CA: California trans child molester, 26, gets 2 years in juvenile facility thanks to progressive DA Gascon

Source: 1/27/22

A Los Angeles County judge on Thursday ordered Hannah Tubbs, a transgender California woman, to serve two years in a juvenile facility after she pleaded guilty to sexually assaulting a 10-year-old girl in 2014. 

Before doing so, the judge criticized far-left District Attorney George Gascon, whose office declined to prosecute the repeat offender as an adult.

Tubbs, 26, recently pleaded guilty to molesting the girl in a women’s bathroom eight years ago when Tubbs was two weeks away from turning 18. At the time of the crime, she identified as male and went by James Tubbs. She did not identify as female until after she was taken into custody, according to prosecutors.

“Tubbs is 26 years old. Unlike George Gascon’s false narrative, she is not a ‘kid,'” L.A. Deputy District Attorney Jon Hatami, assigned to the Complex Child Abuse Unit, told Fox News Digital.

Read the full article


Related posts

Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...


  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t
  4. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  5. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  6. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  7. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  8. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
  9. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  10. Please do not post in all Caps.
  11. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  12. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  13. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  14. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people
  15. Please do not solicit funds
  16. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), or any others, the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  17. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  18. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Sorry, I’m confused. How can you be 26 years old and serve time in a juvenile facility? Whether you are trans, male, or female – how can that be? Because this person committed the crime at the age of just shy of 18?

Man, all these mainstream media headlines about sex crimes give “sex offenders” such a bad name. Let’s hear about the “awful” sex offender, lambasted by the public, who turned their life around.

I’m so confused by this….. “she” looka like a man.

beard, penis, attracted to women. Like I understand why he identifies as a woman after getting arrested. Because it gets lonely on the block. But you’re legit gonna send a grown ass man into a girls juvie because he suddenly identifies as a woman?

thats some math for another statistic to happen. He’s gonna catch another case inside when he suddenly feels lonely and decides he’s a lesbian.

The amount of scaremongering and manipulation here is incredible. But the article is indicative.

An actual CA lawyer like Janice can give better insight here, but first, it seems to me that this is what happened: the crime was committed as a juvenile, so if your policy is to not charge juveniles as adults – which I think is reasonable, since prosecutors have often abused the alternative policy so much – then you have to charge them as a juvenile. This stands to reason: what was relevant was the state of mind and legal culpability when the crime was committed, not now.

However, a conviction for a juvenile offense would default to a juvenile sentence. This also stands to reason, that an extra administrative process would be needed for the transfer. This seems, on my understanding, to be exactly is happening – yes, the judge’s “hands are tied” at initial sentencing, but that’s misleading. In fact, although it’s buried more than halfway through the article, Gascon explicitly talks about this and how now the transfer can be pursued.

This also makes sense of probation’s home confinement recommendation: this was possibly precisely to *avoid* the situation of a 20something being in a juvenile facility until the transfer process, or whatever it is formally called, is complete. At the very least, even if it was the wrong judgment, probation determine that home confinement was better than putting a non-juvenile with a violent record in a juvenile facility is not an irrational or stupid call. This is a totally sensible approach, yet is being insinuated as being “soft on crime,” as usual, here. And also as usual, it is topped off with a bunch of emotional, retributive rhetoric appealing cynically to the least reflective and least civilized emotions.

Speaking of cynicism, that’s exactly what this is: a cynical use of a terrible but extraordinarily rare corner case as a cudgel, in this case against even the most modest reform of criminal justice policy. I do not say this as a “progressive” partisan, but I suspect most here would agree, regardless of other political differences, that our experience is a particularly extreme example of how dysfunctional, inhumane, and authoritarian our criminal “justice” system is compared to most other developed liberal-democratic countries. Should it be a “radical” view to make the US even mildly more like its peer nations, which are not exactly hellscapes? Apparently it is.

Which brings me to the final point. As I mentioned above, this is a cynical use of an extremely rare corner case where multiple unusual factors are in play. And this is exactly part of what led to the situation of registrants: a criminal “justice” system that is designed around unbelievably rare situations even at the expense of 99.9% of what a criminal justice system is supposed to do, not to mention basic human rights violations for an obscene number of people. The rot goes even deeper than the registry per se. And this article is a perfect example of everything wrong with the American approach to criminal “justice,” every other partisan issue aside.

Last edited 1 year ago by M H

“…will not have to register as a sex offender…”

Meanwhile, many single-misdemeanor offenders remain on Tier 3.
Yep. You gotta love California!!!

It probably sucks ;however, this guy is the only chance for petitions from being denied . 🤷🏽