NARSOL ED makes strong case in difficult interview

Viewing 5 reply threads
  • Author
    • #25685 Reply
      Sandy Rozek
      Sandy Rozek

      “Conversations with Wendy” is a talk show that comes on WINA, a news radio station in Virginia. Apparently they received our Halloween press release,
      [See the full post at: NARSOL ED makes strong case in difficult interview]

    • #25699 Reply

      Brenda should have brought up Elvis and Priscilla and asked Wendy if she considers THAT a “predatory” issue since Wendy seems to like the “predator” label.
      Elvis was known for liking the young girls of his audience/fans, so does that make him a predator?

      And for anyone who wants an answer to why I keep bringing up Elvis and Priscilla here’s the answer:

      Because that is an instance where someone POPULAR committed a crime, did NOT get arrested for it and ended up marrying the would-be “victim” (does that make him a predator?) and he is STILL honored to this day as an icon of music history with not a single person shunning his legacy for what he did at age 24 with a 14 yr old girl.

      • #25780 Reply
        Tim L


        I share Es bday. Jan8. To bad he is gone we could really use him now. Talk about a man who chopped down the cherry tree.

      • #25904 Reply

        @ Meastro
        Speaking of famous people look at MJ, everyone still loves him, they play thriller on the radio all day long, the king of POP right? People have their priorities all fd up if you ask me,
        To me honestly I think the courts know the statistics, they know who’s who, they know this is continued, punitive nonsense and one would think if they didn’t then Michigan would have lost their ass in their fight. I think SCOTUS and all the highest courts in every state had the wool pulled over their eyes with false statistics and false non factual evidence, people have been on the registry for decades and our dna in on file so if we were out doing bad then obviously they would know and the courts can clearly see I believe.

    • #25754 Reply
      Tim L

      Grade C-,

      Advocating for SOs is not easy. A careful communicative strategy is necessary for better results. It must also be practiced.

      The topic of the day was supposed to be the comparison between two Halloween threats: Sexoffender V automobiles. The host veered from the specific comparison right away and the ED did not refocus. While Brenda pointed out the greater threat from automobiles she didn’t put forth the statistics on auto accidents on Halloween which are substantiality greater than that from SOs. Instead the conversation devolved into the registries efficacy issue based on the types of crimes committed and kinds of persons on the list.

      • #25778 Reply
        Tim L

        “In fact according to the National Highway traffic and Safety Administration Halloween is consistently one of the top three days for pedestrian injuries and fatalities.”
        The CDC&P estimates that children are, “Four(4) times more likely to be stuck by a motor vehicle on halloween than any other day of the year.” (

        Some stats I would have loved to hear – just saying.

        A shout out to those over at for combatting unreasonable government surveillance.

      • #25885 Reply
        Jeremy from Indiana

        Personally, I think Brenda was unprepared for this interview. The entire time, she kept quoting “percentages in the 90s” instead exact, verifiable statistics with sources. To the untrained ear, those sound like nothing more than guesses. If they sound like guesses, the average person is going to perceive them to be skewed in our favor to support our cause. This causes our entire argument to fall apart.

        Brenda has done a great job with this organization, but if this interview is indicative of her debate skills, she might want to get training on how to debate effectively or hire someone who can. She, and collectively we, lost this battle.

    • #25786 Reply
      Stephen Floyd

      I saw the same press release. It was the first time I ever heard of a myth regarding sex offenses on Halloween. I feel like NARSOL created the issue as an excuse to get themselves media attention.

      • #25788 Reply

        Why do you think just about every local news outlet in the nation has been running stories for the last week or so about where registrants live in order to warn treat or treaters on which houses they should avoid if it just a myth cooked up by NARSOL to get publicity?

      • #25791 Reply
        Tim L

        Mr. Floyd,

        Press is exactly what this government misuse of a database needs desperately, before the house burns down. The constitutional fire alarms are blaring and you better pay attention to it!

        Most sincerely,
        Tim L.

      • #25800 Reply
        Sandy Rozek
        Sandy Rozek

        I so much wish that what you have said were true. I would rather we were guilty of being unethical than that the hysteria in our nation over the danger of people on the registry at Halloween existed. This has been going on for for close to ten years and has escalated so much in the past five or so that I have difficulty imagining that you have not been aware. If you don’t want to do any research, just look over at our news-feed. As I type this, I see headlines of articles from several different states on the issue. We didn’t write those articles. They come in automatically from mainstream media.

      • #25851 Reply
        Alfie D

        TO STEPHEN FLOYD: Please do not take this as a disparaging remark, but you and many like you are a bit short-sighted and your view is misplaced… because you are very uninformed…

        To date, many state and federal courts have analyzed the data, testimony from psychologists and psychiatrists, and others and have reviewed the state and federal statistics regarding sexual-related crimes by people. In many cases now, both on the state and federal levels across the country, many courts have decided that these sex offender laws are not supported by real facts. Since the initial inception and enactment of what are known as the SORNA (Sex Offender Registration Act) laws, there is history and data now available to prove that the facts and information to support the enactment of these laws… well… were false, fabricated or just plain scare tactics to get the laws passed. Courts are now re-visiting many of these past cases through new legal challenges, and reversing their previous positions. Why? The reason is simple: When a civil case is initiated, the person who sues (“Plaintiff”) has the burden to prove they are right and have to present factual evidence and facts to support their lawsuit. The State or local government being sued (“Defendant”) has to counter and challenge that factual evidence and those facts used by Plaintiff to sue. The factual evidence and facts presented by Plaintiffs now show that these laws are (1) misguided; (2) do not serve and effective purpose because the state cannot show that these laws protect the public; (3) that these laws actually hurt the community and make the community unsafe by pushing people underground; (4) are a financial and overburden monstrosity in trying to enforce the law with law enforcement and court manpower; (5) make the alleged sex offender a pariah of society and forces him/her to live on the fringes of society and makes it almost impossible to find suitable living conditions and employment; (6) creates mental health and medical problems for the alleged sex offender; (7) places them in danger of physical assault; and (8) most of these laws are punishment and banishment and so severe that they act as an enhanced sentence which prohibited by the United States and State Constitutions under the ex post facto clause.

        When state’s have to defend the lawsuits and the person suing presents facts and evidence, the State or local government in their defense cannot defend because they cannot overcome their burden of defense with factual evidence and facts to counter the person’s factual evidence and facts who brought the law suit. The Defendant’s reply to the other side’s factual evidence and facts goes something like this…

        DEFENDANT STATE: “Mr. Judge, it is common sense that we should register those who are convicted of sex offenses and restrict them and monitor their everyday movements and prohibit them from living near schools, bus stops, places where children congregate because they are the highest of the recidivism levels of all categories of crimes and will re-offend. We have the government statistics.”

        JUDGE: “Can you prove this “common sense” fact and support it with government statistics, psychologists, psychiatrists, sex offender therapists, anything?

        DEFENDANT STATE: “No, Mr. Judge, it is just plain, old, common sense!”

        PLAINTIFF: “Mr. Judge, we have presented facts and evidence that are credible and actual crime statistics from the government and from law enforcement. We have presented facts and evidence from psychologists, psychiatrists, sex offender therapists. And, by ALL government statistics and testimony, it is a fact that sex offenses are one of the lowest recidivism rates among the entire legal spectrum of crimes.”

        JUDGE: “Mr. State, can you refute any of this?”

        DEFENDANT STATE: “No, Mr. Judge. But it is common sense.”

        JUDGE: “Mr. State, I do not deny that you may have good intentions, but misplaced. If you cannot present evidence to refute the Plaintiff’s facts and evidence, then I have to rule in their favor. Interestingly, you state that you have evidence with your own state statistics to refute the Plaintiff’s evidence, but the Plaintiff is using your own statistics from your law enforcement department, which favors them. You cannot even refute those statistics from your own government. I have to decide that the SORNA law or parts of it in your state are unconstitutional. My decision is that the law is unconstitutional.”

        The Pennsylvania SORNA law has been found to violate the law as unconstitutional. The Michigan SORNA law has been found to violate the law as unconstitutional. These two recent Court decisions follow Court decisions from other states and decisions from the federal government. These are the facts.

        To state that anyone or any group is only seeking publicity to get their name out… well… when you send out a Press Release, that is the idea… to have your cause heard or to inform and educate the public of something. This is what NARSOL is doing… educating the public about bad laws that hurt you and that you pay for, and laws to protect you! Is there anything wrong with that?

    • #25950 Reply

      Thanks much to those of you with constructive criticism to share. A couple of things to understand, please:
      First, we are all volunteers in this organization including me. In fact I have a day job and spend nearly all non-work and even a little stolen work minutes trying to keep the organization running.
      Second, I am not even my own first choice of public speaker. I do the best I can which often is none too good. People have volunteered to train me, and like many who volunteer, they disappear when I try to actually schedule a time.
      Since we have no paid staff, hiring someone to be a public speaker is still a ways in the future. If a gifted volunteer should come along who can speak clearly on all NARSOL’s talking points at the drop of a hat, I will gladly welcome him or her.
      Oh… and sorry I didn’t mention the traffic statistic. Could have sworn I did.

      • #26015 Reply
        Tim L

        You and NARSOL did wonders with this press. You got peoples attention! That (attention gathering) is the BIGGEST part of communication strategy in persuasive public speaking.

        You did a good job establishing your and the groups credibility. NARSOL’s goal is rational laws that ACTUALLY protects our kids. Clearly the interviewer , radio host had her own agenda and she passively expressed her doubts about the groups goal to point out the threat posed by automobiles. Clearly the interviewer believed your real goal was to persuade Americans to cut registrants some slack. This is why the conversation devolved into an efficacy issue. On the next opportunity make it a point to force the interviewer to acknowledge verbally NARSOL’s goal of rational laws and measures. What I am saying is demand the interviewer acknowledge NARSOL’S credibility. Be firm and focused on kids needs as opposed to the advocacy of SOs.

        Lastly, I would like to acknowledge you for having BALLS! Our nation would do well to develop more women like you and others in this cause.

        Tim L.

    • #25963 Reply

      Ah who chopped down the cherry tree? For your information George Washington chopped down the cherry tree to make his wooden teeth…. lol. Actually if you use common reasoning about a lot of this sex stings and other ordeals. Those in authority are doing a number on all that are carnal by nature. Now you all talk about a leaper changing his spots but can’t can’t do anything.
      Case in point. Most of these sex operations are a conspiracy to fraud. Do you think a True Minister of God would give you an opportunity to fall? And yes these operations are Money based and are greedy at best. I don’t care if your a chief sinner like Paul in the bible its still a conspiracy and giving one the opportunity is very out of character. So we can all say conspiracy fraud can’t we. Now when two laws collide that’s no good than they become out of balance such as the justice system. One you have the law of Man and on the other the Law of God.
      Now one can take that for what it is or change the way things work. Are we now all working together in this type of situation. Take an example from the Vietnam war when guy’s were conscience objectors. One had no choice to either go to jail or go to war and kill people. They didn’t want us over their anyway or did they?
      I’m sure all this undercover sex scheme’s were planned or pre planned.

Viewing 5 reply threads
Reply To: NARSOL ED makes strong case in difficult interview
We welcome a lively discussion with all view points provided that they stay on topic - keeping in mind...

  • *You must be 18 or older to comment.
  • *You must check the "I am not a robot" box and follow the recaptcha instructions.
  • *Your submission must be approved by a NARSOL moderator.
  • *Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • *Comments arguing about political or religious preferences will be deleted.
  • *Excessively long replies will be rejected, without explanation.
  • *Be polite and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • *Do not post in ALL CAPS.
  • *Stay on topic.
  • *Do not post contact information for yourself or another person.
  • *Please enter a name that does not contain links to other websites.

Your information:

<a href="" title="" rel="" target=""> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <pre class=""> <em> <strong> <del datetime="" cite=""> <ins datetime="" cite=""> <ul> <ol start=""> <li> <img src="" border="" alt="" height="" width="">