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. 

Valerie Parkhurst admits to Confirmation Bias

What is Confirmation Bias? 

Confirmation bias, also called myside bias, is the tendency to search for, remember, or interpret information in a way that confirms one's beliefs or hypotheses. It is a type of cognitive bias and a systematic error of inductive reasoning. People display this bias when they gather or recall information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. The effect is stronger for emotionally charged issues and for deeply entrenched beliefs. People also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position. Biased search, interpretation and memory have been invoked to explain attitude polarization (when a disagreement becomes more extreme even though the different parties are exposed to the same evidence), belief perseverance (when beliefs persist after the evidence for them is shown to be false), the irrational primacy effect (a greater reliance on information encountered early in a series) and illusory correlation (when people falsely perceive an association between two events or situations).

Admittedly, many people and organizations (especially victim's rights groups) engage in Confirmation Bias, though most are not aware of it. Valerie Parkhurst, on the other hand, is willing to admit her own confirmation bias:

Consider this-- if a person freely admits to Confirmation Bias in her "research," is her research fatally flawed? In a word, yes. 

Can you trust someone like Valerie Parkhurst? In a word, no. 

Today's word lesson: hyperbole

hy·per·bo·le   [hahy-pur-buh-lee]
noun Rhetoric .
1.
obvious and intentional exaggeration.
2.
an extravagant statement or figure of speech not intended to be taken literally, as “to wait an eternity.”

Today's showcase is hyperbole. Hyperbole is an exaggerated statement. You see a lot of that on the AZU website or during those rare times the trolls venture from their little nests. See the following statement from Stitches 77, the queen of cognitive distortions:

AZU intentionally looks for the numbers that look the largest and run with it, despite having no references, only exaggerations. That is why armchair vigilantes cannot understand the complexity of statistics. Stats are college level courses. AZU consists of bored housewives with no credentials and no education. Sadly, so are many other so-called child victim advocates.

WHO claims 60 MILLION survivors? Besides AZU, just a handful of other misguided groups. Thankfully most people understand that as bullshit. When was AZU ever quoted as a legitimate reference? Answer: NEVER.

Danielle Schneider justifies her criminal behavior

It seems Danielle Schneider and her supporters are continuing to waste my time by trying to justify Schneider's criminal behavior. Says Schneider: "The author of the post is assuming I am guilty of something." Allow me to point something out:

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9a.46&full=true

9A.46.010
Legislative finding.

The legislature finds that the prevention of serious, personal harassment is an important government objective. Toward that end, this chapter is aimed at making unlawful the repeated invasions of a person's privacy by acts and threats which show a pattern of harassment designed to coerce, intimidate, or humiliate the victim.

*** CHANGE IN 2011 *** (SEE 1206-S2.SL) ***

(1) A person is guilty of harassment if:

(a) Without lawful authority, the person knowingly threatens:

(b) The person by words or conduct places the person threatened in reasonable fear that the threat will be carried out. "Words or conduct" includes, in addition to any other form of communication or conduct, the sending of an electronic communication.

(2)(a) Except as provided in (b) of this subsection, a person who harasses another is guilty of a gross misdemeanor.

Intent -- 1999 c 27: "It is the intent of chapter 27, Laws of 1999 to clarify that electronic communications are included in the types of conduct and actions that can constitute the crimes of harassment and stalking. It is not the intent of the legislature, by adoption of chapter 27, Laws of 1999, to restrict in any way the types of conduct or actions that can constitute harassment or stalking." [1999 c 27 § 1.]
This disclaimer is also on the sheriff's office websites around the state of Washington:

Abuse of this information to threaten, intimidate or harass registered sex and kidnapping offenders will not be tolerated. Such abuse could potentially end our current ability to release this important information to the public.
I don't make assumptions. I read the law.

No matter how Schneider feels about Rojas, the bottom line is what she is doing fits the bill for harassment. I cannot support such actions. There is a reason her story is posted on this blog, which focuses primarily on cyber-harassment. Schneider and her followers, like "mssparky," another damned special interest crime blogger (and my loyal readers know how I feel about wannabe crime analysts), have filled my comment board with insults and excuses for her criminal behavior. I can't believe they're still crying because I didn't post their juvenile comments, but that's a beef for a different day. The fact remains that the Rojas family has a valid argument whether Schneider likes it or not.

Someone sent me a few choice quotes Schneider posted on Facebook.

Danielle Jones Schneider
You had asked for people to submit questions or ideas that they would like explored in your documentary... I believe if someone is accused of childhood sexual abuse or rape that they should be required to have a psycho sexual evaluation and PASS it as truthful in order to even be considered eligible for a plea offer....what would need to happen for this to be made into law? Since the abuse in my family occurred, I've noticed that individuals that harm animals seem to get harsher legal consequences than those who harm/sexually abuse children, can the statistic be looked into for this.

Schneider wants to dent someone accused of a crime to be considered guilty until proven innocent and treated as automatically guilty. Have people forgot it is supposed to be INNOCENT until PROVEN GUILTY? Have we forgotten about false allegations? It happens.

Schneider: I DO NOT BELIEVE a P**** can be cured...althou gh I do believe in a God of miracles, I WOULD NOT be willing to risk an innocent child to test if a convicted p***** has been "healed" would you?

It is hard to read such things without reasonably concluding you are willing to put a slant on your arguments favoring your opinion. I wonder if her God shares her opinion?

Schneider: The recidivism rate comment could be argued. Lots and lots of abuse is not reported!

Who is assuming now? A recent New York state study found 95% of sex crime arrests were of first timers. The recidivism rate is consistently low. Yes it can be argued, but like many comments Schneider makes, it is based upon conjecture and assumption.

Danielle Jones Schneider
I agree with the above statement...of course some are unjustly punished (life is not fare![sic]) In any criminal conviction there is the potential for errors. BUT I do believe that sentences for sexual crimes are not equal to the damage done. THAT is why I suggested that you look into the stats for other crimes that although are bad, in my opinion, don't damage individuals the same as a sexual crime. I THINK THE BIGGEST QUESTION SHOULD BE, WHAT DO WE VALUE AS A SOCIETY? and DO OUR LAWS REFLECT THAT. Yes, I am bias BUT one could argue I have personal experience and that SHOULD make my opinion matter!

Well I have personal experience too, as a victim of cyberstalking and vigilantism. She admits to bias. Bias means she is incapable of looking at things objectively. Bias justifies illicit actions, like running a blog that mixes a few fact with some baseless conjecture. Well I'm a bit biased against my ex but I know the difference between speaking about proven facts and spreading rumors. The fact remains Schneider is inflicting pain and her own brand of justice on another person.

I really don't care about this case. I merely blogged about it as another bad example of a vigilante feeling justified. Is Schneider a member of the criminal justice system? Doubt it. One of her screen name is fitting -- Totally Cracker. It fits her quite nicely.

Another wonderful example of Schneider's wonderful bias:

B***** wedding. I believe the wedding is to take place in Virginia, May 7th at a Sovereign Grace church : KingsWay Community Church. Some of the R**** family members that have been in the UK are in the United States, RIGHT NOW for the wedding! If you attend the wedding you may even get to meet ****, the convicted level 2 sex offender, whom is suing me because I continue to tell our story.

If you see E*** R*** please call your local authorities and tell them that there is a felony warrant in Washington state for ***** aka***. The police can handle it from there. Can you imagine marrying into this family?

Benjamin is on the witness list to testify on behalf of P*** and J*** lawsuit against myself and my husband. Not sure that this apple has fallen too far from the tree.

I'd love to hear what she meant by that last line. Another example of Schneider's conjecture:

There is also a wanted felon that is all twisted up in our story (E*****) shouldn't I do everything within reason to locate him? Especially because he has children with him that are most likely the victims of childhood sexual abuse.

At least she admits she's again assuming something. It sounds like she's implying the family is full of child abusers. The fact she says this on a blog gives more merit to the lawsuit against her, along with gratuitous use of the terms "predator" and "pedophile." I wonder if she cares her comments may be the only thing hurting the children?

Someone recently brought up a good point I should relate here. This is what I've referred to as keeping someone in victim mode. Instead of starting the healing process for the sake of the Rojas's victim, Schneider decides to obsess, to pick at the scab. After all, people think it is wrong to overcome the abuse. I could even question the motivation to ask constantly for funds. She says she has a FB page to beg for more money. I wonder if she was encouraged by the support Angry Tammy Gibson got for her unprovoked attack on a Level 3 registrant. Its the same location, it was high profile, and the time Schneider began blogging coincides with the outcome of the Gibson case. Jesus stated Love of Money was the root of all evil. It also makes a good motivator for a struggling mother with SIX kids.

Think I'm wrong? Well sue me, Danielle. Maybe I'll start a legal defense fund too.

UPDATE: It is funny Schneider posted this on her blog:

Obsession

: a persistent disturbing preoccupation with an often unreasonable idea or feeling; broadly : compelling motivation

I find it quite befitting her. Obsession also implies the taking over of one's life, which is what her blog does. She truly is no different from AZU.

AZU's silly boycotts again

AZU and their silly boycotts. The problem with the double boycotts of Amazon and Disney/ ABC's 20/20 TV show is their line of reasoning.

THE AMAZON BOYCOTT:

AZU has been boycotting them for a while but they were hoping to cash in over the recent news report of a so-called pedophile book on the internet. aside from the fact the story had a lot of holes in it, and the fact Amazon actually pulled the e-book after complaints were filed, AZU has kept this silly boycott idea at the top of their website. There's one little problem with the news story that prompted the latest controversy. Amazon has a feature that allows anyone to write and publish a book. In fact, I have written my own e-Book, available on Amazon. Within 72 hours, your e-Book will be available for the world to see... and buy. No one reads a book in 72 hours, much less the hundreds of thousands of e-Books Amazon has available in it's Kindle store. It is no different in function than Google's Blogspot, which hosts both AZU's blog and this anti-AZU blog. Amazon essentially offers a service that allows people to publish electronically for free (Amazon gets a cut of all book sales, of course). It is silly to expect Amazon.com to play censor to everyone's whims. Hell, if I had my way, I'd have ever copy of Anna Salter's crappy book burned but I doubt a boycott would achieve anything.

BOYCOTT DISNEY/ ABC's 20/20

First off, the original beef was with John Stossel, who now works with FOX. The original beef was because John Stossel aired a show in which former PJ/AZU troll Barbara "Petra Luna" Ochoa made a complete drunken ass of herself on TV. They created a blog to attack Disney, which owns ABC, in retaliation. To justify their attacks, they post any arrests of Disney workers for any sex crimes, like THIS ONE, a worker who allegedly molested a girl while wearing a Tigger costume. There is just one little detail they missed. THE MAN WAS ACQUITTED ON ALL CHARGES!

Absolute Zero United never let things like THE TRUTH get in the way of their slanderous campaigns. They will not be missed.

AZU was useless anyways, here's one reason why

Bloviating Zepplin has the old AZU blog on life support at the moment and I could not be happier. I'm sure the evil ones will pop up again sometimes but it the break in the action has been refreshing. The concept of protecting the internet from active "pedophiles" may be a noble goal, but there was nothing noble about AZU's actions.

The main problem with AZU was fanaticism coupled with a lack of basic human comprehension. They were witch hunters that accused anyone that was not like them a witch. They could not differentiate between a man who was rolling online for children and a grieving mother of a teen caught up in a firestorm of ludicrous sex offender laws for having consensual sex with a younger teen.

Dodia Fae is a good example of stupidity. Recently Dodia Fae put this crap up on her Facebook page, which was repeated on T-Sand's Roar For Lies blog:

Okay, Dodia Fae uses Facebook, I don't. However, if you go to the page she's bitching about you'll see this:

Dodia Fae goes on to say, "Having a non-repentant sex offender like Derek Logue on FB is dangerous."
Read the disclaimer, DF. This is a "community page" on FB. Every major topic that appears on Facebook pages apparently have a community page. Community pages ARE NOT AFFILIATED WITH, OR ENDORSED BY, anyone associated with the topic. In other words, it is a page created to give info about the website oncefallen.com. Apparently DF doesn't want to believe my website actually has thousands of readers.

I thought this might be an isolated incident but then I got curious and looked at DF's FB page:

She comments on a decade old article about a couple falsely accused of CP for taking an innocent pic of their child bathing and calls it "pro-pedophile propaganda." What is worse is fellow idiot Rob Taylor backs up her stupidity with stupidity of her own.

Bloviating Zepplin, here's one reason AZU is dying. They're fanatics and they are stupid. It is a bad combination. They will not be missed.

Tsand and Stitches Can't Read

Geez. Can these two nitwits even read? I expected nothing less from a dumb c.u.n.t. (Can't Understand Normal Thinking) like Stitches 77, who misread "Patty Wetterling's son was kidnapped by a sex offender" into think "Patty Wetterling has a sex offender son."

Here's today's hooked on phonics lesson:

1. My blog http://reformalabama.blogspot.com/, is NOT "RSOL Alabama," it is "ReFORM Alabama," short for Reistered Former Offender Restoration Movement. My state site is an independant site you dumb fucks. That being said,

2. When was the last time you read the RSOL site? There's a pretty bold disclaimer there, asswipes.

Here's a link for AZU: http://www.hookedonphonics.com/

Trust me, you illiterate cunts need it! But then again, you can't teach an old dog new tricks, but at least the old dogs at AZU can be spayed and neutered!

Another brain fart, courtesy of Stitches 77

Here is another brain fart by the head idiot over at AZU, Stitches 77. Above, Stitches states Mary does not believe anyone should be on a public registry "except for people who criticize her views of course." And she posts a link to MY anti-vigilante petition. See link below:

http://www.petitiononline.com/vigi2010/

It boldly states the anti-vigilante bill was created by me and posted at http://www.oncefallen.com/, NOT by Mary Duval. Nor does the petition state the database of individuals participating on sites like Absolute Zero United be on a PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE registry. However, places like AZU should be closely monitored. After reading many of the comments well documented here at the anti-AZU site, it is easy to see why. So show YOUR support by signing this all-important petition!

Speaking of Mary Duval, if you want the truth about what she's saying, and not the AZU interpretation, the listen to her show, American's Reality Check Radio. http://www.talkshoe.com/tc/29521 . Go listen for yourself, and see even more examples of how AZU gets it wrong.

Choking to death on a cheese sandwich

Stitches keeps bringing this up in attacks on eAdvocate’s blog, which repeats stuff that was in the news, so I thought it was time I’d address this idiotic comment on AZU’s blog.

As usual, AZU doesn’t tell the whole story. Below is the article in question.

AP, “DELAWARE: Ailing sex offender chokes to death at clinic.” Delmarva Now! The Daily Times; Feb. 25, 2008.

http://on-murders.blogspot.com/2008/02/de-ailing-sex-offender-chokes-to-death.html

DELAWARE: Ailing sex offender chokes to death at clinic

Associated Press

DOVER — A 22-year-old Huntington's disease victim who was denied a bed in a state health care facility because he was a registered sex offender choked to death Monday at a Dover mental health clinic. Family members said they were told that Joseph Heverin, 22, whose muscle control had deteriorated to the point where he often fell and had to be put in a wheelchair, choked to death on a sandwich at Dover Behavioral Health Systems. "He was dead when he got to the hospital," said Heverin's brother, Paul Vrem.

Vrem said he learned of his brother's death after driving to Dover Behavioral to pick him up for a dental appointment. "They told me that he had choked on a grilled cheese sandwich and that they were administering CPR," Vrem said. DBHS chief operating officer William Weaver and other clinic officials did not immediately return telephone messages seeking comment.

Colin Faulkner, director of public safety for Kent County, said paramedics were dispatched to Dover Behavioral Health shortly before 12:30 p.m. in response to a report of a person choking. "It would appear that he went into cardiac arrest, full arrest, as the result of an unresolved choking incident," Faulkner said. Jay Lynch, a spokesman for the state Department of Health and Social Services, confirmed Heverin's death.

Heverin's mother, Dianne Vrem, said Dover Behavioral officials kept family members in a waiting room until Heverin had been taken away by ambulance, and that Kent General officials also refused her request to be with her son. "I just wanted to hold him and let him know that his mom was there," she said.

A spokeswoman for Kent General did not immediately return a telephone message Monday afternoon. Last week, Heverin was the subject of an Associated Press article describing the bureaucratic limbo in which his criminal past and his disease — an incurable, degenerative neurological disorder that also killed his father and other family members — had left him.

Officials at Dover Behavioral, a short-stay psychiatric facility where Heverin had been admitted last summer for treatment of depression, had sought and received court permission to discharge him, arguing that he is not mentally ill. He remained at the facility as his guardianship case worked its way through the court system.

Even though a court declared Heverin "a disabled person" who was "unable to act in his own best interest," health and social service officials refused to place him in state-run long-term care facility. They argued that he was neither developmentally disabled nor mentally ill. The primary reason for their opposition, however, was that Heverin was a registered sex offender. He had twice been convicted of unlawful sexual contact, incidents that his supporters believe stemmed from the effects of Huntington's disease, a hereditary disorder that has been linked with inappropriate sexual behavior.

Dover Behavioral officials said they had tried repeatedly for more than a year to find placement options for Heverin, but no facility was willing to take him. Kristopher Starr, an attorney appointed as a fact-finder in Heverin's guardianship case, submitted a report earlier this month excoriating state officials for refusing to place Heverin in a skilled nursing facility, at least not until he is "bedridden." "They finally got what they wanted; they won't have to deal with the problem anymore," Paul Vrem said Monday.

***

It was more than an act of a “sex offender choking on a grilled cheese sandwich.” The reality is far more sinister. I guess we can count out knowledge of basic body functions as a requirement of AZU membership. The fact is the man had a degenerative condition that made him struggle to maintain control of his body, in particular, muscle functions. By the way, when we eat, we use our muscles to swallow and pull it through the esophagus and into the stomach. It wasn’t your average case, it was a case of gross negligence on the part of the system left to care for a terminally ill man, a man denied services simply because of his status as a registrant, a man who was having trouble with muscular functions, which obviously includes eating; a grilled cheese sandwich would not be an appropriate meal in this case. American jurisprudence considers negligent death murder, and if the victim was not a sex offender, the family would have won a wrongful death lawsuit easily.

ADDENDUM

This comment from an anonymous poster helps the reader unerstand the "grilled cheese choking death" story posted at eAdvocate's blog, written into one long sentence, which will no doubt further confuse and aggravate the intellectually challenged AZU troll:

If certain people would learn to read (i.e., the tags at the end of a case) then they would know how a case is broken down; As to the cheese sandwich case, he was forced into a facility which could not handle his medical conditions because the proper facilities would not accept him due to his SO status; That case is flagged: "Substantially caused by a SO Law, not by vigilantes;" Her construction is actually a misconstruction due to her failure to read what is posted.

Basic AZU Cognitive Distortions 102- Do as we say not as we do

It is funny how AZU points accusing fingers at others for supposedly doing what they do themselves. In a previous post I discussed Judy Cornett's son, who was sentenced to 25 years for ATTEMPTED MURDER.

http://absolutezerounites.blogspot.com/2009/08/son-of-notorious-vigilante-judy-cornett.html

http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/criminal/article1013113.ece

AZU always points an accusing finger at sex offender activists, stating they should "accept responsibility for their actions" and to shut up. Yet, not one AZU member mentioned that their buddy Judy Cornett is trying to solicit funds to overturn her son's conviction. No one at AZU has stated "Judy, man up and accept responsibility and stop lobbying for your criminal son." No one at AZU has said, "Hey Judy, you're justifying and nimimizing your son's bad behavior. You're enabling violent behavior."

Of course not. I wonder where Judy was while her son was turning to a life of crime. Hell, maybe he read enough of the crap AZU writes there to feel justified in trying to take another man's life. And Judy was too busy harassing area sex offenders to care. I wonder if Judy spent any time warning her neighborhood of the gangbangers her son affiliated with.

But if you DO hear a peep out of them, it is to say that Judy's son's a victim. He was a victim of a sex crime years ago. However, does that excuse him from obeying the law years later? AZU certainly thinks so. I suppose they'll claim Judy's son's victim was a sex offender.

PS: As an aside, I think it funny TSand's demanding I put certain disclaimers on my page, while his own Roar For Lies blog has no such disclaimer. Again, another hypocritical statement from AZU.

Advanced Cognitive Distortions

Every time I read anything Stitches 77 says while trying to debate facts with anyone, or even discussing anything outside the realm of ad hominem attacks, lame impersonations, blatant lies, and kill em' all chanting, she's as lost as a Brit at an American Football game. The more you read, the more apparent her clueless nature is obvious.
[from: Something About Mary] Stitches again shows her lack of comprehension skills. Stitches forgets we have a little something called PREDATOR PANIC. Stitches denies we are hypersensitive about sex offenders and denies the impact of societal fears.

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB118782905698506010.html -- We've taught men to be fearful of the sexual predator label.

Or how about THIS article?

http://www.csicop.org/si/show/predator_panic_a_closer_look/ -- Predator Panic: A Closer Look by Benjamin Radford. Of course, since Radford made an appearance of Americans Reality Check, AZU decided to do an article on him, complete with ad hominem attacks and more cognitive distortions than you could shake a stick out.

Stitches is so blind she can't admit the possibility that a person could abuse their position. Surely those in power are NEVER corrupt and NEVER lie to those under their care?

http://www.abcactionnews.com/news/local/story/Polk-Mental-Health-Counselor-arrested-for/VXOEMFUTak2li6MYPyxbXg.cspx?rss=794 -- Sex Offender Counselor Extorts sex offender under his care.

Ever heard of a search engine, Stitches? http://current.com/items/89319040_law-enforcement-this-weeks-corrupt-cops-stories.htm

Oh yeah. POs are NEVER corrupt. Whatever. http://www.citizensforaconstitutionalrepublic.com/US_Observer-Munchow10-12-09.html

Then there's comment about "bathing a child." Well, we've had innocent people arrested for "child porn" for taking innocent pictures of their kids in the bathtub. http://archive.salon.com/mwt/feature/2000/01/31/kincaid/index.html

Oh, and now Stitches denies that people teach bathing a child is grooming for sex. Sure a "child victim advocate" as "educated" as Stitches can't possibly be wrong on this one? http://www.protectchildren.ca/pdfs/itsyourbusiness_en.pdf

Stitches makes four key distortions in her tirade. Perhaps her desire to attack Mary made her sloppy. Stitches misquotes a study, as usual, clipping what she thinks backs her up. And of course, since she sees all sex offenders (except Static and TSand) as subhuman, she forgets that she's talking not about a registered sex offender, but someone NOT on a registry.

It's all a simple formula. Target makes statement, Stitches hates target, if Stitches hates Target, then Target must be a liar, which means Target's statement is untrue.

Stitches forgets one important part of her argument. In addition to trying too hard (and failing miserably) to try to prove her wrong, she forgets to do her research. Funny thing is, she accuses Mary of being such a "bad" influence and a red flag, while studies show a primary trigger for relapse is stress caused by-- what else? -- vigilantes like Stitches harassing, threatening, and attacking registrants.

http://ccoso.org/Vilification.pdf "stigmatization of sex offenders is likely to result in disruption of their relationships, loss of or difficulties finding jobs, difficulties finding housing, and decreased
psychological well‐being, all factors that could increase their risk of recidivism."

Of course, Stitches retort will be.... take a wild guess.... ATTACKING THE AUTHOR OF THE ARTICLE! Again, Stitches hates statement, Target makes statement, Stitches hates target, if Stitches hates Target, then Target must be a liar, which means Target's statement is untrue.Then of course, Stitches makes THIS comment, posing as "JTC" for "Julia Tuttle Causeway." The stupidity of the above comment speaks volumes. By this time, Stitches has fully exhausted her pseudo-intellectualism and has reverted back to her infantilism. This side of Stitches is her true side. It comes so naturally, whereas her fake smarts just doesn't cut it. Do us a favor Stitches and hang up your dunce cap, you're not fooling anyone!

Distortion 101: Another study of AZU

A continuation of the study of cognitive distortions of Absolute Zero United. [Part 1 on ad hominem here: http://absolutezerounites.blogspot.com/2009/12/azu-101-ad-hominem.html]

Absolute Zero is so full of hatred and bias, they have become quite adept at distorting every comment of those they hate. See the above 2008 article, for example. [link @ hXXp://absolutezerounited.blogspot.com/2008/04/what-does-this-remind-you-of.html]

Allow us to dissect the distortions.

#1: Pope: What does it mean to speak of child protection when pornography and violence can be viewed in so many homes through media widely available today?

AZU Read: Its society's fault when a pedophile molests a kid because after all pornography and violence can be seen in the media.

Truth: The Pope is addressing the fact that violence and pornography is so prevalent in our society that it has a negative influence on our behavior, which increases the likelihood of sexual offending to occur in society. AZU forgets that some people, such as REAL victim's rights groups, seek to address the root causes of sexual offending. Most researchers, including those AZU use in justifying their views, agree that our environment does negatively impact sexual offending behavior. That is not placing the blame, AZU, it is called identifying a problem area. In order to address root causes, we must look at aggravating factors and identify them. Using AZU's distorted logic, if you admit there is evil in the world, you support evil. Weird, huh?

#2 Pope: Those who "have experienced shame over what has occurred" deserve guidance and support.

AZU Read: Its the offenders we need to focus on and stop worrying about those pesky victims.

They didn't bother even giving a direct quote. Offenders and victims alike need to address the gravity of what has happened and pursue ways to heal from this terrible tragedy. AZU sees it as shifting focus "away from victims." Really? Victims experienced shame over what has happened to them. AZU does not believe in guidance and support for crime victims. They believe crime victims should all remain bitter, angry vigilantes for life. See:

http://absolutezerounites.blogspot.com/2009/08/more-azu-sick-twisted-thoughts.html

http://absolutezerounites.blogspot.com/2008/10/azu-gets-off-on-thoughts-of-rape-deep.html

Like I even need examples. Read just about any comment board and you'll find it.

AZU offers no hope for healing. Instead, they perpetuate violence. And lies. And cognitive distortions. Yet, because of their target group, they are allowed to do this unfettered.

AZU celebrates a death

The sad thing is while they condemn sex offender law reformists for criticizing those who fanatically support legislation that are fueled by revenge rather than reason,

today y they're celebrating the death of someone they claim is a "serial child molester." And with that comes the usual hate-filled drivel. How would they feel if we celebrated the death of Stitches or Tracy Golden or Barb Ireland?


Death is a sad event, no matter who died. They did the same to Michael Jackson, and now to this guy.

AZU's a bunch of sick freaks who are mentally unstable and should be civilly committed.

Why do they hide?

http://www.corrupted-justice.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=9261&start=45

Static Posted: Mon Mar 09, 2009 1:48 am    Post subject:-- Oh, I think that if she ever decides to go public with her identity, you and many other people will stand in shocked disbelief. You haven't figured out who she is yet? Think about it, and it'll come to you. So far, no one has gotten it right, not even CJBW. But as for how she'd feel that the public would know that she stands against pedophiles and pedo-sympathizers, I imagine she'll feel just fine with that- I don't know, you'd have to ask her. One thing I'm sure of though is that she won't run around whining about being "outed" because there is not one word she's written that she wouldn't stand by. Now if others would learn to be more careful about what they say in public, and would learn to retract any falsehoods they've spread- at least half of their problems would disappear...

Static Posted: Mon Mar 09, 2009 11:08 am    Post subject:-- "I can't really speak for Stitches, but I tried to tell him what I *think* her response would be to being "outed."

Static:-- Posted: Mon Mar 09, 2009 5:02 pm    Post subject:

I'm sure that if you have any questions for her, she's capable of speaking for herself.

I'm sure you've been wondering about this for a while, but why is it AZU members hide from the public eye? That's the million dollar question. To hear AZU's resident cock-in-mouthpiece Static tell it, we'll be in "shocked disbelief." I doubt it. But consider this, why would Stitches 77 hide her identity? Or pretty much every member of Absolute Zero United for that matter? After all, society has canonized lots of psychotic self-professed child advocates like Mark Lunsford and John Walsh. So why would AZU hide their identities if what they were doing was noble, given we allow deranged lunatics like Tammy Lee Gibson off the hook for the brutal assaults of Former Offenders? 


Of course, what StatiCunt won't tell you is Stitches 77 has never stood behind her words or answered a direct question. After 15 months I still have never receive a response to that comment she made about Patty Wetterling. Which, of course, explains why she has her Tier 3 RSO yes-man speaking for her outside the confines of her dungeon. On the other hand, I have stood behind every assertion, every comment, and every stat I have inundated throughout the internet, because unlike AZU I back up my words with evidence. It takes more than a barrage of juvenile videos and doctored webphotos to bury the truth you stupid fucking trolls. But they're so deep in their cognitive distortions they'll never figure it out.


Back to my original question, why hide?Are they scared of being targeted like they have targeted so many others? Maybe, but the answer is a tad easier.The REAL reason they hide is because every time they HAVE gone public, they have ended up looking stupid:


http://absolutezerounites.blogspot.com/2008/12/your-typical-azu-troll.html

http://absolutezerounites.blogspot.com/2008/12/xavier-von-erck-stitches-77s-hero.html

http://absolutezerounites.blogspot.com/2008/07/city-beat-wasp-takes-heat.html

For far too long AZU has spread their disease but the more they do so, they more foolish they end up looking in the eyes of society! So much so even Walsh and Lungsfull won't publicly support AZU.

Just look at the rantings of deranged lunatic/ closet pedo "Logue hater," who thinks the following comment is "depraved:"

"Those of us who have these illicit desires are obligated by the law of the land to either not participate in these illicit activities or suffer the consequences. And that doesn't matter whether you think that is fair or not."

"Logue hater" thinks being obligated to the law is somehow wrong, and if you obey the law you are a sick bastard! That is why every member of AZU should be civilly committed or euthanized for the benefit of society. At the least, turn them over to the FBI.

The Lucifer Effect on Absolute Zero United

Ah, what a difference a week makes. I took a vacation, spent a wonderful Valentine's Day with my girlfriend and, well, just live life. Meanwhile, while I was out enjoying the sunshine and scenery without a single thought about the trolls at Absolute(ly) Zero (braincells), the AZholes "never sleeps."

http://www.haloscan.com/comments/absolutezero/3769064689703738483/#61373
I am an Anti and Anti's don't have time to sleep. -- Stitch-cunt
Stitches77 | 02.14.09 - 8:27 am |

It is no wonder they suffer from so many cognitive distortions down at Absolute Zero United. Perhaps that is why they see the devil in everything but themselves. But when you see evil in everything, and you spend your time looking for the devil, it really distorts your thinking.

Rather than the usual retort of AZU's spiel, noting they couldn't go a day without talking about me, I want to share something education. I'm sure as a consequence AZU members won't read this, then.

Does anyone remember the "Stanford Prison Experiment?" --"The Stanford Prison experiment cast students as prison guards and inmates in a fake prison environment. It had to be terminated when the students bought into their roles so much that the guards started abusing the inmates and the inmates started to riot."

--http://scienceblogs.com/purepedantry/2008/06/the_psychology_of_evil.php--

In the famous Stanford Prison experiment, the mock prison guards were given the power and authority over the mock inmates. One of the psychological tactics employed by the mock guards was the "dehumanization" of the enemy. By seeing the mock inmates as somehow less than human, the mock guards committed atrocious acts against the mock inmates, including even mock homosexual acts and physical abuse. Some guards consumed by their roles they were upset when the experiment closed after only six days. The conclusion is that the situation caused the behavior ("Situational Ethics/ attributions") rather than any predispositions of the guards, as they were thoroughly screened. [see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment]. Hence, Zimbardo has deemed this the "Lucifer Effect."

Absolute Zero United suffers from this same effect. Whatever noble cause they professed to engage in has devolved into casting pretty much everyone but themselves as evil. I'm sure along the way they sucked in a few people looking to legitimately combat pedophilia. And the anonymous internet gives them a power they could never obtain in the free world. But in "never sleeping," reading hours upon days upon weeks of "boy-chat" or "girl-chat" sites, NAMBLA, or whatever other illicit sites they pop into these days, it obviously has this effect on them. Coupled with man's tendency to generalize, we find AZU finds evil in pretty much everyone, even a woman who lost a child and helped create one of the first national sex offender laws in the country:

http://absolutezerounites.blogspot.com/2008/04/biting-off-more-than-they-can-chew.html

Absolute Zero Members have admitted to dehumanizing their targets:
http://absolutezerounites.blogspot.com/2008/04/overt-dehumanization.html

Stitch-cunt admits that she sees all sex offenders the same (except for her pet RSO Static -- hope she put on his flea collar and walked him today LOL):
http://absolutezerounites.blogspot.com/2008/04/overt-dehumanization.html

As a result, AZU feels justified by demonizing everyone that does not buy into their "kill all sex offenders" mentality. Below is a review of some of the effects of their distorted thinking:

1. AZU promotes vigilante violence. Stitch-Cunt takes it one step further by suggesting if you disprove of vigilante violence you are a pedo yourself:
http://absolutezerounites.blogspot.com/2008/05/azu-encourages-vigilantism-so-does.html

2. Stitches states that even Romeo and Juliet offenders should be dehumanized (unless, of course, we're talking about Mark Lunsford):
http://absolutezerounites.blogspot.com/2008/05/common-thread.html

3. AZU claims to detest sex crimes, but sees no problem promoting rape or mutilation of their victims:
http://absolutezerounites.blogspot.com/2008/10/azu-gets-off-on-thoughts-of-rape-deep.html
--and--
http://absolutezerounites.blogspot.com/2008/08/too-weird-for-words.html

4. AZU, or in this instance, their sister hate group Perverted-Justice, is not beyond exploiting a child's death for financial gain (note the case has nothing to do with a sex offender):
http://absolutezerounites.blogspot.com/2008/10/perverted-zeroes-trying-to-cash-in-on.html

That is just a few of the issues surrounding the mindset of Absolute Zero United. Unlike them, I take the time to go out and enjoy life. Perhaps that is why I can see the good in people. You'll never really see anything but hate and mockery at AZU. That is why you see the same here. AZUnites IS merely a mirror of AZU after all.

Static says Waaaaaaaaaah!

Everyone stand in awe of Derek's manliness. -- Static

OH NOES! I MADE STATIC CRY! Quick! Someone call a WAAAAAAAAHmbulance for him!

Static cries. Boo hoo, someone accuses him of "cognitive distortions," he crumples like a sheet of wadded paper, then proceeds to his CP as usual. But not without leaving a number of his sleep-inducing dissertations but he makes it a point to whine:

DL- You are hereby to cease and desist using my methods, tactics, and insults henceforth, ipso facto, e. pluribus unum, vini vidi vichi, etcetera, ad infinitum...

Another idiotic post from an idiotic man, who thinks now he has the copyright on logic. Give me a break While AZU spends the next few months bouncing back and forth between Static's special "file sharing" that landed him on the registry, their cognitive distortions, their denials of the truth, and the time it takes to follow their enemies around the internet, its no wonder they lack the ability to comprehend anything besides personal attacks. Maybe he just hates getting whipped at his own game. Static has really deteriorated into a sniveling sissified AZU yes man, shines their shoes, cleans their gutters, washes the dishes, etc. Hope he doesn't mind the smell!

Stitches 77 and AZU exposed yet again

Did you know the Anagram for Stitches is "SHIT SECT?" That describes Absolute Zero United perfectly! A shit sect!

Her day of being exposed is coming soon. Maybe Marina will end up getting a job as a Gardner, eating Rice a Roni [the SAN FRANCISCO treat], going to school at some art school in Valencia, CA or something so she can draw pokemon characters and playing Zelda: the Windwaker. Who knows?

My favorite comments of the day:

http://anonymouse.org/cgi-bin/anon-www.cgi/http://www.haloscan.com/comments/absolutezero/1044836956325022339/#60811

No, my name above should have been "L.S.D. Lysard" so please stop editing my posts. I wonder if there's any posts by people here that you haven't edited in some way. It makes you wonder..L.S.D.Lysard 01.27.09 - 4:34 pm

AZU does more than edit posts, they doctor web snapshots and create lies out of thin air. They still haven't shown me proof of that false accusation they made against poor Patty Wetterling.

http://www.haloscan.com/comments/absolutezero/1044836956325022339/#60814

Sounds like you've got some professional whiners around here. LOL

WAH WAH WAH 01.27.09 - 7:00 pm

You don't say? That's what AZU is famous for, a society full of bitchy, moaning losers who contribute nothing more to society than proof of what happens when nutjobs stay off their meds too long. Since they love books, here's one for them:

Another "Golden" Moment

After another quiet few months, AZU Exposed has found another gem from AZU resident airhead Tracy Golden "WASP Ohio." On the subject of an Ohio teenager sending nude pics of herself to her teen boyfriend, Golden has this to say [courtesy of Tracy's "Mothers against Predators" yahoo group, complete with misspellings]:

"Dear Friend-

I'm sure everyone had heard in the news of teenagers taking nude pictures of themselves and sending it to other teens. This is starting to be a huge problem. Not only are these teens setting themselves up for embarrassment, but they are risking the chance of thier pictures getting on the internet and into the hands of pedophiles.

Not only are they risking becoming victims of child porn, they are also risking becoming sex offenders themselves.

Teens are now being charged with disseminating child pornography, and the reciepients of thier pictures are being threatened with child pornography charges also!

These are not just isolated cases...

My question to you is,
Should teens be charged as sex offenders for sending nude pictures of themselves?

I have already spoken with a Senator on this issue, and I am interested in creating a law that specifically deals with this.

Are these kids sexually deviant, or just stupid?

How much of a price should they have to pay for what they have done?

A few thoughts to ponder before you answer:

This law should have gender equality, meaning you cannot treat the boys any different than the girls.

There are victims with this crime!
1) the picture taker is making themselves a victim of child pornography (but is it illegal and punishable to make yourself a victim on purpose)
2) The person who gets the picture has been forced to view "porn" - if they wanted to or not. Could this cause the person to have any emotional damage?

Are these children sex offenders, or should they be charged with a non-sex crime?

What would you like to see done with this law?

Tracy Golden
WASP Ohio
.
Be Proactive, And Not Reactive !
Women Against Sexual Predators

First off, why is she at a loss for opinions on the subject, besides the fact she's dumber than a bag of rocks? I feel sorry for the senator who spoke with this bimbo. My responses:

1. Should teens be charged as sex offenders for sending nude pictures of themselves?
Response: NO. Do you need a shorter answer, Tracy?

2. I have already spoken with a Senator on this issue, and I am interested in creating a law that specifically deals with this.
Response: Do they take laws scribbled in dyslexic crayon? Seriously though, the thought of someone like HER writing a law should make people cringe.

3. the picture taker is making themselves a victim of child pornography (but is it illegal and punishable to make yourself a victim on purpose)
Response: Would she make that same argument if the scenario was slightly different, say, a teenage girl goes to a nightclub with a fake ID to sleep with an older guy? Tracy lacks the logic capacity to comprehend anything beyond the simplest tasks

4. The person who gets the picture has been forced to view "porn" - if they wanted to or not. Could this cause the person to have any emotional damage?
Response: Or not? Shit, by her own admission on her site, teens are the biggest consumers of porn. And how do you force someone to view a dirty picture? Wow. Hey Tracy, cell phones with text messaging have a nice feature called a "delete" button -- it allows you to remove messages you do not wish to keep, like an unwanted naked picture. Wow -- how convenient!

5. What would you like to see done with this law?
response: Abolish it. Why don't you just take the cell phone away from the irresponsible little brat or just get him/ her one of those featureless phones that only have phone and text only messages? Yes those phones still exist. Give me a break. Sooner or later YOUR brats will be teens, Tracy. Do YOU want them on a registry for sending naughty pics to their dates?

Give me a break. Is Predator Panic so damn bad that we have to give such deep thought to adding yet another case to my growing list of stupid RSO cases?

http://www.oncefallen.com/youmightbersoif.html