Town Square

Post a New Topic

Soccer Mom Preditor

Original post made by Discusted, Downtown, on Aug 10, 2010

(08-09) 18:46 PDT LIVERMORE -- The 42-year-old Livermore mother accused of sexually assaulting two teenage boys first made an advance at one of them when he was 14 and was dating her daughter of the same age, authorities said.

This story contains 543 words.

If you are a paid subscriber, check to make sure you have logged in. Otherwise our system cannot recognize you as having full free access to our site.

If you are a paid print subscriber and haven't yet set up an online account, click here to get your online account activated.

Comments (20)

Like this comment
Posted by Discusted
a resident of Downtown
on Aug 10, 2010 at 7:26 am

From A Pleasnton weekly Article:

Hubbs has been married for about 20 years to her husband Timothy, and has three children, according to her Facebook and MySpace pages.

"More than half of her 36 friends on MySpace have pages displaying boys ages 18 or younger."

Is this a trend? Soccer moms, botox and little boys? Or has this been going on for years?


Like this comment
Posted by Del
a resident of Downtown
on Aug 10, 2010 at 8:33 am

Mormon family values!!!!


Like this comment
Posted by JR
a resident of Danbury Park
on Aug 10, 2010 at 8:41 am

I hope the children/victims get counseling.


Like this comment
Posted by stevep
a resident of Parkside
on Aug 10, 2010 at 9:07 am

Actually, this is every teenage boys dream. Where was she when we were growing up?
It must be a mid-life crisis thing. Bet this story will be a hot subject at area high school campuses in a couple of weeks!


Like this comment
Posted by Sara
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Aug 10, 2010 at 9:32 am

In case you did not see my main post on this topic, I am reposting it here.

McNerney voted "YES" to protect pedophiles like our alleged pedophile "Hummer Mom" (H.R. 1913)

Doubt me? Here is info about this bill which passed. Tho it is called a "Hate Crimes" bill (Democrats are always deceptive in naming their bills), it specifically protects pedophiles...like our alleged pedophile Livermore "Hummer Mom."

The bill was introduced on April 28 in the U.S. Senate as S. 909. Violating equal justice under the law, the bill adds "sexual orientation" to a list of extra-protected groups under federal law.

Seem ok thus far? Well read on...

Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, offered this very simple amendment to H.R. 1913 in the House Judiciary Committee:

"The term sexual orientation as used in this act or any amendments to this act does not include pedophilia."

It was rejected by Congressional Democrats.

Info about the Pedophile Protection Act >>> Web Link

Info on House vote >>> Web Link

To summarize, pushing away an unwelcome advance of a homosexual, transgendered, cross-dresser or exhibitionist could make you a felon under this law. Speaking out against the homosexual agenda could also make you a felon if you are said to influence someone who pushes away that unwelcome advance. And pedophiles and other sexual deviant would enjoy an elevated level of protection, while children, seniors, veterans and churches would not.

McNerney...a typical democrat protecting the criminals over the victims.


Like this comment
Posted by what's up Gina?
a resident of Downtown
on Aug 10, 2010 at 9:55 am

Why did the Pleasanton Weakly (sic) lock comments on the original article? You allowed virtually limitless commenting on the tennis coash fiasco but when it's a "respected member" of the (allegedly) Mormon community you lock out comments. What's up with that?
Bigger question for me is with all of the evidence so far, and this is just the start, why is the husband protecting her? Protect your kids, yeah, but protect a wandering wife who gets it on with underage kids? Yes, I know, it has not been proved in court so I'll save my question to ask after the trial is over.
Check back here to see Gina lock this thread any minute.


Like this comment
Posted by Cholo
a resident of Livermore
on Aug 10, 2010 at 10:55 am

Did you say, "wandering wife who get it on with underage kids?"

This is about an adult RAPING kids. It is always RAPE when an adult engages in sex with kids.


Like this comment
Posted by colette
a resident of Del Prado
on Aug 10, 2010 at 11:05 am

I, too, was wondering why the Weekly locked out comments on the original article. Maybe because she is innocent till proven guilty? I don't know...with a nude photo of her on the boy's phone, seems like it will be a tough one to prove innocence! Pathetic! Good thing that mom was smart enough to check out the son's phone! We are living in a crazy world these days. Combine technology with sickos, and it is pretty dang scary.


Like this comment
Posted by lido
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Aug 10, 2010 at 11:15 am

Yes, the censorship amazed me ... in SF Gate the article states that people are protecting the family from intrusion and telling the media to respect the family. Now! This just doesn't seem logical or fair. This is a pedophile regardless. Yes she is Mormon and yes she is a woman, but protected from the media. She abused kids. What gives Pleasanton Weekly?


Like this comment
Posted by Greg
a resident of Downtown
on Aug 10, 2010 at 11:28 am

What is with all these scandals in the Tri-Valley involving members of the LDS community? The list just keeps growing:

Web Link

Web Link


Like this comment
Posted by No Propoganda
a resident of Canyon Meadows
on Aug 10, 2010 at 12:56 pm

Sara!

"I've written extensively about how this bill would criminalize Christianity and turn those who disagree with the homosexual agenda into felons, but criminalizing Christianity is just the beginning of what this bill would do."

Come now, please educate yourself and stop turning any subject into PROPAGANDA! What you posted simply is not true, however any "true Christian" will buy it hook, line and sinker cause this RAG said it was so!

And you are WAY off TOPIC!


Like this comment
Posted by Sara
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Aug 10, 2010 at 2:35 pm

Why is anyone surprised that the PW has locked their original article?

The PW is a strongly democrat-biased newspaper. Democrats, on average, exert much more effort at protecting and defending criminals vs. victims.

PW, mainstream media, ACLU, leftist judges, etc., the beat goes on...


Like this comment
Posted by Cholo
a resident of Livermore
on Aug 10, 2010 at 2:39 pm

Sara is a weasel, trying to shift the focus away from a woman who is a sexual predator. Yup, she got busted because she RAPED 2 young teens. That is ILLEGAL and it is NOT OK.

Unfortunately, her children will suffer. Fortunately, a good mother found out and reported her to the police.

Thank you for reporting this sexual predator to the police! The world is always a safer place for everybody when sexual predator are behind bars.


Like this comment
Posted by Jay
a resident of Amador Estates
on Aug 10, 2010 at 10:20 pm

It's good to see Tim standing by his wife in this difficult time. Great family. Hope you all come out of this. All the best.


Like this comment
Posted by June
a resident of Livermore
on Aug 10, 2010 at 10:53 pm

Lido, I can understand where you are concerned as stated in your comment about why should she be protected, however I believe that her minor children and husband, a.k.a. her family, that are not accused of the said crimes do deserve to be respected and not harassed by the media and community alike.


Like this comment
Posted by Cholo
a resident of Livermore
on Aug 11, 2010 at 7:12 am

I don't think that the PW is protecting the kid rapist.

I believe that when an adult rapes kids, it's time to go to jail.

I haven't read anything that suggests that any posters are being disrespectful of her husband or children.

Hopefully, they will find the help that they need.

DO THE CRIME DO THE TIME!


Like this comment
Posted by June
a resident of Livermore
on Aug 11, 2010 at 7:34 am

Cholo, I agree that the PW is not protecting the accused.

To make my original comment more clear, I was referring to an earlier posting that stated, "in SF Gate the article states that people are protecting the family from intrusion and telling the media to respect the family. Now! This just doesn't seem logical or fair."


Like this comment
Posted by Me
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Aug 11, 2010 at 7:50 am

What does her faith have to do with the fact she was abusing these boys? Her husbund should open his eyes and see what the heck she was doing. What about her children, the poor things, will be the subjects of all the fall out.


Like this comment
Posted by bob 1949
a resident of another community
on Aug 11, 2010 at 8:40 am

Where was she when I was coaching soccer??


Like this comment
Posted by VC1461
a resident of Livermore
on Apr 24, 2011 at 11:47 am

VC1461 is a registered user.

The whole thing is DISGUSTING!! She is a monster and I pity all children involved including their own. They have a child molester for a mother and a lunatic for a father! He is going to let the children around this registered sex offender, this child rapist?? The children should be taken away from the both and put in a safe environment. the families of the victims should sue the Hubbs for their house on Ruby Hill, the Hummer, and any other assets. She is a PEDATOR and changed the potential these boys had in life and this cannot be given back. She ruined the lives of her victims and her own children and is a disgusting human being. I will never return to Dr Hubbs office and truly pity all children involved. Hope she gets what's coming to her in Prison from the guards & other inmates!


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


To post your comment, please login or register at the top of the page. This topic is only for those who have signed up to participate by providing their email address and establishing a screen name.

First Amendment under attack
By Tim Hunt | 9 comments | 1,161 views

Who Won the Debate?
By Roz Rogoff | 34 comments | 896 views

Debate: What do you think?
By pleasantonweekly.com | 4 comments | 348 views

Props 62 and 66: To Kill or Not to Kill, those are The Questions
By Tom Cushing | 2 comments | 287 views