Monday, March 24, 2008

A Hungry Wolf

Disney's 20/20 television show on the Age of Consent, describes Jan Kruska's website as:
A website that compares the registries to a hungry wolf that eats the innocent people like her
Let's break that down a little shall we?

First of all, someone is hardly "innocent" if at the age of 22 they have sex with 15 year old boy's who they're supposed to be looking after. In regards to the content of Jan's website, here are some things you'll find on it, you can judge for yourself whether they just illustrate how the "registry has affected Jan's life" or something more sinister:
...and then there is the KENT STATE UNIVERSITY STUDY which reveals some startling discoveries
Women would pay a fortune for the skin, sparkling eyes and body of a 10-year-old. This is not an effort to undermine women - shapely women will always be attractive to men. It is those with slim girl-like figures however, that receive many times more attention.
Startling indeed, Jan Kruska copy and pastes a misinterpreted version of the Hall study, what's even more startling is where she got it, Pedophile Pen Power.

Or how about these, which Jan Kruska copied and pasted from an article on the IPCE, a website which describes itself as:

Ipce is a forum for people who are engaged in scholarly discussion about the understanding and emancipation of mutual relationships between children or adolescents and adults.
The protection of the sexual purity of children is one of our few unquestioned moral principles. Sex education for the young focuses on the dangers of sex, and preaches abstinence...
Before the Rind report almost all scholarship in this area explicitly or implicitly endorsed the idea that children are badly hurt by sex and aren't ready for it.[6] Sexual activity involving children is routinely described with negative terms like ``abuse'' and children's purity of heart is usually assumed...
Cultural censorship in this area is strong and scholarship is closely monitored.[8] For example, I wrote an article defending child pornography as a form of speech, arguing that there was no constitutional justification for separating child and adult pornography...
An image of youth as passive in the sexual area, open to adult manipulation and unable to resist, grew up alongside of the image of the rebellious youth who would not obey adult authority in other areas. Definitions always cast the child as a victim even if s/he was a hustler or prostitute...
Speaks for itself, doesn't it?

On another article on her website, Jan Kruska titled "Murdered Children's Parents Profiled," Jan suggests that people such as John Walsh and Mark Lunsford are responsible for their children being murdered and sexually abused:
The common thread with all of these cases is that the parents were living less than, shall we say, good moral lifestyles.
Is this what you would describe as:
A website that compares the registries to a hungry wolf that eats the innocent people like her
Why is a company like Walt Disney, which makes children's toys and movies, defending a website which claims kids forced into child prostitution aren't victims? Let's put an end to 20/20's lies, join the boycott on Walt Disney, 20/20 and their sponsors!

Show your support, put a boycott banner on your blog/website today:

Thursday, March 20, 2008

Selective editing and other unethical tactics - John Stossel


Extra! March/April 2003

The Stossel Treatment
Selective editing and other unethical tactics

By Rachel Coen

Sometimes John Stossel's technique is no different from the sensationalism of any other tabloid TV entertainer. Witness his report on "dwarf tossing" (20/20, 3/8/02), in which he professed indignation at "busybodies" who want to stop the practice. "Dave Flood is a dwarf who is angry because his rights are being violated," declared Stossel. "He wants to be tossed."

But Stossel's approach can transcend the merely embarrassing, becoming careless or unethical. His reports are billed as news, but they sometimes rely on questionable methods such as deceptive editing that distorts arguments made by interviewees, the exclusion of facts that might conflict with his personal opinion, and the provocation of guests so as to broadcast their reactions out of context.

"We were hoodwinked"

One controversy that caught mainstream media's attention concerned Stossel's interview of a group of grade-school students for his ABC News special "What's Wrong With Tampering With Nature?" (6/29/01). The children's parents had signed releases for them to appear on the show, but after witnessing Stossel's methods, several withdrew their consent and protested to ABC.

The special caricatured environmentalists as "preachers of doom and gloom" whose fanaticism would have us all "running around naked, hungry for food, maybe killing a rabbit with a rock, then dying young." A key theme was Stossel's claim that U.S. schools have become an "environmental boot camp" to indoctrinate children with green propaganda, when in fact the environment is doing just fine.

To illustrate his point, Stossel arranged an interview with a group of California kids, asking what parents described as leading questions to try to show that the children had been taught environmentalist lies. Several parents said they hadn't known about this slant when they granted permission for the interviews. They complained that ABC had "misrepresented" the segment by telling them simply that it was an Earth Day special, and by concealing Stossel's involvement (L.A. Times, 6/26/01).

One father, Brad Neal, told the Washington Post (6/26/01) that Stossel's questioning was "entirely misleading," and that "he'd repeat the questions until he got the answer he wanted…. We knew we were hoodwinked." Parents said Stossel even tried to lead the children in chant suggesting that "all scientists agree there is a greenhouse effect" (L.A. Times, 6/26/01).

As a result of the negative publicity, ABC pulled the interviews before the show aired, though the network stood by Stossel's work. Stossel's own response was instructive. He found new kids to interview, apparently with the same techniques: On the special, they responded in well-coordinated unison to Stossel's questions. He also went on the attack against the parents, saying that they had been "brainwashed" by environmental activists, whom he characterized as "the totalitarian left" (O'Reilly Factor, 6/27/01).

Tricky editing

Little kids aren't the only ones who should beware of Stossel's tactics. During his one-hour special "Is America No. 1?" (9/19/99), Stossel used tricky editing to misrepresent the views of James K. Galbraith, a leading economist at the University of Texas.

Rife with factual inaccuracies (Extra!, 11-12/99), the show attempted to demonstrate that laissez-faire economics are "what makes a country work well for its people." Stossel claimed that Europe has high unemployment rates because of policies that provide benefits such as paid parental leave and make it "very hard" to fire workers.

The facts are so persuasive, said Stossel, that "many economists who once argued that we could learn from Europe, like James Galbraith, have now changed their minds." Stossel then played a clip from his interview with Galbraith: "There might be a moment for the European to learn from us, rather than for us to be studying them." The implication was clear: Galbraith believes Europe should follow the U.S.'s lead and require fewer protections and benefits for workers.

In fact, Galbraith is an outspoken opponent of the adoption of U.S.-style laissez-faire policies in Europe. "My point is quite different from the one Stossel makes in the lead-in," Galbraith told Extra!'s Seth Ackerman (11-12/99). Galbraith explained that he had actually told Stossel that "Europe could, in short, benefit from adopting some of the continent-wide transfer mechanisms, such as Social Security, that we have long enjoyed in the United States." In other words, Galbraith did feel Europe could learn from the U.S. by expanding social benefit programs--the opposite position, essentially, from the one implied by Stossel's editing.

After FAIR issued an Action Alert (9/28/99) critiquing this and other distortions in "Is America No. 1?," Stossel issued an evasive rebuttal (11/6/99)--signed, oddly, by Stossel and "some of his staff"--which insisted that Galbraith's "views on this particular matter were not misrepresented," but hedged that "we did not intend anyone to think he endorsed every statement made in the hour."

Despite Stossel's claim that he had done no wrong, the sentence introducing Galbraith's soundbite had been changed when ABC rebroadcast "Is America No. 1?" a year later (9/1/00). "Even economists who like Europe's policies, like James Galbraith," said Stossel the second time around, "now acknowledge America's success."

Some facts are better than others

Sometimes Stossel responds to uncomfortable facts not by spinning them, but by omitting them. In one instance, producers resigned from a Stossel special after their findings were dismissed because they cast doubt on Stossel's "preconceived notion" of the truth. The show was "Are We Scaring Ourselves to Death?" (4/21/94), a 90-minute special about the evils of government regulation.

Positing that America's ability to "compete in a world economy" could be compromised if we worry too much about "dangerous-sounding" things like "pesticides, pollutants, bioengineering, electromagnetic fields" and so forth, Stossel reassures us: Today, "we live longer than ever." Therefore, advocates like Ralph Nader--who is portrayed as a fear-monger who "screamed about everything"--have it all wrong. The real danger is regulation, since "regulations may shorten lives by making people poorer."

It's tough to argue with such relentlessly simplistic logic, as Stossel's own staff found out. As reported by Karl Grossman (Extra! Update, 6/94), a source close to ABC said that two of the three producers hired to work on the special resigned because their findings were unwelcome.

Producer Jan Legnitto found that government product-safety regulation was cost-effective, while Vicky Sufian's research on comparative risk indicated that some regulations actually served to protect people. Neither finding supported Stossel's anti-regulatory stance, so their research was dismissed. Both producers asked to be released from their contracts and left the program.

Similarly, in the 1995 special "Boys and Girls Are Different" (2/1/95), Stossel's team seems to have discarded evidence that complicated the show's biology-is-destiny slant.

Claiming that men and women think differently "because our brains are different," Stossel argued that "trying to fix these differences will be pointless, expensive, even hurtful." On this basis, Stossel attacked remedies for inequality such as sex discrimination laws and affirmative action, saying they force unnatural outcomes.

As documented for Extra! by Miranda Spencer (5-6/95), Stossel featured a variety of scientists supporting biological explanations for gender traits and roles. Instead of contrasting these views with the numerous scientists who disagree with that approach, Stossel set up feminists without scientific backgrounds to refute them.

Spencer found that Stossel's staff had in fact talked to some of the scientific authorities who were left out of the program, including Brown University biologist Anne Fausto-Sterling, a prominent figure in gender studies.

Fausto-Sterling--whose research has found more overlap than difference in male and female abilities--was contacted by fact-checkers for the program before the show aired. Her input, however, didn't seem to pass the litmus test. One ABC producer told Fausto-Sterling that interviews were already "set up" and that it was too late to restructure the show to introduce more balance.

Joan Bertin--then co-director of Columbia University's Program on Gender, Science and Law, now a professor at Columbia and executive director of the National Coalition Against Censorship--was also called by an ABC staffer who had no interest in material that didn't confirm Stossel's preconceived notions. "She left me with the clear impression she had explicit marching orders to find material to support gender differences," Bertin told Extra! (5-6/95).

Part of the story

Particularly troubling is Stossel's 1997 report about a rape allegation at Brown University. The controversial sexual assault charge was prominently covered by Brown's newspaper--it also generated stories in the Associated Press, Boston Globe and USA Today, among other outlets--and sparked rallies on campus, along with intense debate about sexual assault and Brown's disciplinary system.

In 1996, Brown student Sara Klein charged that she had been raped by a fellow student, Adam Lack, while she was too drunk to consent or remember the event. Lack maintained that the sex had been consensual. Klein filed a complaint with Brown's disciplinary council and Lack was suspended for sexual misconduct. On appeal, the judgment was reduced to "flagrant disrespect" and the suspension reduced to probation (Providence Journal-Bulletin, 1/30/97). Lack later sued both Brown and Klein, a case which was settled in December 1997 (Brown Daily Herald, 10/25/00).

The facts behind the Lack/Klein case remain unclear, but Stossel's 20/20 report about it--"When Yes Means No" (3/28/97)--exploited the incident to make some disturbing claims about sex and rape. The way 20/20 told it, the questions about consent and assault raised by the case were problematic primarily because of Brown's "political correctness."

"There is something of an authoritarian atmosphere surrounding women's issues on this campus," Stossel announced, adding this memorable bit of wisdom: "If nobody had sex except when they were totally sober, I bet there would be a lot less sex on this campus."

The report consisted of an extensive interview with Lack (Klein reportedly declined to be interviewed) and footage of a verbal fight between Stossel and students at a campus rally against sexual assault.

As portrayed in the segment, the rally was angry and combative. "I got a feeling for the intolerance when the activists asked if anyone else wanted to speak," Stossel said, introducing his own entrance into the story, in which he took the stage to ask the crowd to define rape. According to Stossel's report, students were unwilling to consider his questions even though he was "just trying to educate" himself, and so drowned out his innocent inquiries with hostile chanting.

An article in a local paper, the Providence Journal-Bulletin (1/30/97), told a different story. According to the paper, the "orderly rally" degenerated into a "free-for-all" only after Stossel stepped out of his journalistic role to take the microphone.

Stossel reportedly "responded with an obscenity" when a student questioned his journalistic integrity, mocked a student who quoted Brown's discipline code--"I'm glad for $30,000 you learned to read"--and tried to provoke one woman by asking her, "If I were dating you, and put my arm around you and put my hand on your breast…."

Stossel's cursing and innuendos were not included in his 20/20 report.

When all else fails, fabricate

In 2000, revelations about Stossel's shoddy journalism caused a brief media furor that ended with an on-air apology by Stossel for having cited non-existent test results in a report.

The report was "The Food You Eat," originally aired by 20/20 on February 4, 2000. In it, Stossel warned that organic produce may be more dangerous than conventional produce, saying that tests commissioned by ABC found increased levels of E. coli bacteria in organic sprouts and lettuce. He also stated that the tests found no pesticide residue "on either organic or regular produce," thereby obviating a key reason for buying organic food.

But, as the Organic Trade Association pointed out in a letter sent to ABC before the report aired (11/8/99), Stossel's E. coli tests were non-specific, meaning that they did not distinguish between dangerous and benign strains of the bacteria. The distinction is crucial to a story about food safety, but the 20/20 report omitted it, leaving the impression that the presence of any E. coli whatsoever could prove fatal.

OTA also pointed out that although one of their representatives was interviewed on the show and asked to comment on the study, Stossel's producer replied evasively to their "numerous" requests that he "clarify what types of E. coli were tested for." The group says that they learned the details of the test only after they were interviewed.

What's more, the pesticide tests Stossel cited were never done. In July, a story brought to light by the Environmental Working Group was picked up by the New York Times (7/31/00): The scientists that ABC commissioned--Michael Doyle and Lester Crawford--said that they never tested any of the produce for pesticides, only for bacteria.

In addition, Crawford told the Times that he did perform similar tests on chicken, and found pesticide residue on the conventional poultry but not on the organic poultry. That data is nowhere in Stossel's report, which suggests that, true to form, he took a selective approach to reporting scientific evidence.

Prior to these revelations, several groups--including FAIR, EWG and OTA--had voiced concerns about other aspects of "The Food You Eat," including its failure to disclose a primary source's ties to the chemical industry. At the time, ABC dismissed the questions, and rebroadcast the report uncorrected on July 7.

After the news about the non-existent test was picked up by mainstream media, ABC announced that it would reprimand Stossel and suspend his producer, and Stossel issued a lengthy on-air apology (8/11/00). FAIR wrote to ABC News urging them to take the occasion to investigate Stossel's overall record on accuracy, and to consider whether it lived up to the network's journalistic standards. The network, however, seemed to have decided to treat the debacle as an isolated incident. FAIR never received a response.


Televangelist Lifestyle

In a March 2007 segment about finances and lifestyles of televangelists, 20/20 aired a clip of a TV minister originally broadcast by the Lifetime Network in 1997. The clip made it seem that the minister was describing his wealth in extravagant terms, when actually, he was telling a parable about a rich man. ABC News twice aired a retraction and apologized for the error. The minister filed a lawsuit against Stossel, his source for the clip, 20/20, and ABC for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

TELEVISION; Preacher sues `20/20,' alleging defamation

The Rev. Frederick K.C. Price may have two Bentleys, but a spokesman for his 22,000-member church says his Palos Verdes house doesn't boast 25 rooms and he definitely doesn't own a helicopter. A lawsuit Price filed Tuesday claims that ABC's "20/20" defamed him when it suggested otherwise, portraying him as a "hypocrite and thief" who financed an extravagant lifestyle with church funds.

Price, founder of the Crenshaw Christian Center, was featured in a "20/20" segment about well-heeled televangelists titled "Enough!" that the suit says "devastated, embarrassed and greatly humiliated" the 75-year-old. The suit also names Walt Disney Co., which owns ABC, and "20/20" co-anchor John Stossel.

In the March 23 segment, "20/20" ran a clip from a sermon Price delivered 10 years ago and displayed a still photo of the preacher as Stossel interviewed an activist who keeps tabs on how ministries spend congregants' donations. The suit calls the use of the clip "one of the most outrageous instances of 'out of context' editing in the history of television."

Monday, March 17, 2008

The Blame Gamer

Sex offender activist Jan Kruska, claims everyone except the abuser is responsible for their actions; She slanders John Walsh, claiming he's really who is responsible for his sons murder, for living a "less than moral lifestyle."

Fight Child Exploitation Online:

Read more about Jan here:

Saturday, March 15, 2008

The Common Thread


Saturday, March 15, 2008
The Common Thread

Once upon a time Jan Kruska wrote about what she felt the common thread was among children murdered by sexual deviants.

She believes it is because their parents are human and less than perfect.

Unlike her of course.

We've had a lot of things to say about that. I'm sure we'll have a lot more things to say in the future. But for today we're going to talk about a common thread and ask once again Who are these men?

These men that we've talked about (and occasionally women) have some very basic similarities. One of which is to claim that THEY aren't dangerous. It's not THEM. Their crimes should be exempt. Sure, they will admit that there are indeed people who do harm to children. They just deny that it's them. "Well sure, I did it", they'll say, followed quickly by "But it was just a mistake". Of course they would never, ever do it again because didn't you know that a DOJ recidivism study done over a period of 3 years PROVES that sex offenders don't have high recidivism rates?

Let's look at a few of these men closer. Here we have Johnny Ray Lee. He claimed that "statistically speaking, you as a parent are more likely to molest your own child than a registered sex offender is". Johnny said that very thing to a stranger at a buffet bar. It was part of his activism, you see. Of course, he also said "As a diagnosed pedophile who was chemically castrated, I can assure you it doesn't work. In order to stop a pedophile from re-offending you would also have to cut out his brains, cut off his tongue and cut off his hands."

That was a member of Sosen and Roar for Freedom, and also an avid supporter of SOclear and SOhopeful. He just received a 35 year prison sentence.

And what have we here? Why it's Christopher Smithson aka "Slavetoboys", the most recent pedohead to fall and the first conviction attributable to the Wikisposure project. Chris just received 6 years in prison.

You see, Christopher liked to write "fictional" accounts of having sex with children. It turns out that, well - it wasn't fictional. Chris wrote:

"if a child 4-17 wonts to have any type of sex with any type of person, it should be against the law to stop them"
How is that statement different from the Reform Sex Offender Laws petition which calls for abolishment of age of consent laws? The petition which was signed by NAMBLA members along with members of:

Roar for Freedom
Operation Awareness

Some of those people include:

Linda Pehrson
Jan Kruska (RSO)
Lee Lee Lawless
Amanda Rogers (nonexistent person)
Lois Paul
Amanda Meeker
Jacqueline Horst
Margaret Jenkins
Betty Price
Jackie Sparling
C. David Hess (RSO)
Betty Schneider
Linda Tauer
Among others.

Yes they all believe there should be no age of consent laws. Apparently they are ok with 4 year olds being sexually exploited. Yes, they want them to be able to make their own decisions regarding sex, you see. I'm not putting words in their mouths. Oh no. THEY are the ones who signed it.

Here we have another man we recently talked about. Jim Freeman, who was running an international pedophile ring and directly responsible for the sexual abuse of an untold number of children, 40 of which have been rescued as a result of Operation Achilles.

Jim Freeman was the c0-founder along with Tom Madison of SOhopeful. An organization presenting itself as a support network for RSO's and their loved ones, but whose primary goal was to abolish the punishments, penalties and restrictions that apply to those who sexually violate others.

How do Jim Freeman, Johnny Ray Lee and Christopher Smithson differ? They don't. They are all pedophiles. They were all 3 involved in the exploitation and sexual abuse of children.

All 3 are repeat sex offenders.

The Department of Justice reports a low recidivism rate over a period of 3 years post release from prison for new sex crimes. Longer, more thorough studies done over periods of up to 15-30 years reveal a much higher rate, with an average of 25% and some reports going as high as 60-70% for NEW sex crimes.

Even Sarah Tofte of the Human Rights Watch says that 25% of all sex offenders will reoffend within only 15 years. Sarah said she found that statistic striking. She uses that statistic to claim that RSO's aren't a danger to society.

I find that idiotic conclusion striking.

Currently in the state of Georgia, a state considered to have some of the strictest sex offender laws in the nation, out of over 15,000 RSO's there are only 39 registered sex offenders under the age of 20.

I find that statistic striking.

Four months ago in the state of Georgia there were only 70 RSO's under the age of 20.

I find that statistic striking.

The fact is that RSO activists are using teen issues to further their cause. They couldn't care less if same aged teenagers are allowed to legally have sex with each other. No, what these people want is to be able to have sex with these children themselves. Look at their histories, and look at their crimes.

I believe you too, will find it striking.

I suggest remaining vigilant. Keep your eyes and ears open to pedospeak and pedologic. Watch for media spin, watch for unethical journalists calling a CSA victim someone's "lover". Watch for those who call prostituted children "child prostitutes". And absolutely watch for those who victimize children and then refer to themselves as the "true victims" and the actual victim as a "professional victim who refuses to take responsibility for being abused"

Watch for people like Michael Gregg aka ZMan! who claims the little girl he exposed himself to should be jailed....and watch when Betty Price concurs.

Watch for someone claiming we do teenagers a disservice because in 1850 it was common to get married immediately after puberty....completely overlooking the fact that in 1850 -- slavery was legal, women could not vote, disease was rampant and the life expectancy was 39 years.. What significance does the AOC in 1850, 1620, 939 or 55 BC have to do with 2008? I sort of have a feeling that cave men didn't even HAVE an AOC of any sort, does that mean we should act like Neanderthals?

Watch for someone who claims our society is sexually repressed because the age of consent is only 9 in Yemen. Completely overlooking the fact that women in Yemen are beaten and battered into submission. Legally. Completely overlooking the fact that 96% of women in Yemen are sexually controlled by forced female genital mutilation.

Watch for someone who defends an 18 year old for having sex with a 14 year old, then when asked the question "Would you have done it if she had been 12?" the response being "Oh NO, absolutely not, there must be a 'line' somewhere" Completely overlooking the fact that there WAS a line and it was crossed.

All those things are known as spin. Those are things you need to watch out for. Spin is an unethical manipulation of factual information to make something appear to mean something that in reality it does not mean.

Spin is evil.
Spin is enabling behavior.
The Antis won't stand for it.
Labels: AOC, Betty Price, Child Pornography, Jan Kruska, Jim Freeman, Johnny Ray Lee, Linda Pehrson, NAMBLA, pedophiles, Pedospeak, Roar4Freedom, Sarah Tofte, SoClear, SoHopeful, SOSEN, Wikisposure, Zman

Stitches77 posted

Friday, March 7, 2008

Child porn suspect wanted reform ~ Obligations and Boundaries

Child Porn Suspect, James Freeman.

Child porn suspect wanted reform
James Freeman was co-founder of a group for changing sex offender tracking laws
Andrew Gant
Friday March 7th, 2008

SANTA ROSA BEACH — Before he was indicted in a global child porn ring, James Freeman was a registered sex offender leading a campaign to reform Megan's Law.

"It is illogical to present a system that tracks non-violent, one-crime one-victim, lowest-risk sex offenders as a benefit to public safety," reads a statement at, where Freeman was listed as executive director until his indictment Tuesday.

The group emphasizes it does not excuse sex offenses or abuse. With the 47-year-old Freeman indicted on a slew of federal child porn charges, his name has been erased from the Web site. SOhopeful's executive director position was listed as "unfilled" Friday.

Phone calls and e-mails to Carolyn Ferguson, a SOhopeful representative, were unanswered Friday. Meanwhile, a message posted on the group's public Web forum said members were "horrified and disheartened" and Freeman was removed from the organization.

"The Board of Directors is addressing internal structure and security issues," the message explained.

A message board for another sex offender law reform group — Reform Organization Attitude Restoration (ROAR) — contains posts from users who acknowledge the connection, but apparently had hoped to keep it secret.

"I think by now most of you know about the horrible story of Mystic of SOhopeful being charged in a large disgusting peodphile (sic) ring," writes one user. "I can only pray that this is some kind of misunderstanding or government 'fix.' "

Freeman's user name in the enterprise was "Mystikal," according to the 35-count indictment.

"… NO press release should be made unless the media picks up on a connection between Jim and Sohopefull (sic) and a big deal is being made of it first," the ROAR user writes.

SOhopeful's message was posted at 3 p.m. Friday, a day after The Daily News called for information.

Freeman was found guilty in March 1997 for lewd and lascivious acts with a 16-year-old in Georgia.

His registered address is 821 N. Church St. in Santa Rosa Beach.

SOhopeful International was established in 1999 to support changes in sex offender registration requirements, according to its Web site. Its materials claim existing legislation vilifies harmless offenders and floods a system that should track only dangerous predators.

A grand jury Tuesday decided Freeman and 11 others should stand trial on a number of federal charges: engaging in a child exploitation enterprise; conspiracy; advertisement of child pornography; transportation of child pornography; receipt of child pornography; and obstruction of justice.

Prosecutors say the men used vast file-sharing networks to use child porn as Internet currency and trade more than 400,000 images and videos of child sex abuse.

The indictment alleges Freeman shared at least two folders of child porn and then thanked the others for participating in the long-running enterprise.

"My thanks to you and all the others that together make this the greatest group of pedos to ever gather in one place," he wrote, according to the indictment. "I'm honored just to be a part of it."

Other users added their own files, including one who advertised videos of girls under 10 years old who were "heavily drugged" and abused.

If convicted, Freeman and the others each face 20 years to life in prison plus fines.

Some of the men also have been charged with producing the pornography — meaning they had contact with the abused children, according to the FBI.

Lawmen have identified and rescued 20 of those children, according to the FBI.

A spokesman with the U.S. Department of Justice declined to comment on the case.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.




Friday, March 07, 2008
Obligations and Boundaries

Have you ever noticed how similar the rhetoric of sex offender activists and pedophile activists is?

I have. I've noticed it a lot.

Of particular interest is their mutual desire to abolish age of consent laws. We don't need to ask why, we know why, don't we? Instead, let's talk about their reasoning.

On the one hand you have the pedophile group who say that children should be able to make their own decisions. We have Unico who says:

"There exist sexually-active 4-year-old girls who enjoy vaginal intercourse. What you or I think, is irrelevant to that fact.

Even first-time vaginal intercourse can be enjoyable, when preceded by several months of stretching

Anybody who would obstruct a prepubescent person from her inherent right to choose to have sexual intercourse is neither a true youth liberationist nor human rights advocate.

Access to sex education specific to prepubescent people should be mandated."

And here we have Lindsay Ashford being interviewed on the radio. What does he say about that issue?
Scott: Do you think that a 5 year old grasps what's going on well enough to be able to consent to sexual activity?
Lindsay: A 5 year old understands friendship. A 5 year old understands affection.
Scott: So can a 2 year old?
Lindsay: A 2 year old understands pleasure.
Scott: So they can consent to sex?
Lindsay: They can consent to pleasurable activity
Scott: Can a 6 month old do that?
Lindsay: I'm sure that 6 months old also have nerve endings and understanding and an understanding of what is pleasurable to them, yes
Scott: So a 6 month old can consent to sex
Lindsay: A 6 month old can consent to activity that it finds pleasurable
What does the petition we've talked so much about say? The one Jan Kruska and so many of her activist associates signed?
"Support broad sex education for children, and empower them to make their own decisions and stand up for their rights"
It then goes on to define 'children'
"Children should be defined as persons under the age of puberty."

And yes, many RSO activists signed it. So where do you draw the line? As far as age of consent goes? Is it 18? 16? 14? And with the age of consent law in place whatever that age is, what do you do when someone breaks that law? Slap them on the wrist? What I DO know for sure, is that the activists who are pushing for abolishment of age of consent laws and abolishment of punishment and registration for sex offenders were NOT convicted of having teenaged consensual sex. Their crimes were far worse than that and they are further exploiting children by trying to argue that the very RARE case of teenagers who end up on the registry is representative of their entire population. The vast majority of teens who find themselves convicted of a crime are not on the registry because of a consensual act. They may be listed as statutory rape, but you can bet your bottom dollar that it was a plea deal that gave them that listing.

Furthermore, if the crime was a felony charge, and the offender plead guilty and accepted a plea deal reducing the conviction on the books to a misdemeanor. Does that mean their crime was less than when they committed it? Absolutely not. The actual crime remains the same, but their legal maneuver reduced their penalty.

Let's look at an example of the propaganda. Jan Kruska said last year on a podcast with Tom Madison, that 95% of those on the registry are not dangerous people. She says they were convicted for things such as drunken mooning, or children "playing doctor". Does anyone know where she got this made up "fact"? Or how about Tim from Sosen, who says that 73% of all offenders on the sex offender registry committed their crimes against someone who was over the age of 18, while the fact is that 87% of victims were UNDER the age of 18. Why does Tim say that 40% of offenders were under the age of 18 upon conviction while the true number is that less than 10% were minors? Why would these people lie to you in an attempt to bring about social change?

Here are a couple of things you can do besides just hit and miss searching on a registry. Go to the Illinois sex offender registry and download it in entirely into an Excel document_ Sort and resort by the information that's on there. Say for example the age of the offender at the time of conviction along with the age of the victim. It's quite interesting. Did you know that the average age at conviction was mid thirties?

Georgia is another state that allows you to download their registry although it doesn't list the age of the victim. What you'll find is that the average age at conviction was 32 years old. You'll also find that less than 10% of those registered in Georgia were under the age of 20 at conviction. And in fact, at the present time in Georgia there are only 39 offenders under the age of 20. Even more interesting is the fact that 4 months ago there were a total of 70 teenaged sex offenders in Georgia. If these new laws are soooooo "draconian", if they are sooooo over broad, why is that number going DOWN instead of UP?

It's because it's not true what they say. It's also not true when they say their primary interest is child safety, and a desire for the laws to be 'effective'. The real truth is they are all pissed off sex offenders who don't want to accept responsibility for their actions. Tom Madison proved that when he rallied to gain support for releasing violent repeat sexual predators from their court imposed civil commitment. His primary interest was certainly not safety, his concern was the sex offenders wasting their time and the cost to non-sex offenders. LOL Well he DID say that after all.

And let us not forget one of the ring leaders of the RSO activists. Jim Freeman, co-founder and executive director of SoHopeful. Read more about that HERE, read also how Cheryl Griffith tried to cover it up.

And while you're at it, read what Dr. Gene Abel had to say from a study he did which included 16,109 adults who admitted sexually molesting at least one child.
40% of child molesters, who were later diagnosed as having pedophilia, had molested a child by the time they were 15 years old. An estimated 88% of child molesters and 95% of molestations (one person, multiple acts) are committed by individuals who now or in the future will also meet criteria for pedophilia. Pedophilic child molesters on average commit 10 times more sexual acts against children than nonpedophilic child molesters.

There may be innocent people imprisoned for murder who truly are innocent. But we don't lobby to abolish all laws regarding murder as a result. The same is true for sex offenders. ***IF*** these activists motives were truly about teenagers, THAT is what they would be addressing. But they are only further exploiting kids to further their own agenda. Very, very few teenagers are convicted for having consensual sex, it is rare, and it is the exception. But adults convicted for manipulating young teens is far too common. We understand this completely. They don't.

Graphics courtesy of Jacey

Labels: Age of Consent, Cheryl Griffiths, Gene Abel, girl chat, Jan Kruska, Jim Freeman, Pedophile Activism, pedophiles, SoClear, SoHopeful, SOSEN, Tom Madison

Stitches77 posted



This blue candle is for all the children out there who have endured the tragic afflictions of sexual abuse, including your own inner child.
The bubbles represent the children, how fragile they are and for them to be free from all abuse.
The stars represent the children who have sadly and tragically died from abuse.
The roses represents the pure and innocent love that adults should have for children, that there are still good people in this world.
Blue or Opal stands for innocence, and these babies have had their innocence stolen and shattered right before them!
The black background is for the final release of negativity that took hold of these children.
I am literally crying right now, please read my last few blogs.
I am crying for those children! I am crying for those officers of law who have had to endure the sickness of these tragedies and find these abused children, most of whom are still in danger and they don't know who or where they are.
I cry for their shame, I cry for their abuse, I am heart broken, sick and saddened.
It is so easy to be mad at the perpetrators right now and I want them exposed no matter how ugly it is, I want them caught and locked away forever!
However, this moment is for those children who endured all kid's of abuse for years in child porn rings and other.
Please just take this moment right now and light a candle, say a prayer, leave a comment, make a bulletin, and spread the word.
We are adults who care, we have a voice to speak up and speak up now. Let your voice be heard here and now! We will not let this go unheard, this flame will never go out!

http://imposteralert. blogspot. com/2008/03/indictment-james-freeman-told-users-he. html

http://www. news. com. au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23339978-662,00. html

http://www. stuff. co. nz/stuff/4428610a11. html

Thursday, March 6, 2008

Indictment: James Freeman told users he was ’proud to be a part of it’, a child porn ring.

The groups (like SOclear, SOSEN, & Roar4Freedom) that ran the
Ohio Sex Offender Rally are really proud of their people. Some people just like
James Freeman who is the legal affairs director, executive director, and co-founder of SOhopeful!

Indictment: James Freeman told users he was 'proud to be a part of it' (with MUG)
Andrew Gant

Tuesday March 4th, 2008

PENSACOLA — A Santa Rosa Beach man is one of 12 people indicted in a vast Internet child porn enterprise that investigators say ran for two years.

The U. S. Attorney's Office has charged James Freeman, 47, with numerous federal crimes: engaging in a child exploitation enterprise, conspiracy, advertisement of child pornography, transportation of child pornography, receipt of child pornography and obstruction of justice.

Prosecutors say Freeman and at least 11 others used large file-sharing networks to share child porn over the Internet and installed "sophisticated encryption methods" to avoid detection.

Freeman's user name was "Mystikal," according to his indictment.

The charges were filed after investigators infiltrated the network. By then, the group had already traded more than 400,000 images and videos of child sex abuse, the U.S. Attorney's Office alleges.

The indictment lists messages posted by all 12 users, many including descriptions of teens or children engaged in sex acts. One describes girls under 10 years old who are "heavily drugged" and abused.

In one message, Freeman posts two folders and claims the pictures inside are "worth the download," the indictment states.

Later, he thanks the others for their participation: "My thanks to you and all the others that together make this the greatest group of pedos to ever gather in one place. I'm honored just to be a part of it," according to the indictment.

Two other men were arrested Feb. 29 in connection with the case, but are not named in the document_

If convicted, Freeman and the others each face 20 years to life in prison plus fines.
The case was investigated by the FBI and lawmen in Australia, Germany, the United Kingdom and Canada.


Michael Berger, 33, username "Box of Rocks" of Mechanicsville, Va.
James Freeman, 47, "Mystikal" of Santa Rosa Beach
Ruble Keys, 55, "Crazy Horse" of Medford, Ore.
Gary Lakey, 54, "Eggplant" of Anderson, Ind.
Marvin Lambert, 33, "Methuselah" of Indianapolis, Ind.
Neville McGarity, 40, "Wraith" of Medina, Texas
John Mosman, 46, "Pickleman" of Waterbury, Conn.
Warren Mumpower, 63, "Lizzard" of Spokane, Wash.
Raymond Roy, 54, "Nimo" of San Juan Capistrano, Calif.
Erik Wayerski, 46, "Lerch" of Round Rock, Texas
Warren Weber, 56, "Muad'Dib" of Boise, Idaho
Ronald White, 59, "RoadKill" of Burlington, N.C.


Stepan Bondarenko, 38, of Philadelphia, Pa.
Daniel Castleman, 43, of Lubbock, Texas

Here below I have cross posted their blog.

Who is Jim Freeman you may ask. You may wonder why everyone will be talking about him. Along with his user names. His pedo porn name of Mystikal, and his RSO sex offender defender names "Mystik" and "Mystikwarrior"

Not too long ago we asked a very important question. "Who are these men"?
We wrote about men who preyed on children. We wrote about child molesters. we wrote about rapists and child pornographers. We wrote about men who wanted to look at images of children, toddlers and infants being sexually abused, sometimes sadistically.

We know they're out there looking for it. They come here everyday looking for some of the most bizarre things like

pedo san francisco playgrounds
nude nine year old girl lolitas geting raped
hiding child porn
grown men fucking preteen
5yo porn pics
little boys erection pedo
outragious preteen forced fuck pics
childs rape pics
underage kids illegal incest rape force
grooming twelve year old preteens free pics
free xxx photos of old men and little boy sex
pedo fucking hard
i fantasize about forcing a girl into sex

And now, men like these have been busted in what has been called the "most sophisticated child pornography operation in recent memory". 12 Americans were indicted for "participating in a global child pornography ring that distributed more than 400,000 pictures and videos of children engaged in sexual activities." Children drugged and unable to do ANYTHING. Completely at the mercy of sick freaks. WHO will DARE to even attempt to defend this I ask you?

"The 12 men were charged with engaging in a child exploitation enterprise; illegally posting notices seeking to receive, exchange and distribute child porn across state lines; and obstructing of justice. Several also were charged with producing the pornography — meaning they had contact with the children who were exploited"

One conversation went like this:

“This one may offend here, so a word of caution, these girls are heavily drugged,” Roy, known as “Nimo,” wrote on July 10, 2007, according to the court documents. “Not much action to speak of, the girls are (sic) to (expletive deleted) up to move, or resist. Three girls, the first one being the youngest, around 8 or 9 yo.”

At the forefront of these men is none other than Jim Freeman. The executive director, legal director and co-founder of SoHopeful. A sex offender activist group where Tom Madison, Shirley Lowery, David Coffman,
and other pro-sex offenders got their start. I can't help but wonder why Cheryl Griffith wants to bury this story. Didn't she claim that children's safety was her top concern?
"I can only pray that this is some kind of misunderstanding or government "fix". No matter what it is, this could hurt all of us (groups and individuals) greatly. In my opinion, the best thing we could do is to not post anything about it in our groups about this at least about his connection to any RSO groups."

Google James Freeman's names, especially those baby raper defender names and read what he had to say. The very things all the RSO activists say. The very things all the pedo activists have to say. Read especially his commentary about the reason Christopher Barrios was raped and murdered. And while you're at it, watch out for Zman, you just never know where that little freak will pop up next. While you're reading, keep in the back of your mind that Jim's activism related to getting himself off the SOR. Watch him spin statistics to excuse his behavior.
"very few registered offenders have been clinically diagnosed as pedophiles. As a 'class', sexual offenders have the second-lowest recidivism rate of all criminal offenses"

Then look where he is today.

HT to Jacey for graphic

Labels: Cheryl Griffiths, Child Molester, Child Pornography, Child Sexual Abuse, Christopher Barrios, pedophiles, Repeat Sex Offender, Roar4Freedom, SoClear, SoHopeful, SOSEN, Tom Madison



Birds of a feather flock together, indeed they do. And let us not forget for a moment some of the people the blame gamers have lost over the last few months.

Andrew Spedden member of Sosen

Johnny Ray Lee moderator/director of the North Carolina AND Wisconsin branch of SOSEN Yahoo groups, Media Director for SOSEN and Public Relations Director at ROAR4Freedom.

James Freeman, Executive Director Sohopeful

And let's not forget what Shirley Lowery said

"Child porn is a puzzler, Sending people to prison for something they see in their own home seems un-American"

"Pedophiles love children and enjoy being around them. The majority of pedophiles never act on their fantasies so they are never exposed"

Then she finished her ramblings out with this little gem

"Can I say that I am owner and chairman of SOSEN, a support group that deals with former members all across the US and that new legislation has been introduced which interfers with our program where we have a zero recidivism rate?"