"If the judges interpret the laws themselves, and suffer none else to interpret, they may easily make, of the laws, [a shredded] shipman's hose!" - King James I of England, around 1616.

“No class of the community ought to be allowed freer scope in the expression or publication of opinions as to the capacity, impartiality or integrity of judges than members of the bar. They have the best opportunities of observing and forming a correct judgment. They are in constant attendance on the courts. Hundreds of those who are called on to vote never enter a court-house, or if they do, it is only at intervals as jurors, witnesses or parties. To say that an attorney can only act or speak on this subject under liability to be called to account and to be deprived of his profession and livelihood by the very judge or judges whom he may consider it his duty to attack and expose, is a position too monstrous to be entertained for a moment under our present system,” Justice Sharwood in Ex Parte Steinman and Hensel, 95 Pa 220, 238-39 (1880).

“This case illustrates to me the serious consequences to the Bar itself of not affording the full protections of the First Amendment to its applicants for admission. For this record shows that [the rejected attorney candidate] has many of the qualities that are needed in the American Bar. It shows not only that [the rejected attorney candidate] has followed a high moral, ethical and patriotic course in all of the activities of his life, but also that he combines these more common virtues with the uncommon virtue of courage to stand by his principles at any cost.

It is such men as these who have most greatly honored the profession of the law. The legal profession will lose much of its nobility and its glory if it is not constantly replenished with lawyers like these. To force the Bar to become a group of thoroughly orthodox, time-serving, government-fearing individuals is to humiliate and degrade it.” In Re Anastaplo, 18 Ill. 2d 182, 163 N.E.2d 429 (1959), cert. granted, 362 U.S. 968 (1960), affirmed over strong dissent, 366 U.S. 82 (1961), Justice Black, Chief Justice Douglas and Justice Brennan, dissenting.

" I do not believe that the practice of law is a "privilege" which empowers Government to deny lawyers their constitutional rights. The mere fact that a lawyer has important responsibilities in society does not require or even permit the State to deprive him of those protections of freedom set out in the Bill of Rights for the precise purpose of insuring the independence of the individual against the Government and those acting for the Government”. Lathrop v Donohue, 367 US 820 (1961), Justice Black, dissenting.

"The legal profession must take great care not to emulate the many occupational groups that have managed to convert licensure from a sharp weapon of public defense into blunt instrument of self-enrichment". Walter Gellhorn, "The Abuse of Occupational Licensing", University of Chicago Law Review, Volume 44 Issue 1, September of 1976.

“Because the law requires that judges no matter how corrupt, who do not act in the clear absence of jurisdiction while performing a judicial act, are immune from suit, former Judge Ciavarella will escape liability for the vast majority of his conduct in this action. This is, to be sure, against the popular will, but it is the very oath which he is alleged to have so indecently, cavalierly, baselessly and willfully violated for personal gain that requires this Court to find him immune from suit”, District Judge A. Richard Caputo in H.T., et al, v. Ciavarella, Jr, et al, Case No. 3:09-cv-00286-ARC in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, Document 336, page 18, November 20, 2009. This is about judges who were sentencing kids to juvenile detention for kickbacks.

Monday, November 2, 2015

Porter Kirkwood and his experimental "treatment" program for "juvenile sex offenders" in foster care - the essence of the program is likely criminal sexual child abuse

I have dedicated the last several blog posts to Porter Kirkwood's experimental "treatment" program for "juvenile sex offenders" in foster care that he announced at the meeting with the voters in October of 2015 in Sidney, NY, see here, here and here.

Please, see my previous blogs for today (interlinked above) to see the issues of legality of such program covered, ethical issues and issues of credentials of the "treatment provider" covered.

In this blog post I will cover the likely contents of the program.

I say "likely" because Kirkwood did not reveal the contents of the program, and I will not hold my breath for Delaware County to disclose such contents, which, most likely, constitutes criminal sexual child abuse.

I will simply describe what constitutes a usual "sex offender treatment" program, as described to me by my clients (without disclosure of identities, of course), as described in articles and books that I read over years of research and practice as criminal defense and Family Court attorney representing people accused of sex crimes and sexual child abuse.

The contents of this post will be difficult to digest and very hard to read.

Yet, I encourage my readers to read, and to read it today, before you go tomorrow to the voting booths.

Please, don't be squeamish as to reading descriptions of sex offender "treatment".  

Because this is a special type of torture that Kirkwood to already subjected captive foster children of Delaware County.

You need to know what you money was used for.

You need to know to what kind of torture Porter Kirkwood, this smiling man, will subject your helpless child if he or she, God forbid, finds himself or herself without your care, alone, and falsely accused of a sex crime.


The first question you need to ask yourself when dealing with the issue of "sex offender treatment" is that this word combination is inherently incompatible, an oxymoron.

If a person has a disease that he or she cannot control, he or she cannot be held responsible for his or her actions and thus cannot be convicted of a crime.

If the sexual act committed was committed while a person could control himself or herself, it was a crime, but was not a disease and cannot be "treated".

So, the "sex offender treatment", a multi-million, if not billion, industry (I am sure) in this country is peddling snake oil and completely illegal to begin with - from criminal theory's point of view.


That is my next "theoretical" question.  It is nonsensical to claim, at the very same time, that children may not give consent to sexual acts - any sexual acts.

Yet, at the same time, Kirkwood prosecutes children for sexual misconduct - and then, as a loving legal guardian, tries to treat children as "juvenile sex offenders" - I already wrote in my previous posts that a "juvenile sex offender" is yet another legal oxymoron, because a "sex offender" is a person convicted of a sex crime, and juvenile delinquency adjudication is not a criminal conviction.


Kirkwood claimed that he had an over 60% "success rate" in "treatment" of children in the age group of 12 to 14.

Yet, he did not disclose, what was considered a "success rate".

Mental castration of a child?

Through mental techniques, causing future impotency of a child?

Making the child believe that any sex is bad, making him a miserable person for the rest of his life - and making him a possible (and possibly sadistic) deviant?

I am filing a FOIL request for the contest of the "program" its goals and what constitutes "success" and "cure".

Also, would you go for an intrusive and torturous treatment for your child with only a 60% success rate?



One of the main "tool" of "treatment" by psychologists is "clinical interview".

The problem is that clinical interview is not a good diagnostic tool, because clinical psychologists are supposed to believe anything their client says.

Well, in case of sex offenders, clinical psychologists are supposed NOT to believe anything their client says.

Neither "belief" or "disbelief" anything a patient says is a good diagnostic tool.

Yet, psychologists do not have any other tools in peddling their snake oil, especially in sex offender treatment.

My clients reported to me that they were threatened by probation officers and by "licensed clinical social workers" to disclose their innermost thoughts, sexual fantasies and intimate experiences with their partners.

Setting aside impropriety of it all in adult patients (imagine having to disclose private information concerning not only you, but your spouse or intimate partner, too), we are dealing with children in the "juvenile sex offender" case.

So, a psychologist will be asking about sexual experience or fantasies of minors?

That is criminal behavior, sexual child abuse - on behalf of the person who asks such questions.

Moreover, a child might not even have the level of development, physical or mental, to handle such questions.  Such questions can HARM the child.  Not that the smiling Kirkwood cares, obviously.


Hamill is dead, but his articles describing his methods of treatment remained.

Here is one of them.

In this article, he describes three methods of treatment he used on "sex offenders":

1/ certain risk-assessment methods which are based on prior convictions - and cannot be applied to children who were never convicted of crimes;
2/ a lie detector test;
3/ a penile lie detector test - plethysmography.

PLEASE, remember that all of the above described "methods" - the test that seeks to "obtain information on an offender's degree of sexual deviance and risk of recidivism", a test that "measures changes in penile tumescence (erection) as sexual arousal increases in response to a set of stimulus slides" - as well as a "lie detector test" seeking to uncover the "offenders' sexual interests" - are and, likely, WERE ALREADY all used, with Kirkwood's approval, ON CHILDREN.


Not only it constitutes sexual child abuse to delve into a CHILD's "sexual interests", but results of a lie detector tests are inadmissible in court - and Hamill admitted he knew it.

So - not only it is a crime, but it is senseless torture of children.


Due to representation of individuals accused of sex crimes and sexual child abuse, I had to extensively research all aspects of the offered "sex offender treatment", this aspect included.  

Plethysmography is nothing other than measuring the changes in the volume of a male penis while the subject is shown child pornography.

Yes, child pornography - which is illegal to possess, even to the alleged "sex offender treatment provider".

I happen to own a manual as to how the testing must be handled.

Not only it is very specific as to the temperature of the room etc. that can affect the results of the test (and the fate of the subject), but it specifically warns those administering the test of two "no-no's":

1/ Do not tell the subjects that THEY CAN CONTROL engorgement of the penis (sorry - I have to be blunt describing what the manual said); and

2/ that every male, whether a sex offender or not, has the same reaction to "child pornography", especially where what is understood by "child pornography" is showing to males naked images of physiologically mature girls.  The result is arousal - in all males.  

So - the entire test is a fake.

And, let's face it, a lot of sadistic rapists and pedophiles, the most dangerous type, were impotent, and that's exactly why they seek to rape and murder vulnerable populations.

You can run the "penile lie detector" on a sadistic impotent pedophile all you want, there will be no reaction.

Yet, a healthy male who will never offend may fall victim to this so-called "test".

The test, by the way, does not require prior medical checkup and does not take into account hormonal imbalances, medication or swings of blood pressure or other diseases that may affect the result of the test.

And - in the "juvenile sex offender" context the use of plethysmography will be criminal sexual assault and battery on a child, or - a rape.

Imagine - to put a contraption on the penis of a helpless parentless boy and to make the boy watch child porgnography waiting for a result?

Or - maybe, plethysmography was not a part of this particular program?  How will we know when Kirkwood did not elaborate as to the contents of the "treatment program" and when Hamill said he uses it in his "sex offender treatment"?

So - did Hamill, with the help of Kirkwood, rape foster children in Delaware County.

I bet, we need to know before we vote for him Kirkwood as a judge.

But - of course, he will not tell us.

So - the safest way to go is simply not to vote for the creep.

No comments:

Post a Comment