Google

User Profile
Tracy
Female
Ohio

 
Archives
 
Visitors

You have 3896 hits.



  
July 18, 2008 06:05:03
Posted By Tracy

The Ohio House of Representatives has recently passed legislation that makes it a case of neglect if a parent allows a sex offender to reside in the same home as children. This legislation needs to be passed by the Senate before it can become law.

A reporter (Margo Pierce) for a Cincinnatti based newspaper (City Beat)  was interviewing a woman (Jackie Sparling)who is a high ranking member of SoClear Media about the effects this law would have on sex offenders.

If you haven't heard before, SoClear Media is a radical group of sex offenders who will do anything to abolish the sex offender registry and other legislation dealing with sex offenders.

I offered Margo Pierce Women Against Sexual Predators opinion of the legislation so that she could have both side of the story for her article.

Margo Pierce intentionally misconstrued what WASP said to fit her own agenda- to defend sex offender rights.

here is my original letter to Margo:

 Dear Margo,
  
I have been informed that you will be interviewing Jackie Sparling concerning HB111. I am sure you would understand my concern about  you running a story about sex offenders living with children, and you only print the sex offenders side of the story.
 I would be willing to give WASP's opinion of the legislation, and even contact information for the parent who asked Rep. Collier to bring this legislation forward.

Tracy Golden

President
Ohio Chapter
WASP  
  
Her reply was this:

Dear Ms. Golden,

Thank you for your interest in my upcoming article. If you've read any of my work you know that I frequently review and analyze state legislation. I have some experience in this area and do not spare poorly written laws criticism, not matter how they are cloaked – helping the elderly, protecting children, saving jobs. Thoughtful analysis that attempts to extrapolate potential consequences (intended or otherwise) and the legality of the action are my primary goals.

Please do not make the mistaken and simplistic assumption that if I do not agree with the way a law is written that I support the opposing view (e.g. if I find this legislation lacking then I support allowing all sexual predators to roam free and victimize whomever they choose).
I support good public policy that is able to accomplish what is is designed to do and call law makes to task on sloppy, inn-conceived work.

If you could take some time to respond to a few questions that would be helpful. I can't make any guarantees about how much, if any, of your responses will be included simply because my word count is only 675 and my editor has final say.

My deadline is Friday, so I will need to you're your responses by noon tomorrow. If I don't hear from you I'll presume you aren't interested,

Best regards,
Margo Pierce

______________________

Her Questions: My answers in purple

How does this law make children any safer when child welfare agencies already have extensive rights to investigate even a hint of abuse and all of the people in any household where an accusation is made?

 
As everyone already knows, Child Welfare Agencies consistantly are poorly ran. Everytime I hear from a family who is having problems getting thier childs sexual abuser prosecuted is due to the lack of help and actual hinderance from Children Services. Unless there is DNA left in the child, many times they refuse to prosecute because they refuse to take the words of a child as true.
This law will make children safer because it will do what some parents lack to do, which is use common sense. You do not place your children in a home with a convicted felon who has a propensity to sexually abuse. We all know the staggering statistic that the over 90% of victims know thier attacker. It would be foolish to assume that this is not occuring in thier home.
From RAINN:

In 1995, local child protection service agencies identified 126,000 children who were victims of either substantiated or indicated sexual abuse.

  • Of these, 75% were girls.
  • Nearly 30% of child victims were between the age of 4 and 7.

93% of juvenile sexual assault victims know their attacker.

  • 34.2% of attackers were family members.
  • 58.7% were acquaintances.
  • Only 7% of the perpetrators were strangers to the victim.
  •  

 



The language for HB111 does not include any language that protects parents who are unaware of a former conviction in their guest's past – if the person lies, is not registered and therefore not on any list, etc. – so what recourse will these parents have to get their children back? What is going to be done to prevent the unnecessary trauma children will face being wrongly separated from their families?

 

Parents will have to prove to children services that they are no longer neglectful IE: remove the offender from the home.

They will not be wrongly seperated from thier families. They will be seperated for thier own protection until the sexual offender is removed from the home. You do not leave the fox in the chicken coop and hope that he leaves. First you protect the chickens, then remove the fox.

Your own analysis of this bill makes it clear that you expect many children to be removed form their homes. Why is there no funding included to pay for the added burden this will place on the already under-funded child welfare system?

 

I don't know if there will be a significant number of children affected due to the fact that most sex offenders are "loners" after release.

I did not write the legislation, so I don't know. This bill was mirrored after one in Florida.

As I'm sure you know, up to 95 percent of the victims of sexual abuse know their attackers – a parents, sibling, aunt, uncle, coach, teacher.
If incest is identified and reported, the families will never be allowed to reunite and heal under the threat of minor children being taken away when parents are charged with neglect. How does this help the child?

Are you serious? Most children do not want to "reunite" with someone who has raped or molested them. The farther away from thier abuser they are , the more safe they feel. If the childs parents still want to hang out with Uncle Joe who raped thier little girl, then they can go to his house and visit him, and leave thier child with a babysitter.

The goal of the child welfare system is to reunite families whenever possible – to help create healthy family environments – but this legislation will eliminate that possibility because any placement of the child back in the home will result in another charge of neglect if the offender is in the family. How can HB 111 be a protection for
children when you eliminate the possibility of returning to their biological families?

The possibility is not eliminated. The child can return home when it is offender free. The child cannot LIVE with a sex offender. If the family really felt that the offender was an important member of thier family, they would visit them. This law is not about keeping children out of the presence of all sex offenders  ~ it is about keeping KNOWN sexual abusers out of the homes with children. A child cannot dictate who they live with, but this law will at least keep sexual abusers out of thier homes. A child has a right to not be FORCED to live with thier abuser.



It is impossible to prevent a crime – if another person wants to commit a crime, they are going to do it. The most anyone can do is practice personal safety – if protecting children is what you want to do then why is there no provision for educating the public about how to practice personal safety related to sexual assault and identify the behaviors in children that are hiding the fact that they are being hurt? (When a child's parent is threatened by her attacker, the child does not tell so how is a parent.)

 

I'm sure you have heard , but the Gov. has decided to cut funding in those areas. I would love to see some type of legislation that makes this mandatory in schools.

I do not see any language in the bill that addresses false accusation – how is a family or parent supposed to defend themselves against this open-ended language and vindictiveness of others? Say an ex-husband doesn't like the man his ex-wife marries, so he makes an unfounded
accusation that subjects the children and the family to an unnecessary invasion of their privacy. (The number of false charges that occur in divorce situations alone make it impossible to say this kind of thing will not happen.)

This legislation only is geared towards convicted sex offenders, not "suspected".

Her response:

Dear Ms. Golden,

Thank you for taking time to respond to my questions. Just like everyone else, I have a boss and my editor is the one who makes all final decisions about what ends up in print.  As soon as the HB 111 review is up on line I'll forward a link so that you will be able to see what answers you provided are printed, poor grammar and all.

In the meantime, I am writing to remind you that your responses are all "on the record" and can be used in the article. You avoided directly answering a number of questions. made some broad and potentially inaccurate assumptions about the victims of sex crimes and misrepresent the truth of the potential repercussion of this legislation.

Best regards,
Margo

___________________________
Margo Pierce
Staff Writer, CityBeat
513.665.4700 Ext. 136
mpierce@citybeat.com

811 Race Street, Fifth Floor
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
www.citybeat.com

NICE HUH?

Her Article:

http://citybeat.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A145630

News: Background Checks for Houseguests
Ohioans might be at risk of losing their kids if they don't know a visitor's criminal history

BY Margo Pierce | Posted 07/16/2008

A friend from another state spends a few nights in your home. One morning before he leaves, a social worker shows up on your doorstep with a cop telling you that she's there to remove your children pending an investigation of an anonymous allegation of negligence.

If convicted of child endangerment, you could lose custody of your children. Permanently.

Sound like a bad made-for-TV-movie? It's a real-life scenario that will play out all over Ohio if House Bill 111, already passed by the Ohio House, moves out of a Senate committee and is voted into law by legislators.

The brief summary provided by the bill's author, State Rep. Thom Collier (R-Mount Vernon), states that the law will in part "expand the definition of neglected child to include a child whose parent, guardian or custodian knowingly allows certain sexually oriented offenders or child-victim offenders to reside in the same residence as that child."

If you're not aware of a houseguest's conviction on a sex-related crime, your children could be defined as  "neglected." Can't prove you didn't "knowingly" allow this to happen? You're going to be in deep, because anyone could make an anonymous call to the Ohio Department of Job & Family Services (JFS) and start an investigation.

One of the many problems with this law -- beyond unnecessary trauma for children who aren't at risk and debates over wrongful convictions -- is that it's redundant. JFS already has the power to launch investigations of parents; all they need is a suggestion of abuse, according to Jackie Sparling, administrative assistant for the Sex Offender Support and Education Network.

Sparling is a child-victim of molestation at the hands of a family member. She passionately believes that former offenders have the right to a second chance.

Sparling says that most individuals on the Ohio electronic sex offender registry are male and many have children. She says HB111 all but guarantees that former sex offenders will be prohibited from living with and therefore parenting their own children.

"Case workers are human beings," she says. "Human beings come with their own set of prejudices. ... They're going to go in (to home investigations) with a preconceived notion ... and I fear happy, healthy, well-adjusted children are going to be taken out of perfectly fine and wonderful homes ... and put into foster care."

The potential for false accusations and botched investigations is something Tracy Golden, president of the Ohio chapter of Women Against Sexual Predators, avoids addressing. When asked to comment about the potential harm done to children and families when false accusations of abuse are made, she doesn't respond. She does point out problems within the agencies as proof this law is necessary.

"As everyone already knows, child welfare agencies consistently are poorly run," Golden says. "Every time I hear from a family who is having problems getting their child's sexual abuser prosecuted (it's) due to the lack of help and actual hindrance from Family Services. Unless there is DNA left in the child, many times they refuse to prosecute because they refuse to take the words of a child as true.

"This law will make children safer because it will do what some parents lack to do, which is use common sense. You do not place your children in a home with a convicted felon who has a propensity to sexually abuse. We all know the staggering statistic that the over 90 percent of victims know their attacker. It would be foolish to assume that this is not occurring in their home."

Golden says children won't be taken from a safe home environment as a result of HB111.

"They will not be wrongly separated from their families," she says. "They will be separated for their own protection until the sexual offender is removed from the home. You do not leave the fox in the chicken coop and hope that he leaves. First you protect the chickens, then remove the fox."

Aside from providing no evidence to support her claims about JFS obstructing investigations, Golden's logic is flawed. She assumes that any person convicted of any sex crime is a risk to a child.

The nature of the mental health issues that cause people to act out sexually aren't all the same (see "Postcards from the Edge," issue of Jan. 12, 2005). Portraying people convicted of any sex crime as out to molest children and a guaranteed repeat offender isn't helping children or anyone else, according to Sparling.

"There are about 600,000 people in the national registry," she says. "According to the Department of Justice, only about 5.3 percent are people you'd really want to know if they were your neighbor -- they are of the predator caliber. The rest of them are paying for that 5.3 percent.

"Ninety five percent of all new sex crimes are committed by people who are not on that registry. So tell me, what good is it? It's a public gallows. It's a shaming tool. We should know from past history that it does not work."

One of the things that concerns Katherine Blacksmith (not her real name) of Northern Ohio is the "false sense of security" laws like HB111 give the general public. She believes the money spent on registries and enforcing laws that prohibit former offenders from living within 1,000 feet of a school perpetuate a "lie" that children are safe from sexual abuse if these laws are enforced.

After working with former offenders for five years, Blacksmith says that most people still aren't aware that most offenders know their victims.

"It's a false sense of security because ... it's normally someone that's close to the victim," she says. " 'Stranger danger,' are there those icky pedophiles out there? Yes. But they make up such a minute part of the population and yet everybody is being classified as being that dangerous."

Now married to a former sex offender who committed his crime more than 25 years ago, Blacksmith says the stigma is an added punishment but the laws on top of that make it difficult to move on.

"We have the worst of the worst case here with my husband," she says. "What I find very disturbing is that he spent over 19 years in prison. He received treatment. He got a very good job since he got out. He's getting on with his life. He has remorse. He doesn't blame anyone else for what he did, and yet he's going to be persecuted for life."

Unwilling to subject his victim to potential publicity participating in an interview could bring, Blacksmith and her husband decided to remain anonymous. They want to live their life together with their daughter, who's a toddler, and that's what they're trying to do despite his requirement to register for life as a sex offender.

"My husband is a lot of things: He's a husband, a father, a Viet Nam veteran," Blacksmith says. "He had a great naval career, he's a hard worker, he's a friend. He's somebody's uncle, cousin. But sex offender still remains. ... Does that ever go away?"

HB111 additionally mandates that former sex offenders can't change their name or they'll face fraud charges. It also contains outdated language -- the passage of Senate Bill 10 last year changes all of the offender categories -- and includes an exception for an offender who's a juvenile in order to allow families to deal with problems related to incest when the offender is under age and a blood relative.

 

Did you notice that they focus entirely on the fact that most abusers are known to the child
*THE VERY REASON for this bill that they now deny a need for

Now does that seem like a fair story?

I didn't think so.......

so I decided to write the editor of the paper, John Fox

My Letter..........

Dear Mr. Fox,

 
I am writing in complaint of the article recently published about HB111. I contacted Margo when I learned through the sex offender support forums that she was writing an article against HB111, and was planning on asking one of the senior members of the sex offender support group for an interview (Jackie Sparling). I offered Margo my opinion on the legislation  so that she could get both sides of the story for her article.
 
Little was I aware that Margo seems to think that the sex offenders are the victims. I came to this conclusion after reviewing Margo's numerous articles on the subject of sex offenders and the legislation against them. In every article she quotes individuals from various groups that support sex offenders, or advocate for thier rights- yet she rarely interviews victims advocates about thier side. When she does, she makes them appear as if they are crazed lunatics.
 
I am assuming that Margo must have a sex offender in her family that she feels is getting a bad wrap, or else she would not be interviewing and siding with convicted felons, thier families, and the radical groups that they belong to.
 
SoClear Media- a group almost entirely consisting of child victim sex offenders and thier loved ones. Jackie Sparlin belongs to this group. Her husband tried to lure a 13 year old to his home to be his captive sex slave. Jackie feels that the public should not be aware of sex offenders and thier crimes http://www.wikisposure.com/SOclear_Media_Productions
 
Roar For Freedom- The founders (Betty Price) husband, convicted of sexual battery of a child under 12. One member wanted to start a "sex offender militia". He wanted to arm themselves, and he said that the media and polititcans would be thier targets because of all of the grief that they have caused sex offenders.
 
SOSEN-  The former leader Shirley Lowery believes that pedophiles are a natural part of society and even claimed that Jesus was a pedophile. She also claims that Jessica Lunsfords death was actually an assisted suicide by John Couey. They kicked Shirley out only after she started sabotaging her own group. The new leader Linda Pehrson, welcomed her husband back into her home after he was convicted of molesting her daughter, who is also still in the home. http://www.wikisposure.com/SOSEN
 
Most members of these groups are also members of the other groups. Many have signed this petition created by a NAMBLA member, that basically wants to abolish the sex offender registry, to eliminate the age of consent so that ANY child under 18 can legally consent, and any other law that may restrict sex offenders. http://www.wikisposure.com/Reform_Sex_Offender_Laws_Campaign
 
I could go on and on about the groups she has decided to associate your paper with supporting.
 
Not only that, she misleads the public as to the true consequences of the law. She falsely states that if someone spends the night at your home and they are a sex offender, your kids will be taken away.
 
The law as passed by the house states that if an convicted sex offender resides in a home with children, it is considered neglect. Residence refers to a place of adode that is more than merely temporary. (  http://definitions.uslegal.com/r/residence/ )
 
Then she posts the link to the legislation as it was INTRODUCED, not the link to what the bill was when it was passed - basically leaving out the amendments.
 
I have also attached below the copy of our correspondence. She was exceptionally rude without provocation other than she did not agree with my opinion. 
 
You will also see that she lied about me refusing to answer her questions. If I did not know, I stated so. And when she asked a question about false accusations, I corrected her, I did not refuse to answer. Only people convicted of a sex crime are considered. If you have pled guilty to or been convicted of a sex crime- that is not a false accusation, but a proven fact in the court of law.
 
I suggest you do something about Margo turning your newspaper into a sex offender advocacy "free for all". The vast majority of citizens believe that sex offender restrictions and legislation are important to keep our families safe. Your articles should be about what is important to your readers, not Margo.
 
Oh, and by the way- this is "on the record", as I will be posting this on various websites.
 
Best Regards,
Tracy Golden

 

If anyone feels the need to write the editor, or Margo

thier email as listed on the city beat website is

John Fox - Editor & Co-Publisher
e-mail: jfox@citybeat.com

Margo Pierce - Staff Writer
e-mail: mpierce@citybeat.com
Permalink     Comments (0)     Email to Friend
 
July 3, 2008 09:34:55
Posted By Tracy

Allan Patton

Sex offender arrested on charges he tried to collect urine

 

By KATHLEEN L. RADCLIFF
Published: Wednesday, July 2, 2008 1:10 PM EDT
 

A 56-year old previously convicted sex offender is again facing charges related to his reported attempt to obtain and drink the urine of boys, Dublin police said.

Alan David Patton, 6269 Emberwood Road, was arrested by Dublin police June 14, when he allegedly tried to collect urine in a men's restroom at Sports Ohio, 6314 Cosgray Road

Dublin police said an employee of the facility reported a father and his son came up to the front desk, asking why the men's restroom was closed between 3:30 and 3:40 pm. June 7.

The father told police there were trash bags covering the toilets and paper cups in the urinals, as well as typed signs in the restroom directing people to use the urinals with the cups in them.

 

While in the restroom, the father told police he opened a stall and saw a man, sitting on the toilet with a black bag on his lap.

The father told police he and the man said nothing to each other.

Patton was taken to the Franklin County Jail by Dublin police June 14.

He was arraigned in Franklin County Municipal Court June 16 on one count criminal mischief, and is free on combined cash, surety and appearance bonds, according to the clerk of courts office.

Patton will face a pre-trial hearing before Municipal Court Judge Anne Taylor at 9:30 a.m. July 11.

Patton is a registered sex offender with the Franklin County Sheriff's Office and the Ohio Attorney General's Office for a two-year conviction for a May 20, 1993 rape.

He is a Tier III sex offender, according to the Franklin County Sheriff's Office.

Patton was charged with two counts voyeurism in 1990, one count of menacing in 1992 and one count of public indecency in 2003, according to Franklin County Municipal Court records.

Patton was arrested in February 2006, at a movie theater in Gahanna, on charges of voyeurism and pandering obscenity, after a man noticed his strange behavior in the restroom and reported it.

He was sentenced in that case to five years house arrest, with no use of public restrooms, by Municipal Court Judge Carrie Glaeden.

Patton is one of nine offenders registered within a two-mile radius of the Emberwood Road area, according to the Franklin County Sheriff's Office.

 

 

This guy is one sick puppy! He admits that drinking the urine makes him ill, but he cannot resist the urge. He feels that it makes him closer to the children, and that he is drinking thier vitality.

This man needs more that a petty misdomenor charge. He is definately mentally ill and needs to be put in a mental hospital.

 
Permalink     Comments (0)     Email to Friend
 
March 18, 2008 09:02:25
Posted By Tracy
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:
Some of those people include:
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.
Permalink     Comments (2)     Email to Friend

Categories: ZMan, SOSEN, SoClear, AOC, Betty Price, Child Pornography, Jan Kruska, Jim Freeman, Johnny Ray Lee, Linda Pehrson, NAMBLA, pedophiles, Pedospeak, Roar4Freedom, Sarah Tofte, SoHopeful, Wikisposure
 
November 19, 2007 08:06:36
Posted By Tracy

For some reason *wink wink* I have all these sex offenders and sex offender advocates viewing my website. I get the usual hate mail, and of course they are messing with my web polls - putting in answers that NO ONE actually believes, and signing me up for spam. I don't care. If they really want to continue, let them. I have an IP tracker on my website. I know who visits, when, and how often. It would not be hard to find out who posts what.

I guess I should feel flattered that they actually find me a threat. Am I running around in camo and face paint stalking them? These people are so paranoid they even think that I am forming "secret operations" against them? Why don't they wear tinfoil hats so I can't read their thoughts!

Yes - I keep an eye on them... who wouldn't? But for God's sake.... Take Some Prozac!

I have better things to do than stalk Looneys on the web!
Permalink     Comments (0)     Email to Friend

Categories: ZMan, SOSEN, SoClear, ROAR, weirdos, loonies
 
November 8, 2007 09:20:41
Posted By Tracy
Aug 9, 2007 9:24 AM

 

Don't disreguard this message please, just listen to
what I have to say.

 

Well first of all, your wondering about my name, well that is because I am on the "Sex Offender's" list, and I want to make it known I am an offender. Second I'm sure your wondering why I am writing to you, that is a very good question indeed. I am writing because I was victimized myself when I was a child since the age of 7 by Someone whom I do not remember any longer. I was molested by my next door neighbor at my grandmother's house, which my mother caught, from a girl at age 15 or so. Later at age 10 I was, well I don't know how to put it, but I was instructed by an elder cousin of mine to have sexual relation's with other cousins of the same age as me (they were all female), this happened for quite a while until one of my cousins said something, it then stopped finally at age 12 or 13 I cannot remember exactly. So as you can see I have known nothing but this my whole life, now when I was age 13 I asked one of my cousins that was from a different family altogether to get naked, I then stopped myself from preceding any further because I felt guilty, well she told her mother or father about it and then I was charged for criminal sexual conduct 2nd degree as an adult. Now I understand you hate child molesters, which I do as well, however how in the world is it fair to charge a child as an adult and have their life ruined and be put on the sex offender list? It is absurd, I have lived my whole like marked as a child molester when me myself was abused ever since I was age 7. Does the government care about me? Did the counselor's care when I told them all of this? NO. Who am I going to turn to? I have been through so much trauma through my life and even more so trying to be a normal teenager. I am 23 now and have not committed any sort of crime, not even a traffic ticket, I am not a possible re-offender nor am I a child molestor because I was a child myself. Please respond, be it hateful or pleasant I just wish for acknowledgment.

Thank you for reading,
Anonymous
Permalink     Comments (0)     Email to Friend