SarahB, pressman, love2scrap: There are things I may agree and disagree with you, but overall, I have to agree. Well stated!

ihavealife:
In the State of Wisconsin suing for Alienation of Affection is not allowed anymore. In Illinois it still is, but not Wisconsin.

P.S. sorry-Let me clarify the judicial system: Murder/attempt murder/solicitation for murder is NOT forgiveable and you will serve time!

sorry-thank you for the clarification of the Ten Commandments. And here I thought sin was a sin was a sin!

Wow, quite a few comments here. What do you think, Yuri and Inna? Pretty scary to have someone out for your life. I cannot imagine the response thoughts with this case.

sorry, your post indicates that God is nuts. Best description of it so far.

I really can't believe people are still posting about this! OMG! Let it go- worry about your own lives!
And stop using religion to justify being judgmental! Jesus would have broken bread with ANYONE involved in this case- just keep that in mind before posting more hateful comments.

Inna-
I am so glad that you are okay and this did not go any further. You are in our thoughts! Stay Strong!

I'm so proud to live in a country where public laws are not (completely) dictated by the tenets of any one religion. (Isn't this partly what the "War on Terror" is supposed to prevent?)
*
OF COURSE, attempted murder is a much more serious offense than anything that happens in a person's private life. Law enforcement and courts SHOULD spend their limited resources on actions that directly affect (i.e. harm or potentially harm) other people. (And I have yet to hear a clear and convincing argument that "adultery" affects anyone other than the parties involved.)

To all you wondering about how this works with the ten commandments. Adultary and Murder are the same in the eyes of GOD. Now Worshiping other gods and taking the lords name in vain are much more seriuos. Just be glad that god is a forgiving god.

"Zoom" - you post too much, and say too little. What exactly are you disagreeing with in my post? You call me an "idiot", but I can tell by your rants that you are not grounded in reality. I said that married people that move in with new partners disgust me. And I stand by that - whatever you rant does not change my reaction. If that is being "judgmental" then so be it. Do you condone married people "shacking up" with others? And I am not naive - I know this happens all the time. That makes no difference - right and wrong still exist. Now go ahead and rant some more...

First, to his chagrin, he gets gladhanded by B'moon at the party last Friday and now this!

Horrible!!!

So many interesting points have been made that demand rebuttal, I hardly know where to start.
First, the matter of the use of that famous quote from Christ that so many resort to in the discussions of morality, “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone”. When read in context, this passage refers to an incident regarding a woman who was about to be stoned to death for her crime, adultery. Of course, no one is advocating capital punishment for the adulterers in this story, Mr. Rashkin and his new girlfriend. I also note that no one quoted Christ’s last words to this woman after her would be executioners dispersed, “go, and sin no more”. I guess that doesn’t fit the purpose of the point that was trying to be made. Calling attention to immorality in an effort to advocate against it is not quite the same as “throwing stones”. The problem here may be that so many have accepted adulterous behavior as normal and even good that they get a little angry when anyone questions their conviction.
Enginerd was wondering about the overturning of the separation of church and state. This is a public discussion unregulated by the power of the state, and even if it were, morality is not entirely within the purview of religion, even if that is its origin, as it is the basis of all our laws.
Optimism stated that he believes that human nature is not inanely violent. History says otherwise. It has always been a natural impulse of humans, particularly men, to become violent, especially when one has some egregious provocation, such as a man stealing his wife. As a civilized society, we have passed laws that are designed to deter such impulses and to discipline and segregate those who will not control themselves. If such impulses were due entirely to mental illness, we would have no moral standing to impose such discipline. Immoral behavior is practiced by people who know it is wrong and do it anyway, not because they can’t help themselves but because they want to do it. Mr. Chrislaw is such a person. Why else would he want to delay the crime until he could set up an alibi? If he were mentally deranged, wouldn’t he want his vengeance as soon as possible? Wouldn’t he want to do it himself? Hiring a hit man is the evil act of a sane man trying to avoid the legal consequences of his actions, not the desperate act of a mental defective.

This tragic event is clearly domestic violence. It is when a victim leaves or is in the final stages of leaving her abuser that the abuser realizes he has lost his power and control over her. Killing the victim is the ultimate statement of power and control. This was a calculated act to intimidate and control the victim.

It doesn’t matter to an abuser who else is killed in this process. If the victim had gone to her sister’s house or a neighbor’s house the abuser would have targeted them as well because they are in the way of his final act of power and control.

The article states that police have had few if any contacts with Mr. Chrislaw. Know that threats like this are rarely an isolated incident. When it gets to this point there is generally a history of abuse, and there are more ways to perpetrate abuse than physical violence, and some physical violence is not seen as abuse in regular society. Examples are pushing, shoving, tripping, pinching and having objects thrown at you to name a few. The victim may have suffered emotional, verbal, mental and economic abuse, which would not have police response for.

You may not realize it but you probably know someone close to you who lives with fear of domestic violence or is a perpetrator of domestic violence.

MIKEF....LOL....guess there isn't a blue book value on the price of a double murder put out by the Hell's Angels.....you make a valid point, but I am sure there are some real losers in some bigger cities that would probably do it for a hit of heroin.

I think the price being $2000 says more about the seriousness the police took the situation than the state of crime in the area. Remember, this was not a real hitman, it was an undercover police officer. If he had given too high of a price, the guy might have decided to look elsewhere for someone to do it cheaper and the police would not have been able to head this off so quickly. With the low price, the situation was kept contained. Once he made the down payment, he could be arrested. I don't think there would have been as good a case if the money had not changed hands. Also, this man probably didn't know the going rate for a biker gang hitman to do a double.

sooo.... when was the overturn of the separation of church and state? ... guess I missed that one, haven't been tuning into Foxnews often enough I guess

Zoom, talk about judgmental. Pot/Kettle, there.

As far as the adultery issue, it was plainly brought up in the article. This forum is to discuss the story, and some people have strong feelings about that issue.

Hannah....I think the types that would take 2000 for killing someone see that as a LOT OF DRUGS.

How about we all leave the personnal business alone and be thankful there wasn't another murder in Rock County. There are enough crazies in the world and for someone to think murder and then actually plan it makes them just a little crazy, no matter what the situation.

Unbelievable, people..."As Janesville Turns"....do you all really have nothing better to do than to sit & pass judgment on a man who just was threatened to be murdered? Geez.

Thanks for the support SarahB, pressman, and others. I'll move on now.

I am not trying to judge anyone in this situation,but, I do know the 10 commandments. one says "Do not murder" and another one says "Thou shalt not commit adultery". Obviously they both are important enough for God to strictly say we shouldn't do either. So I think they both should be enforced. However there are alot of people writing here who think only one should be prosecuted and we should "tolerate" the other. I disagree. If we took our vows of marriage the way they should be neither of these things would be happening. While I don't think what the husband did was right, neither is the other. They are both sin in God's eyes and we shouldn't tolerate either acts. In matthew it says God never wanted us to divorce but that Moses allowed divorce because of the hardness of peoples hearts. King David lost a son because of his sin of murder. God will judge both of these acts. Both should be prosecuted to the fullness of the law, but only one will be, Unfortunatly, because of how peoples moral values have fallen in our society.God have mercy on us.

Yet another waste of my vote. Hes a flip flopper. He said he was for the skatepark until he got his seat. I can say now that his voice means nothing to me seeing he is a law breaker as well...and ya give the other guy some jail time.

lovestocrap said: "So whether or not YOU decide one sin to be worse than another sin, is in fact irrelevant."

What? God may decide in the afterlife, but Law decides in the here and now. Why is it that the most judgmental people I have ever met are bible thumping Christians?

Lock up Mr. Chrislaw...Yuri resign your councilman seat and Mrs. Chrislaw get your own place until Yuri is Divorced and you are too.

Seriously people, the only conclusion that we all can come to that would be valid, and not considered gossip would be that this man has severe mental issues, and snapped. Period. A mind can be a very fragile thing. I am not excusing his behavoir, he obviously needs to be under watch, and receive therapy, but I am a firm believer that in-nate human nature doesn't encourage harming others, therefore, there must be a "malfunction" in someone's nature to commit such acts.

IHAVEALIFE....just to clarify, the clubhouse on CHERRY ST. belonged to the OUTLAWS, not the hells angels. ANyway, I was just being sarcastic about him seeking out a biker gang member to do the deed. I really wasn't trying to "start" another subject. Just commenting on the fact that the under cover was impersonating a Hell's Angel.

Crazy times in Janesville. Going to be hard to get a jury in Rock County for this case. Well anyway, good thing they caught they guy.

Sarah...my point exactly. There are some on here who are quick to judge Mr. Chrislaw and put him before the firing squad while totally justifying adultery. With God, all sin is equal! Of course it would probably do you well to at least read the written word of God (especially if we claim to know what He wants) as that takes precedent over the voices in our heads. Who knows who might be speaking :)

I am not fluent in the Bible, but God and I speak daily ... actually, numerous times daily. I can guarantee with every beat of my heart that God would never condone the gossip/garbage most of you are posting here. Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone ... that doesn't mean that the sin has to be the same sin you are judging another to have committed either. We have all sinned and, therefore, are sinners. Put the stones down and go do something nice for another human being. God is shaking His head while watching most of you misinterpret what He has breathed into your hearts. Zoom, I think you have it right and I thank you for sticking in there. Right now, God is shaming me for wasting so much time reading these idiotic postings. He has better things for me to do and it is time that I heeded Him. Anybody want to join me? You are more than welcome to ...

Pressman, No one on here is saying that adulterers should be punishable by death. Nor are we condoning what Mr. Chrislaw tried to do AND if you had read our posts without JUDGEMENT you would see that. And speaking of judgement, if you are going to quote Jesus, you should do so correctly. Jesus, said we should judge sin...not whether or not a person was going to heaven or hell. That is not our place as only God knows the heart of man. Sin is sin. The Bible is very clear on this. You and Zoom have decided that murder is a worse sin than adultery. Not so in God's eyes. Yes, I am telling you God's view on this because it is clearly stated in His word. Therefore God does give us the authority to state that actions declared by Him to be sin, are in fact sin. So whether or not YOU decide one sin to be worse than another sin, is in fact irrelevant.

(Continued from previous comment)

As for Yuri and Inna...I hope they find happiness with each other. Why not? They are two people who weren't happy, and are trying for a new start with its own challenges and obstacles. Why would anyone wish them ill will? Yes, it affects those they left behind, but that argument goes both ways. EVERYONE has to learn to deal with heartache in their lives, and hiring a contract killer is not one of the ways to deal with it. I wish Amy (Yuri's wife) all the happiness as well, and I would extend that to Joeseph, although I think Joeseph is going to have far greater challenges than overcoming heartache at this point.

Janesville is, after all, a small town. Please think about that when you post. Yuri will read this, Inna will read this, others who know them will read this. Show some support, be kind, and think of these people as your friends and neighbors, not some strangers in the paper.

Thank you.

Zoom...because of the seeming lack of support you are getting in this thread, I thought I would show my support for your thoughts and perhaps echo some of my own.

I am disgusted by this thread of comments. Adultery is not a justification or "reason" for hiring someone to kill people so that they might feel better. When you discuss "adultery" in this thread, you are doing just that. What you don't dare say plainly is clearly implied..."Those two people committed adultery, they DESERVED something bad to happen to them!" That is the subtext of every comment condemning Yuri and Inna. Shame on you.

If anything, our hearts should be going out to these two victims. Perhaps many of you have not considered what it would be like to be in their shoes. Think about it, there is a man in the world who wants YOU dead...YOU specifically, not just a nut job who wants to kill some random person, but YOU. He wants it bad enough that he paid someone to go through with it...paying the hitman is the LAST step. In his mind, it was DONE.

...and before you say, "I would NEVER be in their shoes," don't even suggest that. You don't know their lives. You will never know what truly lead up to this situation, so lets back off passing judgment on their sins. What is the line about walking a mile in another person's shoes before you pass judgment on them? Who was it that said that? Oh yeah, it was JESUS!

But instead of offering words of encouragement or support, you offer words of condemnation. What kind of person does that make you, I wonder? Who gives you the authority to say that one man sins or that one woman sins? I didn't give you that authority, and I'm pretty sure God didn't either. In fact, I don't think God would be too keen on other people speaking for Him.

If Yuri and Inna are in the wrong by having a relationship, their fate will be sorted out in the afterlife. In the meantime, they are two consenting adults who have committed NO CRIME that is enforceable, and certainly have the right to exercise their freedom of religion and carry on with their lives. They weren't having an affair, they weren't "cheating" on anyone. Their marriages were over in every way except in the legal sense as anyone who knows a divorced person has learned.

On the other hand, Yuri Rashkin is the most accessible representative the council has ever had. His website updates Janesville on his political duties every 2-3 days. I challenge anyone to find another local politician that even comes close to that. We should not be condemning this man, we should be saluting him. And despite his position as a city councilman, he DOES deserve some privacy in his life. Everyone deserves at least a little. (Continued on next comment)

What a strange little place Janesville is. A murder-for-hire plot is busted, and apparently the victims are at fault. It's days like this I remember why I left in the first place.

"The private indiscretions of public officials are appropriate for public discussion."

Read: Clinton, William Jefferson.

"maybe you went through it and are trying to justify your own actions?"

No, I didn't try to hire someone to kill my estranged spouse and hi/her new boyfriend/girlfriend. That is what the article is about, right?

Zoom, obviously you are very worked up about this situation. I'm thinking this is very personal to you for some reason...maybe you went through it and are trying to justify your own actions? Who knows. I do know this...regardless of what kind of marriage they did or did not have, it is wrong. There are other avenues to take if there is abuse of any sort and they opted out of taking a course that wouldn't be so self serving.

The "Sr." part of "Joseph R. Chrislaw Sr." implies there is a JR. out there somewhere. If there is, I feel sorry for what he will be put through by the actions of his father.

I realize that calling it an indiscretion that a married man, one who is not yet legally divorced, is having a tryst with a married woman, again not yet divorced, is old fashioned, but that is what it is.

Zoom, you seem to be pulling your hair out over this. That's sort of odd. Mostly you seem not to have read the story carefully: Rashkin's own language has him implicating HIMSELF.
Do I get to be a troll now? What color hair do I get?

"This maybe a dumb question but, why would they need police protection if the guy that was suppose to do the contract killing was a police officer? I'm sure the husband was under constant servalence during this whole operation."

Not a dumb question. How would the police know that Joseph R. Chrislaw Sr. only contacted the informant about the killing? He could have contacted others also.

"The private indiscretions of public officials are appropriate for public discussion."

I disagree, both with the public discussion, and your implication of indescretion on any of the parties involved, save Joseph R. Chrislaw Sr.

The antiquated notion that someone who is separated and will go through a divorce should continue to live with their future ex is laughable. This isn't 1950. Spare the victims your condemnation.

This maybe a dumb question but, why would they need police protection if the guy that was suppose to do the contract killing was a police officer? I'm sure the husband was under constant servalence during this whole operation.

"They only way Inna Cheremisina could have been "in the dark" about her husband BEFORE SHE MARRIED HIM would be that she's the reincarnation of Helen Keller."

More blaming of the victim. You are now officially a troll, and I will stop feeding you. Good night.

"But don't go acting like the man had nothing to be upset about. Of course he did."

He did? You have personal knowledge of this? You know why both parties were getting a divorce? Again, more pointless gossip.

zoom...amicably according to Rashkin per the article. LOL I don't remember reading that Mr. Chrislaw felt this way. As a matter of fact, because of his actions, I'm guessing he did not feel amicably toward this "arrangement". Would you? And I also feel that murder for hire is wrong. But don't go acting like the man had nothing to be upset about. Of course he did.

The private indiscretions of public officials are appropriate for public discussion. Mr. Rashkin is a city council member and as such, if there is any reason to doubt his reliability, that is legitimate grounds for discussion, whether he is paid or not. He must have known and therefore accepted the risk that if knowledge of his personal life were to become public, that he would be the subject of criticism for his judgment, or lack thereof.

Zoom:
The purpose of that quote of mine that you used was to suggest that adultery laws have a place and a purpose. Mr. Chrislaw obviously was outraged by his wife’s adultery. Stating that he may have found an outlet for that rage in actively enforced adultery laws but did not is not justification of murder.

"She didn't happen to notice all the motorcycles?"

What? I'll help you out, by cutting and pasting from the article:

"Earlier this month, Chrislaw arranged to meet an undercover officer he thought was a contract killer through a CONFIDENTIAL POLICE INFORMANT who Chrislaw thought had contact with the Hell's Angels motorcycle gang, Mahan said."

I think, Zoom, that we can be said to be exploring something without condoning it. Asking questions is a healthy part of public discourse. Sometimes a person's interpretation is more interesting than the initial question. Of course we all bring our own prejudices (and please understand the true nature of that word before jumping on me for using it) to everything we see, hear and read.
Anyway, read newbie's latest.

The only "outrageous behavior" are the massive assumptions and petty gossip. Good luck with that.

dini79 - If this comment by billnewbie isn't tacet justification, then yes, you need new glasses:

"While I condemn the murder for hire attempt by Mr. Chrislaw, I wonder if he had a legal recourse for the outrageous behavior of his wife and Mr. Rashkin, would he still have felt the need to vent his rage through murder?"

I think we will soon come to understand that she knew nearly nothing about this man before she married him.

Enginerd and Zoom:
I have written repeatedly that Mr. Chrislaw’s actions were illegal and inexcusable. I suggested that the adultery was motivation for Mr. Chrislaw, not justification. The victims of this attempted murder did not have it coming to them.
What ever effect a divorce paper may have had on Mr. Chrislaw is speculation since one has yet to be served one.

I must be wearing different reading glasses than some of you. I have yet to read a post that actually suggests "they had it coming" or that murder was justified. But again I'm seeing lots of uncivil posts. That's a shame.

To all of you who are blogging about adultery, what do you know of the lives of these 2 people? I have never met Mr. Rashkin, however, I do know Inna and I have a great deal of respect for her. When she made the decision to leave her husband it was not an easy decision to make. Why do you people focus on whether or not 2 people should have been living together? Are your lives so boring, so unfullfilling that you have to lay judgement on people you don't even know. My wife and I are both very personnally offended by the petty small minded people who are trying to justify what could have been a very horrible tragedy for this community. Let's stop worrying about what these 2 people are doing and focus on the facts of the criminal case. Our law enforcement people are to be highly commended for the their quick response to this and to the thwarting of such a vile act. You people need to remember that people that live in glass houses should not throw stones.

Um, villa ... Rashkin is an elected official whose address is therefore publicly available, and his photo was not only all over the place during the campaign, but continues to be, as he writes "columns" for the Messenger, has his own websites, plays music around town, and serves on the City Council.

Did some of you not read this in the article?

"Things were going amicably, and everyone was understanding of the situation, and then this happens.
I am going through a divorce, and she was, as well. She just thought it was amicable, and it turned out it wasn't."

There is no logic in justifying solicitation to commit first-degree intentional homicide and conspiracy to commit murder. Epic Fail billnewbie.

leostime36 wrote “I don't think adultry is good. It is nobody's business what goes on in someone else's PRIVATE life, unless it affects YOU or YOUR spouse.” Really? Suppose your neighbor were a randy sort of fellow who liked to seduce the wives in the neighborhood while the husbands aren’t around. Wouldn’t you like to know that before he gets around to your wife? Suppose you knew and he never got a chance with your wife, would you warn your best friend in the neighborhood so that he can protect his wife as well? What about all your other neighbors? Are their wives fair game? Do you have an obligation to tell all your neighbors or an obligation to mind your own business?

Bill - agreed ... but it is still no justification for murder. Of course, some of you have the belief "they had it coming" which is a bit scary. Do you believe a divorce paper presented to Mr. Crislaw would have taken away his emotional stress? I can't say it wouldn't have, but put yourself in the situation-adultery or not, she clearly didn't want to be with him. That in itself would evoke the emotional trauma to bring him to his decisions.

Enginerd:
We only know what the story tells us. It does not tell us that Mr. Chrislaw was ever abusive to his wife, and in fact, the story states there is no criminal record for Mr. Chrislaw. He may well have brought this situation on himself, but the only thing we know from the story is that Mr. Rashkin was living with Mr. Chrislaw's wife and that Mr. Chrislaw wanted them murdered for it.
Adultery as in this case is not victimless. Mr. Chrislaw is his wife’s adultery’s victim, just as Mr. Chrislaw’s wife and Mr. Rashkin are victims of Mr. Chrislaw’s attempted murder.

I don't think adultry is good. It is nobody's business what goes on in someone else's PRIVATE life, unless it affects YOU or YOUR spouse.

ooops...misspelled adutlery...sorry doing too many things at once :)

Blaming the victim is a perfectly responsible and intelligent response. I don’t think anyone condones adultery—but I’m pretty sure the crime doesn’t warrant murder. By the methodology of some of you, I would have to say Mr. Crislaw must have brought this whole situation on himself. He must have done something morally wrong to force his wife to allegedly commit the initial crime (adultery) against him. It’s not a new phenomenon; there have been tons of rape cases where the defense always suggests the rape victim had “a history of promiscuous behavior” or was wearing revealing clothing. I’m sure nothing like this would ever happen in your angelic families.

leostime...so you think adultry is good? Hmmm...are you married and is this how you explain adultry to your wife?

Yeah, OK, this demonstrates great judgement on the part of a public figure, all right. One who, I might add, does everything in his power to bring attention to himself.

This is awful on so many levels, and one hopes O'Leary throws the book at this mruderous thug. AND keeps him in custody where he belongs.

But really, if you're going to seek public attention, you have to expect to be scrutinized, and however great a guy he is, the least you have to allow is that Rashkin's judgement here has been faulty at best, in the public AND private arenas.

Be as sick as you want to be.
The adultery was the motivation for Mr. Chrislaw's unlawful act. The story clearly states that Mr. Chrislaw was despondent over the new relationship his wife is in. It does not justify Mr. Chrislaw's attempted murder for hire, but it does explain why he did it.
Are those who don't like the mention of the adultery trying to say that it had no effect? Whether legal or illegal, those who commit adultery do harm to their spouse. Mr. Chrislaw reacted to that injury, illegally and inexcusably, but the adulterer’s are not without blame.

lovestoscrap-who are you to decide what they did was wrong (her moving in with him)...it was and IS none of your business. I am glad she left, I don't care where she went. Obviously, as anyone now knows from the arrest, he is a psycho. It is called DIVORCE. The people on this blog that keep bringing up adultery make me sick. There is no excuse for what Joe Chrislaw did.

Zoom:
As I wrote, I condemn Mr. Chrislaw's actions. The story relates the adulterous relationship between Mr. Rashkin and Mr. Chrislaw’s wife. I noted the fact that while adultery is still illegal, that law is not enforced anymore. I suggested that, while wrong, Mr. Chrislaw’s act was perhaps a result of no other recourse being available, and that if the adultery law was still enforced, he may have instead taken his grievance to a court rather than a hit man.
Maybe you think it’s gossip to draw the conclusion that Mr. Rashkin’s living arraignment is adulterous, but it would be naive to think it is not since he calls the woman his girlfriend. Or is it the term adultery with all its connotations that you have a problem with?

... and the other in 1985.....

Actually, the mistake in 1996 I am now going to blame on someone else.

I've made mistakes. One in 1996 and another in 1984 or 1985.

Well put slainte.

Anyone who knows Yuri, also knows he does NOT deserve the venomous comments now being posted and NO one deserves the violence that was aimed at him. Let's hope the Gazette has the wisdom to remove all these comments so the victims can have peace instead of trying to increase the animosity for readership.

billnewbie -There is absolutely NO justification for what Joseph R. Chrislaw Sr. did, adultery or not. What is his defense? He will be going to jail for a long time. What then is the purpose of judging and gossiping about everyone elses relationships?

This is horrible for Mr. Rashkin and his friend. MURDER FOR HIRE IN JANESVILLE!?! I am shocked that anyone would even begin to comment on the morality of the situation when we are talking about lives perhaps being at stake. I never realized that this town was so full of perfect people!! We are all sinners- no one is better than the other. No one knows what the situation is/was between Mr. Raskin and his wife and what the situation is/was between the accused and his wife at the time of filing. As a divorced person, I can relate that most marriages are OVER well before the paperwork is actually filed. At that point, the marriage is just that- paperwork. So I'd advise folks who think they are so high and mighty to dismount their highhorses because they never know when they'll be the one in the paper being blogged about!

Who on this blog, have proof they were committing adultery? Just because she was living with him does not mean they were in a sexual relationship. However, I didn't fall off the pumpkin wagon yesterday, but it is that kind of detail that is hard to prove, is why the law is probably not enforced.

The relationships between all these people have everything to do with why Mr. Chrislaw did what he did. It may seem safe to assume that Mr. Chrislaw was abusive to his wife, but it is also entirely possible that these adulteries are what actually drove Mr. Chrislaw to this act of rage. The story did say that there are no public criminal court records in Mr. Chrislaw’s name that the reporter could find so it would be wrong to assume that he did abuse his wife, though it remains a possibility.
Zoom has a problem with debates degenerating into gossip on these pages, but apparently Zoom finds name calling to be perfectly acceptable.

lovetoscrap said -"she could still have moved to another place"

Can you not think of ANY situation where a woman either cannot, or doesn't want to, move out on her own, all by herself?

You folks have no idea what happened, nor do I. Any speculation or assumptions on your part about their relationships are pure gossip.

It's still an assumption according to Merriam Webster: assuming that something is true. Does anyone on here actually know these people personally, or know the complete truth? A whole lot of assuming and judging on this posting...my stars! ***

Give it up Zoom. Noone is saying she should have stayed living with the guy.

Too often, I've watched these discussions devolve into petty, meanigless gossip. Since the Gazette usually waits way too long to stop the discussion, I'm spitting my venom early.

Anyone is free to vote how they choose, but remember, he is who without sin, can cast the first stone. While I don't always agree with Mr. Rashkin's city council views, he is the most open about how the council operates, and is an asset to the city. Remember, the council positions are UNPAID. You judgmental weasals complain about government and wonder why we don't have better people to vote for. YOU are the reason.

/end rant

Zoom...she could still have moved to another place...not in with a married man. This is just wrong. He shouldn't have asked her and she should not have accepted. I would think with him being in the position he is in this would be common sense.

tjncj, Superdave and any other idiots that want to judge-

Would you be so judgemental if you found out that Mr. Chrislaw was verbally or physically abusive to his wife, with whome he was obviously separated? The story doesn't describe in detail the relationships of Mr. Rashkin, his wife, or Inna Cheremisina, because they don't have anything to do with someone wanting to have someone else killed, and they are none of your business.

Get a life, and go gossip somewhere else.

In this case, we didn't make a law that we don't enforce, we have a law that we enforced in the past that we now do not. The law isn’t really antiquated; it is used sometimes in egregious cases, usually as a bargaining tool to be discarded during plea bargains.
This living arrangement that the council member has does violate the sense of morality that most people in the community share, but since such co-habitations are being tolerated all over the community, it would be unfair for the community not to tolerate his. It is, however, legitimate to consider when he runs for re-election.
While I condemn the murder for hire attempt by Mr. Chrislaw, I wonder if he had a legal recourse for the outrageous behavior of his wife and Mr. Rashkin, would he still have felt the need to vent his rage through murder?

Kinda funny but, if you look at Rashkin's website it actually kinda has the answer. Of course, the guy was asking about selling a car and some law prohibiting him from having a for sale sign in out on his own property or something like that. It's down towards the bottom of the page. I can only imagine that like Jvl53537 said, it's commonplace in our day and time and they have deemed the law "unenforceable".

www.yurirashkin.com

it says:
"Ordinances, like Janesville's, that prohibit "for sale" signs on motor vehicles upon the public streets and parking places were rendered unenforceable by the Wisconsin Court of Appeals a few years ago. It is now lawful for all persons to place "for sale" signs on their vehicles at all times. The Janesville Police Department and Code Department, therefore, do not enforce the City's ordinance against this. Occasionally, ordinances are rendered unenforceable by a state or Federal court. In such cases, we stop enforcing them. When a bunch of ordinances are held unenforceable, then we present to the Common Council a "clean-up" ordinance that repeals the ones that the courts have overturned.

Here is the rest of the info to AndIwonderwhy's post:
.............................
Why Is Adultery A Crime?
Under the laws of most states across the United States, adultery is not a crime. Wisconsin legislature imposed criminal sanctions upon the crime of adultery to preserve and protect the institution of marriage and family. In 2006, voters also voted a constitutional amendment defining the institution of marriage as being a legal marriage and contract between one man and one woman. That amendment also addressed the state's legal position on bigamy.

Talking about making laws that don't get enforced:
Under Wisconsin law, if a married person has sexual intercourse with a person who is not his spouse, both parties commit the crime of adultery. Under Wisconsin law (WI Statute 944.16), adultery is a Class I felony.

The penalty for a Class I Felony is a fine of up to $10,000, or imprisonment of up to 3-1/2 years, or both; however, for a repeat offender, the term of imprisonment may increase up to 2 years with prior misdemeanor convictions, and up to 6 years with a prior felony conviction.
Why are some laws enforced and others are not? can anyone explain it to me like I am a 4th grader?

Hey Zoom I think the fact that this mans wife was living with another may have a lot to do with his rage. It doesn't justify his actions but shows they have little respect for marriage and commitment. You must not either, jerk.

Zoom, your logic doesn't fly. Noone is saying she shouldn't have moved out. However, if she knew he was that type of person, she shouldn't moved in with a married man with a child.

Trish: I agree that the courts could not possibly hear every case that involves adultery and yes you cannot file for divorce on those grounds.
However, adultery is in fact still illegal, it is just extremely difficult to prosecute because it has become so commonplace and condoned by society and the courts.

updates, crisblue ... this one has more info.

What about his poor co-workers that just found out?? "No HE didn't want further protection"....What about all of the innocent people in the wrong place and the wrong time?? Goes to show how selfish he really is! How soon before he steps down from city council - anyone wanna make bets?

seriously......... why is there always more than one article about the same darn thing??

SuperDave, you should have read the whole thing. Then perhaps you would have learned that he is also married. His wife moved out of the house and he moved his married girlfriend into his daughters home. But, of course, all the blame belongs to the married girlfriend, right?! Raskin and his wife just filed papers on the second of this month. 9 days ago.

Jvl53537
The article states that Raskin said his girlfriend and her husband were supposed to be filing papers, not that they already have. Should be easy enough for her now to get a quickie divorce!
While I do not agree with people committing adultery, it happens all the time. The courts would be overflowing for years to come if they tried to enforce that law. You are not even allowed to use it as grounds for a divorce. In the old days, if you could prove your spouse was committing adultery, you had good grounds to get the lion's share of your joint property. Not anymore.

A search on CCap shows no divorce filed between Joseph Chrislaw and Inna Cheremisina.
I absolutely do not condone what Mr. Chrislaw did.
However; it does appear that Mr. Rashkin and Mrs. Cheremisina were committing Adultery.
Adultery is actually illegal - albeit it is rarely enforced.
Yuri is quoted to say "My girlfriend and (her) soon-to-be ex-husband..." Perhaps someone should have informed Mr. Chrislaw of this fact before they decided to commit Adultery.
Again, I do not support Mr. Chrislaw in any way, but seriously Mr. Rashkin, what kind of example are you setting by committing Adultery ?
You are supposed to represent the community and for this you should be ashamed.

Good call, Zoom.

divorce

Considering the guy wanted his wife dead, how could anyone blame the woman for moving out before she got a devorce? The article is about a contract murder, not about the living arrangements of two separated married people. Get a grip, you judgmental idiots.

I didn't bother to read this entire article, it disgusts me that a married woman would move in with her "boyfriend". (And I would say the same if the genders were reversed). First of all, she shouldn't even HAVE a boyfriend, she shouldn't even be dating - she's MARRIED! Get your divorce, clean up your life, learn to be single again. THEN start dating. And per usual, the real victim here is the child. Sad.

Just shows how "smart" this guy is, the Hells Angels aren't our local biker gang, they are THE OUTLAWS. I just watched a program on the history channel about these two biker gangs. Outlaws are EVERYWHERE...scary. This man needs to be locked up for a VERY long time if not forever. EWWW

What in the world are they living together for when neither are divorced and there is at least one child involved? Obviously this relationship isn't new. He is lucky this guy didn't decide to take matters into his own hands.

OMG! he delivered a pizza to me not that long ago....