Valerie "Valigator" Parkhurst gets called out for her lack of reading comprehension, then she plays fast and loose with the truth

Valerie Parkhurst aka Valigator, the career criminal now residing in Ft. Lauderdale, FL, is at it again. Earlier this year, AZUnites exposed Val's fraudulent GoFundMe campaign, as well as highlighted her admittance of using confirmation bias in her articles. 

Now, Val has continued the latest campaign of character assassination on her poorly designed, unreadable blog. 

In Valerie Parkhurst's personal obsession with me, she stumbled upon a Master's thesis written in 2011 and posted on the Kansas university scholarly works website. I never knew it existed, personally, but unlike Parkhurst, I'm not so obsessed with Derek Logue, I feel the need to constantly Google myself to see what people are writing about me. Val has a penchant for posting on comments Anti-Registry Movement activists have made as far back as 2009 in an attempt to start a fight. I guess she does not realize that rarely does one read comment sections of articles older than three days, so this strategy of hers does little but waste her time. But if she thinks leaving her droppings on a comment board from 2009 is the way to attack us, more power to her, I guess. 

This will be the only time anyone actually reads shit from her blog. 

So anyways, Val posted this 2011 thesis and proclaimed, "Seems this researcher put Derek Logue (like the bug he is) under glass and had not so glowing reviews about this freak. Funny thing after all these years, Derek doesn't link (anywhere) to this observation about him.."

Master's Theses are rarely published publicly, and when they are, they are not easily found, nor do researchers tend to notify people they are citing works beforehand. The researcher obviously obtained a copy of the Once Fallen eBook as part of his research. Thus, I was never aware of the research paper.

Somehow Valerie Parkhurst thought the article was attacking me much to her delight but the actual article was actually a discussion about how the myths of the American sex offender has negatively impacted the ability of the scientific community to effectively study strategies for reducing sexual abuse. The abstract of the article states the following: 

Sex offenders are the subjects of a discourse suggesting that they are “brutish, disgusting, primitive freaks” who are destined for recidivism. This discourse has provided the rationale for myriad laws designed to control sex offenders. However, these well-intentioned laws create negative outcomes for both sex offenders and society. This paper examines dominant sex offender discourse and discusses evidence that contradicts the prevailing assumptions about sex offenders. In so doing, it questions the efficacy and benefit of current sex offender laws and suggests alternative ways the U.S. can address the problem of child sexual abuse. -- p. iii

In regards to Gray's discussion of Once Fallen, I've included every instance below where Derek Logue/ Once Fallen is discussed in his research paper, entitled, "DEVIANCE AND DISCOURSE: CHILD MOLESTERS IN THE UNITED STATES" -- 

"Derek Logue operates a Web site called OnceFallen.com that advocates for sex offender rights and legislation reform, as well as provides resources for sex offenders after they have been released from incarceration. Derek Logue has also self-published a book about his crime. It is appropriate to use his real name because he is a public figure and his status as a sex offender is public knowledge. Derek’s inclusion in this essay will not reveal any information not already available from other sources." -- p. 11

"Derek Logue, a sex offender who became an activist for sex offender rights, says that sex offenders experience more physical harassment than suggested by Levenson and Cotter’s study. Logue’s assertion is anecdotal, but it is based on his personal experience and activism on behalf of sex offender rights. He argues that offenders are reluctant to report physical altercations out of fear police will blame them for instigating the fight. Logue also points out that sex offenders prefer to “fly under the radar” and avoid unnecessary dealings with law enforcement. It is difficult to judge the validity of Logue’s assertion based on Levenson and Cotter’s study, as the researchers were not affiliated with law enforcement. However, since the study was conducted in court-mandated counseling sessions, it is possible that the offenders worried that their interviews could eventually come to the attention of law enforcement. At least some people express a willingness to harm sex offenders, so it is possible Derek is correct." -- p. 37

"The social isolation, loss of civic identity, and lack of hope is thought to contribute to the risk of recidivism in sex offenders (Robbers 2009:11). Derek Logue expressed the same sentiment during my interview with him. He also wrote about it in his book Once Fallen (Logue 2009:4): “This label [registered sex offender] carries with it a ‘social death sentence’; sex offenders are considered the scourge of society, deserving of death, castration, concentration camps, and torture.” There are not any legal provisions allowing for the torture of sex offenders. Logue is reflecting his personal experience as a sex offender, which seems like civil or social torture to him. His past interferes with his current life. Finding gainful employment was a challenge: “During the next couple of months, I would face rejection after rejection after rejection. I tried offices, manual labor jobs, even fast food, to no avail.” (Logue 2009:24). He cannot live with his girlfriend or spend the night at her house because she has a minor son. (This may seem to be a common sense restriction, but Logue’s crime was against a female. Child molesters often have gender preferences.) Logue has even considered suicide." -- p. 42-43

This is hardly an attack on Derek Logue or Once Fallen, much less against the Anti-Registry Movement in general. In fact, Grey concludes that while he feels most existing laws should still be used to some extent (except residency restrictions) the laws should not apply to all offenders, and serious reforms need to be made to the dialogue regarding sex offender conversations. 

"If lawmakers and officials begin to counter the child molester rhetoric, some of the problems associated with sex offender laws might be alleviated." -- p. 77

"Not only must lawmakers and officials work to change the tone of the conversation about sex offenders, they must acknowledge that the legal system is overwhelmed with the requirements of sex offender control." -- p. 80

"There are alternative strategies for treating sex offenders with low-risk profiles and managing them in the community." -- p. 81

"Whatever reforms are implemented, the way forward will require courageous lawmakers to lead sober conversations that replace “tough on crime” rhetoric with honest evaluations of the effectiveness and essential fairness of the nation’s sex offender laws. A just society cannot tolerate the legal creation of a persistent underclass. Unfortunately, none of the current or recommended strategies prevents molestations in the first place. This remains a difficult area to address. It is impossible to remove risk entirely from children’s lives. My informant, Marshall, has a realistic perspective on the problem: “But I don’t know how effective the laws are in preventing what it is that they want to prevent. I think that the best prevention is good parenting. At the same time, you just can’t prevent some things." -- p. 82 

So now that I happily pointed out to Valerie "Valigator" Parkhurst her error, she cranked up her BS meter to a higher level. She added an addendum to her shit-post, claiming, "Seems to Derek, he thinks this paper is an affirmation of his worthless positions and accuses me of interpreting it incorrectly. I personally think the guy is a hack, but his description of Logue and his background (""Additionally, one out of three victims who became abusers (Logue) had a history of being cruel to animals in their childhoods"""" (Bouvier 2003:446)."

So NOW Val thinks the researcher is a "hack" now that I made her realize that he is in favor of sex offender reforms. Not only that, but Val felt the need to play fast and loose with the written word by ADDING words into the article to make it sound like the researcher is attacking me. 

The actual article that Val claims is attacking me says this:

With a screenshot for added measure

"Though the mechanism that links past molestation with future crime is poorly understood, the study found that other factors in the victim’s history—like poor adult supervision, violence at home, or being abused by a female—were correlated with an increased risk of becoming an abuser. Additionally, one out of three victims who became abusers had a history of being cruel to animals in their childhoods (Bouvier 2003:446)." -- p. 15

Nowhere does the article associate that statement with Derek Logue/ Once Fallen. Val felt that if she added that one word in there to associate me with with a random statement she can somehow salvage the lie she stated by posting this research paper rather than admit that she does not know how to read a college-level report. 

Misreading advanced reading material is something Valerie Parkhurst tends to do on a consistent basis. In fact, I recently called her out on another bogus claim she made on her blog:

Not only did she credit the bogus 52% study to the wrong guy, she took it a step further by posting THE WRONG REPORT on her shit-blog. 

Apparently, when Valerie Parkhurst stated back on her shit-blog on January 4, 2015, "But I, as usual, look for data/opinions/conclusions that re-enforces my position on the issue and as predictable isnt (sic) hard to find," apparently she was lying about these studies being hard to find. But why point out the truth when you can just made things up and post it online, as Parkhurst and her online cohorts has been prone to do? After all, many people don't want to read an 82-page article, they want the Cliff Notes version. 

If Val ever decides to sell a 'Val's Notes" you better demand a refund. 

That pesky confirmation bias.