Privatizing the sex offender registry puts you and your children at risk

The third of my Examiner.com articles.

Privatizing the sex offender registry puts you and your children at risk


Derek Logue
Cincinnati Crime Examiner

Privatization is the latest craze in government. In recent years, a number of government services have been targeted for privatization, including social security, medicare, and prisons. Privatization has many negative connotations associated with the practice, and as a result, controversy and opposition is not in short supply.

In recent months, the Louisiana-based "Watch Systems/ Offender Watch" business is privatizing the sex offender registry. Hundreds of Sheriff's offices and a handful of states have switched over to Offender Watch. The motivation for privatization is simple-- money. Supposedly, contracting business to the public sector saves a few taxpayer dollars. 

Is the state of Ohio really saving money by turning over the operation of sex offender data to a private business? I have my doubts. In 2007, when Ohio was debating the passage of the Adam Walsh Act, the legislative fiscal notes indicated the change of the current internet registry (then known as eSORN) would cost $475,000 in one time expenses and $85,000 per year in maintenance. By contrast, under the state of Ohio's current contract with Watch Systems, the state is shelling out $399,000 per year. 

In addition, Offender Watch has caused many problems in its short history. In November 2011, 10tv of Columbus reported that hundreds of people were "mistakenly" added to the public registry by Watch Systems:

 The state had been working to switch the entire registry operation over to a Louisiana company called Watch Systems. 

In early October, the state said the company took control of the search operation of the registry and mistakenly put inaccurate information into the system for all to see, Strickler reported.

The state attorney general's office said the problem was a result of human error. 

"There were probably hundreds, but we don't know exactly because we didn't take the time to go through the records individually," said Steven Raubenolt, Deputy Superintendent of BC&I.

I have my doubts this was "accidental." States compete for registry dollars, and the more people on the registry, the more money goes to the state. After all, this is the reason whyFlorida lists long dead sex offenders on their state registry (and perhaps in case they return from the dead). 

A second controversy has surrounded the misuse of statistics to justify their existence. Offender Watch-run websites have posted a false statistic claiming "50% of sex offenders re-offend." This stat was extrapolated from yet another privately run registry, Family Watchdog, which recently removed the statistic from the website. Some websites have posted the offending stat while others have posted more lower and more accurate stats (CLICK HERE to view the different web pages for comparison). 

One such example of stat inflation was recently reported in Connecticut, where a recent study has confirmed what has been known for mny years-- sexual recidivism is far lower than believed. The Connecticut study found only 2.7% of convicted registered sex offenders repeated their crimes, far lower than the 50% Offender Watch standard. Now, Offender Watch has dropped the 50% stat from many of it's websites. 

The thought of privatizing the registry should scare you, since it is obvious they will public advertise fear to sell their wares. Imagine a corporation investing money in promoting laws making it easier to add you or your loved ones to the public registry. Perhaps we'll see sex offender registry stock on the New York Stock Exchange as we currently see with the private prison companies GEO Group and Corrections Corporation of America. Worse, imagine contracts to keep the registry ever at full capacity like the private prison industry. In KATU of Portland's March 2012 article on the debate over expanding the registry, the person representing the side of expansion of the registry is Dan Meister who sells--what else-- background checks to paranoid individuals. 

The current registry is already bloated as a result of ill-conceived legislation, fear, propaganda, and special interest groups. Adding private business aspects to the registry will only serve to exacerbate an already existing problem with an all-encompassing public registry. How many more people are we willing to sacrifice for this false sense of security?

Ohio Governor's Office, DRC, DYS to host Cincy Collateral Consequences symposium

The second of my Examiner.com articles.


Ohio Governor's Office, DRC, DYS to host Cincy Collateral Consequences symposium


Derek Logue
Cincinnati Crime Examiner


Like many former felons, I have struggled with obtaining gainful employment after completing my sentence and released into society. Despite graduating cum laude with a Bachelor's degree from a major university, I found myself stocking shelves for minimum wage, and it took me seven months to find that job. I was one of the lucky ones, because the jobless rate among ex-felons is roughly five times higher than citizens without criminal records. There is a definite link between unemployment and recidivism, but many businesses routinely discriminate against individuals with criminal records. As the number of US citizens with a criminal record tops 65 million, with nearly 750,000 singled out for inclusion on the National Sex Offender Registry, the need for reintegration programs is integral to reduce recidivism.


Ohio is adressing this problem by hosting a symposium entitled " Addressing Collateral Consequences in Ohio, Part 4: Clearing the Road to Gainful Employment," Held from 10am to 2pm on February 29th, 2012 at The Vineyard Church Healing Center in Springdale, OH.This is an opportunity to address the many barriers ex-felons face in obtaining and maintaining gainful employment. According to the event flier, there will be a number of workshops at this event:


"Driver’s License Suspension/Infraction/Indigent Fees - Ohio has many convictions that result in losing driving privileges where there is not a direct nexus to a driving offense - i.e. non-payment of child support, trespassing and shoplifting under $100.  This workgroup will focus on the civil and criminal penalties directly associated with this topic.


Fair Hiring Practices/Expungement - This workgroup will focus on employment barriers associated with the State of Ohio’s application process and discussion of Ohio’s expungement process for misdemeanor and felony convictions.


Child Support Practices - Currently child support orders and arrearages continue to accrue while an inmate is incarcerated, even though their income drastically decreases during the incarceration period causing the offender to have less earning power once released, due to the barriers associated with a criminal conviction. This workgroup will focus on changes to arrearages that accumulate while a person is incarcerated, modifications to child support orders and driver’s license suspensions and reinstatement fees associated with non-payment of child support.


Collateral Consequences- Research provided by the University of Cincinnati found Collateral Consequences in more than 800 places in Ohio laws and administrative rules. This workgroup will focus on a system that is publicly available to criminal justice professionals/stakeholders and returning citizens.


Juvenile Justice- Many policymakers do not realize that collateral sanctions impact youth adjudicated to DYS.  This workgroup will focus on the breach of confidentiality of juvenile records and the educational needs for youth returning to their communities.


Order of Limited Relief - This workgroup will focus on creating an Order of Limited Relief for ex-offenders who seek relief from mandatory disabilities pertaining to employment and other barriers, in some cases, years after the conviction has occurred."

I suggested there should be a workshop specifically for sex offenders, who face even more restrictions as a result of the public registry, but at the moment there is not anything planned specifically for registrants. 

Below is the contact information for more information on this event. 

When:
February 29, 2012
10:00 A.M. - 1:00 P.M.
(Registration will begin at 9:30 a.m.)

Where:
Healing Center Cincinnati
11345 Century Circle W.
Springdale, Ohio 45246
(513) 346-4080 

Please RSVP to:
Angi.L.Lee@governor.ohio.gov 
No later than February 24, 2012

Why the Cherokee Nation needs to reject the Adam Walsh Act

This was one of my four articles written for The Examiner before they decided to discriminate against me. So I'm republishing it here 

Privatizing the sex offender registry puts you and your children at risk

Derek Logue

Cincinnati Crime Examiner

 "Once you're on a publicly accessible registry, your life is pretty much shot." -- US Representative Bobby Scott, during the March 10, 2009 Congressional SORNA Hearing

When I read the article "AG Office warns council on sex offender bill" in the Cherokee Phoenix,  I was disappointed to learn that the Cherokee nation is debating the issue of sovereignty versus passing a feel good law that will actually harm many native tribesmen.

The Adam Walsh Act was a stagnant bill until it was championed through Congress by John Walsh and Mark Foley in 2006. The bill bypassed standard Congressional procedure by abusing "Suspension of the Rules," which allows certain bills to pass through legislatures without a full debate or review. Those who voted on the bill did not even know what was in the bill.

The AWA imposes a negative penalty on those who refuse to adopt this bill. For states, this means facing a 10% of Federal law enforcement grants (known as Byrne/JAG). Apparently the negative penalty extends to sovereign tribes as well, as mentioned in your article. However, to give into federal demands would be willingly relinquishing that sovereignty anyway, as they are forcing a bad law upon your tribe.

As of February 2012, 15 states and 9 Native American tribes are "substantially compliant" with the AWA. However, of those 15 states, two of them, Missouri and Kansas, are reconsidering their compliant status. Some traditionally tough-on-crime states, like Texas, California, and Arizona, have publicly stated they have no plans to pass this law.

There are a few major criticisms of this law. The first major criticism is the AWA demands children as young as age 14 to be listed on the public registry. Teens caught in consensual relationships (known as "Romeo and Juliet," or R&J) or "sexting" have landed on public registries across the US. Second, the AWA is expensive, with costs of implementation far outweighing that 10% cuts the federal government imposes on those who refuse to comply.

A major part of the expense of the AWA comes from the reclassification of registrants. When Ohio and Oklahoma changed their registration laws in an attempt to comply with the Adam Walsh Act, the number of people who were listed on the highest tier, the "Tier 3" or "High-Risk" category rose dramatically overnight. In Oklahoma, that number jumped from about 25% to 78% overnight. They did nothing to warrant that change. While most states utilize risk assessment evaluations, the AWA uses an offense-based classification. In other words, the AWA classifies on the basis of how the crime is defined by the state. Instead of streamlining this process across the USA, it has made things worse.

During one congressional meeting in March 2009, a spokesperson for Louisiana stated that a teen having consensual relations with other teens would be forced to register for 25 years.

I should not even have to mention the destructive power of being listed on the sex offender registry. It is a social death sentence. People won't hire you, rent to you, or date you. If you have a wife and kids, they suffer with you. You live in fear of vigilante attacks or politicians passing the next feel-good law against you to pander for votes.

Rejecting the Adam Walsh Act is not about being "soft" but "smart" on crime. Education and prevention programs proven to reduce the prevalence of sexual offending in society do inded exist, like Stop It Now or the Jacob Wetterling Resource Center. However, these level-headed programs are ignored in favor of revenge-motivated law enforcement and an industry that sells us a false sense of security.

This list is very expensive to maintain. The state of Ohio reported they spent over $10 million in legal defense and reclassification of registrants as a result of the Adam Walsh Act.Ohio spends $40,000 a month to Offender Watch just to maintain the oline registry. This does not even count the cost of complience checks or notification, just the cost of the registry. 

The public registry fails us because we have grown to rely on a list that only shows us at most 5% of the problem. About 95% of sex crime arrests are of people with no prior sex crime arrests. Furthermore, about 95% of those on the public registry never re-offend, but it has nothing to do with the registry. In fact, studies suggest the public registry may actually create an environment that makes people more likely to re-offend.

If the Cherokee Nation wants to protect children, don't adopt the Adam Walsh Act. If the Cherokee Nation wants autonomy from American interference, then don't adopt the AWA. 

Learn more about the dangers of the Adam Walsh Act by visiting Once Fallen's Adam Walsh Act fact guide.

Once Fallen at the Cincinnati Ex-Offender Collateral Damages summit

Back on February 29, the State of Ohio hosted an event on ex-offenders and collateral damages, specifically related to employment barriers. As a registered citizen, I have my own concerns about the difficulties facing employment that go beyond the concerns of the average ex-con. I made it a point to be there in hopes of voicing these concerns.

I arrived at the event around 9:30 and met a couple of members of OH-RSOL (I forgot their names, sorry), and we sat together in the front row for the event. The event began with an introduction from a representative from the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections (DRC), which was followed by three individuals with criminal records who shared their stories. I noted that all three speakers had "petty offenses"-- one was a bad check writer, another one for failing to pay child support, and the third one was a drug offender. It was the trifecta of petty crimes. I suppose I can understand why these individuals would be chosen, since non-violent offenses get more sympathy from the public compared to a more violent crime or a sex offense. It was interesting to note that one of the speakers, the woman convicted of writing bad checks, stated at least she wasn't a sex offender (using on of the "P" words). She's still a criminal, but I digress.

This was followed by a series of presentations followed by a Q&A session. This was my opportunity to express my two concerns:

1. Forcing registered individuals to register employment addresses is a greater barrier to employment. Cincinnati has about an 8.9% unemployment rate, but registrants in Cincy have an 82% unemployment rate. The state of Ohio needs to look at taking employers off the public registry.

2. The state needs programs specific to the needs of registrants and their families, seeing as how we have to live with far more restrictions than the average ex-offender. As a long-time advocate, I could help with creation of such a project.

There was a worker for the DRC who was shooting video of individuals willing to give personal testimony, with the video to be presented to the Senate Judiciary Committee. I managed to be a part of that, giving my personal story and offering suggestions on how to improve working conditions for former offenders like myself.

I was glad to meet some fellow activists there, and I wish they could have stayed for lunch. My only disappointment was a lack of local media presence.

I hope this will still inspire some change. Below is the Senate Judiciary Committee. Let's encourage them to follow my suggestions:

http://www.ohiosenate.gov/committees/standing/detail/judiciary.html

Bookville II: The sequel no one wanted to see

It seems the saga of the Miami Sex Offender Colony has spawned a sequel. I'm not surprised. They were warned that without a change to the current laws, they were merely playing musical sex offender. Well, the Julia Tuttle Causeway Camp is now the Shorecrest camp.

Read my take on this latest development at The Examiner:

http://www.examiner.com/crime-in-cincinnati/the-sequel-no-one-wanted-bookville-ii-return-of-the-miami-sex-offender-camp

Privatizing the sex offender registry puts you and your children at risk

Privatizing the sex offender registry puts you and your children at risk. This is my latest Examiner.com article. Click the link to read more:

http://www.examiner.com/crime-in-cincinnati/privatizing-the-sex-offender-registry-puts-you-and-your-children-at-risk

The 2011 Shiitake Awards is finally here!

The 2011 edition of the annual Shiitake Awards, the annual show that spotlights those who abuse and exploit sex offender issues for personal gain, has arrived. 



This year, our host finds himself stuck in Barbara Farris's "Project H40." Can he escape this vile place? Will Barbara Farris repeat last year's Shiitake-worthy performance? 


Will Florida continue it's dynasty, or will Ohio, Alabama, or Missouri dethrone the three time chumps? Tune in for the ICBS National CHUMPionship. 


A Special thanks to "Steph" for creating the Shiitake Award poster, logo, and 20111 ICBS logo.


All music used in the video are copyrighted by their respective owners. However, Once Fallen is using them legally under the Fair Use Policy doctrine. the Shiitake Awards is an educational and informative (and entertaining) program that educates people on the abuses of the public sex offender registry. This project is free to the public and I make no money from it.

Leave Elizabeth Smart alone!

Where's this annoying internet prick
when you need him?

Many vigilante and self-professed child advocacy groups constantly complain that people who have suffered abuse at some point in their lives are "scarred for life" or "never heal" and thus they justify harassing and ostracizing those who served their sentences. Few discuss the role of media in keeping those victimized from moving on with their lives and forcing them to relive their victimization for the sake of ratings.

Do I even have to mention why we know who Elizabeth Smart is? If you actually don't know her story, well there's a million articles about her on the Internet. At any rate, while Elizabeth Smart is still an advocate for missing children and apparently works with ABC news, but that doesn't mean she's allowing those same media hounds she works for abuse her. Now don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of her politics or anyone who pushes for poorly crafted laws (and NAMED laws are a pet peeve of mine), and her daddy, Ed Smart, works way too closely with the controversial Mark Lunsford. But I have to admit there are times I respect her. Like that time she owned media whore Nancy Disgrace on her own show:

Anyone who puts Nancy in her place wins points in my book. I still don't like many of the things she advocated but she made Disgrace look, well, disGRACEful. This hasn't stopped the media from reminding both Miss Smart and the rest of us she's a "Former Kidnapping Victim for the 1,835,799,225,456th time. It was a decade ago, the man responsible was tried and convicted and will never be free again, and this woman moved on with her life for the most part. It doesn't help to see every article about her start off like this:

It is the media who can't seem to let go. Is it fair for Elizabeth Smart to have her wedding plans changed because of the media frenzy for "Former kidnap victim Elizabeth Smart"? I think not. A large number of comments must've exploded the Reuters article since it keeps showing me error screens, but here are a few comments I copied:

How about they quit referring to her as the Former Kidnap Victim? We all know what happened, just call her by her name. Glad to hear she's getting everything back to normal, wish her the best


How about, "Elizabeth Smart marries in Hawaii"?


That's pathetic media leave this poor girl alone. She can't have a private moment she's trying to move on from what happened to her. She doesn't need the media constantly reminding her of it.


The whole world knows about Elizabeth Smart's kidnapping years ago. This article is suppose to be her WEDDING DAY! WHY does this person reporting the WEDDING open this article with: "Elizabeth Smart, who was kidnap at age 14 from her Utah home and held for what she described as (nine months of hell)" and start the article like this: ELIZABETH SMART EXCHANGED VOWS ON SATURDAY..........Just write the WEDDING CELEBRATION without any mention of her kidnapping. Poor lady. When are they going to leave her kidnapping part of her life and concentrate on the present. I suppose, when she'll have her first baby and announce of it's coming into the world, they'll start the article with her kidnapping again. MEDIA/REPORTERS, leave that episode of her life when writing about her!!! Don't keep reminding her of the KIDNAPPING!!!!


Shameful news coverage Reuters and Yahoo. Respect her privacy. "...media attention that was growing "increasingly invasive"


The media should just call her Elizabeth Smart, her name, rather than introducing her as the girl who was kidnaped and raped, Elizabeth Smart. Reminding her about what happened every time there is news about her is probably not the best feeling in the world.


She changed her wedding plans to avoid a media frenzy and STILL these a**holes hound her every move. Let her be already.

Occupy Extremist Feminism (Feminazism)

In my previous article, I released an article slamming both the Boston Globe and a group of extremist Feminists called the "Occupy Boston Women's Caucus" for targeting folks who have served their sentences. So now they have posted their proposal to the Occupy Boston assembly online. Lets look at it, shall we?

OB Proposal on Sa...

Occupy Boston had an encampment, and issues of sexual misconduct were present, including the presence of persons with a reported history of serious sexual crimes. Though we are no longer encamped, these concerns remain. Our intent with this proposal is to protect our community and not to vilify individuals.

Sexual Assault Awareness Proposal

1.         If an Occupy Boston activist finds that another Occupy Boston activist is a Level 3 Sex Offender they are encouraged to inform the Sexual Assault Awareness (SAA) working group with documentation from the Sexual Offender Registry Board.

2.        SAA would then ask the individual to voluntarily leave the movement for one week. They will announce that they will return to GA within a one week period and research any publicly available details of the individual in question in the intervening time.

3.        SAA will present their results at the previously announced time and ask the GA whether or not the individual in question should be allowed to stay. The question will be put to a modified proposal process, where SAA will answer questions, take points of information, hear supports and concerns from any parties (including the individual in question), and then ask the GA for a direct vote.

If 75% of the GA votes to allow the individual to stay, they can remain a member of Occupy Boston. If not, they will no longer be considered a community member. If necessary, SAA will contact the accused and relay the results of the vote.

5.        Should the offender be asked by the GA to leave and choose not to voluntarily leave, or later shows up at any public Occupy Boston events, an announcement will be made at the next General Assembly by SAA making the community aware of this.

6.  This proposal, like all proposals, is a living document and can be added to, subtracted from or amended at any time with subsequent proposals.

[a]Anonymous:

My question is where did this SAA group come from? Who is spearheading it? This is nicole btw, I would love to participate in it- but I have never heard of it before which sends up alarms for me.

---

SarahBarneyDesigns:

We have to start it.  I will participate and I will make outreach calls and

emails to the groups needed to make this work.  We have two weeks,

according to the prop, to get it started.  This came from two people's

amendments and I think this will work better than depending on various

working groups already established.

S

[b]SarahBarneyDesigns:

I just sent the proposal to our legal team email (as listed on the wiki) and asked for any feedback and specifically about being left open for discriminatory lawsuits.  The flip side to that is that this is questioning if a level 3 is violating their probation to start with by participating in community events with children present.  I've been trying to research what the boundaries of that are but haven't been too successful.  I also asked legal for help in that.  One specific person I know is level 3 lived at Dewey Square and actively participated in demonstrations when school groups visited.  I believe this is a gross probation violation.

I also agree with sticking with primary resources, but I think having backup from independent groups (i.e., non-government possibly victim advocate groups?) is also a good idea.

Gunner, I'm leaning towards not addresses that in the proposal.  I don't know how I feel about it and I think that addressing just the physical aspect is a good start.  If anyone would like to make an amendment and present it later in addition, I'm fine with that.  I'm just not comfortable speaking on a specific standpoint when I'm not sure my feelings on it.

[c]gunnerscott:

what about participating via online? Could be the alternative to in person participation?

[d]dcheeno:

OK, I have a few different comments.  I'm not sure where's the best place to put them, so I decided that this "comment stream" would work.

First, I think that this proposal does a great job of addressing the concerns that many of us share, and I'm glad that this is being done.

I think that it would be best to stick to "primary sources," if that makes sense.  So rather than using the massresources.org site or the sexcriminaldefense.com site, it may be best to use the definitions for a Level 3 sex offender as directly provided by MA laws: http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleII/Chapter6/Section178K

Another concern that I have is a bit more difficult to address.  By relying on the definitions of a level 3 sex offender and by using the fact that at least one member of OB is a sex offender based on her registry entry, would we be in violation of the sentence that is plastered on every registry entry: "Information shall not be used to commit a crime or to engage in illegal discrimination or harassments of an offender?"  By relying on the registry entry as our primary way of singling out this individual, does this proposal cross the line of "discrimination" if we shun registered sex offenders?  Again, I agree that this proposal, or something like it, is necessary to protect our community, but I also want to make sure that we don't somehow end up opening ourselves up to a civil rights lawsuit by doing this.  Perhaps we should have a discussion with the Legal WG before this proposal is presented?

Finally, just logistically: Is Safety still an active WG?  I ask this because I honestly don't know--I've seen plenty of Safety folks around, but I'm not sure if they're still organized as a WG.

The very first sentence is already confusing enough to the average reader. The article states "issues of sexual misconduct were present, including the presence of persons with a reported history of serious sexual crimes", which obviously implies correlation between the two. That is obviously NOT true. The Occupiers were only made aware of the presence of a so-called "Tier 3" sex offender after the Boston Herald rag slammed the Boston Globe for featuring a registrant in a story about love found at the Occupy movement (already covered in my last article). But because the Extremist Feminists have infiltrated the Occupy movement, this became a point of contention for these extremists.

In a nutshell, this is what they proposed--If they found out you're a registrant, you'll be booted out for a week so people who freely admit they don't have much knowledge on such things will prod your personal life, then make a decision on your worthiness based upon your label alone. This is what discrimination looks like! Thankfully the proposal was blocked, which pissed the Feminazis off so much they left.

At least one comment on the proposal recognized the registry's disclaimer that states the info CANNOT BE USED TO HARASS A REGISTRANT. What they proposed obviously violates that rule.

So now they have a Care2 Petition up where they are complaining while distorting the facts even more. I can't imagine why they would bother at this point:

Issues of sexual misconduct have been present in Occupy Boston, including sexual assault of Occupy Boston members and the presence of persons with a documented history of serious sexual crimes. Individuals active in the Occupy Boston community attempted to address some of these concerns with the Sexual Assault Awareness proposal, which, after four, long contentious General Assemblies, was blocked without reaching a vote.

This block was a culmination of actions and events at Occupy Boston that have made women in particular and marginalized groups in general feel progressively less and less welcome. We the undersigned, while supporting the stated goals of Occupy Boston and the larger Occupy movement, strongly condemn the actions of Occupy Boston's General Assembly (GA) on Sunday, January 8 2012 and ask that Occupy Boston take immediate steps to address those actions and prevent further damage to our community.

Here we go, the "If you don't cave in to our demands you're a woman hater" argument. The irony is that registrants already feel marginalized and less and less welcome thanks in large part to this women's caucus.

Without going into detail (which you can read in full if you want by clicking the link) they accuse Paul Shannon of RSOL of hijacking the GA, even calling him a "rape apologist" in the process (no doubt after reading vigilante blogs as a cheap substitute for actual research). Ironically, Occupiers have been up in arms over having their personal info published, yet they targeted Shannon and referred to him in a negative fashion. Those who walked out consider themselves to be the backbone of the local movement. To me, it sounds like the quote from Animal farm where some people are more equal than others. As with many hypersensitive people, they feel their voices were not being heard enough. TRANSLATION-- they were not allowed to dominate the meeting.

Well let's look at the GA "minutes" for that day in question. Lets see what Paul Shannon did that was so offensive.

1919: Paul Shannon stands up to block. He is concerned about the path that this type of decision takes us. His understanding (says he is not an expert) is that level 3 choosing process is illegitimate, that many level 3s are not actually a threat. Also concerned that proposal only addresses classification, not behavior. We’re saying that the US CJ system is messed up, but not on this. It’s messed up here, too. Human Rights Watch and other groups have shown that offender registries do not keep people safe. Main objection is that this approach is the opposite of what OB is about.

Oh My God! Paul Shannon had the audacity to give people THE TRUTH. I know, who wants to hear the truth huh? So the Women's Caucus complained that Shannon violated some rule about autonomy, as if being an activist is the same as running some huge special interest like say, a Women's Caucus with an extremist agenda. That's more like the pot calling the Kettle black. I'm curious if I would be considered a "profession activist" had I been there because I damned sure would have raised the exact same questions. Now, I haven't exactly been a supporter of RSOL over the years and we really don't see eye to eye on a lot of things, but for once I'm in agreement with Paul Shannon.

Feminism, as with any ISM, does not support equality. Many complain of stuff like rape culture and patriarchy, but much of society favors women, ESPECIALLY the "Justice System."

1. Women have the advantage in the courts-- battered woman's syndrome, rape shield laws, defenses based upon hormonal changes from pregnancy/menopause/PMS/etc., advantages in custody battles
2. There is a double standard in sentencing guidelines, mainly based upon gender views (women seen as having psychological issues/ unmet emotional needs, where all men are seen as predatory)
3. Acts of misandry are seen as entertainment or condoned, as in the recent case of the woman who cut her husband's penis off and threw it in a garbage disposal; after all, the man MUST'VE done something to deserve this, huh? If someone cut off a woman's breast, would anyone find that funny?

Again, no ISM has ever brought equality. If we must "Occupy" anything at all, we should be begin with knowledge. Occupy your mind with the facts. Blind hatred as propagated by extreme feminists have destroyed innocent lives, from the McMartin trial to the 9 year old child on the registry. Truth and Equality are not ISMs.

Feminists blaming the victim and engaging in victim bashing? No, it must be my imagination.

what they really mean--You cannot Occupy Wall Street unless you emasculate yourself.

Occupy this, Boston Globe!

Question: If you vote against allowing certain disenfranchised members of society, like RSOs, from being part of the Occupy Movement, what word describes that action? Answer: Hypocrisy.

The media has been romanticized far too much in our society-- the ethical journalist that stops at nothing to get to the facts, telling society the truth instead of what we want to hear. We all know that's bullshit, thanks in large part to the efforts of Faux News and the Howling Ladies Network. With traditional paper-print news media becoming a thing of the past, the few that remain are becoming no different than their TV counterparts.

It all began with a simple feed-good story-- two young lovers who met at Occupy Boston. Aw, how adorable, right? That was, until the gossip-rag posing as a real newspaper The Boston Herald decided to dig up dirt on the featured Occupy couple. It was a gossip-hound's dream--the man in the article was on the public registry and was homeless, the likely result of being on the registry. The Herald took it a step further, contacting the girlfriend and the reporter, who stated it was not an issue, but then took it to a supervisor. The Herald than states:

Jennifer Peter, the Globe’s deputy managing editor for local news, said the paper wouldn’t have run the piece if they’d known Stitham was a sex offender. “We were unaware of his status and would have opted not to do the story had we known,” Peter said in an email last night.

The Poynter Institute Blog (in Florida of all places) wrote another piece on the Globe article, and Craig Silverman does make an interesting point:

So it seems that what the Globe is saying is that, given Stitham’s history, it wouldn’t have written a love story about this couple. Knowing the criminal history ahead of time would have killed the romantic story, but could have led to another narrative. 

So let me get this straight, a person is not allowed to be in love because he is on the list? I guess I should add falling in love to the list I created that registrants are not allowed to do, in addition to the new proposals that keep Registrants from participating in rehab programs funded by federal grants or to lose the benefit of tax breaks for those few people hiring them in Florida. Thank you, Boston Herald!

Of course, it is not enough for the Boston media to drag some poor guy through the mire, the Occupy Boston movement is dividing over whether or not to allow Tier 3 sex offenders to be a part of the movement. It is disappointing to see a movement so fragmented over the disenfranchisement and a system funded by political corruption, but unfortunately there is also a strong extreme feminist (aka Feminazi) presence in the Occupy Movement, and quite frankly, it is alienating many men. Below are comments from women in an Occupy Boston GA as told by the Boston Phoenix:

So on December 27, an Occupier named Sarah Barney brought a proposal to the GA to ban sex offenders. Her proposal generally states that if a member of Occupy Boston is found to be a level-three sex offender (a person convicted of a sexual crime whom the court deems to be at especially high risk for reoffending), the Safety working group would ask them to leave for one week, during which time the GA would vote on whether the accused should be asked to leave Occupy Boston permanently. For Barney, a mother who often brought her five-year-old son to Occupy Boston, the issue was larger than the mutual-aid proposal. "It stemmed from one specific incident, finding out that someone who lived at Dewey Square had gone to jail for nine years for two counts of sexual assault and rape of children under the age of 16," said Barney. Some of people at the GA were opposed to restricting anyone from Occupy Boston based on the state's sex-offender standards. Even Barney said she can agree with these concerns, to an extent. "I do understand where they're coming from," she said. "I don't think the American justice system or the police departments work effectively, and a lot of people get through the cracks. If you're a certain race or economic status, you get away with a lot more. That's one of the reasons I'm at Occupy Boston." That's why Barney limited the proposal to level-three sex offenders. "It's pretty hard to be labeled 'level three' unless you've gone someplace pretty dark, pretty violent, pretty bad," she said.... 

Whether or not Shannon had disclosed his affiliation, Occupy Boston's system of direct democracy means that even a person who had rarely attended Occupy events in the past could come to an assembly and "kidnap it," as Women's Caucus member Ren Jender described it to me the next evening.... "A lot of us have been surprised that for a progressive community, how in line [Occupy Boston] is with the mainstream as far as not taking women seriously, tolerating harassment of women, both verbal and physical," said Jender, who was among the walk-outs. "This is something that has been brewing for a while. . . . Things really are not changing. Once one problem is gone . . . another one appears."

"As it went on, it became really painfully obvious how broken things are and how far we have to go to repair them," Women's Caucus member Ariadne Ross said the next morning. "By the end of the night I was feeling worse than when we started." "The community doesn't have a good way for dealing, through the process, with blocks of that nature," said Ross. "Is it really consensus if eight or nine people can thwart what seemed like the strong will of the whole of Occupy Boston? No, I don't think so. "[It's] the culture of misogyny that prevails in our society at large," she added. "Like it or not, we're a microcosm of that society."

The Feminists are alienating disenfranchised men in general but the propaganda is acidic to say the least. I hate to see this happen but the movement is in too much trouble now to alienate even more members. The bottom line--this event should never have happened. Boy meets girl, they get married, cute story, end of story. Instead we have a shameful even that creates a black cloud over an entire movement.

Below is the Women's Caucus "Womyn's Statement":

The following statement was read by members of the Occupy Boston Women’s Caucus during the General Assembly on Saturday, November 18:

We, the women of Occupy Boston, are here to tell you that two months is far too long to have occupied without a feminist perspective.

Downwardly-mobile middle-class white men are finally realizing what women and people of color have known for too long. Capitalism is destructive. Capitalism oppresses and exploits. If you’re not talking about sexism and racism, you’re not talking about economic justice.

“A few bad apples” can’t exist without a community that condones their attitudes and behaviors. Oppressive language and behavior are an effort to limit our participation and silence our voice.

We chose to disrupt the GA because those with privilege have avoided spaces devoted to anti-oppression, when they are the ones who most need to hear this.

As the 99%, we must actively break down the systems which divide us.

Women have historically been the spine of social justice. We are the 52%, without us, revolution is impossible.

Well, all I can say is they should look at their fellow Occupiers in Portland, OR, that other town with a large liberal crowd on the other side of the country, and learn from them. Says a woman in Portland:

"It doesn't concern me, ‘cause I lived in Southeast Portland where there's one in every corner and every house anyways," Julianne Dunn says. "You never know when you could be attacked wherever you're at. So you have to be aware of your surroundings."

Meh, big deal she says. My fingers are raised and waving in approval. One more for good measure:

"He's registering as the law requires and he's paid his debt to society," said mother Jennifer Alexander, who stopped by the camp with her family on Monday. "There are plenty of registered sex offenders all over these surrounding blocks. It's not a new thing for this area or Portland." 

Live and learn. Portland gets it. Boston doesn't.

THE BOSTON HALL OF SHAME

The Boston Globe, for adding the disclaimer

Boston Herald: Only a step up from the Boston Strangler. This is the best thing you can to a copy of the Boston Herald. Well, besides bird cage liner or toilet tissue.

Jessica Heslam: I don't know which is more yellow-- her hair or her journalism

All this "Womyn" business is dividing the movement. And the 52% bit? I thought this was Boston, NOT South Park.

Way to represent the Women's Caucus, Ren Jenders. I always thought it was Stimpy that was the idiot.

Womyn: "We are the 52%!" Well, since there are only 48% of us who are men, someone either has to double up on the guys or get left out in the cold. These must have been the latter.

Extreme Feminism, aka "Feminazis": Because there is nothing Equal about "Isms"