I Can Feel Your Anger

"I can feel your anger. I am defenseless. Take your weapon. Strike me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete."

Return of the Jedi

Sex offender defenders have never understood why their language is so offensive to victims of sex crimes, and shocking to those who have not previously been exposed to them. It isn't shocking to victims however - they have heard it all before - usually from the time they were first victimized.

We might wonder why they continue down this self-destructive path when they know - they've been told - how offensive they are. But there's really no need to wonder, we know what the problem is. At their deepest core they blame victims. They hate victims. That's it. Plain and simple. Despite their denials they are just a bunch of demented blame-gamers incapable of seeing past their own predicament and intent on finding someone else to blame for it.

When these blame-gamers are accused their response is always that they've been taken out of context or they say they didn't mean it the way we took it. But the truth is that they did mean it and they just didn't like being called out for it. The truth is that they are so accustomed to hearing this type of language which has become the norm for their groups that they don't even notice when one of them does it.

Take for example Debby Gwaltney AKA Lynn Gilmore, the new CEO of Sosen

"My hubby and I don't feel any animosity towards the victim"

Animosity towards the victim? How generous of her! And yet she does blame her using typical sex offender defender rhetoric.

"I figured, well, it's a low-level crime, after all, the girl was known in the community as being a sexually active teenage girl."

and

"I was told she had something of a reputation."

Despite Debby's claims that the only reason her husband's risk level was raised was because he committed his offense outside the home, the truth is that there were multiple reasons including that he refused treatment, admitted being sexually attracted to teenagers and blamed his 14 year old victim. "She was promiscuous", he said.

Debby claims to have been molested as a child and that her mother did the very best thing she could have done which was to put Debby in therapy and keep the abuser away from her. Does Debby know that her abuser didn't turn his attentions on someone else? Really?

Over two-thirds of offenders who reported committing incest also report they assaulted victims outside the family (English et al, 2000)

Debby says she feels re-victimized when someone says she was a victim of child sexual abuse. The only person I've seen talking about Debby's abuse is Debby. However, if the mere mention of what happened to her is such a trigger for her I wonder if she can even imagine the trigger for victims when they hear people like Debby - who aren't speaking on behalf of victims but on behalf of those who created victims - blame victims, minimize crimes and suggest that victims be treated like perpetrators?

"If offenders are made to undergo a lengthy process of assessments, evaluations and questioning, why aren't the victims?"

What exactly would you be doing a "lengthy evaluation" on victims for? To try to prove they aren't really victims? I do believe they get enough of that already. It is one thing to offer resources to victims to help them deal with their trauma, but Debby wants to treat them as criminals. She says victims should be forced to testify, apparently oblivious to the fact that they do if a case goes to trial. But most prosecutors will grant a plea bargain not only to save money but to prevent further trauma to the victim. Debby feels re-victimized when someone says she was a victim of child sexual abuse, and yet she has no clue regarding the difficulty of reliving an experience not only in front of the person who offended against you but also a room full of strangers - something many victims just don't have the strength to do.

"when you label someone a victim, then THAT is the thing that is victimizing them all over again"

Debby would have the offender walk free unless the system was willing to re-victimize the victim and she says all this in an article about re-victimizing victims! I think I don't believe Debby was a victim at all.

Debby Gwaltney goes on (this person who says doesn't feel like a victim) to report what victims want and what they would choose should they be given a choice.

"Counseling for both the abuser and the abused is truthfully all that is really necessary in most cases"

and

"If law enforcement considered the feelings of the victim there wouldn't be so much fear to report the abuse"

Some victims may not report because they are afraid of what may happen to their family but to apply that generally is an overly simplistic and short-sighted view. The truth is much more complex. Here is one explanation

"Sex offenders typically seek to make the victim feel as though he or she caused the offender to act inappropriately, and convince the child that they are the guilty party. As a result, children often have great difficulty sorting out who is responsible for the abuse and frequently blame themselves for what happened. In the end, fears of retribution and abandonment, and feelings of complicity, embarrassment, guilt, and shame all conspire to silence children and inhibit their disclosures of abuse" (Pipe & Goodman, 1991; Sauzier, 1989).

Not content with merely blaming victims or arrogantly stating what victims want and do not want, Debby Gwaltney also believes she knows how they should recover. Debby, like all defenders of child rapists believe that recovery is merely a choice.

"Just because someone was a victim once does not mean that they have to spend the rest of their lives as a victim"

Debby Gwaltney - Sosen CEO

"I choose to be a survivor, not a professional victim."

Linda Pehrson - former Sosen CEO

"I am not no snot-nosed, teary-eyed victim"

Mary Duval - former Sosen CEO

"Parents are passing their warped views on to their children. Children are taught that anything inappropriate that happens to them is the fault of someone else. "

Shirley Lowery - former Sosen CEO

"permanent victim-mode"

Derek Logue - convicted child molester

"there IS help out there, they don't have to stay this way"

Kevin Meier - convicted child molester

"Recovery is something that depends solely on the victim's desire to become a survivor"

Shana Rowan - Sosen

"It's a choice. to get on with life. One of the problems with having a victim mentality is that we tend to blame every thing that goes on in life to our being sexually abused."

Rod Wagner - convicted child molester

"those of us who've been victims have the POWER to choose just HOW and in what WAY it's going to affect us. We are doing no one, child or adult victim of sexual abuse, any favors when we pity them TOO much."

Jackie Sparling - wife of sexual predator

And yet, a recent report that studied victims over a period of 23 years made the same conclusion that everyone already knew. (Except those who want to minimize sexual crimes of course) That the effects of child sexual abuse can last a lifetime - and not because the person chooses that result.

The study was conducted by researchers from the University of Southern California and the Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center and tracked a group of girls who had been sexually abused ranging in age from 6 to 16 at the start of the study for the next 23 years. They found that compared to a control group of girls who had not been sexually abused these girls had altered brain chemicals among other things.

As children, they had higher levels of cortisol, the so-called "stress hormone," which is released in high levels during the body’s "fight or flight" response. But by about age 15, testing showed that cortisol levels were below normal, compared to the control group. Lower levels of cortisol have been linked to a decrease in the body’s ability to deal with stress, as well as problems with depression and obesity. Lower levels of the hormone have also been linked to post-traumatic stress disorder.

“The cortisol levels (of some study participants) wound up looking like Vietnam vets,” says study co-author Dr. Frank Putnam, professor of pediatrics and psychiatry at Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center. “That tells us they are in a chronic state of stress, and never feel safe.”

During the last assessment, when study participants were in their 20s, their cortisol levels remained lower than the control group, on average. “That tells us their stress response system is burned out,” says Putman, which could explain why some are doing so poorly in life.”

The long-term effects of the abuse “were absolutely profound,” says lead author and child psychologist Penelope Trickett, USC professor of Social Work.

The researchers hope that study data are used to develop more comprehensive treatment programs. “What is clear here is that abuse is not something that’s a one-time fix,” says Trickett.

Many victims have lifetime effects, some don't. Implying that having long term effects is somehow a failure on the victims part is downright repulsive. And as we can see from this study the effects have an actual physiological basis. Baby raper defenders claim that victims CHOOSE to stay "victims" How DARE they? How DARE Sosen and their Nambla affiliate RSOL?

They don't want victims to have a voice in the justice system. They want them to be invisible, unseen and unheard. Silent. To sex offenders and their apologists the effects victims suffer are nonexistent or the fault of the victim. They attack victims maliciously, they demean and mock them, they spew venomous hatred and anger towards them and then blame them for their own bad behavior. They repeatedly show their ugliness in all it's vile glory - and wonder why people despise them so. They behave like animals, it is no wonder people believe them to be - along with their skanky wives and mothers who exhibit the same thinking errors and revolting treatment of victims.

Do not expect a new and improved Sosen. This new CEO is just as bad as all the others. Just like Shirley Lowery, Linda Pehrson and Mary Duval - Debby Gwaltney is a blame gamer. She also tells lies.

But we'll get to that later.

"People forget that the impact of abuse does not stop when the abuse stops."

Cathy Kezelman - Adults Surviving Child Abuse

Culture of Silence

Randy English, the new COO of Sosen has decided to make a splash and draw attention to himself.

Since I'm relatively positive that it is virtually impossible for him to actually believe the demented things he's written, I'm left with the opinion that he's saying them with the sole purpose of deflecting attention away from the CEO - Mary Duval and the demented things that she says.

I believe Randy must be jealous of Mary being "at the top". She says she's "at the top". She says we rocketed her "to the top".

I'm not quite sure yet what she's "on the top" OF, but I think Randy must be jealous of it. Why else would he say these things?

Randy English has joined the long historical line of those who have enabled child sexual abuse. From the notorious Catholic Church pedophile cover-up to the Boy Scouts of America: Sosen wants to silence victims of sexual crimes.

"...we also know that it is not healthy for a family who has been devastated by a loss such as this to be cast into the spotlight, rather than having time to deal with the pain and anger in order to recover mentally and emotionally. Their pain and anger begins to rule their lives. It becomes who they are and only they know the true toll it is taking on them."

This is a continuing theme among the radical extremists of Sosen - to point the finger at victims and tell them they aren't doing it right. They aren't recovering correctly or well enough or soon enough or in a way that they deem appropriate. That victims who aren't interested in rationalizing on behalf of an offender are "haters", not "true survivors", not "true victims" or "not moving on".

Instead of focusing endlessly on bashing, blaming, distracting, rationalizing, justifying and harvesting any and all comments that they believe is favorable to "their side" as Kevin Meier refers to it - they should be focusing on identifying what is wrong with THEM and their own movement - what are they doing wrong? What behaviors and attributes do they encourage, foster and nourish within Sosen.....ways of thinking that not only led those offenders to offend in the first place but also which may lead to re-offense if maintained. Distortions which also damage the very points they are trying to make.

The mission statement of Sosen says:

"At SOSEN, we do not condone what former offenders have done. In many cases the harm done by former offenders is horrendous. No one can take that away. However, we feel that with proper treatment the victims can move on with their lives and put the pain and anger behind them. We know that this is the best thing for them as many members of SOSEN are former victims who have reached out for healing and now live normal productive lives."

The truth is, of course, that the only victims associated with Sosen are those who are now offenders themselves or are associated with - and advocating for an offender. Don Sweeney (a sex offender therapist turned activist) who Mary claims is an "expert" told her how amazing it was to him how many offenders went on to marry victims of child sexual abuse. But that's not amazing at all. It is a fact that offenders have a talent for targeting those most vulnerable to their manipulations. They find victims who ARE the most vulnerable and they marry them and begin another co-dependent relationship. The victims who are the strongest of all are those who don't fall prey again to this garbage, who speak up and tell their story without making excuses for their offender, who do support strict management of people who have committed these horrible crimes and in return for their strength and commitment are faced with a daily barrage of victim-bashing, mockery, badgering, and blatant victim-blaming. And yet they carry on. They ARE the "true survivors" to use Mary's term.

Common sense tells us that this issue must be victim-centered. The experts agree. And yet Randy English says this:

"It is time to bring in the experts and remove the decision making process from grieving families and politicians that have a political bias. Though we sympathize with their cause and feel angry that this has happened to their children, they are ill-equipped to make good choices when it comes to managing issues that are exceedingly diverse."

Does Randy believe, that as an offender himself, he is better equipped to make decisions on these issues? Randy, along with all the Sosenites keep referring to "the experts" and yet experts all agree that everything we do regarding the management of sex offenders MUST be victim-centered.

Not sex offender-centered.

Randy English once wrote:

"I would like to thank the ACLU for standing up for the truly weak, the RSO’s"

I was reminded of the infamous statement from Zman:

"Why can't we let the police do their job, and let PJ geeks get real jobs? They could be protecting the country with their hacking skills or something, yet they want to go after defenseless child predators instead of OSAMA, terrorists or other hackers!"

Victims of sexual abuse are "haters" and the offenders who created the victims are the weak and defenseless. That is the attitude of the extremists of Sosen.

When we consider that the mission statement of Sosen says:

"The mission of SOSEN is to educate the public, media, law-enforcement, and legislators regarding the facts, based on current research, of sexual abuse."

Then I am quite sure that Randy English would be interested in fixing some of the errors he has made when quoting "facts".

Error #1

• Treatment has been proven to reduce recidivism to 1%

Treatment has not been proven to reduce recidivism AT ALL. Some studies show a reduction, some studies show no reduction. None of them show a reduction to ONE PERCENT

Error #2

• Pedophilia is the sexual desire for a prepubescent child, and rare among offenders. Less than 1%.

This is an invented statistic pulled from someone's backside. There is no such statistic. There cannot BE such a statistic in existence considering the fact that most sex offenders haven't been "assessed" - according to Mary Duval. One-third of all sex crimes are committed against prepubescent children. While we can all agree that not everyone who molests a child would fit a psychiatric diagnosis of pedophilia, why would anyone believe that only 1% of them were? Randy English has no reference for that statistic, just as Tom Madison and Mary Duval didn't when they repeated it. In fact, the offenders in the infamous DOJ recidivism report they all rely on states quite clearly that 60% of the offenders had victims under the age of 13.

Error #3

• Re-offense rate averages, for auto theft -78.8%, possession/sale of stolen property -77.4%, burglary -74%, robbery -70.2%, larcenist -74.6%, sex offenders - 3.5%.

That is from the Department of Justice and on it's face that's a true statement regarding what was in the report. What Randy English didn't tell you is that the report ALSO said that 78% of the released sex offenders in that report had ANOTHER previous conviction before the crime they were released for. In other words, they were already recidivists. And 28% of them had 2 or more previous convictions for sex crimes. How do you incorporate the information that at least one-fourth of them had already re-offended with another sex crime before this release - into the recidivism data? How do you use the statistic from the DOJ that only 5% of those offenders re-offended with a new sex crime within 3 years of release when 25% of them already had a history of sexual recidivism? Which leads to the next error Randy has made

Error #4

• A study from the department of Justice found that about 94.7% of former offenders will not commit ANY other crime.

That study from the Department of Justice found that within 3 years 43% of sex offenders had committed another crime though not necessarily a sex crime. One-fourth of those were for property crimes and one-fourth were for violent crimes. THAT is what the Department of Justice said.

Staying in the closet enabled child sexual abuse to flourish and continue. The most important voice of all in this issue is the voice of those who have been victimized. Victims will no longer be badgered and shamed into silence. It is time for the culture of silence to end.

Little White Faces

My organization has done so much on the national level to shift the focus to the truly dangerous. An organization that you don't think too highly of. What's the deal?

- Jim Freeman
Executive Director SoHopeful

Remember this guy? The one with the little white face? In case you've forgotten that's Jim Freeman, former executive director of SoHopeful. He's the guy who claimed he wasn't a pedophile. He's the guy who claimed he was low risk. He's the guy who claimed he didn't pose any danger -- after all he was the perfect example of "non-dangerous" sex offender wasn't he?

When Jim tumbled down the mountainside earning himself multiple life sentences it went virtually ignored by Sosen. Well, except for their attempts to hide their association with him. And of course Cheryl Griffiths subsequent attempt to cover-up her cover-up attempt.

Sosen never stopped to consider that there could possibly be another Jim Freeman hiding in their forums pretending to only care about "No More Victims" while having children sexually assaulted and filmed to order and on demand. Little children. Toddlers. Infants.

"How could we have missed this?" or "Was there anything we missed?" or "How can we prevent this from occurring again?" were not questions they asked as they scurried about pretending they weren't involved with him. Perhaps they paid him no attention because he had a little white face?

To imply Sosen must be racists and not care about his crimes because he had a little white face and that's the reason they ignored the possibility of other Jim Freemans hiding among them and implementing changes which may help prevent them from harboring another recidivist sex offender sounds pretty offensive to me. But that must be why, mustn't it? What else could it possibly be! Certainly they wouldn't miss an opportunity to "prevent and educate" would they? Which idea is more offensive? That they really blame the victims rather than the offender, that they rationalize on behalf of the offender, that they fail to recognize the serious crimes that have been committed and the possibility of them being repeated and instead try to insult those who have been victimized because they really deep down hate victims - OR- the idea that they treat victims this way because they're racists? Which is it? Does it have to be either/or? Can it be both? Could it be something else altogether? Something perhaps deeply rooted in blame-gaming philosophy? Try to think like a Sosenite for a moment and figure this out because Sosen has sunk to an all time low - even for their standards as Richard Schalich attempts a new technique. According to Richard, people who try to make the world a little safer for children are no longer simply "the haters" they are now racists too. And he has proof.......

Megan's Law, the Jacob Wetterling Act, the Adam Walsh Act and Jessica's law were all named in honor of children who were white.

A child named Lunsford or Kanka or Walsh with a little white face attached to it will attract more voters and PAC money. You probably will not see a "Christopher’s" law. His last name is Barrios. He has a brown face and looks too much like the dirty illegal’s the politicians and their pundits love to rant about.

And

it is obvious these laws are rooted in racism and discrimination

Wow! Not only do they compare their struggle to escape the consequences of their own actions to the historically widespread mistreatment of other minority groups - those minority groups who weren't labeled because they had harmed someone else but merely because they were born with it. Richard Schalich has taken it to a whole new level.

Richard doesn't understand that these laws were enacted due to the hard work of the families of those abducted and murdered children. It was due to their determination to do something to help other children, to turn their never-ending loss and pain into triumph and to assure that their own child had not died in vain.

There wasn't a new law proposed in honor of Christopher Barrios because he was Black/Hispanic, but rather because his family didn't lobby for one. The case of Christopher Barrios wasn't hidden and "not talked about" because he was Black/Hispanic - it did in fact receive widespread attention. Google "Christopher Barrios" and your results will be in excess of a half million. It faded from the forefront however, because his family allowed it to. They could have stayed in the spotlight and kept the case on everyone's lips if they had chosen to. The media would have flocked to them. Why is Richard Schalich trying to put the focus on something else which had nothing to do with this case? David Edenfield received the death penalty. He said that killing Christopher "felt good". George was a registered sex offender and is being evaluated for competency. Peggy won't face the death penalty in exchange for testifying against her husband and son. In case Richard Schalich has forgotten, these baby-raping killers - the Edenfield's all had little white faces.
Parents of murdered children are actually encouraged by law enforcement to do such things - to focus their energy - to volunteer - to lobby - to keep busy doing something to help with their grieving process. But of course Richard Schalich wouldn't be aware of that. Like the other Sosenites he's too busy trying to find someone else to blame.

But perhaps we should look at some other faces.




How about Jesse Timmendequas it looks to me as though he has a little white face. He had already re-offended multiple times before he raped and murdered little Megan Kanka in 1994. In 1979 he had sexually assaulted a 5 year old girl for which justice meant a suspended sentence. In 1981 he sexually assaulted a 7 year old girl. He got 6 years for that one. A therapist stated that she thought he would re-offend one day. Of course, no one expected he would go that far.




What have we here? Another little white face it appears. John Couey's sex crimes went back over 20 years before he abducted, raped and murdered Jessica Lunsford then buried her alive. Of course, he'd never exhibited such horrific violence before, he wasn't considered especially dangerous. Who could have predicted what he'd go on to do? Even experts now agree that it's practically impossible to accurately predict who will or will not re-offend. Which reminds me........




This is Michael Jacques, a twice-convicted sex offender, in fact a violent rapist - who was allowed off probation early because Richard Kearney of the Department of Corrections called him a rehabilitation success. In fact Richard told the court "When I make comments about successes in sex offender treatment, I have three names of which Michael Jacques is one." Of course the court didn't know that Jacques also had other convictions........a sexual assault he'd managed to have expunged from his record. And of course Richard Kearney didn't know that at the time he told the court these things - Michael Jacques was molesting a little girl and had been since she was nine years old and continued to for the next 5 years. And of course they didn't know that he would go on to rape and kill his own niece. He had groomed everyone it appears, not only his family members but the DOC as well. He was a model sex offender alright. He also had a little white face.


This is Jon Savarino Schillaci aka Dylan Thomas. An unremorseful pedophile - in fact an activist for pedophiles and one time webmaster of BoyChat. Jon served 10 years in prison for the sexual assault of two boys - twins - when he was a teenager. While in prison he earned two Master's degrees. He spoke several languages fluently, was an accomplished pianist and disturbingly articulate - for a filthy pedophile. After capturing the attention of a woman who was taken by his poetry that was printed in a prison publication he managed to convince her that he was reformed, regretted his mistakes and wanted to make a new life. She agreed to help him. She allowed him to move in with her family, he registered as a sex offender, enrolled in a doctoral program at a nearby university and gave her 5 year old son piano lessons. He also downloaded child pornography and repaid her kindness and willingness to give him a chance by molesting her son. He had a little white face.

Shall I continue? Here is John Gardner. A registered sex offender in fact a child rapist who was considered low risk to re-offend. He's confessed to raping and murdering 17 year old Chelsea King and 14 year old Amber Dubois and attempting to rape a woman. He has a little white face.

This is Joseph Duncan. His first recorded sex crime occurred when he was 15 years old. In that incident he raped a 9-year-old boy at gunpoint. He was sentenced as a juvenile and sent to Dyslin's Boys' ranch in Tacoma, where he told a therapist that he had bound and sexually assaulted six boys. He also told the therapist that he estimated that he had raped 13 younger boys by the time he was 16. He went on to murder an entire family, kidnapping 9 year old Dylan and 8 year old Shasta Groene. He tortured Dylan, raped him - made Shasta watch, and of course raped her too. No one anticipated his actions. He had a little white face as well.


Here's a little white face for you. Thomas J. Leggs, a registered sex offender charged with the murder of Sarah Foxwell - his girlfriends niece. He's facing the death penalty.

I could go on like this all day. Instead, why don't you go here and see a wall of little white faces staring back at you. Little white repeat sex offender faces. It must be racism and discrimination! It simply must be, the lack of someone else to blame might be too hard for some people to bear.

Sex offenders vary widely in their risk to re-offend. Estimates suggest that 40%-45% of untreated sexual offenders will sexually re-offend in their lifetime. These rates are considerably lower than rates of re-offense for other types of violent offenders.

ATSA

If it Saves One Child

Derek Logue asks the question:

How much are we willing to sacrifice to "save one child?"

Let's ask Mary Duval and see what she has to say on the subject - of saving one child.

Whatever we do it could help our sons. And, you know, it's a huge fight, I mean - It's us against the people and the government and so we must start with education and hopefully educate America

In the end I'm sure Cathy and Lisa agree you know, as long as we save one child it does give me a little peace in my heart. My heart breaks every day but I know if I can save one child - a boy or girl - then you know, at least I've done something good for this country.

She wasn't talking about saving victims of sexual abuse though. And of course, on later shows she mocked the idea of "saving one child" - when referring to victims.

Still. Derek has a complaint about "saving one child". So does Walter Howard for that matter. Check this out. Interesting that Derek is still hanging on the coat tails of Tmax while knowing the man was a member of boylover.net Naturally, Derek Logue wouldn't believe (or wouldn't care) that someone like Walter Howard would go into chat rooms designated for minors. Even if he did believe it deep down in his heart of hearts they need every one they can get. If it saves one pervert that is.

A Major Distinction

Mary Duval believes no one should be on a public registry. (Except for people who criticize her views of course) She believes the "truly dangerous" offenders should never be released from prison. She says this even though she has listed a "fact" on one of her propaganda brochures that long prison sentences make the community less safe.

I'm not sure which she actually believes - if either - but I'm going to go with the assumption that what she really thinks is that "dangerous sex offenders" should be incarcerated and never released again to the public. This would fit with her statements such as"He should never get out of prison" or "He should just be shot".

So if that's true which sex offenders does she think poses a danger to the community? She defined it:

1. Repeat Sex Offenders
2. Those whose victims are strangers
3. Someone who uses violence

Mary Duval has further defined a repeat sex offender as someone who has been convicted of a sex crime. So according to her statements a man who is caught for the first time and who has multiple victims and was molesting children for years and years and years before being detected would be a first time offender and the "repeat offender" factor wouldn't apply to him and he would therefore not be dangerous.

If he groomed children over a long period of time, if he plied them with gifts and attention then maintained their compliance with the abuse through the use of psychological manipulation, that would also not be a dangerous person since he didn't use a gun or knife or fists to secure their cooperation. A man like that would not be considered dangerous according to Mary Duval.

If the person obtained his victims by dating or marrying a woman with children, or by playing ball with kids in the neighborhood, or volunteering as a Little League coach or being a Boy Scout leader, a Big Brother, a Church volunteer - or Church leader for that matter - that person wouldn't be a perpetrator against strangers and therefore would not be dangerous according to Mary Duval. Someone like Harold Spurling for example.

Mary Duval repeats that we need to start distinguishing between the "violent" and the "non-violent". What would she consider Harold Spurling? He didn't meet any of her criteria.

Harold Spurling who along with his partner molested a three month old baby and multiple children in their community. Some of their victims were abused for years. Harold Spurling who had the baby in his apartment that day because he had volunteered to babysit her. Harold Spurling who was known to play ball with the neighborhood kids. Harold Spurling who had one of the largest collections of child pornography in the history of Connecticut - much of it produced by himself. Harold Spurling who put my pedo-predator-detector into overdrive with his poem:

Little boy,
Pull me inside
The sweet dream that is you.
Let me hold you;
Let me breathe you in.
You justify my beating heart.
With you, the world and its endless troubles
Ceases to exist ...
Paradise doesn't hold a candle
To you.
Sweet expression of perfection;
Infantile bliss.
You run through my veins,
My lifeblood.

Harold Spurling does not fit Mary Duval's definition of "truly dangerous".

Harold Spurling was not a repeat offender as Mary Duval defines it. Harold Spurling did not use physical violence to rape children, he groomed them. Harold Spurling did not sexually assault strangers. And like most people who groom and molest children, one day he will get out of prison. I repeat: One day he will get out of prison. Mary Duval wants to insure that Harold Spurling's "right" to live across from that elementary school is protected. Mary Duval wants to insure that Harold Spurling's "right" to loiter around the playground is protected. Mary Duval wants to deny you the right to know that someone like Harold Spurling has moved into your neighborhood or invited you over for tea. What do you think about that?

On the flip-side of all this I wonder what Mary Duval thinks of Donna Kistler? As a Sosen activist Donna's primary argument was that most children are sexually abused by someone they know and .... it's always the parents fault. She says stranger crimes are rare. This was her basic argument for why the registry should be abolished. Take a look:

"The problem is, MOST child sex crimes or child abuse is caused by someone the child knows and trusts such as a family member. It is also mostly due to parental neglect. IF a child is NOT left alone or unattended, such as walking to and from school or the park then they could not and would not be abducted."

--Donna Kistler

We know that most young children do know their abuser in some way but I fail to see how that fits into Donna's philosophy. I found it quite interesting that while Donna was screaming "there's no stranger crimes" as her Pillar Number One she forgot about her own husband.

You see Peter broke into a woman's home in the middle of the night and raped her in her bed. She was a stranger. On two other occasions he broke into the homes of other women and attempted to rape them. They were strangers as well. Peter went to prison for 15 years, but like all violent rapists he got out one day.

Less than one year after his release he was caught trying to lure a 9 year old child into his car outside an elementary school. She was also a stranger.

So what do we have? Peter Kistler, a repeat sex offender, a violent sex offender and someone who had at least four stranger victims that we're aware of. What do you believe Mary Duval thinks of Peter Kistler? I wonder if Mary Duval would tell Donna that she believes Peter is dangerous and should never get out of prison.

A politician once said:

We're after violent sex offenders who rape, commit sexual battery, murder, aggravated murder, kidnapping with a sexual motivation and prey on our children. Those are the kind of offenders we're after.

Ken Lanning replied:

What we have to understand is that the major distinction between the sexual victimization of adults and the sexual victimization of children is one simple word: consent.

With adults in order for it to be a sex crime you have to have lack of consent and violence. You can have sexual criminals, sexual assault of children, without there being any violence.

And because an offender happens to groom and manipulate and seduce a child who cooperates in their victimization, those individuals, in my opinion, can be very dangerous. They are the most persistent and prolific of all known child molesters.

And to simply exclude individuals who happen to groom and seduce adolescent children doesn't make any sense to me.

Something about Mary

Mary Duval - "The Bug" once said that she "educated her ignorance" and we could have almost felt sorry for her if we hadn't been laughing so hard.

But it's only funny in a "laugh-at-the-idiot" sort of way. She's really not funny at all. No. She's dangerous. It appears I'm going to have to "educate her ignorance". I simply must because there's just something about Mary that makes me want to vomit.

I'm not quite sure if it is just her victim bashing language, her pedo apologetics, her blame-gaming, her encouragement of pro-offending attitudes or merely her enabling behavior that always leaves me with the feeling that I found a cockroach in the bottom of my soup bowl...after I ate the whole thing.

But whatever the reason for the feeling of horror I have regarding her, I have no intention of being "more politer" as Mary has requested her opponents to be. I think she's an uneducated blithering idiot who displays unjustified arrogance and contempt for people who have been sexually victimized or who speak on their behalf.

We won't talk so much about her more obvious errors such as telling Kennedy and Suits that Megan's Law didn't prevent Jesse Timmendequas from killing Megan Kanka. We won't even talk about her belief that if they can get the registry ruled as punitive rather than regulatory on appeal that the "registry will fall" unaware apparently that the argument itself is in regards to ex post facto cases only.

No we won't talk about those because they're really only good for ridicule material, at least for now. Instead what we'll talk about is something else... something about Mary that perhaps no one knew before and that is this: Mary speaks the language of predators. They "educated her ignorance", taught her sounds-good catch-phrases and used her vulnerabilities against her.... Mainly her lack of education and purpose in life. They found a woman with bully-bitch tendencies and turned her into a bully-bitch for pedophiles and perverts. And while I believe Mary herself is hopeless in regards to actually learning anything if it conflicts with her agenda and what she wants to be true - people need to know the truth about her deceptions (even if unintentional or due to ignorance and manipulation) - deceptions which are dangerous to instill in the minds of other needy enablers and especially of an offender.

In part one we're going to talk about living arrangements for sex offenders - specifically Shared Living Arrangements (SLA). You see Mary believes that the study Colorado did on SLA equates to clustering. Now she is attempting to educate the public that clustering of sex offenders is a good thing not only for the offender but for the safety of the community..... and of course she knows this idea of hers is fact because she "educated her ignorance"

Clustering is an unintended consequence of strict residency restrictions but no one would agree that having certain areas inhabited by more than their fair share of criminals is "good". So what is the difference between random clustering and a Shared Living Arrangement?

"The general SLA philosophy is an extension of the Therapeutic Community treatment modality in which offenders’ living environments can be seen as an extension of both treatment and monitoring. Offenders hold each other accountable for their actions and responsibilities and notify the appropriate authorities when a roommate commits certain behaviors, such as returning home late or having contact with children.

This type of accountability and support is different in an SLA than in other types of living arrangements in that the treatment provider makes holding each other accountable for their actions a requirement of living in the SLA. Typically, in other living arrangements, the probation officers or treatment providers do not have any jurisdiction over the other members of the household that the offender lives therefore there are no consequences if a roommate in a different type of living arrangement does not report a violation committed by the sex offender."

From the Colorado study which the bug believes indicates sex offenders are better off clustered together

"Since convicted sex offenders in Colorado are managed with a combination of supervision, treatment and incarceration, does this population still pose an undue risk to the public? Studies show that persons who are convicted of offenses involving unlawful sexual behavior demonstrate a high likelihood of recidivism, thereby representing a risk to the public.

A meta-analysis of 61 research studies conducted by Hanson and Bussiere in 1998 indicated that sexual recidivism was 18.9% for rapists and 12.7% for child molesters over a four to five year period."

Colorado studied Shared Living Arrangements and compared them to offenders who lived in other places. What they found was that high risk offenders living in SLA's had the lowest rates of recidivism and probation violations of any other group. Offenders living with their family had the highest rates. But how could that be? The Bug says "support" is the most important thing for an offender to have. The problem is of course that she doesn't understand the difference in good support and bad.

These findings suggest that although a high-risk sex offender may be living with a family member or friends, it does not necessarily mean that he or she is living in a supportive or healthy environment.

Recommendation: Efforts should be made to ensure that the sex offender’s support in the home is positive in order to aid in his or her treatment.

Preliminary research suggests that sex offenders with positive, informed support had significantly lower criminal and technical violations than sex offenders who had negative or no support (i.e., friends, family, or roommates who negatively influence the sex offender or refuse to cooperate with the containment team, etc.)

Positive does not mean minimizing on behalf of, rationalizing on behalf of or denying on behalf of. To illustrate this point lets look at the criteria for Shared Living Arrangements.

Ideally, containment teams should require that offenders reside with individuals who provide positive, informed support.

Someone who provides positive, informed support demonstrates:

• Accurate knowledge of the offender’s instant offense (crime of conviction), history of prior criminal convictions, sexual offense history, and sexual deviancy behaviors.
• Accurate knowledge of the offender’s historic methods of deception and manipulation, particularly as they apply to the informed supporter
• Accurate knowledge of rules and expectations
  
• Awareness of the offender’s potential victims.
  
• Awareness of the cycle, offense patterns and early abuse signs.
  
• Familiarity with the offender’s schedule and whereabouts.
  
• The ability to enhance and encourage application of the offender’s treatment tools outside of the therapy setting.
• A working relationship with the treatment provider and criminal justice supervisor.
  
• The ability to acknowledge the seriousness of the offending behavior.
  
• The ability, skills and tools to hold the offender accountable early in the onset of risky behaviors
• Willingness to report non-compliance to the containment team

A distinct feature of sexual offending behavior is based in maintaining secret lifestyles. For this population, SLAs provide an opportunity to deconstruct that secret lifestyle and hold themselves and others accountable.

UNLESS MONITORING AND SURVEILLANCE EXISTS FOR EACH SEX OFFENDER IN THE HOUSEHOLD, A LIVING ARRANGEMENT SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AN SLA

Does that sound anything like Mary's conclusion that sex offenders clustered together by circumstance recidivate less? Now if Mary Duval doesn't understand the very simple difference between clustering and Shared Living Arrangements how is she EVER going to "educate the ignorant sheeple" like us - who actually comprehend what we read?

That was a rhetorical question Mary.

• Awareness of the cycle, offense patterns and early abuse signs.
• The ability, skills and tools to hold the offender accountable early in the onset of risky behaviors
• Willingness to report non-compliance to the containment team

Let's look closer at those requirements. Mary gave us a perfect example of this when her friend Ms. Cannon appeared on her show complaining constantly about her sons wicked probation officer and the chaperone class she had to take which would allow her son to be around children....with her acting as chaperone. Cathy completely misunderstood the information presented regarding behaviors to be aware of and things an offender might do. She claimed "They told us when you bathe your children you're grooming them for sex!!!" And of course Mary and friends all called them "ignorant". The truth is of course that is not what Cathy was taught at all and Mary was too ignorant to see it. Not to mention of course this:

• A working relationship with the treatment provider and criminal justice supervisor

Does that sound like positive support? No, this a person that would set off red flags - a signal of danger for the offender at the very least. Is it any wonder, when you consider the people he had in his life "giving him support" that he wound up back in prison?

• The ability to acknowledge the seriousness of the offending behavior.

According to Mary victims can just seek help and then go on with their lives while the offender suffers forever. What do you think?

Bitter Issues

Sosen is finally admitting they were affiliating with Nambla and yet they still can't even name them. Why is that? Is it because this is merely a desperate attempt to change their bad reputation and they know they must say SOMETHING but can't bring themselves to say that the RSOL - Reform Sex Offender Laws Campaign is the modern Nambla and WARN other sex offenders who may be taken in by them?

They seem to have a policy regarding covering up criminal activity and child endangerment. But we'll get to that in a moment.

First, someone - to use the famous words of Mary Duval - finally "educated their ignorance" as to the difference between age-of-consent laws and Romeo and Juliet laws, however when they say "We also oppose the prosecution of juvenile offenders as adults and their placement on the sex offender registry" and group that statement in with their explanation of their position on age of consent and Romeo crimes, I have to ask - is this ALL juvenile offenders or only those who had "consensual" sex with their similar aged girlfriends? Does it include people like David P. Hoffman who molested 46 boys ages 2 to 16, and 10 girls ages 4 to 16 from the time Hoffman was 10 to 18 years old? Does it include people like Anthony Cantu who molested a 7 year old boy when he was 15, treated as a juvenile he went on to molest a 3 year old boy when he was 17. STILL treated as a juvenile he couldn't be held could he? And now at the age of 21 there's a store security video of him trying to lead a 4 year old child out of a store. Does it include the original sex offender activist Joseph Duncan whose first recorded sex crime occurred when he was 15 years old? In that incident he raped a 9-year-old boy at gunpoint. He was sentenced as a juvenile and sent to Dyslin's Boys' ranch in Tacoma, where he told a therapist who was assigned to his case that he had bound and sexually assaulted six boys. He also told the therapist that he estimated that he had raped 13 younger boys by the time he was 16. But of course he had been tried as a juvenile so....there you have it.

Then we have this statement:

We are well aware that over 90% of the time sexual abuse occurs in the home in the form of intrafamilial sexual relationships.

This is absolutely a false and dangerously misleading statement. The pedo groups themselves tell us how they find their victims:

• My neighbor's kid
• My co-worker's kid
• My friend's kid
• My kid's friend
  

Etc.

Very few sex crimes against children are committed by strangers, of the remaining it is almost evenly divided between family and acquaintances. They have taken the statement than 90% of victims know their offender and extrapolated it on out into a blatant LIE. Furthermore the sexual exploitation of children is NOT "sexual relationships". It is abuse. There is an offender and there is a victim. So when they say:

We must educate the parents or those responsible for their care as to the real dangers.

I have to ask the question: Is this how they propose to "educate"? I won't even go into their recidivism tactics. Like Tom Madison said "It's Pillar Number One". They are very aware that the DOJ report they rely on does not give an accurate reflection. They are very aware that sexual recidivism is higher 3.5%. This is just another example of minimization on their part. They cannot be upfront and honest or their "Pillar Number One" would crumble. Their mission is based on lies and misinformation. When they can step up and admit that there are sex offenders who are dangerous, who need to be monitored, who should never be allowed out of prison, that parents deserve to have the knowledge that someone they know has molested children in order to make an informed decision about affiliating with that person - and when they recognize the devastating effect of sexual abuse, then and only then can they in any way be considered legitimate.

Now - it's what comes next that's the real problem:

We must find a balance by which the psychiatric community has a degree of freedom in deciding to bring law enforcement into a matter.

They are trying to (among other things) rename child molesters. Now they are simply "people who need help".

Would you prefer that a child continues to be abused because a person desiring help is too fearful of prosecution to ask for such help?

They don't ask for help. They don't WANT help. Here's the part they don't understand:

THEY LIKE IT.

They say they need help after they've been caught. I actually saw some weirdo in Prison Talk claiming to be a therapist and saying that according to mandatory reporting laws if the client didn't tell her the victims name then she didn't have to report them. I don't think I need to explain to you why that's incorrect. Furthermore The Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers - ATSA has made it clear, Therapists are not investigators. That is not their role nor should they attempt to function as such. It is not up to them to decide who should or should not be prosecuted. Who are they accountable to?

What I would like to know is why Sosen believes that people who commit crimes against children should not be punished. I would like to know why they think the victim shouldn't be recognized and be able to get the help that THEY need as well. Why do child victims not deserve justice?

Now, let's think about this carefully. Sosen, Fred Berlin, Stop It Now! and people like them say that if we abolish mandatory reporting laws people will come forward and "get help" so they don't HAVE to rape babies any more. They also say that if victims know their offender won't be punished that THEY will come forward as well. Now how in the world would something like that work you might ask? Well if their theory was correct you'd have to have broad education wouldn't you? Wouldn't people have to KNOW that they wouldn't be prosecuted? Would it be sort of like giving free reign to child molesters? Would it sound something like this?

Are you molesting your daughter? Are you a Boy Scout leader molesting little boys? Are you preying on your children's friends when they come for sleepovers? Never fear, you can tell us and you will NOT be prosecuted!

I imagine the campaign to "educate" would look something like this:

Children are NOT going to tell if they know the person raping them - the person in AUTHORITY over them is going to be allowed to stay in their home with them. They don't feel safe to begin with! They have been abused by someone they should be able to trust! They have been manipulated, threatened and deceived. They are CHILDREN. They are not adults in little bodies.

And again:

We must find a balance by which the psychiatric community has a degree of freedom in deciding to bring law enforcement into a matter.

Would that be someone like the guy whose letter was posted on RSOL?

Letter to the Editor of the RSOL Digest (March 2009)

I want to commend Kelly Piercy for pointing out the importance of words and expressing oneself clearly.

I must however take issue with some points in the discussion of
pedophilia.

Piercy also makes good points in distinguishing clinical pedophilia,
i.e, the sexual attraction to prepubescent children, from violent
predatory non-consensual sexual activity, and advocating for treatment. He then undoes a lot of that good by placing in the middle of his essay
"Pedophile = active dangerous person."
Someone who just skims the article is going to remember that. I think you could see what I mean if I were to write, apart from everything else:
¨Sex offender (registrant) = violent dangerous predator.¨
While a small few are dangerous, we all know that the great majority are not.

Furthermore, Piercy neglects to give the origin of the word "pedophilia" which comes from the Greek "paidos" = "love" and "philia" = "children," just about the farthest thing form an "active dangerous person" there can be.

If some are uncomfortable getting into the "age of consent" debate, take heart from Piercy's point about dialog. The reasons they are a bad idea can be explained to anyone willing to listen with an open mind, but more importantly, as Piercy points out, we just need to keep talking to each other, especially when we disagree.

Dr. Rick DeMasi

That's the Dr. DeMasi - in case you're wondering - who was a child psychiatrist and confessed to HIS psychiatrist

Dr. DeMasi was precise about his desires. He was a pedophile, he told Dr. Ingram, and made no apologies for it.

Dr. Ingram told no one. Dr. DeMasi went on to molest his own 10 year old patient and Dr. Ingram? Well, he got sued. And lost.

At that point, Dr. Ingram said, he stopped psychoanalyzing Dr. DeMasi -- and Dr. DeMasi ceased to be in psychoanalytic training -- because psychoanalysis and unrepentant pedophilia are incompatible. Dr. Ingram said that by mutual agreement, their sessions continued only as generalized therapy, and his goal was to challenge Dr. DeMasi's thinking, manage his stress and thus try to make sure he did not act on his desires.

But Dr. DeMasi continued to defend them, presenting Dr. Ingram with a dubious study that children were not badly hurt by sex with adults and with historical anecdotes about sex between men and boys in ancient Greece. Dr. Ingram seemed to consider this progress.

''I was pleased to see that he gradually became interested in research into the area of adults loving children from an academic perspective, that is, he was beginning to explore the literature of pedophilia in order to bolster his arguments with me, and, in so doing, was engaged in a legitimate academic pursuit,'' Dr. Ingram said in his deposition.

"adults loving children"???? I hate to break it to him but that's not "love". It's true "hate crimes".

Dr. DeMasi was stripped of his medical license, served five years in prison and was released in 1992. His history since then seems to illustrate the deeply ingrained nature of pedophilia, which many experts describe as a sexual orientation.

In 1994, as Dr. DeMasi fought a return to prison for violating his probation, The Daily News received complaints from residents in Bayside, Queens, that Dr. DeMasi was cruising the neighborhood in a van and introducing himself to boys as a child psychiatrist. The newspaper reported that Dr. DeMasi told acquaintances that he planned to go to another country, perhaps Thailand, that was less actively hostile to sex between adults and children. In August 1994, he disappeared.

Law enforcement officials located him in Mexico in 1995 and extradited him to Connecticut, where he completed his sentence and was released from prison, without any probation conditions, on April 3.

John R. Williams, one of Dr. DeMasi's former lawyers, said he no longer knows where Dr. DeMasi is, but hinted that Dr. DeMasi might leave the country again.

Yes, he did indeed leave the country. I know where he is if anyone needs him. In fact, now he's carrying out his garbage online - still saying the same things he said over 20 years ago.

But what about his then 10 year old victim?

He resists therapy because he cannot overcome his suspicion of doctors. In fact, distrust colors many of his interactions.

''For you people,'' he said, ''this is just another day at work. For me, it's another day in hell.''

The ultimate betrayals. A parent who abuses or fails to act on knowledge of abuse, pedophile priests and pedophile doctors - including doctors who fail to act on knowledge of abuse: ie Fred Berlin. Oh but we should grant the psychiatric community the ability to decide for themselves shouldn't we?

Sosen says:

NAMBLA members have also turned up in other legitimate SOL reform groups which causes confusion and outright disgust to many in the public forum.

But the truth is that Nambla CREATED one of the biggest sex offender groups there is on the internet. The RSOL. Say it. Just say it.

Sosen says:

Many groups spend all of their time focusing on former offenders, people who have admittedly made wrong decisions and broken laws.

I don't know what "group" that would be, we don't focus on offenders past crimes, we focus on offenders and enablers who are endangering children with pedospeak.

It is evident that the quest NAMBLA champions is one far removed from that of SOSEN.

That's not evident at all. What IS evident is that everything Tikibug - the COO - has said has been repetitious recitations of pedophile propaganda. You can't take bullshit and put frosting on it and make people believe it's cake. Well you can try, but you'll never even get someone to nibble on it when the smell knocks them down from 2500 feet away.

HT Jacey

Who is listening and what are they hearing?

Who is listening and what are they hearing?

For the most part, our most effective listeners are our most entrenched opponents; Absolute Zero, Perverted Justice, and the rest. What are they hearing? Mostly that we cannot seem to form a united front and we do well enough at arguing with ourselves, thank you very much.

So, who is listening? It would seem very few, and what is being heard is not what is being said.

Said Kelly Piercy of Reform Sex Offender Laws Campaign - RSOL

Let's break it to Kelly gently. We understand the RSOL on a much deeper level than the majority of RSOL supporters are even capable of. It has little to do with the fact that we laugh at you all running around like headless chickens or the wild hysterical knock-down drag-out fights you're all famous for. That's just a stress buster much like Static's Auto-abuse analogy. It has everything to do with the ultimate goal of your "organization".

Nigel Oldfield aka Agony Uncle, the supporter of sadistic child pornography left an interesting comment here recently. He said that the Black Panthers were to Civil Rights for African Americans what Nambla was to Sex Offender Advocates. I thought that especially strange considering the way sex offenders react at the mention of pedophiles. If one didn't know better you'd swear they didn't know they were working on behalf of pederasts. Why, just a few short weeks ago Mary Duval said we should get the "non-dangerous" sex offenders off the registry so we could "waste money" watching the truly dangerous ones - the real pedophiles.

Sosen and the RSOL are ONLY interested in the abolition of the registry and sex offender laws. Every single thing they say is directed toward that goal. Whether it's blaming victims or blaming parents for being neglectful or blaming parents for being too protective or blaming the media or simply creating twisted, distorted concoctions of pedocrap while claiming their goal is "No More Victims" and accusing everyone of being ignorant. They failed miserably at grasping this very simple concept: we understand completely the rhetoric and propaganda they're using. Where did they think it came from?

We'll go into the techniques and how they are applied soon but for now I'm going to provide a nice little snapshot of what people see when the Minute Men arrive. From a news story about the death of John Couey everyone basically had the same reaction - his death was a good thing wasn't it? Who could feel sorrow for that man? They left touching words and healing words but they also expressed their anger and rage at what that man did to that little girl and in the midst of this, in rode the Sosenites. I'm sure you could guess which statements belong to them. Here are some of the comments in the immediate hours after the news of Couey's death. They ranged from a call for prevention:

• The best way to honor Jessica is to create laws and ENFORCE them so that these sickos can't get near children. One and Done! You molest, rape, assault a child--you never see the light of day again-PERIOD.
  

To expressions of relief:

• God bless Jessica's family. We will always remember Jessica. Because of your advocacy many children will have the protection that Jessica deserved.
• He's finally dead. That's really all that matters, he can quit sucking the tax payer's money. He needed to die years ago.
• We don't hate him, we are just happy he died.

Anger:

• Hopefully he'll spend every moment of hell being buried alive over and over and over again
• Tell us where he's buried so we can all go piss on his grave.
• Can they cut off his head just to make sure he is really dead? I don't want him making any kind of recovery.
• It's too bad they couldn't have buried him a few days ago so he could see what it feels like
• I hope this is a hoax and they are planning to bury the guy alive.
• Piece of crap should have died hanging from a noose after having his dingy chopped with a rusty axe
• I can only hope that, being a father himself, God kicks John Couey's butt from one end of Heaven to the other, just before he kicks him out to hell.

Celebration:

• No one has claimed the body? Can we have it?? We won't do anything to it. Really!
• We ought to be able to bid on his body and then do whatever we want with it..we could burn him on the SR 60 causeway and charge admission to come see him burn.
• Let's bid on the body and donate the funds to having those laws passed to put the John Couey's away for life.
• If anyone wins an auction to claim his body, post it on here, I will be happy to donate to the cause.

Offensive:

• Good riddance to the piece of crap. The only bad thing is that the media will be all over her attention-hungry "father" again...Perhaps now his fifteen minutes are finally used up.
• Maybe if mark had been home that infamous night, instead of spending the night with a woman elsewhere .. his daughter might be alive ...So Yes, Hell on earth does exist if he has any shame at al
• I don't think there is a single responsible parent on here that would disagree with the fact that he is a weed head who does not look after his children in the responsible manner that is required
• I knew Mark's face would show up....where was he when his little baby was being tortured????
• i hope he thinks every day why didnt he stay home to protect his daughter from couey if he would have she would be here today but know he had to go out and party it up mark i hope this rides your memory the rest of your life what if i would have been a better father and stay home and be a dad like most dads should its no ones fault but your own now you live with this

Yes Kelly, we're listening but the thing is that you're wrong about it only being us that hears what you're saying. I can guarantee you 100% that "flooding the internet" isn't going to help you especially considering the quality of "flooders" you've got and the contamination of the water you're using. Of course, you're one of them too - the Blame Gamers. How could you possibly have any insight into this behavior? Why just the other day Kelly said:

This is insane!
Where was the mother of that 13 year old girl when Mr.Polanski was photographing her?
Another case of motherly neglect as with Adam Walsh!

Or HEY how about the bashing of Ron Book's daughter? See here's the thing, they didn't just bash her. They mocked her abuse. So here's a little hint for Kelly and the gang - it's actually another 100% guarantee: No one will ever see you as anything but an animal if you don't have the common sense and decency to know without being told that this is offensive and objectionable. Not only that, every time you people say these things you identify yourself as a high-risk sex offender. Nobody else could possibly think to say these things. Things like:

Lauren Books appears to be double talking and already starting her career in being yet another annoying politician. Good job making your sad past into 5 minutes of fame.

And

Maybe if daddy wasn't working those long hours in Tallahassee his daughter wouldn't have been getting pooped on by the nanny. Lauren is decent looking so the images of lesbian sex are kinda awesome, especially because it involved Cleveland Steamers and probably a Dirty Sanchez.

And

it's up to the parents to help their children, not the state....Don't put your career and business ahead of your child and this never would have happened, but they can't accept that and blame the state for not protecting their child...sad:(

And

Lauren, honey - I'm sorry for what happened to you as a child, but now you're being abused by your father who puts you in the position of being a poster child for his own demented witch hunt/ego trip.

And

This story should be about the horrific negligence by this young woman's parents, and how her therapy is about her hatred of them. Talk about multilayered and multigenerational sensationalism toward mining for a story.....sheesh. Putting this financially priviledged little twit in charge of anything related to emotional healing without holding her parents accountable is the biggest deceit of all.

And

Lauren, you should hire a lawyer and sue your parents. Ron Book and his wife are the criminals here, and they know it. They neglected you and hired a Nanny that abused you, and they either didn't care or they turned their heads away.

And

Now I understand what happened here. Lauren is a double victim: is the victim of a non-convicted-then sexual predator who could live anywhere she wanted and do anything she wanted, and Lauren was also victim of her parents totally irresponsible lack of supervision.

And

All I gained from this article and accompanying video is that Lauren was molested and pooped on, her dad cries and blames himself for what happened, and Lauren says "ummm" a lot and rants without any reason or suggested solution to the problem.

And

What the Books should've done is focus on creating programs or access to public child care programs so that parents don't have to entrust their child's well-being to an adult behind closed doors.

And

Ha. A typical 'rich and powerful' family. The parents hire a Nanny since they have so little interest in their children. They didn't even have time to spend with their kids. Soo little that they didn't even recognize FOR SIX YEARS that something might be happening to their daughter. WOW!

And

Lobbyist are the drug dealers and pushers for big corporations, just like in the drug world, you have your cartel leaders that grow and export and they use their pushers and dealers at the bottom to get the drug to where they want it and make the money for them. Sorry Lauren but your a joke now.

Just think, I've ran out of room and can't show you the John Walsh attack. Guess what Kelly Piercy, Sosen and the RSOL? Everyone heard you. You came through loud and clear. What's so scary is that you don't realize it. You don't realize it because you people have surrounded yourselves with others who are just like you. They talk like you and they think like you, they're obnoxious like you and just like you they are successfully sealing your fate.

Once upon a time one of the original demented blame gamers did manage to offend even the Sosenites who hadn't yet perfected "the mantras". Let's take a look, see if it seems familiar.

Shirley Lowery is who I speak of. She said Jesus was a pedophile. She said Jessica Lunsford killed herself in a suicide pact with John Couey. She said... well take a look.

I believe that Mark Lunsford killed this child and Couey watched him bury her. Then Lunsford reported her missing, took the time to delete the child porn from his computer and then joined the search.

To which Lee Lee Lawless replied:

Oh, Shirley, I don't know about this. Any defense of Couey replaced with an attack on the "grieving" father is not a good direction. Maybe a private discussion, but not a letter to Geraldo. I think this would be used against us in a heartbeat to demonstrate that "all SO's stand up for each other no matter what they have done"

Did that stop her? Of course not. But that was years ago and this is now. Her response to Couey's death is far and away the most offensive garbage I've ever read. What do you - Kelly Piercy think about what Shirley said?

when did her have sex with her? I don't know but he must have viewed her as an angel. Nobody had ever wanted him. Here was this beautiful young woman that did not appear to be a virgin. She smiled up at him and said she thought she was having her period. According to the coroner he must have been a gentle lover for there was no bruising or spots around her mouth, in her anal area or anywhere else on her body

Or what do you think of Danny Price's response to Shirley:

As with sex offenders, and this is only my own opinion, deviant sexual behavior is a by product of bad parenting, lack of parenting, abuse and neglect or a combinations of different things.

With any of the problems our society faces. All they do is put a bandaid on the problem by not going to the source. The parents.

Wow! Think about that for a moment. Not only have blame gamers blamed the victim and the victims parents but this sex offender is blaming the offenders parents.

Why didn't the Anti's think of that before? There's no need to "blame the offender", there's a parent out there somewhere who has to be responsible - there simply must be.

Never Say Everything

Michael Melsheimer:

I have known Fred Berlin for more than 20 years. Do you know that he spoke against the reporting law in the state legislature of Maryland when it was first proposed in the late 80's? This was not a popular thing to do. I was with him when he did this.

Berlin says a lot of things publicly, so do people like ourselves. We never say everything.

shy guy:

NAMBLA was founded in late 1978 following a meeting of a group of gay community activists that had rallied to defend the Boston gay community against a media/legal attack by the local DA.

I should note that among the most influential early members was an anarchist ex-minister with a background of anti-war activism and writing as well as activism on economic justice issues

Michael Melsheimer of B4U-Act is the new breed of pedophile activist which attempts to ride the fence between what is acceptable (help pedophiles not offend) and a group of men who get together just to figure out ways to legalize boy raping. The name of his organization upsets the BoyChatters however. B4U-Act implies that Michael wants to help them NOT rape babies. This is unacceptable to the pedophiles. The truth is that Michael doesn't want to stop them at all. He merely wants to infest society with a bunch of crap. He wants the same thing he's always wanted. He just can't say it. He can't say it to us, he can't say it to the mental health community and he can't even tell the pedo groups that he's on their side. We'd find out if he did. He's sneaky that way.

Michael has found the way to sideswipe society he thinks. He's convinced the Baltimore Mental Health Community that he's something he's not. BoyChat doesn't know what to think of him and the Reform Sex Offender Law Campaign is loving him.

Follow along with some conversations from BoyChat. Some brand spanking new, some a little older. The language never changes but his mission is made clear - Nambla didn't work. We must try something new.

Michael Melsheimer:

B4U-ACT is doing great. I recently spoke with a person that had something to do with the starting of NAMBLA. He thought it looked good.

mvanhouten:

Does Maryland know you show your webpage to old NAMBLA founders for approval?

Does everyone who goes to LifeLine know that your goal for them is to 'eliminate offending?' Or is it your goal? And if it isn't, does Maryland know that too?

Oh what a tangled web we weave....

mvanhouten:

What exactly DID you acomplish? Your website still states your goal as 'eliminating offending'? How much offending do you think you eliminated (with the gracious help of this unnamed NAMBLA founder)?

Michael Melsheimer:

Your website still states your goal as 'eliminating offending'?

It certainly does not.

The term child molester is not in the B4U-ACT lexicon. We do have in our lexicon the term minor attracted person. B4U-ACT wants to work with any minor attracted person that seeks us out.

mvanhouten:

It's right on your site!
Here is a sentence from your report to Baltimore Mental Health Systems (22 June 2007)describing B4U-ACT's purposes:

"The report describes how improved communication would contribute to the prevention of offending, the prevention of harm to minor-attracted adults and adolescents, increased understanding by mental health professionals, and more effective and just policies."

But the question now is: why not just say it here too? Why deny it so adamently here at BoyChat? Because it's a lie you made to BMHS? Or, because you don't wish your potential clients here to know that is your goal?

Michael Melsheimer:

The report was dated 2007. It is part of our history, but the passage that offends you is no longer relevant to our site today. I can't change what is in our history and would be dishonest to try. It would be like BC editing their archives. Our site changed in December 2008 because of the statement you quoted.

Be assured you will find no current reference to prevention of offending. You can take that to the bank.

mvanhouten:

Why don't you post here and now that neither you nor B4U-ACT take a position on the appropriateness or inappropriateness of adult/minor intimacy?

Why not state that it is now NOT the goal of B4U-ACT to 'eliminate offending'?

Michael Melsheimer:

People sometimes say too much and destroy what they really want to do. I have already said a lot and don't want to say anymore.

mvanhouten:

Do you personally believe that any and all adult/minor sexual interaction qualifies as 'offending' and requires elimination?

Why can't you give straight answers to simple questions? It seems almost a pathology with you.

Michael Melsheimer:

People sometimes say too much and destroy what they really want to do. I have already said a lot and don't want to say anymore.

Fame:

There is something called "politics", it a game which MM must play.

As things progress the politics change. Soon the word "offending" won't be used at all in b4uacts rhetoric.

Further, sexual activity with minors is illegal. It is irrelevant (to this discussion) whether it should be legal or not, the bottom line is that it is and b4uact must work within that framework. Neither b4uact nor the psychological community not the BL community at large wishes BLs to commit crimes for which they may go to jail.

You need to understand this.....as well as rhetoric and politics.

Fame:

If MM declared a position on the appropriateness of sexual acts here it may alienate those he works with since he has now taken on an agenda which is not a part of his organization.

mvanhouten:

What state agency would knowingly give someone money if they knew the effort he was putting into Lifeline/BoyChat?

Michael Melsheimer:

It is important for the MAA community to have contacts in organizations like Stop it Now. They have great influence on the legislative process, and we need to know them and they need to know us. Some of the people that work for these organizations are not anti MAA. It serves our community well to find, know, and work with them

mvanhouten:

I am all for advocating people break the law, especially when it comes to mutually agreeable activities.

Michael Melsheimer:

I was on the Sally Jesse Raphael show years ago with a NAMBLA person..... He influenced my life tremendously. NAMBLA made a lot of mistakes, but they supported BL's almost before there was anything else. Tom O' Carroll, PIE fame, is also one of my heroes. His book, Paedophilia - The Radical Case, certainly opened my eyes up to a lot of things, just as my travels to SE Asia did.

mvanhouten:

I ultimatley want to undermine the labels "child" and "adult" so that people will evenutally see a relationship between a 9 and a 29 year old with at least the same lack of concern as a relationship betwen a 39 and a 69 year old.

Michael Melsheimer:

I think that you are right. We do have to go slow and not take on a radical agenda. We could all learn well by what happened to NAMBLA.

As it relates to building bridges, you are right again. There is nothing more important for our community to do. It is the only way we are ever going to be able to get any possible acceptance in the larger community for who we are as human being and what we feel is right for children

Michael Melsheimer:

My organization is not going to say to offend.

I am a BL without regret and will always be a BL without regret. My life as a bl has been terrific. No one could ever make me say otherwise. This is even considering that I spent time in prison.

Our line in the sand has historically defeated us. We need to think about a new one.

Michael Melsheimer:

We need to come together as a community. But there is another choir we need to preach to. That choir is the larger community, and it can help make all our dreams come true. Our problem is that they aren't singing our song . The major job in front of us is to get them to sing it.

We have to be very careful at first as to what we say and do, so we can say do and say more down the road. We need to build bridges and coalitions. This means that we might have to cool it for the moment. Please note that I said for the moment.

Will Robinson:

I am continually amazed at the political skills (evasiveness?) of this B4U-Act organization.

Michael Melsheimer has my vote as one of the smoothest operators I've ever beheld.

Is he a great leader or the new "Tricky Dick" of pedo-politics?

Richard Kramer:

As you may know, B4U-Act is promoting communication between minor-attracted people and mental health professionals. The purpose of these services is NOT to "cure" us of our attraction to minors--we do NOT believe we are sick.

It comes as no surprise to us at Absolute Zero that this was B4U-Act's goal, we've been saying this all along, yet Alex Marbury, the coordinator behind the "Reform Sex Offender Laws" campaign, embraces B4U-Act and even describes pedophilia as an "important discussion" to educate activists on the benevolence of pedophiles.

This is a campaign being supported by sex offenders activists claiming to be "reformed." Groups like SOSEN and individuals like Mary Duval. msdxe3ct78