"Justice For All" -- The 5th Annual RSOL Conference is almost here

Hello fellow readers and friends,

The 5th annual Reform Sex Offender Laws is upon us, and I'm proud to announce I will be giving a presentation on Sex Offender Myths. As much as I hate asking for donations, the conference is in Los Angeles and a little more expensive than Albuquerque, so I am asking for my readers to send in a few bucks of you can spare to help offset the costs of attending.

If you wish to donate, my Paypal address is derek_logue@hotmail.com or iamthefallen1@yahoo.com (you can also use the button on the left)

Or, you can send money in the mail to:

Derek Logue
2559 Eden Ave #14
Cincinnati, OH 45219

If you would like to attend the RSOL Conference, you can learn more info by going to the official RSOL Conference site @ http://rsolconference.org/

I am sure some readers are curious for an update to my documentary on the Port Angeles murders, which I had hoped would be finished by the time of the conference. Well, unfortunately I hit a few snags in collecting some relevant info, plus conversing with the killer -- yes I have received correspondence from Patrick Drum and am trying to set up some way of getting him in the film, but the Washington DoC refuses to allow us to film the event. Plus, I am still in need of a Forensic Psychologist to give an expert opinion of Drum. His letters  are... disturbing, to say the least. And, in light of the "I Killed My BFF" documentary, I wanted to get his response to it.

As it gets closer to the conference, I'll write about my experiences at last year's conference.

Supreme Traitors! The current SCOTUS lineup and the growing Police State

The US Supreme Court (or, if you prefer the newer acronym SCOTUS, though it sounds like genitalia) have made a few recent decisions that should scare anyone concerned over the growing police state.

Arizona v. US, 567 U.S. ___ (2012)

The Immigration law decision allows police to verify the status of an immigrant if there is "reasonable suspicion" the person is in the country illegally. Reasonable suspicion sounds rather self-explanatory-- it simply means a standard by which a person could "reasonably" suspect the individual may be involved in or have committed a crime. 

Majority -- Roberts, Sotomayor, Breyer, Ginsberg, Kennedy
Dissented -- Scalia, Thomas, Alito
Kagan did not vote

Salinas v. Texas, Docket # 12-246

Holding: When petitioner had not yet been placed in custody or received Miranda warnings, and voluntarily responded to some questions by police about a murder, the prosecution’s use of his silence in response to another question as evidence of his guilty at trial did not violate the Fifth Amendment because petitioner failed to expressly invoke his privilege not to incriminate himself in response to the officer’s question.

Majority: Roberts, Kennedy, Scalia, Thomas, Alito
Dissent: Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor,  Kagan.

United States v. Kebodeaux, Docket # 12-418

Justice Breyer wrote for the Court, joined by Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan.  The Court’s opinion turns on the fact that even after his release from custody, Kebodeaux was still subject to sex offender registration requirements under the federal Wetterling Act.  Consequently, SORNA merely modified registration requirements that applied to him.  Under Article I, Section 8, Clause 14 (the “Military Regulation” Clause), Congress has the power to “make Rules for the … Regulation of the land and naval Forces.”  Applying the Necessary and Proper Clause to the Military Regulation Clause, the Court held that SORNA made reasonable changes to the existing statutory regime governing sex offender registration.  

The Chief Justice concurred in the judgment, emphasizing that the Court’s holding is not based on any recognition of a “federal police power,” but is instead based on Congress’s power to make rules for the regulation of the Armed Forces. Justice Alito wrote a similar concurrence. Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas each wrote separate dissents.  Justice Scalia would have found that SORNA was not designed to carry the Wetterling Act into execution, and questioned whether the Wetterling Act’s registration requirement was itself a valid exercise of federal power.  Justice Thomas would have held that SORNA “usurps the general police power vested in the States” and is therefore unconstitutional as-applied to Kebodeaux.

Majority: Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor,  Kagan.
Dissent:  Scalia, Alito

Taken together, these cases show a scary pattern of SCOTUS shifting the power to our military-style police force. We are effectively undoing the constitutional advancements of the Civil Rights Era. We could call this the "Police Rights Era." The burden has shifted on the People to know your rights. That's easy. Under the current court scheme, you don't have rights!

That song by the Clash is fitting.

Sex Offender Compliance Checks (Oink Oink! Pigs are here!)

Today, the Hamilton County OH Sheriff's office released the results of a four-day long compliance check of those being forced to register on the public registry. According to one of my local news stations, 72 of 1350 were found non-compliant.

The task force checked on 1,114 addresses of the 1,350 registered sex offenders in the county and here are the results:
     
       720 lived where they said they did;
         72 were out of compliance;
         50 warrants were signed;
         20 warrants are pending;
       237 notices were left on doors where offenders registered;
         19 are homeless;
         66 require additional investigation.

I have been free for just over a decade now, and while this is not my first compliance verification, this is the first time I have had to deal with the US Marshals. It was a very unnerving experience. Imagine you are just finishing fixing dinner and you hear a loud bang on the door. Not a nice little knock, but the kind of knock that sends wall hangings tumbling to the floor and give heart attacks to easily startled individuals. Then you open the door and see this sight:

Just like these pricks, only half as many

The two "officers" at my door never really bothered to identify themselves, but the first thing that came out of their mouths was "May I come in?" My response: "Hell no! No warrant, no entry." They then demanded I step outside. I said, "Hell No!" I made it crystal clear to them I did not appreciate them coming to my door in the manner in which they arrived. The US Marshal fed me a line of BS about how he can't verify my address by simply seeing me open my own door. The Marshal claimed I could have just been "visiting." I guess Ohioans make it a point to visit friends while wearing sleep clothes and house slippers. I signed their stupid form and the Marshal (the Mutt in this Mutt and Jeff duo) said he'll "be back next week." I told him he can come every day of the week and still not get in my house without a warrant.

But these cops were not done. As I stepped outside my apartment, I noticed the two thugs in blue sitting outside my apartment watching me. I took down their car tags and the stepped out and approached me. I'm still in my night clothes, but what the hey, they feel that is appropriate attire for a night on the town. I gave them a piece of my mind. (You can catch the latter part of our "discussion" by CLICKING HERE; it is on my old ReFORM Radio page if the other link doesn't work).

I stood my ground and upheld my rights. Am I hiding anything? No. However, you have the right to say NO to a cop. If a person is not on probation or parole, and the police do not have a search warrant, then they have no right to enter your home.

In this video of a compliance check in Wayne Co. OH, notice the police ask the man if they can enter his house and "see' his "bedroom" to verify his residence. They have no need to go inside to "verify" your residence. Did you notice they asked the man if they can come inside? That is because they don't have the authority to come inside UNLESS YOU GIVE THEM that authority. You have a constitutional right to refuse. You see, once they are inside, they can search your house. If you have a computer, they want to see it. Now they are looking for any way to lock you up. That is how people get arrested in "compliance checks."

I had already created a page on my main website about this issue. In addition, there is free software allowing you to encrypt your entire computer and surf the web anonymously, tested and approved by fellow activists.
Remember these important steps and follow them in any compliance check.

• DO NOT sign anything, ever, at your door! No matter how "innocent" it seems. Politely refuse, unless you can speak to your lawyer first. (NOTE: If you do not have an attorney, be sure to read anything you sign if you feel compelled to do so. Standing up to a cop is scary, indeed, but they know you have to give up your rights willingly in order for them to proceed)
• DO NOT answer any questions beyond confirming that you are you, and required registration info. Anything else could be used (or twisted) to incriminate you.
• DO invoke the 5th amendment if necessary. But be prepared to be peppered with more questions (What are you hiding? Eh?), and reply only that you want your lawyer present first.
• DO NOT let anyone into your home without a warrant, unless you are still "on paper" (i.e., probation/ parole) and it is required. "Uncle LEO" has no right whatsoever to enter a person's home without a warrant, UNLESS you give them permission to enter. Don't fall for the old "can we come inside to confirm you live there" trick. Once inside they are looking for any reason to lock you up. Depending on the state, having toys or other items they consider "paraphernalia" may subject you to arrest or investigation.
• DO NOT leave your home while LE is still at your door. You have strong protections in your home, but practically none once you are out on the street.
• If you have easy access to a camera (cell phone in pocket), take a picture of the group on your porch, or better yet record the whole thing. Many cell phones have a "record" feature for you to talk into. Turn it on and keep it aimed at everyone speaking. The last one is highly important, in my opinion. HOWEVER, it may It may be illegal depending on the circumstances and where you live. For more info on police recording laws for your individual state you can visit the following website: http://www.rcfp.org/taping/index.html

In regards to videotaping police, the U.S. Supreme Court has refused to review a federal appeals court decision finding it unconstitutional to enforce an Illinois state law that makes it a felony to videotape police officers working in public if a microphone is turned on. The case in the US Appeals Court decision is ACLU of Illinois v. Alvarez, 679 F. 3d 583. (7th Cir. 2012).

More general tips at my main website HERE.

If we truly want equality, then REGISTER Kaitlyn Hunt, not 'free" her

Kaitlyn Hunt's Mugshot

“The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly.” -- Abraham Lincoln

I have been thinking about this subject all weekend, and I am going to say something rather controversial and spoken from a completely selfish prospective.

I say prosecute Kaitlyn Hunt to the fullest extent of the law. Sentence her to prison time, then add her cute, white, blonde face to America's sex offender registry. Sacrifice one of our exalted pretty white girls to the false idol of the sex offender registry.

Let Kaitlyn Hunt live the life I have had to live for over a decade. Have a dozen US Marshals bang on her door at dinner time in their SWAT attire just to have her sign a piece of paper stating she lives at her residence. Kick her out of one home by proclaiming it is one yard too close to a place where children congregate. Deny her housing and employment, forcing her to live off the good of charities and the government. Bye bye nursing job dreams, Kate! Notify the neighbors. Send fliers in the mail, or go door-to-door. Plaster her in a mugshot magazine. Create an anti-Kate webpage and harass her. After all, this is an "equality" issue, right?

Lets get something straight here. I would not wish life on "The List" on anyone. Do I really want Kaitlyn Hunt on the registry, suffering as I have suffered? Not really. HOWEVER, maybe that is what it will take to get people to realize the horrors of the public registry.

All these "Free Kate" sycophants weren't around when thousands of teens and barely-18 adults were being added to the Megan's fLaw Registry all across the USA. They weren't around to protest when a nine-year-old kid was added to Delaware's sex offender registry.

Yet, the homosexual activists have claimed this case as their own. "Stop the Hate, Free Kate," they say. The media will likely pressure the DA to get Kate off. Quite frankly, I don't think the prosecutor will go through with it. But the pro-gay movement is barking up the wrong tree. Kate is an anomaly. There are thousands of heterosexuals on the list for consensual sex, but you don't hear the gay activists mention that fact.

In 1692, we killed 19 people in Salem after accusing them of "witchcraft." The infamous Salem Witch Trials were only stopped after the daughter of the Governor of Massachusetts was accused of witchcraft. It seems the rich only care when it is one of their own facing the accusations. What will it take to end the modern Witch Hunt called the public sex offender registry? This could be the case.

Anyone else see the irony in this statement?

A series of rare but high-profile sex crime and missing person cases, most notably involving young, cute,
preferably blonde females (hence the term "Missing White Girl" syndrome) has been the catalyst for America's obsession with sex offender laws. For years, laws have passed without one iota of thought to the consequences. Now, one of America's exalted children is facing the very laws designed to exalt her. Florida's "Romeo and Juliet" statute is woefully inadequate and does not cover this case. The moral panic caused by the sex offender registry has led to the ever-expanding list requiring more names and faces.

Kaitlyn Hunt has become collateral damage in the "War on Sex Offenders."

The only solution to end this war is to end the public registry. Simply reforming the registry is not enough. It would only take one "R&J" offender committing a subsequent sex crime in life to undo any mere reforms of the registry. Abolishing the registry is the only way to ensure there will be no more Kates. Think this is a "gay rights" issue? Think again.

It is not about homosexual rights.

Here is an article that breaks down the Kaitlyn Hunt case apart from the things told to us by the parents:

http://supporthonesty.net/

The Kaitlyn Hunt saga is not just about gays, it is about the sex offender registry

Over the weekend, the Internet has been abuzz last the story of Kaitlyn Hunt, an 18-year-old Florida girl arrested and charged with “felony lewd and lascivious battery on a child between 12 and 16” for having a consensual relationship with a girl three years younger than her. So far, the news media has made it a point to stress this girl’s sexuality. However, this tragic story is not about discrimination against gays, but our growing obsession with Predator Panic.

[CLICK HERE for one of the many articles on the Kaitlyn Hunt case]

Across the USA, children as young as age 9 found themselves listed on public sex offender registries. Behavior that may have been seen as nuisance behavior is now criminalized by an ever-growing industry whose sole mission is to place as many people on a public registry as possible. The sex offender registry was originally intended to be a private list for law-enforcement, with only those proven to be a high risk of re-offense listed in the event of a rare stranger abduction. Today, the registry has over 700,000 names, including thousands of kids under the age of 18 who have engaged in consensual relations with each other or sexting. 

The state of Florida does indeed have what is called a “Romeo and Juliet” provision, which allows individuals convicted of certain sex crimes, consensual sexual contact between minors and someone less than four years of age older or younger, granted the “victim” is at least 13 years old. If, by some chance, this girl is convicted, she would qualify for the Romeo and Juliet provision. However, the law is written in such a way that Kate would have to actively petition the court to be removed from the registry.

[CLICK HERE to review Florida's Romeo and Juliet Law]

We have proven that having a publicly accessible registry does nothing beneficial to society. This girl is charged with “sexual battery” for an obvious mutual sexual relationship. To use that term implies sexual violence. The registry does not differentiate between a case like this and somebody who has committed a real sexual offense. Florida is one of the worst states for the treatment of those on the registry, putting signs in yards, forcing registrants to live under bridges, and allowing a number of violent vigilante groups to exist. 

This case is only one of many across country. No doubt it is somewhat unique because of the angle, but we have kids as young as 10 years old on the public registry in Texas. Over the years, there've been a number of high profile cases, from the 12-year-olds convicted in Utah of having consensual relations with one another to Ricky's story, which brought the issue of criminalizing teen sex to national prominence.

It is sad that after all these years there are still a number of people supporting the notion of adding kids to a registry. Even sites devoted to support for Kate have been attacked by trolls demanding she except her punishment.

[CLICK HERE to see more criminalized teen sex stories]

To me, there is only one common sense solution that will prevent cases like this from occurring in the future. We must abolish the public aspect of the sex offender registry. I hope that this is the case that becomes the proverbial straw breaking the back of the camel. 

Repeal or reform: Should the registry exist in any form?

Over the years, there has been a rather large divide within the grassroots campaign to reform sex offender laws, regarding the registry itself. Some people believe that the sex offender registry should merely be reformed to reflect only those registrants deemed a high risk to society, while others, like myself, believe the registry should not exist in any form. Sometimes the argument can be a rather heated, sometimes to the point that activists have left the movement altogether.

I have told my story many times over the years and I have confessed on numerous occasions that joining the grassroots campaign to end the sex offender registry was not my first choice of careers. When I first got out of prison back in 2003, my only goals were to find my own residence and a job, keep a low profile, and not "rock the boat." In two years since my release, I had achieved what I set out to do, and things were starting to look up. In 2005, all that changed – I was targeted by local politicians who believed the city of Cincinnati was becoming a sex offender Mecca. The city reclassified individuals from out-of-state as sexual predators. With my reclassification team a civil suit to force me out of a residence that was pre-approved by the Sheriff's office. That was when I decided to fight back.

I got my start in 2004 on my now-defunct website called "sex criminals," a site that debated the need for sex offender laws, and even that long ago, the subject was hotly contested. It was barely a year removed from the US Supreme Court decisions of Smith v. Doe and Doe v. Connecticut Department of Public Safety. In both cases, the registry was upheld. 

It is a bit ironic that my first year of college began in 1994, the same year the Jacob Wetterling Act created the first national sex offender registry in existence. The Wetterling Act created a private registry for law-enforcement officials and a select number of other individuals to access in the event of a missing child. While the concept of a sex offender registry dates back to the 1930s, the modern era of predator panic coupled with the containment model of justice helped morph and expand the sex offender registry to its current monstrocity.

In 1996, just two years after the Wetterling Act, Megan's Law made the registry public. As the result of one high-profile case, the registry has been expanded. Over the years, this scenario has written repeated time and time again. Whereas the Wetterling Act was limited to those deemed high-risk, such as repeat or extremely violent offenders, the public registry has expanded to include a number of minor or nuisance offenders, such as people who urinate in public, teens who have had consensual relations with one another or have sent naked pictures of themselves to others, and in some cases, people who have not even committed sex crimes. With the passage of the Adam Walsh Act in 2006, legislators ensured that even more people would be ensnared in lifelong registration schemes.

The registry has expanded many times over the years, and often is justified by a number of myths and a few rare but tragic high-profile cases. Currently, Massachusetts and Oregon, two states that if only previously listed high-level offenders on their public registries, are considering expanding the public registry. This news story from Massachusetts is typical of the mentality to ever expand the registry:

"State lawmakers from both political parties are lining up behind bills to allow limited public access to information on Level 1 sex offenders and give the state Sex Offender Registry Board new power to update risk levels assigned to such convicts. The proposed changes are driven by the case of John Burbine, a Wakefield man and Level 1 sex offender who was charged late last year with sexually abusing more than a dozen children at his wife’s unlicensed day care business."

The situation in Massachusetts serves as a reminder that it only takes one bad apple to spoil the bunch. If we merely reform the registry rather than repeal it, then we're only one high profile case away from a return to the full-scale registry. In recent memory, we have witnessed the same pattern with other laws, such as gun control. After a rash of school shootings such as Littleton or Columbine in the 1990s, a number of restrictions severely limiting gun rights were passed. As the years passed, these laws fell out of favor, but in the wake of more recent shootings such as Sandy Hook and the "Batman movie" shooting in Colorado, there is a renewed push for further restrictions.

In Oregon, the public registry is being expanded while at the same time providing an opportunity for high-risk offenders to come off the registry sooner. On the surface, it sounds like a feasible option:


"It's a bill that would add about 400 sex offenders to the 800 currently listed on Oregon's public website. That's out of the 18,000 sex offenders required to register with the state...The crimes include first-degree rape, sodomy, sex abuse, sexual penetration, child pornography, encouraging child sex abuse, compelling prostitution and kidnapping.  If House Bill 2549 passes, the offenders convicted of those crimes can ask to be taken off the state's registry within as few as five years after they're done with probation or parole."

Personally, I feel as if the Oregon bill should pass without expanding the registry whatsoever. Some people may ask, "What is a mere 400 people if it benefits all registrants in the long run?" If you are one of the 400 people that the law potentially impacts, then you already know the answer. Social ostracism, denial of housing and employment, and vigilante violence are all directly linked to public disclosure on a sex offender registry.

Since sex offender registries are expanded by rare high-profile tragic cases, the what is to stop us from contracting the registry as a result of high profile vigilante crimes, such as the double murder in Port Angeles, Washington of two guys on the sex offender registry? Where is "Gary's Law?"

It is often said a picture is worth 1000 words. Perhaps the following better illustrates my point better than any of my words could. Allowing the sex offender registry to exist has led to the monster it has become today.allowing the sex offender registry has led to this:

Wapello, Iowa

And this:

Bradford County, FL

And this:

Portland, OR

And this:

And this:

Pennsylvania

And this:

Louisiana

And this:

Alabama

And this:

Julia Tuttle Causeway sex offender camp: Miami, FL 2009

And this:

Port Angeles, WA

Get the picture?

A few activists have tried justifying simple reform over repeal by looking at the few who re-offend. It is an established fact that sex offenders have an extremely low rate of re-offense. One thing the reformists tend to forget it is we are a long way from perfecting the art of determining who is a high risk and who is not. Even the most up-to-date, state-of-the-art actuarial risk assessment tests can predict who is going to re-offend about as accurately as a coin flip. In Massachusetts, the push to expand the public registry is the result of a Tier 1/ Low Risk registrant committing a series of crimes. Ultimately, trying to argue which registrants deserve to be on a public list is about like asking the individuals who rely on the "if it saves just one child" mantra which child deserves to be saved.

Since 2005, I have been a living example of how an individual can be wrongfully classified. The basis for bumping my tier level up from 1 to 3 was on the basis of coming from a state with lifetime reporting requirements for all registrants, whereas Ohio had a three-tiered risk assessment. In 2008, risk assessment tests were abolished in favor of the Adam Walsh Act, which places people in one of three tiers based upon the offense alone. As a result, the number of individuals on the highest here in Ohio more than doubled.

Because sex offenders are not a homogeneous group, there is no simple way to weed out the chaff from the wheat. There are fixated offenders, and there are situational offenders. There are people who have committed rape or sexual abuse; there are people who have engaged in conduct with a willing but underage participant; there have been people who have flashed others; there have been people caught urinating in a secluded the public area; others who had consensual adult relations in secluded but public areas; there have been teens who have taken pictures of themselves; there have been teens who have had consensual relations with each other; there are individuals placed on the public registry for crimes that were not of a sexual nature. Only a very small portion are clinically diagnosed with pedophilia, and not everybody who is a pedophile commits sexual offenses.

Some people feel we should merely fight to reform rather than repeal because they do not believe the registry will never disappear. I do not believe that argument. The main reason that these laws have passed in the manner they have was mainly because nobody was speaking up against them. In the past few years, the movement to reform sex offender laws has indeed succeeded in raising awareness and slowing down the momentum, and in some cases stopping, the myriad of tough on crime sex offender laws. We have encouraged a growing number of individuals to take a second look at these laws and understand the harm they are causing.

I have lived under the public registry for a decade. I have experienced firsthand the effects of social ostracism, denial of housing and employment, and vigilante violence in my own life. Because I have this label, everything I do is considered suspect. The masses say is part of the punishment, the legislators claim it is not punishment. It certainly feels like punishment. The registry is unconstitutional, unethical, and causes social harm. Allowing it to exist is merely cutting one head from a hydra. Anything less than repealing the registry is not acceptable.

"You wouldn't put an A.A. next to a bar, so why let a sex offender live/ work/ do anything where there are children?"

"You wouldn't put an A.A. next to a bar, so why let a sex offender live/ work/ do anything where there are children?"

You have probably seen this line of thought to justify residency restrictions and other segregation-style laws over the years. The implication of my title suggests that all sex offenders have an illness that is beyond their ability to control. It is an extension of the old "sex offenders cannot be cured" mantra.

This statement is based on a few assumptions. The primary assumption is all people on the list are "uncontrollable pedophiles." There is a clinical definition of pedophilia, which includes a long-term period of sexual attraction to prepubescent girls (usually under age 12). The popular usage is an improper usage, much like when we used to say, "that's bad" when we mean something was good. (I already discussed why there is no such thing as a "convicted pedophile.")

There is a difference between a pedophile and a sex offender. A pedophile can have inclinations but never act on them. By contrast, a sex offender is anyone convicted of any sex crime. While we immediately think "child molester" or "rapist," this category runs the gamut of activity to include even non-sex offenses or offenses marginally sexual at best. We have included teens on the list as young as 10 years old.

Between actual sex offenders, there is a difference between "situational/ regressed" offenders and "fixated/ preferential" offenders. The vast majority of sex offenders are the former type. Situational offenders are less likely to reoffend, not attracted to children, and more likely to respond to treatment. As you can expect, Preferential offenders are more likely to offend, are attracted to children, and are more likely to reoffend.

There is also sexual addiction. You can be a sex addict without being a sex offender or  pedophile. You can be a sex offender without being a sex addict.

The bottom line is the legal term "sex offender" is broad and the term is not mutually exclusive with other terms such as "pedophile" or "sex addict." Committing a solitary sex crime does not necessarily make someone a pedophile or sex addict. That makes comparing a registered citizen to an "alcoholic" comparing apples and oranges.

Alcoholism is a very narrow definition-- addiction to alcoholic beverages. Alcoholism is a persistent condition. You can't be considered an alcoholic by getting drunk one time. However, you can be labeled a sex offender by a one-time event. Sex offender is a legal term, sex addiction and alcoholism are clinical terms. Sex Offenders are a heterogeneous group. Alcoholics are a homogeneous group. Comparing sex offenders to alcoholics is comparing apples and oranges. Sex offenses are not dictated by geography but by relationships. It is indeed a semantic argument, but an important one.

Sex offender laws dictating where a registrant can live, work, or play (and even where to go for counseling) is the result of our faulty assumption that all sex offenders are both "sex addicts" and "pedophiles." While a small number of sex offenders are fixated pedophiles (Montana claims 4% of the prison sex offender population are pedophiles), most on the list are not attracted to children or even addicted to sex.

"You wouldn't put an A.A. next to a bar, so why let a sex offender live/ work/ do anything where there are children?"

It is a rather irrational argument when you think about it. Studies have failed to provide links between geography and sexual offending. Even the comparison to AA at a bar is silly. In an urban area, there are plenty of bars, pony kegs, and beer joints, beer ads are on TV, and grocery stores sell it (unless you are in a "dry" county). So, does AA ever move its services to locations far from civilization? No!

This argument fails miserably because it is based on false assumptions and generalizations. It is time to put this tired argument to rest.

Sheriff Gordon Smith, A Black Eye on the Bradford County, Florida Sheriff's Department

Florida is not my favorite state. It is a cesspool of political/ police corruption and Predator Panic. But the Bradford County Sheriff's Office has taken the cake with its latest publicity stunt. The small-time Sheriff has placed road signs in front of the houses of registrants in hopes of chasing them out of town.

"So far, 18 signs have gone up in cement buried deep into the ground on public property near the homes of offenders settled in and around the town of Starke — causing one so-called sex predator to leave town and two others to consider taking off...Says Smith: “I have no sympathy for them (sexual predators), and if they don’t like their options of the sign, move!”

The trophy photos for the sheriff and the Abu Ghraib guys are eerily similar

Despite all this, Sheriff Gordon Smith claims he will protect those people targeted by those signs from vigilante violence, but I have my doubts.

I'd like to point out he has deleted criticism on his FB page. He simply needs to read some of the internet comments to see why this is a bad idea:

SheriffGordon Smith seems to have some kind of sign fetish. He was recently sued over a rather gaudy 10 Commandments display. I wonder if he really believes Jesus would approve of the Sheriff's signs?

What Sheriff Gordon Smith has done violates the Constitution. In State of Kansas v. Schad, the courts ruled the signs run counter to efforts at rehabilitation:

Similarly, in the present case, the signage conditions exact a very harsh censure against Schad. Although Schad had been convicted of a sexual offense, the imposed signage conditions would work against any rehabilitation while on probation because wherever Schad would be, he would be “branded.” The signage conditions would not be helpful in restoring Schad to the ranks of society’s productive citizens…

Under the facts of this case, the probation conditions requiring Schad to post signs around his house and on his car announcing his sex offender status were not reasonably related to the rehabilitative goal of probation or to the protection of the victim and society. In short, probation is not to shield guilty individuals from the consequences of their crimes, but it is an attempt to reform their attitudes about acting out in a criminal way. Here, the signage conditions made Schad an object of condemnation and ridicule. The signage conditions only confirmed society’s outrage against Schad. The signage conditions were simply a punitive measure not reasonably related to rehabilitation.

Even the Fark website, which is usually filled with pro-sex-offender-law types, has been blasting this publicity stunt:

I have been a long time activist, been studying these issues for well over a decade now, and if there was ever  a constant in my studies it is this --the ones who make the most noise about "sex offenders" tend to have the most to hide. The Bradford County Sheriff's Office has quite a series of embarrassing scandals in their own department. Maybe that's why they need this diversion:


http://www.actionnewsjax.com/content/actionlocal/story/Reserve-Deputy-arrested-for-domestic-battery/qVnTI0e1CkmuNJtySesLPA.cspx

A Bradford County Reserve Deputy is in the Bradford County Jail for getting into a physical argument with his wife. According to the Bradford County Sheriff's Office, Ronald Gassaway's wife told their deputies at a gas station there that she was injured by Gassaway.

http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/2013-02-22/story/former-prison-officer-bradford-most-wanted-list-arrested-puerto-rico

A 49-year-old former corrections officer and one of Bradford County Sheriff’s Office’s most-wanted has been found in Puerto Rico after an email tip led to him, according to authorities.

http://www.wcjb.com/local-news/2011/06/bradford-county-corrections-officer-arrested-attempted-murder

A Bradford county corrections officer is accused of trying to kill a co-worker after investigators said he shot her in the face. 

http://www.gainesville.com/article/20120207/ARTICLES/120209599

A former Bradford County sheriff’s deputy has been arrested on charges of having sex with a teenage girl while he was on duty as a high school resource officer at the girl’s school.

Maybe we should be posting signs in the yards of Bradford County Sheriff's deputies instead. They seem to be the ones we should be worried about.

 One last thing, I find it extremely creepy this harassment is posted right next to a call for the "National Day of Prayer."

False rape culture is part of rape culture, too: Lauren Nelson and her 15 minutes of shame

Lauren the false-rape denier Nelson

A few weeks ago, some random blogger received her 15 minutes of virtual fame by writing an article on so-called "rape culture." It is always a hot button and sensitive topic for Feminists in particular, because this has been a long-standing cash cow for the Feminist agenda. But it wasn't so much that Lauren Nelson put her own crazy spin on the topic IN THIS ARTICLE, she felt the need to write a followup article called "Why I Won’t Publish Your Comments About False Rape Accusations," which is the more likely reason a blog at the far reaches of the internet universe jumped to the top 100,000 in the Alexa rankings (though that spike is short-lived and will return to the 17,000,000th place ranking soon enough).

I'm not keen on quoting Wikipedia, but it has a decent definition of "Rape Culture:"

Rape culture is a concept used to describe a culture in which rape and sexual violence are common and in which prevalent attitudes, norms, practices, and media normalize, excuse, tolerate, or even condone rape...Although the concept of rape culture is a generally accepted theory in feminist academia, there is disagreement over what defines a rape culture and to what degree a given society meets the criteria to be considered a rape culture.

It is long acknowledged that "rape culture" is a Feminist catchphrase. It has long been used to shift the balance in courts to the point accusations of rape are accepted without collaborating evidence to support it. In today's society, an accusation pretty much guarantees conviction in at least the court of public opinion. One look at the comment section in any news article where a person is arrested and charged with a sex crime would reveal that much.

So why is the concept of FALSE RAPE ALLEGATIONS so repugnant to Feminists? The main answer is because anything that serves as a counterbalance to their inflated claims about the prevalence of rape in our society. Christina Hoff Summers, a well-known critic of the Feminist movement, has already exposed many myths propagated by Feminists, including the GENDER PAY GAP MYTH and the famous ONE IN FOUR WOMEN ARE RAPED MYTH. But that's a story for a different day. My focus is on Nelson's blatant disregard for false allegations.

Nelson attempts to justify her denial of false rape discussion by minimizing false rape cases. Nelson makes the following claim:

"First off, the idea that false accusations are a significant problem in rape is patently untrue. For this point, we turn to data." The problem is, Nelson refuses to even mention the studies or link to them, while offering her opinion as to why they are false. Lets look at her reasons.

1. "The sample sizes are painfully small. 1,300 participants is on the high end, while some had as few as 18. Not exactly representative." If sample size is an issue here, the same can be said for the studies that rape culture proponents claim. Many of the outlandish claims have come from relatively small sample sizes. Even the Koss survey (aka, the Ms. Study, so consider the source), the much-heralded study that Feminists use for the 1-in-4-women-are-raped myth, used a sample size of only three thousand. Many research conclusions are across the board use relatively small sample sizes, so the same principles apply to rape studies.

2. "The data is inconsistent. Even when it’s the FBI analyzing larger pools of data on crimes committed, false accusations are largely measured according to police report labels such as 'no crime' or 'unfounded.' The problem with these labels is that they do not translate into a false accusation." And by the same token, the few studies that address the under-reporting claims have relatively broad definitions of rape AND attempted rape. Christina Hoff Summers' critique of the Koss study reveals that the definition included having sex while intoxicated. So if you woke up next to who you thought was George Clooney but looked more like George Costanza the next day, and you regret your choice of partners, that fell under Koss's definition of rape.

Even the National Crime Victimization Survey uses "attempted rapes" under "unreported rapes." And, as I mentioned in my Sex Offender Myths Fact Guide (under Myth #9), even the NCVS admits their sample size is relatively small, and the estimate of underreporting; the NVS found 57 "unreported cases" out of sample size of nearly 71,000 people. To even rely on the NCVS then is a bit of a misnomer.

3. "The data is also only reflective of reports of a man raping a vagina with his penis. Until early 2012, the federal definition of rape excluded such crimes as female rape of male, same sex rape, digital rape, anal rape, oral rape or rape with a foreign object (they also exclude incest for some reason). The most recent data you’ll find is 2011. That means the available data on reported cases is so far from complete, it’s not even funny." And yet the NCVS includes not only completed rapes and attempted rapes (which I just described in the last paragraph). Nelson blatantly ignores this fact. Of course, the Koss/ Ms. study used pretty much the same criteria as the criteria Nelson study.

4. "The data is plagued by rape culture. The studies most frequently cited by those stumping on behalf of the falsely accused have been the subject of criticism in subsequent studies for failing to qualitatively evaluate the methodologies of the case categorizations. Many found that police officers frequently used subjective judgment calls in dismissing cases as unfounded. Other studies found direct evidence of bias in such dismissals when studied in the field." And what is the basis for this claim? Nelson does not offer any evidence to support this claim whatsoever. Who are the "many" who can verify what Nelson said? Who knows. Where are these studies that found bias? Nelson leaves it up to you to find them. I guess she didn't feel like sending us to fringe Feminist sites as the source. That's be like getting smoking stats from Joe Camel.

5. "In studies where data was not provided but gathered in the field, the methodologies used for determining a false report were suspect (and that’s putting it nicely)." She offers no further elaboration. It is merely opinion. Of course, ever study has limitations. Read any scholarly journal and you will see the researchers discuss limitations. Sample size, methodology, focus of the study, the goals of the researchers, and the reliance of laymen to interpret expert matters of law influences any study like this. Nelson's arguments are just as valid when used against her.

Now we reach the point where her logic takes a strange turn. Nelson starts out with 8% of known rape cases as false allegations, purportedly from the FBI. Then she claims that according to the FBI, only 37% of rape cases are reported. But she does not post a link to the FBI study; she posts a link to the CONTROVERSIAL and INACCURATE Enliven Project Meme that was passed around earlier this year (and thoroughly dissected and found to be bogus). In fact, I ranted about this same meme earlier this year. So Nelson is not even using an original rant. (As an aside, the 2010 NCVS numbers state only 50% of sex crimes go unreported, going by the same criteria as the previous studies.) It is like quoting a friend of a friend who heard it from Faux News. The Enliven Project meme got much of their info from RAINN, a victim industry advocate.

Regardless, using this logic, Nelson divides 8% by 37% and now false allegations are 3% of the total rape cases. She's not satisfied with these numbers, mainly because the numbers are still too high for her liking. So she invites us to think "hypothetically."


"Still not fantastic, I’ll admit, but far from justifiable as an interruption to important discourse. Still, I’m not satisfied with leaving it at that. Let’s talk hypothetically.

Let’s give the police the benefit of the doubt, and assume that their frequency of subjective dismissal justifies an adjustment down in the false reporting rate to 7%. There’s enough out there to justify a stronger cut, but we’ll be conservative.

And let’s say that, with only 37% of rapes being reported and sexual violence education woefully lacking, the amount of “unfounded” cases labeled as such due to lack of evidence to take it to trial –  as women shower, dispose of clothing, and so forth post attack - brings false accusation rate down again to 6%.

And lets assume – given that only 9% of cases ever go to trial and only 3% of rapists will ever spend a day in jail - that rape culture factors such as dress, former sexual encounters, use of alcohol, and so forth, account for enough perceived potential for reasonable doubt to derail an additional portion of those “unfounded” cases bringing down the rate once more to 4% (and that’s being generous).

I know this is all conjecture. It’s an exercise. Stay with me."

So at this point, even Lauren Nelson admits this entire exercise is a smoking pile of horse shit. But I wish to take just a moment to return to the under-reporting myth. Because under-reporting is truly an unknown factor (simply put, we have no way of knowing how many claimed unreported crimes exist or are indeed crimes), we can claim any number greater than 0% and less than 100%. Rape Culture proponents will claim numbers as high as the upper 90s, as suggested by the Enliven Project Meme. I already noted the NCVS, which is rather generous with its definition of rape and attempted rape, finds low numbers of under-reporting in a very large sample size. Nelson tries to argue this is "rape culture," but her argument falls flat.

If there is such a thing as rape culture, then there is also such a thing as False Rape Culture. Lauren Nelson makes the same arguments as many other false rape deniers. The justification is "It makes victims feel as though they won’t be believed if they do come forward." I find that hard to believe. After all, rarely do false accusers face incarceration, and in the very rare event a false accuser is convicted, they are rarely punished.

When a false rape accuser gets off with no penalties, THAT IS FALSE RAPE CULTURE.

Lauren Nelson: "If you want to comment about false rape accusations, it won’t be on this blog."

When Lauren Nelson denies and minimizes the harm of false rape accusations and states she will not allow anyone to discuss it on her blog, THAT IS FALSE RAPE CULTURE.

When a person finally gains an appeal due to faulty and contradictory evidence at trial, and a victim industry profiteer like Laura Ahearn accuses him of still being guilty and denying the chance he may be innocent, that is FALSE RAPE CULTURE.

When TV Analyst Wendy Murphy famously proclaims "I never, ever met a false rape claim, by the way. My own statistics speak to the truth," and maintains this position after watching the Duke Lacrosse case turn into an indictment against overzealous prosecutor William Nifong (and still put this crazy lady on the air), that is FALSE RAPE CULTURE.

When it takes 11 false allegation cases before a woman serves time for ruining lives, that is FALSE RAPE CULTURE.

When people serve decades behind bars and after being exonerated, and 2 of every five of them doesn't get any compensation for losing many years of their lives, that is FALSE RAPE CULTURE.

There is always more than one aspect of any issue. Feminists, and people like Lauren Nelson, would have you believe that acknowledging its existence is some kind of power issue, like rape. So denying their argument is basically tantamount to raping them. What faulty logic!

We have seen the power of false allegations that came as the result of overzealous prosecutors and awareness campaigns in the very recent past. Remember the Satanic Ritual Abuse cases of the mid 1980s-early 1990s? Bakersfield? McMartin? Little Rascals Day Care? Even the "West Memphis Three" (which were recently allowed release after taking an Alford plea, which prevents them from suing the state for wrongful imprisonment)? Or the many stories we hear of individuals serving years for crimes they didn't commit, released after DNA tests exonerated them or the accuser finally admits she lied?

False Rape Allegations and the culture that fails to address it should be as much a part of the conversation as rape culture discussions. It takes an honest approach from all sides, and denying one side only distorts the overall picture. There are brutal rapes, cases where the circumstances are not clear, cases where a rape occurred and the wrong man is imprisoned, and cases where someone flat-out lies about rape. This is all a part of the overall picture of rape False Rape Culture is very real, and will be around long after Lauren Nelson slinks back into obscurity.

My 10 year anniversary, of sorts...

Happy anniversary to me! No, I'm not referring to my ex-wife Brandi ( personally I'd love to forget she ever existed). Ten years (and 75 pounds) ago, on April 1, 2003, I was released from prison and moved to Cincinnati to begin a new life. I did not know what to expect. I had not lived in a big city since my family moved from Baltimore in 1982, when I was only five years old. However, my greatest fear was how to live my life on "The List."

My first taste of freedom was my 16 hour bus ride from Montgomery, Alabama to Cincinnati, Ohio. I hardly had any time to settle in before it was time to go register as a "sex offender." I was sitting at the Hamilton County Sheriff's office waiting to be processed. People were walking all over the place, heading the court, visiting inmates, getting fingerprints and police reports, and (thankfully) ignoring my presence. 

Do you remember your first time? I do. As tough as an individual I am, standing in that hallway awaiting my registration was a very nerve-racking experience. 

After nearly half an hour, I was finally called to the back. At some point while the registrar was typing in my information into their database, he received a phone call from one sounded like a "concerned citizen" who received a notification that a registrant was moving into the neighborhood. The woman was speaking so loud and frantically that despite sitting a fair distance away from the phone, I can hear every word the woman was saying.

The thing that got my attention the most was the response from the officer. First, he informed the woman that he had a legal right to live wherever he chose (at the time Ohio did not have a residency restriction law), and that they all have to live somewhere. A follow-up comment really caught my attention-- the officer stated that there was only one perfect person that ever existed and he was hung on a cross.

I have been registering for 10 years now. I know a lot of other individuals have had bad experiences while registering. I have been fortunate to have experienced relatively few problems while registering. The officers I see at the registry office would much rather be doing something else. They know this registry is a fruitless endeavor, and at times they have encourage me to fight back against the laws.

Being an advocate wasn't my first choice, but after 10 years of experience in a number of difficulties related to the laws, at times I see it as my only choice. I have not had as many difficulties his other individuals on the registry, but I have experienced my share of social ostracism, discrimination, and legal battles. I was originally classified as a "sexually oriented offender" and had the state not reclassified me arbitrarily, today would've been the day that I would've been removed from the list.

Perhaps there is a reason beyond my understanding why I am still on the list. I feel it is my calling in life to fight this injustice. We are on the unpopular side of the issue. It is very easy to pass laws against people on the registry because 10 years ago our movement practically did not exist. I did not discover any advocacy groups or activists in general until April 2004. 

Things are so much different now, it seems like a lifetime ago since that day the prison gates opened and I walked out into the "free" world. But the free world is not really free. Many laws have passed over the years to remind me of that fact. Registration laws that change arbitrarily, residency restrictions, typing "criminal sex offender" on my ID card in Scarlet letters, and the consistent denial of support services and employment. Because I have experienced all these things, I fight. I fight because these laws are wrong. I fight because these laws harmed me.

I have lasted 10 years on the outside. Depending on how you look at my story, you might say I have beaten the odds. One of the individuals in my group therapy classes in prison predicted I would be back in prison in three years, because the odds are against me. Victim industry advocates teach society that people like me are sent back to prison at alarming rates. A number of vigilante groups have attacked me, slandered me, and have claimed many times that my rearrest was imminent. Ten years later, I have proven every one of them wrong.

I have seen a lot of changes in the past 10 years. There was a time when there was practically no discussion about the collateral consequences of passing these laws. Over time, activists like myself have chipped the seemingly invincible armor of the victim industry, and we have made great strides over the years to make our voices heard and impact the laws that affect us. While there is much room for improvement, each small victory keeps the small glimmer of hope I keep in my heart alive. My hope began the day I sat in the registry office and listened to the words of the person assigned to punch my information into the online registry. That hope has continued over the years the actions of my fellow activists, from Mary Duval to Tom Madison to Jan Kruska and others who helped form a foundation upon which we can build a stronger network of reform advocates, to those of us who are continuing the fight today. Each time one of us appears in the news, speaks before a legislative committee, recruiting new activists, or even feels the comment boards with rational discussions about the dangers of these laws, my hope continues the grow.

The past 10 years have been a long, tiring journey, but it has given me hope for the next 10 years.