Setting A Standard For Sex Offender Advocacy

If you have been cyberstalked, cyberbullied, or fallen prey to the donation scams in the “name of advocacy”, I encourage you to contact your local law enforcement

Ever since the inception of the sex offender registry personal information of whereabouts, vehicles, jobs, schools, and other sensitive information is for the public to use at a cost that could leave registrants and family members vulnerable towards predatory behaviors by those that choose to use the registry as a cyberstalking tool. Recently I encountered trolling that quickly developed into a criminal cyberstalking incident that authorities alerted my family and me. Because it was a personal matter, there was no need to involve organizations or others. However, local deputies and authorities from other states suddenly changed that narrative as it came to my attention that organizations had been contacted with threats of intimidation made – and continues today. I brushed most of the noise off and went back to business as usual. But it was my family, my university, and my friends that saw significant safety concerns and decided to escalate the issue much further by contacting police to file a formal complaint.

Ethical Standards. Principles that when followed, promote values such as trust, good behavior, fairness, and/or kindness. There is not one consistent set of standards that all companies follow, but each company has the right to develop the standards that are meaningful for their organization.

Local law enforcement authorities sat me down and began asking lots of questions about my memberships with various registry organizations. It was then I started to take notice that something wasn’t quite right. I felt as if the mood was shifting that the very organizations I choose to represent may have aggressive or perhaps criminal behaviors associated with them? My complaint was quickly handed over to federal agents that peppered me with questions. I felt as if my association with advocacy had taken a wrong turn to become involved with a criminal organization meant to harm individuals. At least that was the perception I was presented. The information, evidence, and pages upon pages of graphic details dating back almost a decade were enough to make me think critically that perhaps some within advocacy wish to intimidate both externally and internally. Unlicensed, unregistered, fake company names with many pseudo names changed over the years to cyberstalk, cyberbully, and disruption of organizations. But it didn’t stop there. The same tactics were and are being used to target advocates from within the organization. If federal authorities were presenting this as a warning along with internet protocol addresses with locations, then the information provided by other organizations, people and a university was eye-opening as well into the criminal behaviors and practices that tarnish the reputation of law-abiding advocacy organizations and its membership. It was a very sad moment to learn a consistant pattern of cyberstalking and cyberbullying actions from within the registry community bringing an agenda of harm and harrassment fellow registry advocates.

Cyber-bullying is when a person is tormented, threatened, harassed, humiliated, embarrassed or otherwise targeted by another child, preteen, or teen using interactive and digital technologies, such as the Internet or through phones. It has to have a minor on both sides, or at least have been instigated by a minor against another minor. Once adults become involved, it becomes cyber-harassment or cyberstalking

Companies and organizations have a responsibility for maintaining a code of ethical and responsible behavior both for its officers but also its membership. If a person claims to be a member but hasnt ever maintained membership then isnt it the responsibulity of that organization to halt bad behaviors or fraudulent claims of being an active member? It is an open-ended question but presents a candid discussion as to membership criteria and perhaps separating a cult-like establishment branding. But when personal actions skirt a fine line between organizational and individual requirements, then it becomes a liability to the organization for not pushing back to protect its corporate integrity guidelines and active members. Organizations that fail to address improper or unethical behaviors are accepting the burden of the association not by membership, but by the actions of its members that perhaps sends the wrong message that illegal practices are acceptable – as long as we don’t know about it, or pretend not to acknowledge it. When law enforcement agencies paint a picture that some within registry advocacy borderlines hate speech can support it with documentation, facts, and evidence, then it creates a thin wedge “am I on the right side of advocacy?” It presents a surreal moment that perhaps questions why there are many divisions, factions, groups, posing under differing names but mainly under one or more umbrellas? To be on the right side of advocacy organisations must embrace member standards and conduct. Without such standards organizations cannot produce a standard to be reasonably heard or visible and allows leadership to become tainted by outside influence. I may be a member of the ACLU or other organizations, but I dont overstep my bounds by speaking on their behalf. Instead, I allow credible appointed professionals to do that leg of the work so that the message is consistant and reflects a good image upon the organization. I don’t belong to advocacy to press one-sided issue or to become a part of a cult-like experience. I belong and commit to advocacy so that both sides have equal representation of compromise and the best possible solution for all.

For now, I am allowing local and federal investigators to do their job and determine the next steps which appear to be rapidly moving. Naturally, law enforcement always has my support because of my faith in democracy as a nation of laws where we follow them. My biggest fear and concern is that there will be unintentional victims that are associated with select individuals. However, people choose to follow whomever they wish – but perhaps at a significant cost by association. Additionally, as a retired Army veteran, I support and defend our constitution, which includes free speech. But when that speech is impaired to mask or inflict cowardly harm or discourse, then it is safe to deem such predators as organizational terror cells intent on not standing up for justice, but hiding behind aliases similar to the mentally disturbed or radicalized individuals. If your message is more about the person rather than the cause, then perhaps you are in the wrong advocacy program? Lastly, I am not a John Doe and have mentioned for the sake of advocacy that I do not wish to be an anonymous figure. I do not have alias accounts or screen names – and never have. I do understand the need for privacy for those still living in shame, guilt, or vulnerable circumstances for the protection of self, family, and loved ones. Typically, it is these people that deserve our best foot forward ensuring that we are providing them a credible voice by the restoration of good ethical behaviors by working in their best interests to make their lives better – not worse by micromanaging every word or quote seeking to control their speech or particular advocacy.

Radicalization is a process by which an individual, or group comes to adopt increasingly extreme political, social, or religious ideals and aspirations that reject or undermine the status quo or contemporary ideas and expressions of the nation.

I believe in our nation and believe that our system, despite its flaws, has the best intentions of being protecting all Americans. I do not perform acts to desecrate our nation’s flag by referring to it as a “rag.” I don’t apply women in derogatory misogynistic methods just because I don’t get my way. I refuse to enlist others to support a one-sided conversation. I have a political compass that is personal and not introduced in my day-to-day professional routines. Lobbying may have its political leanings, but advocacy takes no firm stance on political ideology. Therefore I treat all my professional encounters equally. I am an LGBT member and take a personal stance on ensuring my and the rights of others are not hindered. As a person with ADHD, I am cognitive of mental health and social issues and believe that many registrants with such diagnosis are widely overlooked and not a recognizable introduction of motive or other circumstances. Therefore, I also advocate for ADHD among autism based organizations but only in a supportive, non-professional, role. I converse in a respectful tone even when I disagree, and I certainly don’t abuse a system for my benefit. I am a Christian but recognize others for their beliefs and respect their choices. I wont stoop to lows such as support for methods of cyberbullying or cyberstalking of opponents or allies. Those on the sex registry are not at war with our country. Instead, registrants should choose to become active participants in civic duties by contacting legislators, the press, religious, and other civic causes to have an amplified voice of diplomacy, discourse, and recognition. But to become credible, we must be trustworthy too. The childlike behaviors of fake screen names, fraudulent companies, false banking methods, fake charities, maybe false disability claims, and sometimes phony victimization won’t help causes if we allow select people to ruin the standard of advocacy by setting a higher standard. There have been too many past lawsuits levied to individuals not playing by the simple rule of discourse within the sex offender advocacy mission. Until national and local groups can clean up its act and tackle the stain by specific individuals, advocacy won’t have a viable voice among society because it embraces the wrongs rather than the pursuit of the right. Nobody ever claimed advocacy would be easy. But the art of public policy and support must be met with civility, patience, and respect. I would expect such poor displays of behavior from middle or high schoolers; not professional advocacy organization members? So much for people acting their age?

In law, fraud is intentional deception to secure unfair or unlawful gain, or to deprive a victim of a legal right. Fraud can violate civil law, a criminal law, or it may cause no loss of money, property or legal right but still be an element of another civil or criminal wrong.

I will maintain cautious advocacy towards lawful and transparent legislation. The current climate of various political criticisms has polarized our nation, municipalities, and organizational framework. However, I am an individual that may occasionally expect profound discourse from opponents. But at no point would I ever expect personal attacks and the lack of parliamentary professionalism from within advocacy work? Perhaps it is time for advocacy organizations to implement and hold accountable individuals that pose more harm to others than protecting them? Sooner or later the toll that one bad actor brings upon an organization which will eventually leak into to the mainstream media may be a setback for advocacy without the hope of recovery because it is deemed as criminals continuing to support criminal behaviors. Registrants certainly would never allow authorities to abuse the voice, liberty, and rights? Why on earth would registrants be fearful or live in fear from one of their supposed allies? That seems to be the standard dilemma organizations must directly address for the sake of growth, expansion, and a safe-space of getting the message out. It is not a perfect system, but it seems to be filled with imperfections that are stifling others by hate-filled anger laced tactic that must immediately stop before someone gets hurt. It is this instablity local and national advocacy MUST address – and soon. Otherwise, I forecast that national advocacy organizations will be be burned from both ends without a care in the world because it would leave only one person remaining to carry on his/her personal agenda at the cost of so many affected by the registry. As police and other advocates have suggested, it is the perfect “gaslighting” strategy which is especially sad because police do rely upon advocacy groups as support mechanisms within communities. (yes, police can be helpful even if laws they are sworn to uphold are unpopular among registrants)

There are nearly one million individuals listed on sex offender registries. But less than micro percent of registrants belong to or support advocacy groups to meet their needs or concerns. Perhaps one reason is that registrants are uncomfortable at being vulnerable, exposed, publically shamed, cyberbullied, or cyberstalked by others within the organizational framework.

If we are to be advocates of helping to craft sound public policy and rational laws, then it might be helpful if we practice what we preach? Otherwise, recidivism rates will venture towards another arena that will maintain the stigma of predatory behaviors and make restrictions worse for those that DO obey and respect laws, people, and boundaries.

Footnote: I have a very supportive and large family, a robust network of good reliable lifelong friends, a wonderful university department that has been beyond supportive, and a partner of over seven years active that has always been there for me. It is these pillars of support that have introduced and advocated for myself to stamp out cyberbullying and predatory behaviors by others. It is also these support pillars that are the ones that assist in helping about a specific individual that targets, harasses, and uses the internet as a predatory tool rather than a resource for good. But some people cannot be rehabilitated and perhaps the best solution is for them to be placed in lifetime civil commitments for their own protection and for the good of society? It is these pillars of support that will do all means not only to protect myself from harm but others by civilly and criminally charging those that skillfully commit wrongful conduct but play out the victim card. My family and support system are more insightful and eager to handle the bad elements of society using it for personal gain and exploiting others for entertainment purposes. Personally, I appreciate all the offline concerns and support to stamp out this self-proclaimed-self-absorbed “Beetlejuice” government abuser and facilitator of misogynistic hatred under the guise of sex offender advocacy. If you have been cyberstalked, cyberbullied, or fallen prey to the donation scams in the “name of advocacy”, I encourage you to contact your local law enforcement authorities to file a formal complaint or charges. Allow law enforcement to work for you for a change and stop this criminal behavior.

Mature Decision Making​

I recently read about a 16-year-old person soon to be graduating from high school – and Harvard University. It had me thinking about maturity, development, and the method in which we as adults defines an individual as capable of making adult decisions?

Some would argue that a 16-year-old person graduating from a prestigious university is an exception to the rule and in fairness a rare event. However rare events are measured by people using loose fact-finding data to justify an answer. If any 16-year-old person anywhere in the world didn’t graduate from high school early or be enrolled in a college does that make them less of a gifted individual allowable to make his/her own adult choices? The quick answer would be a resounding “No” by most. It seems that the exception rule is based upon privilege with an acknowledgment by others in power or control. A measurable formula is when others suggest gifted and talented acts by potential candidates, but they are not selected or overlooked in the rare process to seek mature and gifted students. It is strange that America has a vastly large magnet or gifted-talented educational programs, but the identity of allowing adult decisions and seeking qualified candidates are decided from ungifted or unqualified individuals. Instead, we continually drop the pursuit of maturity and gifted people through the cracks of our politized educational system using a formula of standardized tests that most people find boring and not engaging. These identifiers are our main selection process in the discovery of the future Stephen Hawking? No wonder its difficult to find maturity or raise the bar because of how we developed the bar or challenge.

Another maturity example that differs is that the Army of the United Kingdom allows military enlistment beginning at age 16 compared to the U.S. Army enlistment at age 18. The drinking age in the UK is 18 while all of the United States is 21. The age of consent in the UK is 16 while Americans have a mish-mash of consent ages usually beginning at age 18 but with various stipulations. A college education typically starts in the UK at age 16 while American colleges roughly range at 18 or just after high school. Does this suggest that American culture is lagging in maturity and development behind other industrialized nations?

Additionally, does it indicate that our system of the age of suffrage it out of date or lacking useful data? If you take notice that the UK enjoys a safe maturity level of age 16 across the board. Perhaps this is why that nation doesn’t have significant incarceration, sex registry, or costly educational system? It does beg to question American methods and practices if we can look outward for a moment.

The question about maturity and development is highly questionable because American culture takes excellent value in placing a numeric value on all individuals rather than exploring scientific data or the exploration of the exceptional rule. It seems as if the UK has done its fact-finding and created a uniformed and easy to understand practice all while embracing trust and maturity of its youth. This is not to suggest that we should begin immediately lowing ages to “keep up with the Joneses” per se. What I am suggesting is that we became a bit more uniformed and aligned with other industrialized nations especially in a globalized society filled with internet, apps, and shared educational values with regards to sciences, maths, and culture. Otherwise, if we fail to discuss the educational and maturity benefits of shifting the goal post of developmental maturity programs, then we will become as complacent as our poorly designed Great Depression educational school calendars that we continue to use today.

Gottfried Fired As Coach

A quick followup to my previous post. Apparently, NC State University athletics lied once again to the media. Nearly identical to the Sidney Lowe firing which it claimed was false and misleading Athletics Director Debbie Yow fired head basketball coach Mark Gottfried today. It is one thing to say “no comment” or to remain silent. But for a university to blatantly lie to the media is not only in bad taste but defies ethical behavior at a publically funded university level.

 

Say what you will about the UNC cheating scandal. But college athletics must be held to a higher level of ethics and disclosure. But Debbie Yow and the NC State University staff lying to media outlets creates a level of distrust not only by its fan base but to the people of North Carolina. For that, Debbie Yow and those that supported her false statements should be terminated from the University immediately.

 

Poor, Poor N.C. State University Basketball

For some of my blog readers, today’s blog may not be filled with political discourse or general policy overviews. Instead, I again will once again write about the North Carolina State University athletics program. When I attended N.C. State I wrote for The Technician about the University piss poor athletics programs. In fact, during that reporting period, the athletics department was headed by athletics director Lee Fowler. Shortly after my scathing, but honest, assessment Fowler retired from the University. He was replaced by Debbie Yow, which is the sister of the late N.C. State basketball coach legend, Kay Yow.

 

First, to understand a typical dedicated Wolfpack fan comes with a standard set of guidelines. 1. The program has an incredible history. 2. The entire athletics program seems focused on only beating Carolina. 3. Preseasons are filled with hype only to dissipate as the season progresses. In other words, the Wolfpack doesn’t have the caliber programs found at Notre Dame, UNC, Arizona or Florida. Instead, it will throw millions of dollars into a “Field of Dreams” style building project to build a reputable and loyal fan base to immediately fail on the field or on the court. Granted, its athletics facilities are some of the best on the planet. Any athletics coach would be in awe to have equal access to such services. In fact, the recruitment is on par with just about any other major university program. Coaching staff typically has some remarkable stats at the initial phase. But once at N.C. State all that falls apart. It’s a university filled with hopes of athletic excellence that consistently fails to deliver.

 

The last time N.C. State basketball program went to the NCAA Elite Eight was in 1986. That program was led by the late Jim Valvano. Les Robinson took over the program after Valvano was forced to leave under athletics misconduct allegations. Then came Herb Sendek which took the Pack to a tournament for 9 out of 10 seasons before his firing and departure to Arizona State University. Sidney Lowe, a former N.C. State player became the next coach that never had one appearance at the NCAA tournament. Now we come to the current Wolfpack basketball coach, Mark Gottfried which seated the Pack at a NCAA Sweet Sixteen position at his first season as coach. As a coach for five seasons, Gottfried has been to the NCAA tournament four times. This season his Wolfpack is struggling. But the Wolfpack apparently, once again, want change. It is highly rumored that Gottfried will be fired after the end of this season. Why the Wolfpack hired Gottfried after being fired from Alabama is perplexing. Perhaps it’s because N.C. State athletics has issues securing good coaching talent. After all, it’s a trainwreck in the making.

 

A problem for the Wolfpack is that its programs and fan base utilize the eligibility rule to secure a seat at playoffs. Nevermind about becoming a conference champion or a NCAA ranking. Instead, Pack fans and its program will ever endure the Cinderella syndrome of its only hope of being crowned Champion. The Cinderella method is fine for UTEP or Pepperdine but not N.C. State. The University is a Division 1 contender with Duke, UNC, and Virgina in its brackets. Yet, the Pack seems unconcerned or effortless in securing solid and robust wins against those adversaries. This is why the Wolfpack and all of its athletics won’t win championships. If the Wolfpack wants to begin winning, then its coaching staff must stop being a friend to its fan base and become autocratic, disciplined and focused leaders on the field and court. Until then, the Wolfpack athletic program will continue to be the hum-drum back pages issue filled with canned expectations and mediocre write-ups. After all, that has been the typical sports writing style since the departure of Valvano.

 

Mark my words, the Wolfpack will hire another coach, and you will hear the same canned commentary each and every time. “The new coach must be given several seasons to select his own players” or “the Wolfpack signed one of the best recruits for next season.”  The end result is that without a robust and disciplined coaching staff none of that will matter. The Wolfpack, in my opinion, will continue to rank between mediocre and below average regardless of what stellar facilities it builds. Go ahead and fire the Wolfpack basketball coach. It will only make it harder to find a better replacement. It only gives the university another poor excuse of additional time and recruiting to rebuild with same repeated insanity laced expectations that NC State fans have come to endure.

Is the Alt-Right, Right?

Lately, the media has been increasing the mention of a loosely termed group called the Alt-Right.

Lately, the media has been increasing the mention of a loosely termed group called the Alt-Right. Yes, I am concerned about a shift towards racism, sexism, homophobia, anti-Muslim bigotry, and anti-Semitism in American society. However, I cannot solely blame Trump for waking the sleeping lion. Instead, I somewhat lay blame towards universities and our educations system and the way it provides discourse. While it may be true that we do need safe spaces and some ground rules for the exchange of language. What may have created a misguided method without the other side having a viewpoint or voice? I have learned that if you do not allow a voice to be heard, even if it is racist, bigoted and filled with hate speech, then it will become a quiet storm brewing. At some point, it will explode with many followers and may accidentally capture more members.

imgres-1.jpg

We may hear such adage such as “education is essential” or the beautiful, provocative poem by Pastor Martin Niemöller that begins “First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out.” This was perhaps our warning. We don’t educate nor do we provide a flexible voice platform for all. Instead, there is, what George Carlin referred to as, the illusion that we have liberty, freedom, and equality. In actuality, we do not. American society is consistently barraged with white washed speech usually leaving one side silent further reducing a platform to be heard. It is easy to lay blame at shock media such as Rush Limbaugh or other conservatives. But media hosts such as Limbaugh have been providing this theory for decades. Many conservatives became silent until this powderkeg moment. It blew up silently and lethal. This is where the Alt-Right will continue to grow and shift safe speech into a “you had your decades of that” rhetoric. Perhaps another reason the Alt-Right continues to grow is that it doesn’t want to research what it truthful or credible. In defense of the Alt-Right, I agree that locating reliable sources in today’s world has become rather difficult.

9648-thumb.jpg

I am not worried about what Trump and his administration will do in the next presidential term. What I am concerned about is what we as Americans will not do just like the other presidential terms starting with Civil Rights. I remember the words of John F. Kennedy saying, Ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country.” Are we going to sit idle and watch protected classes become unprotected? I certainly hope not. I hope we become once again a credible society with a voice for everyone in hopes we can learn from one another in peace. So far the national division is killing us.

%d bloggers like this: