglect. All team members, at the time of their

selection and thereafter, must be staff members of the public or private agency they

represent or shall serve without remuneration. An attorney member of the child

protection team may not be appointed to represent the child or the parents at any

subsequent court proceeding nor may the child protection team be composed of

fewer than three persons.

 

Website Builder