Reply To: Sex offenders have First Amendment right to Internet, social media



I sympathize with those who have posted here. I have to tell you though…”stop whining and embrace your reality”.

I’d like to tell you about Mike. He’s on his third conviction for child molestation but claims this time was a pissed-off estranged wife trying to take his corporate ground transportation and chain of laundromats. I don’t believe him but he does raise one good point in that he was accused of having unprotected sex with both his step daughters every day for tbree years. The problem is that he’s had advanced hiv disease since 1997 (his crimes happened in 2003-2006) yet neither child has hiv. His ex-wife, however, does have the disease and Mike takes full responsibility for a single night where he “was weak and she was drunk and wanted a baby”.

That travesty aside, Mike is embracing his position as a 290 registrant. His dad died while he was in prison so Mike has money. He invested part of this windfall, not on more laundromats or limousines, but on a “vicious 290 lawyer in LA who hates cops”. Mike explained to him that his rage was misguided and that he had no use for an attorney who was aiming his affliction for legal chaos at the wrong demographic.

“It’s the public who–rightly–believes I’m a piece of shit that I’m after…especially the men/fathers” he told his lawyer. “They should be keeping better track of their kids/teenaged joggers/wives, rather than trying to climb some ladder that takes them further from their families “. He reportedly went on to say that the fathers were responsible for the crimes against their families, simply because they weren’t home with them.

When I confronted Mike on a dad’s responsibility to provide for the family, he launched into an extremely pre-meditated monologue on farming and beekeeping in America, and how those same dads could farm (be at home) rather than whatever they did now that made their families jail bait/victims.

When he finished a very convincing argument, I asked why the need for a $750 hr lawyer whom he elected to re-program to see his side of the story.

His response (summarized). “Because I want to be left alone. I’ll go on about my life in business and leave them alone if they leave me alone. The minute, however, that they decide to wreck my life, I go to “plan B”. This was a tiny paragraph at the very end of California’s 290 law that says a victim has the right to seek treble damages in harassment cases against registered sex offenders. “If they’re going to act out and wreck my business, I want the legal artillery needed to set them straight”.

So far Mike is living a carefree lifestyle, is back in business as an ecommerce website owner and commercial landlord; he has had zero brushes with anyone.

Still, he raises a good point in terms of his “don’t whine” attitude as a sex offender. If you (sex offenders) give into living the transitory lifestyle the legislature says you do, “hiding under rocks to avoid public scrutiny” , aren’t you victimizing yourselves?

Understanding the law and how it can protect sex offenders IF they’re willing to take a walk off the map in terms of turning from “surfing the internet for kiddy porn to surfing the human condition for cash legal judgments” , is, according to Mike, how you can begin to re-educate the dad’s on the real numbers; the ones that prove–historically–less kids were molested, joggers and wives raped, when they worked at home.

Is Mike on the right track or is he crazy? If the former is true, in any measure, then you just HAVE to hear/read of his “plan C”. It puts crazy at the same level as enjoying a cup of pudding after dinner. What’s worse? He has a lawyer willing to back him up on a defensive plan he spent 12 years in prison sorting out in terms of its legality. Contact me if you want to hear it. Maybe his is the answer for telling the discriminating public to, in his words, “mind their own f***in’ business or start enjoying homelessness .”