JUST LIKE THE RECENT INTERVIEW WITH PETRA LUNA WHERE IT WAS SELECTIVELY EDITED, DECEPTIVE AND DISTORTED, HERE IN THIS ARTICLE BELOW ARE A FEW MORE REPORTED CASES OF SUCH PROPAGANDA TYPE "INVESTIGATIVE NEWS" THAT 20/20 HAS SHOWN IN THE PAST:
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.
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1134
____________________________________________________________
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stossel
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.
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/access/1309570171.html?dids=1309570171:1309570171&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Jul+25%2C+2007&author=Alana+Semuels&pub=Los+Angeles+Times&edition=&startpage=C.1&desc=TELEVISION%3B+Preacher+sues+%6020%2F20%2C%27+alleging+defamation
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."
Showing posts with label Jan Kruska. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jan Kruska. Show all posts
Thursday, March 20, 2008
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:
http://absolutezerounited.blogspot.com/
Read more about Jan here:
http://www.corporatesexoffenders.com/
Saturday, March 15, 2008
The Common Thread
CROSS POSTED FROM: http://absolutezerounited.blogspot.com/2008/03/common-thread.html
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:
SOclear
SOhopeful
SOSEN
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
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:
SOclear
SOhopeful
SOSEN
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.
http://www.nwfdailynews.com/article/12657/1
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 SOhopeful.org, 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.
____________________________________________________________
NOW A CROSS POST FROM ABSOLUTE ZERO AT:
http://absolutezerounited.blogspot.com/2008/03/obligations-and-boundaries.html
BUT PLEASE VISIT THAT LINK ABOVE FOR THE IMAGE'S AND MORE INFORMATION FROM THIER CLICKABLE LINKS!
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
http://www.nwfdailynews.com/article/12657/1
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 SOhopeful.org, 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.
____________________________________________________________
NOW A CROSS POST FROM ABSOLUTE ZERO AT:
http://absolutezerounited.blogspot.com/2008/03/obligations-and-boundaries.html
BUT PLEASE VISIT THAT LINK ABOVE FOR THE IMAGE'S AND MORE INFORMATION FROM THIER CLICKABLE LINKS!
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
Thursday, January 17, 2008
DARE TO FEEL THE PAIN
( CROSS POSTED FROM OUR FRIENDS AT ABSOLUTE ZERO:
http://absolutezerounited.blogspot.com/2008/01/dare-to-feel-pain.html )
Monday, January 14, 2008
Dare to feel the pain
"The Second Chance Society"
"Our mission is to fight a battle based on truth and documented facts. We shall encourage the young adults who have been cheated out of a childhood to work with us in finding realistic solutions for tomorrow's children. Those who have lived the hype and the fear will have a clear vision for the future and a roadmap to get there."
So speaks Shirley Lowery, the former CEO of Sosen. Recently shamed and ousted from her position during a gruesome hostile takeover, Shirley became depressed and announced her retirement. Unfortunately, it didn't last long. She's back with a vengeance and plotting her return to activism with her new mission statement, above.
One of her ways of making a come back will be to address America's youth. Not those who were victimized by sexual abusers but rather those she claims were cheated of a normal childhood by parents who were afraid that their child would be abused. She says:
"Adults threw all kinds of things on you to protect you from a fate worse than death.
Were you frightened or were you victimized and cheated out of the best years of your life due to the adults in your life that were scared witless?
It will be interesting to hear what you have to say about families being tossed out and burned out of their homes. People have been mugged and murdered.
These are things that are being done in your name."
Personally I think it will be far more interesting to hear from children who were groomed, manipulated and molested. Those who were sexually assaulted and battered. Those whose mother stood up for them .... and those that didn't. Those who had their abuse dismissed and/or denied, versus those who had validation of their right to be free of sexual abuse by having proper sentences given to their abusers. But that's me.
Shirley lost her American Chronicle articles, along with Jan Kruska and Jan's pseudonym Amanda Rogers. Of course Sosen itself lost their account also, but that's another story. This story is about Shirley's comeback.
"I am tempted to try again under another name but need an e-mail and profile completely separate from everything else.
I can still post on Arrivenet which gets some attention over time but not the grab of the Chronicles."
If you guys see her writings show up on the Chronicle under another name, could you please let me know?
Today we have the rare opportunity to observe one of her infamous blasts at society in progress. So far we have two versions she's presenting for group input. Let's look at some of the things she's saying.
She offers some snippets from a CNN transcript of John Walsh talking about his problems with sex addiction and how it hurt people in his life including his wife, children and himself. Shirley says:
"With this information we know that Walsh admitted to a raging sex addiction in 1999. He is well aware of the intensity of this condition and how it can ruin lives. If treatment worked for him it should work for many others with the same or a similar sex disorder. He owes the public an answer."
This is actually nothing new, all the RSO activists are trying to compare a sexual addiction to a sexual offense. This only serves to show their complete desperation and ongoing habit of pointing fingers, blaming others, and refusing to admit that they and they alone are fully responsible for their own actions. A sex addiction has nothing to do with sexually assaulting, raping, or molesting others unless the two are combined.
Next inline for finger pointing and blame-shifting we have Jessica Lunsford. We previously saw how Shirley made the allegation that Jessica had consensual sex with John Couey and then committed suicide by having Couey bury her alive. She's got a new spin on the situation, let's take a look.
"Every year we have young females who are abducted, raped and murdered. Jessica Lunsford was one such case. Her convicted killer, John Couey, did not suddenly turn murderer because of some long ago, non-violent sex crime. He turned killer due to the large amounts of crack cocaine that he ingested just hour's prior to Jessica's disappearance. By pretrial motion that information was withheld so even the juror's deciding his fate were not given this information. This tends to put a damper on the concept of a fair trial by a jury of your peers"
Let's stop there for a moment. Nobody has ever accused John Couey of murdering BECAUSE of his previous sex crime. Furthermore the same laws that allowed his drug use to be withheld in trial are the very same laws that prevent a jury from knowing a child molester on trial has a history of molesting 10 other children. It works both ways. And to make matters even worse for Shirley Lowery, in her haste to look like an idiot, completely fails to address the fact that John Couey kept Jessica for a week, raping her repeatedly before burying her alive. I hardly think he was on crack cocaine that entire time, and no one else thinks that either. That level of drug use would have killed him as no human body could withstand it.
"Jessica's horrific death would not have sparked any undue attention had it not been for old charges that required registration as a sex offender. That is the stage that was set for the American people. It was a power play with sex at the forefront and drugs pushed out of the way."
That's interesting. The way I recall events, Jessica's disappearance created a LOT of attention, BEFORE it was known a registered sex offender had kidnapped, repeatedly raped and killed by live burial little Jessica. THAT is how *I* recall it.
"Because of the way this case was presented everyone from home security people on up profited from this child's death. If John Couey had not fondled and tried to steal a kiss all of those years ago there would be no such thing as Jessica's Law."
Isn't it so terribly unfortunate that these things had to happen to Jessica before we could get our legislature to recognize what we've been telling them for years? But Shirley continues. She claims that the job the jurors did
"has been cheapened by the fact that even they were given partial truth to work with in a trial that was a mere mockery of justice.
This case was presented to a nation in such a manner as to induce public hysteria. It is time for us to remember that this is America where that sort of thing will not be tolerated.
For the health and welfare of this nation we had a right to know that the search was for a junkie rather than a sex fiend. Such careless, political power play has done irreparable harm to our country"
Search for a junkie? It was a search for an unknown person of unknown qualities who was acting for unknown reasons. It wasn't until after he was identified that anyone knew he was a registered sex offender. Furthermore, WHY does Shirley Lowery believe she has a right to know everything about a case yet you don't have a right to know that your next door neighbor molested a 5 year old child. When you have a 5 year old child.
WHY? Why is Shirley Lowery so hell-bent on blaming everyone except John Couey? Why is she so hell-bent on shifting attention AWAY from sex offenders? Could it be that her son, serving 60 years in prison for molesting Shirley's granddaughter, because of pleading guilty AND taking a plea bargain which REDUCED his sentence to SIXTY YEARS has caused her to flip her lid? Or was she always this wacked out?
"A child who has been victimized suffers from low-self esteem. If there is any shred of self-respect left it is quickly ripped away by society's very vocal perception. We are damaged, emotional cripples with diminished capabilities and nobody is willing to waste time on a lost cause. Society "saves" children by jerking them out of a bad situation and ensuring that the abuser is punished to the full extent of the law. There is no individual that notices or cares that only the faces have changed in a child's ongoing nightmare.
The hunger for revenge is what keeps these incidents as front-burner items. There are high-profile individuals who will tell you that a child deserves what he or she gets if they aren't willing to give up a loved one for 25 years. This is typical thinking for someone who has not experienced the situation. Most kids are not going to buy in to a 25-year future of public misery. We bide our time until we can walk away legally. The family is intact and there is no stigma. It is called survival.
The government never does anything right yet there are great expectations that they will fix the sex offender problem. Realistically, we are further away from a solution than we have ever been. Please stop the drama and pretend that your precious child has victimized another of your equally precious children. Dare to feel the pain of being alive with your heart ripped out. Get up close and personal with all aspects of such a situation and then give the world a valid opinion on how we should proceed."
Please pay close attention to this:
We bide our time until we can walk away legally.
The family is intact and there is no stigma.
It is called survival.
Dare to feel the pain of being alive with your heart ripped out
Shirley Lowery, I am addressing you.
You lost any credibility you may have had long ago. You have serious emotional and mental problems. Seek help for it and give this up before you make it any worse than you already have. You cannot be an activist anymore, no matter how much you want to be. We won't allow it.
Labels: Child Sexual Abuse, Jan Kruska, jessica lunsford, Jessica's Law, John Walsh, Sex Offender, Shirley Lowery, SOSEN
http://absolutezerounited.blogspot.com/2008/01/dare-to-feel-pain.html )
Monday, January 14, 2008
Dare to feel the pain
"The Second Chance Society"
"Our mission is to fight a battle based on truth and documented facts. We shall encourage the young adults who have been cheated out of a childhood to work with us in finding realistic solutions for tomorrow's children. Those who have lived the hype and the fear will have a clear vision for the future and a roadmap to get there."
So speaks Shirley Lowery, the former CEO of Sosen. Recently shamed and ousted from her position during a gruesome hostile takeover, Shirley became depressed and announced her retirement. Unfortunately, it didn't last long. She's back with a vengeance and plotting her return to activism with her new mission statement, above.
One of her ways of making a come back will be to address America's youth. Not those who were victimized by sexual abusers but rather those she claims were cheated of a normal childhood by parents who were afraid that their child would be abused. She says:
"Adults threw all kinds of things on you to protect you from a fate worse than death.
Were you frightened or were you victimized and cheated out of the best years of your life due to the adults in your life that were scared witless?
It will be interesting to hear what you have to say about families being tossed out and burned out of their homes. People have been mugged and murdered.
These are things that are being done in your name."
Personally I think it will be far more interesting to hear from children who were groomed, manipulated and molested. Those who were sexually assaulted and battered. Those whose mother stood up for them .... and those that didn't. Those who had their abuse dismissed and/or denied, versus those who had validation of their right to be free of sexual abuse by having proper sentences given to their abusers. But that's me.
Shirley lost her American Chronicle articles, along with Jan Kruska and Jan's pseudonym Amanda Rogers. Of course Sosen itself lost their account also, but that's another story. This story is about Shirley's comeback.
"I am tempted to try again under another name but need an e-mail and profile completely separate from everything else.
I can still post on Arrivenet which gets some attention over time but not the grab of the Chronicles."
If you guys see her writings show up on the Chronicle under another name, could you please let me know?
Today we have the rare opportunity to observe one of her infamous blasts at society in progress. So far we have two versions she's presenting for group input. Let's look at some of the things she's saying.
She offers some snippets from a CNN transcript of John Walsh talking about his problems with sex addiction and how it hurt people in his life including his wife, children and himself. Shirley says:
"With this information we know that Walsh admitted to a raging sex addiction in 1999. He is well aware of the intensity of this condition and how it can ruin lives. If treatment worked for him it should work for many others with the same or a similar sex disorder. He owes the public an answer."
This is actually nothing new, all the RSO activists are trying to compare a sexual addiction to a sexual offense. This only serves to show their complete desperation and ongoing habit of pointing fingers, blaming others, and refusing to admit that they and they alone are fully responsible for their own actions. A sex addiction has nothing to do with sexually assaulting, raping, or molesting others unless the two are combined.
Next inline for finger pointing and blame-shifting we have Jessica Lunsford. We previously saw how Shirley made the allegation that Jessica had consensual sex with John Couey and then committed suicide by having Couey bury her alive. She's got a new spin on the situation, let's take a look.
"Every year we have young females who are abducted, raped and murdered. Jessica Lunsford was one such case. Her convicted killer, John Couey, did not suddenly turn murderer because of some long ago, non-violent sex crime. He turned killer due to the large amounts of crack cocaine that he ingested just hour's prior to Jessica's disappearance. By pretrial motion that information was withheld so even the juror's deciding his fate were not given this information. This tends to put a damper on the concept of a fair trial by a jury of your peers"
Let's stop there for a moment. Nobody has ever accused John Couey of murdering BECAUSE of his previous sex crime. Furthermore the same laws that allowed his drug use to be withheld in trial are the very same laws that prevent a jury from knowing a child molester on trial has a history of molesting 10 other children. It works both ways. And to make matters even worse for Shirley Lowery, in her haste to look like an idiot, completely fails to address the fact that John Couey kept Jessica for a week, raping her repeatedly before burying her alive. I hardly think he was on crack cocaine that entire time, and no one else thinks that either. That level of drug use would have killed him as no human body could withstand it.
"Jessica's horrific death would not have sparked any undue attention had it not been for old charges that required registration as a sex offender. That is the stage that was set for the American people. It was a power play with sex at the forefront and drugs pushed out of the way."
That's interesting. The way I recall events, Jessica's disappearance created a LOT of attention, BEFORE it was known a registered sex offender had kidnapped, repeatedly raped and killed by live burial little Jessica. THAT is how *I* recall it.
"Because of the way this case was presented everyone from home security people on up profited from this child's death. If John Couey had not fondled and tried to steal a kiss all of those years ago there would be no such thing as Jessica's Law."
Isn't it so terribly unfortunate that these things had to happen to Jessica before we could get our legislature to recognize what we've been telling them for years? But Shirley continues. She claims that the job the jurors did
"has been cheapened by the fact that even they were given partial truth to work with in a trial that was a mere mockery of justice.
This case was presented to a nation in such a manner as to induce public hysteria. It is time for us to remember that this is America where that sort of thing will not be tolerated.
For the health and welfare of this nation we had a right to know that the search was for a junkie rather than a sex fiend. Such careless, political power play has done irreparable harm to our country"
Search for a junkie? It was a search for an unknown person of unknown qualities who was acting for unknown reasons. It wasn't until after he was identified that anyone knew he was a registered sex offender. Furthermore, WHY does Shirley Lowery believe she has a right to know everything about a case yet you don't have a right to know that your next door neighbor molested a 5 year old child. When you have a 5 year old child.
WHY? Why is Shirley Lowery so hell-bent on blaming everyone except John Couey? Why is she so hell-bent on shifting attention AWAY from sex offenders? Could it be that her son, serving 60 years in prison for molesting Shirley's granddaughter, because of pleading guilty AND taking a plea bargain which REDUCED his sentence to SIXTY YEARS has caused her to flip her lid? Or was she always this wacked out?
"A child who has been victimized suffers from low-self esteem. If there is any shred of self-respect left it is quickly ripped away by society's very vocal perception. We are damaged, emotional cripples with diminished capabilities and nobody is willing to waste time on a lost cause. Society "saves" children by jerking them out of a bad situation and ensuring that the abuser is punished to the full extent of the law. There is no individual that notices or cares that only the faces have changed in a child's ongoing nightmare.
The hunger for revenge is what keeps these incidents as front-burner items. There are high-profile individuals who will tell you that a child deserves what he or she gets if they aren't willing to give up a loved one for 25 years. This is typical thinking for someone who has not experienced the situation. Most kids are not going to buy in to a 25-year future of public misery. We bide our time until we can walk away legally. The family is intact and there is no stigma. It is called survival.
The government never does anything right yet there are great expectations that they will fix the sex offender problem. Realistically, we are further away from a solution than we have ever been. Please stop the drama and pretend that your precious child has victimized another of your equally precious children. Dare to feel the pain of being alive with your heart ripped out. Get up close and personal with all aspects of such a situation and then give the world a valid opinion on how we should proceed."
Please pay close attention to this:
We bide our time until we can walk away legally.
The family is intact and there is no stigma.
It is called survival.
Dare to feel the pain of being alive with your heart ripped out
Shirley Lowery, I am addressing you.
You lost any credibility you may have had long ago. You have serious emotional and mental problems. Seek help for it and give this up before you make it any worse than you already have. You cannot be an activist anymore, no matter how much you want to be. We won't allow it.
Labels: Child Sexual Abuse, Jan Kruska, jessica lunsford, Jessica's Law, John Walsh, Sex Offender, Shirley Lowery, SOSEN
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Mark Lunsford, John Walsh, Jan Kruska, Shirley Lowery, and Thomas Madison
There are jokers out there that want to say that because Mark Lunsford has a myspace profile and has some adult things on his page, or he used his middle finger and said a curse word or two that he should not be allowed to promote Jessica's Law.
OMG PEOPLE ARE YOU FLIPPING SERIOUS?!
It isn't like he has any porn on there, there is nothing on there that is against myspace TOS (Terms Of Service)!
At least from what I have seen.
Okay so there was a picture of him flipping the bird, WHOOPTY FREAKING DO!
Okay what else, he owns a gun BIG WHOOPTY DOO again!
UPDATED THOUGHT (also noted in my comments):
Jan Kruska says that she is heavily armed and prepared to take action against those who seek to harm her or her family.
I really can't blame her for that, however doesn't she run around claiming that she is all about child safety and stuff? So if this lame attack can be pointed at Mark Lunsford, then shouldn't it also be pointed at Jan as well?
and the full screenshot where this statement by her was made can be found in this blog.
Okay what else, he is an ADULT SINGLE MALE with some pretty girls on his page, some are scantily clad but still not against myspace TOS (Except the two women showing their behinds off in underwear, that is against TOS. However those women are breaking myspace TOS, NOT Mark. Besides, when he added them they may not have even had those pictures up at the time).Okay, what else is there, UHHHH this picture is NOT from his profile page (referring to the second picture below), but from someone else's.
You can see at the top of this screenshot that this is from the profile of a 39 year old female from Virginia. And so what? It is a joke at strippers! Okay moving on...
Let's see what else can we find....well....nothing else? Okay then.
So what is the owner of this blog http://johnwalshournewgod.blogspot.com/ trying to get at?
That Mark Lunsford is supposed to be a role model for children? The stupidity!
Mark Lunsford is a father of a murdered child! A child that was raped and buried alive!
Just what is the owner of that blog trying to say and do here? What is their REAL AGENDA?
Mark Lunsford is not an animated character on TV, or an entertainer for children. Mark is not a politician, or running for congress.
Before the terrible and tragic death of his child, he was just like anyone else. A regular person, and a father first.
After the horrible event, he became a victim as did his daughter and the rest of their family and friends.
Mark as a father first with his heartache and concern to push him, wants to be sure that what happened to his daughter does not have to happen to anyone else and their child most.
So he is doing what he can to help change that, to help save another child, to help to protect them. To make right of what went so very wrong.
Mark Lunsford is a father, and a regular person just like most all of us here.
There is no role that he needs to play to get the point across that children need better laws. Any human should know this, understand this and have the ability to comprehend it. Unfortunately a little girls life had to be lost to make such a law, to get people to notice!
Is there no compassion? Is there no sympathy? How cruel of a heart does a person need to have to attack the fathers and mothers of murdered children? What black soulless and heartless human being can say these things?
AND WHAT ABOUT ADAM WALSH?
Well, okay the man has a sex addiction.Does this make him a criminal?With all the good that Adam does, in helping to put away REAL criminals do we want to disown him over that?
Adult sex is not a crime. Rape, murder, and child molestation is!
Adam is none of those things, so use your brains people! THINK...
Here is the transcript to CNN where John Walsh is being interviewed by Larry King. In that interview you can see a discussion about John Walsh and his relationships with other women.
http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0307/15/lkl.00.html
Still, he is not a criminal. He is still doing positive, not negative deeds like the person at the blog above claims (as pictured in the screenshot below).
I HAVE ALSO FOUND A ARTICLE FROM AMERICAN CHRONICLE (written by Shirley Lowery) ABOUT HIS ADDICTION.
AND WHO IS SHIRLEY LOWERY? (Click On The Image Above Of An Article She Wrote) (UPDATE: THIS ARTICLE HAS SINCE BEEN REMOVED BY AMERICAN CHRONICHLE DUE TO THE FACT OF WHICH SHIRLEY SUPPORTS IS CLEARLY WRONG & LIES SHE PRETENDS ARE FACTS!)
http://www.wikisposure.com/Shirley_Lowery
Shirley Lowery is an angry RSO (Registered Sex Offender) activist and former CEO of a nonprofit corporation called SOSEN, and the current founder of the "new" SOSEN. She is the mother of a convicted sex offender. Her son, Anthony Craig Oliver, plead guilty to 3 counts of sexually assaulting his daughter and received a 20 year prison sentence for each count. He lost his appeal.
Lowery is best known for denying the traumatic effects of child sexual abuse and always blaming the victim for their abuse.
Shirley Lowery says, about Jessica Lundsford:
“Jessica was not tortured and her death comes across more as an assisted suicide than a murder. There were no drugs or alcohol in her system and only her wrists were bound. She had not strained to try and free her arms. She could have easily kicked through the plastic bags but she did not. There were no tears, rips or even stretch marks. It looks as if she stepped into the bags of her own accord, squatted down and waited for death. There was no hand stretching upward as if asking foe help.”
---------------------------------------------------
What is SOSEN?
S.O.S.E.N.
Sex Offender Support & Education Network
http://www.wikisposure.com/SOSEN
SOSEN'S Claim:
Our mission is to advocate for positive sex offender policies and programs that include accountability, fair sentencing, and supportive community reintegration strategies. We support the rights of former offenders and their families to live peaceful, productive lives free from changing restrictions and public humiliation, discrimination, and violence.
WHAT'S THAT? Support for sex offenders?
SOSEN is a non-profit tax-deductible 501(c)(3) corporation.
WHAT? A 501(c)(3) Corporation for sex offenders!
Yep people, that's right. And that's not all folk's! SOSEN is in collaboration with SOCLEAR.
http://www.wikisposure.com/SOclear_Media_Productions
Who is behind SO Clear Media Productions, Inc.?(Copied And Pasted Straight From Thier website):
The people behind SO Clear Media Productions, Inc. are those citizens who are required to register as sex offenders, their families, and other American individuals and groups that are becoming aware of the sad consequences of poorly researched laws that have not solved the sex abuse problem but have created new victims (the families of registered sex offenders). Please see the BIO section for information on the SO Clear Media’s founder.
So Who Is The Founder?
Thomas Henry “Tom” Madison, a registered sex offender from the state of Oregon.
http://www.wikisposure.com/Tom_Madison
Convicted in 2000 of charges related to the sexual abuse of a 16 year old girl, he took a plea bargain and received five years probation for his offense. Part of his sentence is that he is required to register as a sex offender.
Portions Of A Letter From The Director(Thomas Madison)Of SOCLEAR:
Hello fellow Registered Sex Offenders (RSOs), activists, participants, and friends of liberty, freedom, a fair legal system, the US Constitution and human rights.
We intend to gain back the most basic of our lost constitutional, civil and human rights. These governmental legal violations of the Bill of Rights include: rights to due process, equal protection, avoiding double jeopardy, no ex-post facto laws, and the basic right of facing one’s accuser. All Americans are affected by these violations and are on the verge of losing habeas corpus at this current time.
The new vision will consist of activist-minded Registered Sex Offenders (and their family members) and others who are willing to take our struggle to the next higher level. For those of you who are truly RSO activists (thinkers, doers, organizers, and leaders), let us today take our urgent messages directly to those that declared war on our rights as citizens: Many of America’s politicians at all levels and the big ‘for-profit’ media corporations.
Thank you in advance for you involvement at a new level of RSO and RSO family rights involvement.
Sincerely,
Thomas Henry “Tom” Madison
Executive Director
SO CLEAR MEDIA PRODUCTIONS, INC.
An Oregon Non-Profit Corporation
SO Clear Media Productions, Inc. an Oregon Non-Profit Corporation
ANOTHER NON PROFIT ORGANIZATION FOR SEX OFFENDERS?
Executive Director
Thomas Henry “Tom” Madison
Thomas Henry “Tom” Madison has been involved with many different organizations and business associations, and is the first Executive Director of SO Clear Media Productions, Inc.
News Director
Amanda Rogers
Phoenix resident Amanda Rogers, creator of the highly acclaimed site "Operation Awareness" , is a freelance journalist and Senior Staff Writer. She has been following and researching sex offender and child safety legislation for over 15 years.
So who is Amanda Rogers? Well her real name is Jan Kruska, and she is a level one registered sex offender from Arizona.
Before she was married she was arrested in 1992 at the age of 22 in Glendale, Arizona for sexual conduct with a minor (his age-15). Her maiden name at the time of arrest was Gustafson. See the court case here: http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/docket/CriminalCourtCases/archivecaseInfo.asp?caseNumber=CR1992-004222
That was 15 years ago. Although according to Jan, she didn't get invloved in fighting the sex registry until a couple years after her arrest. She says it was in the spring of 1994 after hearing a news story about a little girl from New Jersey named, Megan Kanka. So is Thomas Lying, or did Jan lie to Thomas? Iether way, Thomas is not accurate and has not done his homework on Jan. Remember he claims that, "She has been following and researching sex offender and child safety legislation for over 15 years". NO, the truth is that she has been a registered sex offender for over 15 years.
http://www.wikisposure.com/Jan_Kruska
See this image of this screen shot here, it is written by Amanda Rogers/Jan Kruska(Gustafson) from her website, at Operation Awareness.
Also notice how at that time (in the screenshot above written only a few weeks ago), Jan/Amanda was trying to hide who she REALLY was, thus more hiding her true agenda. When Amanda Rogers was speaking of this anonymous women named, "Jane Marie Doe" it appears that she was in actuality speaking of her very own self.
She also seemed to be making a point in comparing her crime to that of the man who raped and murdered Jessica Lunsford. Like as if she was saying that what she did was not so bad. Like comparing apples and oranges fruit is fruit, a sex crime is a sex crime. Just because the direct actions differed and one may be way more heinous than the other it is still perverted & despicable either way!
However Jan/Amanda seems not feel this way.
See this screenshot for Amanda's confession that she really is Jan Kruska!
Notice how Jan says in that screenshot above that she plead guilty to the crime she committed as if she did so right away. Like she is such a wonderful citizen? Well the link I provided from the Maricopa County Superior Court Of Arizona seems to differ that claim, doesn't it?
Then she goes on to say it was ONLY a misdemeanor. She said she did not try to lie her way out of it, and it appears that she may have originally plead NOT guilty.
Then she goes on to say that Bruce Howland (see down below for more details) the other defendant aside of her was charged with a class 4 felony of child abuse, but it appears that she may have been personally summoned to court for child abuse as well.
Then she says that people are invited to go to the court and check her records for themselves, and she provided us with the case number. I have provided that court info/link she spoke of for you as mentioned above.
Then she goes on and mentions that she had JUST turned 22 when she was arrested, as if that makes a BIG difference there!
And the old claim of "THAT'S NOT MY MYSPACE ACCOUNT!" It WAS her account, if you searched her name, Jan Kruska that account popped up. If you typed in her email address, that myspace account popped up.
Myspace sends EVERYONE a confirmation/activation email for every account that gets set up. In order for that account to be activated in anyway shape or form, a link has to be followed from that email address to myspace for confirmation.
In that email it also says that if the person received that email in error what they can do to solve it. I have personally seen that myspace account with my own eyes, and I checked on it for three days in a row before she finally deleted it. In those three days it had been logged into each day.
NOTE: CT1 CHILD ABUSE CL 4 FEL (B); CTS2,3 SEXUAL CONDUCT W/MINOR CL 6 FELONIES; DR92-9781 GPD/ DOC 020792, BETWEEN 122591 - 020792
Her name at the time of the arrest was Jan Gustafson (maiden Name). Again you can see her court info here:
http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/docket/CriminalCourtCases/archivecaseInfo.asp?caseNumber=CR1992-004222
At first Jan may have plead not guilty
(6/11/1992 8:30 Original Arraignment Not Guilty)
Jan's criminal court record shows her case number is CR1992-004222-A.
The letter A at the end of that number should be followed for all of Jan's information, since there were two defendants.
The other defendant aside of Jan is BRUCE HOWLAND. His case number is the same as Jan's, however his ends with the letter B.
According to Jan, Bruce was the adopted father of the boy that Jan had sexual conduct with. Bruce was also I believe the boyfriend of Jan.
Jan claims that Bruce was an abusive alcoholic and that she cared for the boy very much. Well, I mean she was practically like his step mom right?
So Bruce would abuse her and the boy, which Jan claims made her and the boy even closer.
So how does Jan comfort a boy who is being abused by his father? She has sex with him!
It appears at that link I provided above that BOTH defendants, may have originally plead not guilty:
6/11/1992 8:30 Original Arraignment Not Guilty
Then it appears that they both went for a Not Guilty Plea Arraign On The Same Day:
6/11/1992 152 - ME: Not Guilty Plea Arraign - Party (A) 6/12/1992
6/11/1992 152 - ME: Not Guilty Plea Arraign - Party (B) 6/12/1992
Then one month afterwards looks like Jan decided to take the guilty plea bargain, changing it from not guilty to guilty:
7/10/1992 105 - ME: Plea Agreement/Change of Plea - Party (A)
7/10/1992 PAG - Plea Agreement - Party (A)
A "plea bargain" is a deal offered by a prosecutor as an incentive for a defendant to plead guilty. If every case in the justice system went to trial, the courts would be so overloaded that they would effectively be shut down. Plea bargaining allows the prosecutor to obtain guilty pleas in cases that might otherwise go to trial.
There are two types of plea bargain:
Charge Bargain
A "charge bargain" occurs when the prosecutor allows a defendant to "plead guilty to a lesser charge," or to only some of the charges that have been filed against him. For example, a defendant charged with burglary may be offered the opportunity to plead guilty to "attempted burglary." A defendant charged with Drunk Driving and Driving With License Suspended may be offered the opportunity to plead guilty to just the drunk driving charge.
Sentence Bargain
A "sentence bargain" occurs when a defendant is told in advance what his sentence will be if he pleads guilty. This can help a prosecutor obtain a conviction if, for example, a defendant is facing serious charges and is afraid of being hit with the "maximum" sentence. Typically, sentence bargains can only be granted if they are approved by the trial judge. Many jurisdictions severely limit sentence bargaining.
So what does Jan do, she considers herself to be a freelance journalist.
Amanda Rogers(Jan's "pen" name)is the alias used by Jan to discuss sex offender registries.
She can't use her real name since Jan is a registered sex offender, well she can but then who would trust her...right?
It appears that Jan hates the registry so much, that she wants to change the laws so that she does not have to be on one anymore.
Just like Thomas Madison of SOCLEAR, seems that they both feel and think this way.
They think and act as if they themselves are the victims, of course not the ones they sexually offended.
And according to Jan, the sex between her and her child victim was "consensual".
Well the boy's aunt didn't seem to agree with Jan's theory and had her arrested.
SOCLEAR is in collaboration with operation Awareness, another website dedicated to sex offenders.
And Jan is the owner and creator of Operation Awareness.
Now you have it, three scum bags with website's to help people who sexually offend other people including children!
And two of them are Registered Sex Offenders (RSO) themselves!
PLEASE VISIT THIS LINK! http://absolutezerounited.blogspot.com/2007/10/rest-of-story.html
JUST TRY AND DISPUTE THAT!
And this link too!
http://absolutezerounited.blogspot.com/2007/10/flawless-reasoning-no-more-victims-act.html
OMG PEOPLE ARE YOU FLIPPING SERIOUS?!
It isn't like he has any porn on there, there is nothing on there that is against myspace TOS (Terms Of Service)!
At least from what I have seen.
Okay so there was a picture of him flipping the bird, WHOOPTY FREAKING DO!
Okay what else, he owns a gun BIG WHOOPTY DOO again!
UPDATED THOUGHT (also noted in my comments):
Jan Kruska says that she is heavily armed and prepared to take action against those who seek to harm her or her family.
I really can't blame her for that, however doesn't she run around claiming that she is all about child safety and stuff? So if this lame attack can be pointed at Mark Lunsford, then shouldn't it also be pointed at Jan as well?
and the full screenshot where this statement by her was made can be found in this blog.
Okay what else, he is an ADULT SINGLE MALE with some pretty girls on his page, some are scantily clad but still not against myspace TOS (Except the two women showing their behinds off in underwear, that is against TOS. However those women are breaking myspace TOS, NOT Mark. Besides, when he added them they may not have even had those pictures up at the time).Okay, what else is there, UHHHH this picture is NOT from his profile page (referring to the second picture below), but from someone else's.
You can see at the top of this screenshot that this is from the profile of a 39 year old female from Virginia. And so what? It is a joke at strippers! Okay moving on...
Let's see what else can we find....well....nothing else? Okay then.
So what is the owner of this blog http://johnwalshournewgod.blogspot.com/ trying to get at?
That Mark Lunsford is supposed to be a role model for children? The stupidity!
Mark Lunsford is a father of a murdered child! A child that was raped and buried alive!
Just what is the owner of that blog trying to say and do here? What is their REAL AGENDA?
Mark Lunsford is not an animated character on TV, or an entertainer for children. Mark is not a politician, or running for congress.
Before the terrible and tragic death of his child, he was just like anyone else. A regular person, and a father first.
After the horrible event, he became a victim as did his daughter and the rest of their family and friends.
Mark as a father first with his heartache and concern to push him, wants to be sure that what happened to his daughter does not have to happen to anyone else and their child most.
So he is doing what he can to help change that, to help save another child, to help to protect them. To make right of what went so very wrong.
Mark Lunsford is a father, and a regular person just like most all of us here.
There is no role that he needs to play to get the point across that children need better laws. Any human should know this, understand this and have the ability to comprehend it. Unfortunately a little girls life had to be lost to make such a law, to get people to notice!
Is there no compassion? Is there no sympathy? How cruel of a heart does a person need to have to attack the fathers and mothers of murdered children? What black soulless and heartless human being can say these things?
AND WHAT ABOUT ADAM WALSH?
Well, okay the man has a sex addiction.Does this make him a criminal?With all the good that Adam does, in helping to put away REAL criminals do we want to disown him over that?
Adult sex is not a crime. Rape, murder, and child molestation is!
Adam is none of those things, so use your brains people! THINK...
Here is the transcript to CNN where John Walsh is being interviewed by Larry King. In that interview you can see a discussion about John Walsh and his relationships with other women.
http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0307/15/lkl.00.html
Still, he is not a criminal. He is still doing positive, not negative deeds like the person at the blog above claims (as pictured in the screenshot below).
I HAVE ALSO FOUND A ARTICLE FROM AMERICAN CHRONICLE (written by Shirley Lowery) ABOUT HIS ADDICTION.
AND WHO IS SHIRLEY LOWERY? (Click On The Image Above Of An Article She Wrote) (UPDATE: THIS ARTICLE HAS SINCE BEEN REMOVED BY AMERICAN CHRONICHLE DUE TO THE FACT OF WHICH SHIRLEY SUPPORTS IS CLEARLY WRONG & LIES SHE PRETENDS ARE FACTS!)
http://www.wikisposure.com/Shirley_Lowery
Shirley Lowery is an angry RSO (Registered Sex Offender) activist and former CEO of a nonprofit corporation called SOSEN, and the current founder of the "new" SOSEN. She is the mother of a convicted sex offender. Her son, Anthony Craig Oliver, plead guilty to 3 counts of sexually assaulting his daughter and received a 20 year prison sentence for each count. He lost his appeal.
Lowery is best known for denying the traumatic effects of child sexual abuse and always blaming the victim for their abuse.
Shirley Lowery says, about Jessica Lundsford:
“Jessica was not tortured and her death comes across more as an assisted suicide than a murder. There were no drugs or alcohol in her system and only her wrists were bound. She had not strained to try and free her arms. She could have easily kicked through the plastic bags but she did not. There were no tears, rips or even stretch marks. It looks as if she stepped into the bags of her own accord, squatted down and waited for death. There was no hand stretching upward as if asking foe help.”
---------------------------------------------------
What is SOSEN?
S.O.S.E.N.
Sex Offender Support & Education Network
http://www.wikisposure.com/SOSEN
SOSEN'S Claim:
Our mission is to advocate for positive sex offender policies and programs that include accountability, fair sentencing, and supportive community reintegration strategies. We support the rights of former offenders and their families to live peaceful, productive lives free from changing restrictions and public humiliation, discrimination, and violence.
WHAT'S THAT? Support for sex offenders?
SOSEN is a non-profit tax-deductible 501(c)(3) corporation.
WHAT? A 501(c)(3) Corporation for sex offenders!
Yep people, that's right. And that's not all folk's! SOSEN is in collaboration with SOCLEAR.
http://www.wikisposure.com/SOclear_Media_Productions
Who is behind SO Clear Media Productions, Inc.?(Copied And Pasted Straight From Thier website):
The people behind SO Clear Media Productions, Inc. are those citizens who are required to register as sex offenders, their families, and other American individuals and groups that are becoming aware of the sad consequences of poorly researched laws that have not solved the sex abuse problem but have created new victims (the families of registered sex offenders). Please see the BIO section for information on the SO Clear Media’s founder.
So Who Is The Founder?
Thomas Henry “Tom” Madison, a registered sex offender from the state of Oregon.
http://www.wikisposure.com/Tom_Madison
Convicted in 2000 of charges related to the sexual abuse of a 16 year old girl, he took a plea bargain and received five years probation for his offense. Part of his sentence is that he is required to register as a sex offender.
Portions Of A Letter From The Director(Thomas Madison)Of SOCLEAR:
Hello fellow Registered Sex Offenders (RSOs), activists, participants, and friends of liberty, freedom, a fair legal system, the US Constitution and human rights.
We intend to gain back the most basic of our lost constitutional, civil and human rights. These governmental legal violations of the Bill of Rights include: rights to due process, equal protection, avoiding double jeopardy, no ex-post facto laws, and the basic right of facing one’s accuser. All Americans are affected by these violations and are on the verge of losing habeas corpus at this current time.
The new vision will consist of activist-minded Registered Sex Offenders (and their family members) and others who are willing to take our struggle to the next higher level. For those of you who are truly RSO activists (thinkers, doers, organizers, and leaders), let us today take our urgent messages directly to those that declared war on our rights as citizens: Many of America’s politicians at all levels and the big ‘for-profit’ media corporations.
Thank you in advance for you involvement at a new level of RSO and RSO family rights involvement.
Sincerely,
Thomas Henry “Tom” Madison
Executive Director
SO CLEAR MEDIA PRODUCTIONS, INC.
An Oregon Non-Profit Corporation
SO Clear Media Productions, Inc. an Oregon Non-Profit Corporation
ANOTHER NON PROFIT ORGANIZATION FOR SEX OFFENDERS?
Executive Director
Thomas Henry “Tom” Madison
Thomas Henry “Tom” Madison has been involved with many different organizations and business associations, and is the first Executive Director of SO Clear Media Productions, Inc.
News Director
Amanda Rogers
Phoenix resident Amanda Rogers, creator of the highly acclaimed site "Operation Awareness" , is a freelance journalist and Senior Staff Writer. She has been following and researching sex offender and child safety legislation for over 15 years.
So who is Amanda Rogers? Well her real name is Jan Kruska, and she is a level one registered sex offender from Arizona.
Before she was married she was arrested in 1992 at the age of 22 in Glendale, Arizona for sexual conduct with a minor (his age-15). Her maiden name at the time of arrest was Gustafson. See the court case here: http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/docket/CriminalCourtCases/archivecaseInfo.asp?caseNumber=CR1992-004222
That was 15 years ago. Although according to Jan, she didn't get invloved in fighting the sex registry until a couple years after her arrest. She says it was in the spring of 1994 after hearing a news story about a little girl from New Jersey named, Megan Kanka. So is Thomas Lying, or did Jan lie to Thomas? Iether way, Thomas is not accurate and has not done his homework on Jan. Remember he claims that, "She has been following and researching sex offender and child safety legislation for over 15 years". NO, the truth is that she has been a registered sex offender for over 15 years.
http://www.wikisposure.com/Jan_Kruska
See this image of this screen shot here, it is written by Amanda Rogers/Jan Kruska(Gustafson) from her website, at Operation Awareness.
Also notice how at that time (in the screenshot above written only a few weeks ago), Jan/Amanda was trying to hide who she REALLY was, thus more hiding her true agenda. When Amanda Rogers was speaking of this anonymous women named, "Jane Marie Doe" it appears that she was in actuality speaking of her very own self.
She also seemed to be making a point in comparing her crime to that of the man who raped and murdered Jessica Lunsford. Like as if she was saying that what she did was not so bad. Like comparing apples and oranges fruit is fruit, a sex crime is a sex crime. Just because the direct actions differed and one may be way more heinous than the other it is still perverted & despicable either way!
However Jan/Amanda seems not feel this way.
See this screenshot for Amanda's confession that she really is Jan Kruska!
Notice how Jan says in that screenshot above that she plead guilty to the crime she committed as if she did so right away. Like she is such a wonderful citizen? Well the link I provided from the Maricopa County Superior Court Of Arizona seems to differ that claim, doesn't it?
Then she goes on to say it was ONLY a misdemeanor. She said she did not try to lie her way out of it, and it appears that she may have originally plead NOT guilty.
Then she goes on to say that Bruce Howland (see down below for more details) the other defendant aside of her was charged with a class 4 felony of child abuse, but it appears that she may have been personally summoned to court for child abuse as well.
Then she says that people are invited to go to the court and check her records for themselves, and she provided us with the case number. I have provided that court info/link she spoke of for you as mentioned above.
Then she goes on and mentions that she had JUST turned 22 when she was arrested, as if that makes a BIG difference there!
And the old claim of "THAT'S NOT MY MYSPACE ACCOUNT!" It WAS her account, if you searched her name, Jan Kruska that account popped up. If you typed in her email address, that myspace account popped up.
Myspace sends EVERYONE a confirmation/activation email for every account that gets set up. In order for that account to be activated in anyway shape or form, a link has to be followed from that email address to myspace for confirmation.
In that email it also says that if the person received that email in error what they can do to solve it. I have personally seen that myspace account with my own eyes, and I checked on it for three days in a row before she finally deleted it. In those three days it had been logged into each day.
NOTE: CT1 CHILD ABUSE CL 4 FEL (B); CTS2,3 SEXUAL CONDUCT W/MINOR CL 6 FELONIES; DR92-9781 GPD/ DOC 020792, BETWEEN 122591 - 020792
Her name at the time of the arrest was Jan Gustafson (maiden Name). Again you can see her court info here:
http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/docket/CriminalCourtCases/archivecaseInfo.asp?caseNumber=CR1992-004222
At first Jan may have plead not guilty
(6/11/1992 8:30 Original Arraignment Not Guilty)
Jan's criminal court record shows her case number is CR1992-004222-A.
The letter A at the end of that number should be followed for all of Jan's information, since there were two defendants.
The other defendant aside of Jan is BRUCE HOWLAND. His case number is the same as Jan's, however his ends with the letter B.
According to Jan, Bruce was the adopted father of the boy that Jan had sexual conduct with. Bruce was also I believe the boyfriend of Jan.
Jan claims that Bruce was an abusive alcoholic and that she cared for the boy very much. Well, I mean she was practically like his step mom right?
So Bruce would abuse her and the boy, which Jan claims made her and the boy even closer.
So how does Jan comfort a boy who is being abused by his father? She has sex with him!
It appears at that link I provided above that BOTH defendants, may have originally plead not guilty:
6/11/1992 8:30 Original Arraignment Not Guilty
Then it appears that they both went for a Not Guilty Plea Arraign On The Same Day:
6/11/1992 152 - ME: Not Guilty Plea Arraign - Party (A) 6/12/1992
6/11/1992 152 - ME: Not Guilty Plea Arraign - Party (B) 6/12/1992
Then one month afterwards looks like Jan decided to take the guilty plea bargain, changing it from not guilty to guilty:
7/10/1992 105 - ME: Plea Agreement/Change of Plea - Party (A)
7/10/1992 PAG - Plea Agreement - Party (A)
A "plea bargain" is a deal offered by a prosecutor as an incentive for a defendant to plead guilty. If every case in the justice system went to trial, the courts would be so overloaded that they would effectively be shut down. Plea bargaining allows the prosecutor to obtain guilty pleas in cases that might otherwise go to trial.
There are two types of plea bargain:
Charge Bargain
A "charge bargain" occurs when the prosecutor allows a defendant to "plead guilty to a lesser charge," or to only some of the charges that have been filed against him. For example, a defendant charged with burglary may be offered the opportunity to plead guilty to "attempted burglary." A defendant charged with Drunk Driving and Driving With License Suspended may be offered the opportunity to plead guilty to just the drunk driving charge.
Sentence Bargain
A "sentence bargain" occurs when a defendant is told in advance what his sentence will be if he pleads guilty. This can help a prosecutor obtain a conviction if, for example, a defendant is facing serious charges and is afraid of being hit with the "maximum" sentence. Typically, sentence bargains can only be granted if they are approved by the trial judge. Many jurisdictions severely limit sentence bargaining.
So what does Jan do, she considers herself to be a freelance journalist.
Amanda Rogers(Jan's "pen" name)is the alias used by Jan to discuss sex offender registries.
She can't use her real name since Jan is a registered sex offender, well she can but then who would trust her...right?
It appears that Jan hates the registry so much, that she wants to change the laws so that she does not have to be on one anymore.
Just like Thomas Madison of SOCLEAR, seems that they both feel and think this way.
They think and act as if they themselves are the victims, of course not the ones they sexually offended.
And according to Jan, the sex between her and her child victim was "consensual".
Well the boy's aunt didn't seem to agree with Jan's theory and had her arrested.
SOCLEAR is in collaboration with operation Awareness, another website dedicated to sex offenders.
And Jan is the owner and creator of Operation Awareness.
Now you have it, three scum bags with website's to help people who sexually offend other people including children!
And two of them are Registered Sex Offenders (RSO) themselves!
PLEASE VISIT THIS LINK! http://absolutezerounited.blogspot.com/2007/10/rest-of-story.html
JUST TRY AND DISPUTE THAT!
And this link too!
http://absolutezerounited.blogspot.com/2007/10/flawless-reasoning-no-more-victims-act.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
