"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 approved illegal human experimentation on children in foster care

In my previous blog, I wrote about Porter Kirkwood's stark lack (or deliberate refusal) to understand sex offender laws - CRIMINAL laws, which necessarily affected a father's constitutional rights in Family Court child neglect proceedings illegally brought and illegally fixed by Porter Kirkwood - in two courts.

I also wrote that my previous blog was a pre-cursor to an explanation why Porter Kirkwood's boastful claim, at the October 2015 meeting with the voters, that his masterminding of a program to "treat" "juvenile sex offenders" in foster care of Kirkwood's client, the Delaware County, is nothing to be proud about.

Once again, let's listen to what Porter Kirkwood said at his meeting with the voters about his "unique" experimental program to treat "juvenile sex offenders" which he claimed to be a "boon" for Delaware County from many points of view, including savings to taxpayers because the "program" only costs a meager $56,000 (!) per child (!) per year (!).

Kirkwood says that he invited the allegedly best authority in New York, a Dr. Hamill, to treat "juvenile sex offenders" in foster care in Delaware County, that Dr. Hamill came to Delaware County, designed an experimental program of treatment of "juvenile sex offenders" and actually subjected children kept in foster care in Delaware County to experimental sex offender treatment, which was allegedly a "boon" to Delaware County taxpayers, first, because children remained, for treatment purposes, in Delaware County and were not sent someplace else, and second, because, as compared to a $250,000 price tag per child per year to send children away to an outside facility, Delaware County paid a meager $56,000 per child per year for Dr. Hamill's program.

Kirkwood also claims that "everybody knows" that success rate in sex offender treatment of adult sex offenders is very low, and in the "age range of 12 to 14" (!) (prepubescent age) the "success rate", whatever it is, is over 60%.

Where do I begin...

Porter Kirkwood's body language during his meeting with the voters in October of 2015 revealed his nervousness.

Kirkwood's clean-shaven skull was sweaty and shining throughout his presentation, he was literally dancing and curtseying, flailing his arms and nervously gesticulating with his hands. 

That was unusual for an attorney who claimed he is an experienced trial lawyer.  Of course, there is a big difference when you appear in front of a judge with whom you fixed cases ahead of time through ex parte communications and before an unpredictable audience of voters reviewing your resume for a nearly-200 thousand dollar position for 10 years, with benefits and practically unlimited power to rule over people and please his campaign contributors.

In his eagerness to perform, Kirkwood let out information that would, probably, not come out for a long time was it not for Kirkwood's slip-of-the-tongue.

That information was - that:
  • Kirkwood as a prosecutor
  • prosecuted in Family Court, through juvenile delinquency proceedings, certain children, ages 7 to 16 for certain "sexual misconduct" which, if not for children's age, would have constituted a crime (Family Court Act Article 3);
  • before or after obtaining a CIVIL adjudication against such children;
  • children were put into foster care of Delaware County, making Porter Kirkwood, in addition of being a prosecutor of those children;
  • then Porter Kirkwood invited a well known creep, a greedy peddler of unscientific theories who served everybody who paid:
    • prosecutors with his "expert testimony" (requiring neutrality), thus creating for himself a double market for treatment:
      • of sex offenders, and
      • of sex offender victims;
    • post-conviction probation departments who sent sex offenders and people who probation officers considers sex offenders, even where they were not legally sex offenders

Yet, substituted consent is practiced in New York on behalf of adults adjudicated as incompetent and minors.

I already wrote on this blog how Porter Kirkwood made another interesting revelation - that he is participating in administrative panels making decisions about adults that are not adjudicated as incompetents, bypassing competency court proceedings, where such proceedings are brought on behalf of people with monetary interest in assets of the adult and in his or her speedy death.

In addition with this clearly conflicted "public service", Porter Kirkwood takes into foster care children who his agency is financially interested to (1) label as mentally or physically disabled - it gets more money for their care this way;  (2) deprive them of future college education by committing them to IEPs (individual education plans), whether this is necessary or not, in order to, once again, receive more funds for their upkeep or adoption out of foster care - even where New York colleges do not accept IEPs as proper high school diplomas for purposes of college applications.

In addition to that, Porter Kirkwood is now prosecutes children as a prosecutor and then consents to their experimental treatment as their legal guardian - and designs programs for their treatment together with the treatment provider.

Once again, a prosecutor - acting as a legal advisor to the legal guardian of a defendant - designing program of treatment of the defendant.

All irreconcilable conflicts of interest, all warranting disbarment of Porter Kirkwood.  

Yet, there are other, equally grave problems here.

There is no such thing under the New York state law as a "juvenile sex offender"

As I discussed in my previous blog, whether a person is a "sex offender", is defined in New York by the statute of CRIMINAL CONVICTION of that person.

A juvenile delinquency adjudication is not a criminal conviction.

Thus, under the law, there is no such thing as a "juvenile sex offender".

And, since we are dealing with constitutional rights of children, there is no saying, with a wink and a nod, that "you know what I mean - they are sex offenders nevertheless".  No, they are not.

They are children adjudicated as juvenile delinquents.  Secretly.  

They are NOT sex offenders, no matter what the civil adjudication was about.

Sex offender treatment is illegal unless the court requires a sex offender evaluation and the sex offender evaluation requires such a treatment

Kirkwood mentioned that he already subjected "juvenile sex offenders" (children adjudicated as juvenile delinquents placed in foster care of Delaware County) to "sex offender treatment".

Yet, a person can only be subjected to involuntary "sex offender treatment" if:

  • a court ordered a sex offender evaluation; and
  • upon the results of the sex offender evaluation, the evaluator recommended treatment, guided by science-based evidence.
The court had no right to order a sex offender evaluation, because a juvenile delinquent, by law, may not be deemed a sex offender.

A sex offender evaluation is not an evaluation WHETHER the evaluated person is a sex offender - that status is defined only and exclusively by the statute of criminal conviction - but whether a person ALREADY CONVICTED of a sex offense (which did not happen with juvenile delinquents) has any risk of RE-offending.

That is what scientific literature about sex offender evaluation and treatment says.

Of course, Dr. Hamill and Porter Kirkwood (and, possibly, some other adult people handling the "program" and receiving financial benefits from it) knew all of that very well.

That's why Dr. Hamill (not a medical doctor, by the way, he was only a PhD in psychology) "agreed" to experiment on children in the obscure rural location of upstate New York.

Because it was illegal.

And only Porter Kirkwood's stupidity and his zest to win judicial elections at all costs drove him to reveal existence of such a "program".

Involuntary medical and psycholgical experimentation on human subjects, especially on children, is a violation of the 4th and the 8th Amendment, as well as of their bodily integrity, integrity of the mind and right to privacy

Mainstream and social media in the U.S. covered in the recent years the history of medical, pharmaceutical and psychological experimentation on children by various state and federal American government agencies, inside and outside of the United States.

Subjects covered were, among others:

Kirkwood did not mention that Dr. Hamill's experimental program satisfied those regulations.

Most likely, no such assessment was ever done.

Moreover, an author who covered experimentation on "wards of the state" stated the following:


How is it ethical to conduct experiments with unknown risks and consequences on the most vulnerable people in America — children who have no parents and no one else who was watching for their interests?
We have been down roads similar to this before. Tests of everything from exposing people to radio and chemical weapons to mind altering substances were conducted on vulnerable people. Typically the people subjected to these studies were children as well as people who were sick or mentally disabled, many others were poor, racial minorities and prisoners; in other words, the less privileged classes were the classes used for tests.


If subjecting vulnerable populations - foster children, poor and prisoners (which juvenile delinquents are all of the above) is unethical (and illegal), how legal and ethical is to subject children kept as captives in a foster home to an admittedly experimental mind-altering treatment with no proven benefits (since the treatment is "experimental").

And especially in order to change such a fragile substance as children's and adolescents' sexuality.


Due to existence of criminal laws of child sexual abuse, scientific research of children's and adolescent's sexuality in the United States is non-existent.

After all, even interviewing healthy children (with parents) about their sexual fantasies, masturbation patterns, sexual preferences, sexual contacts with other children and, possibly, adults, or fantasies about such contacts, development of erogenous zones in children, maturing of sexual behavior - will result in one phone call to the hotline as soon as such study begins, and the researcher will go to prison.  Nobody will blame parents for doing that.  I would be the first to call the hotline on any researcher who would try to discuss such issues with my children.  It is simply a private matter.

So, what researchers try to GUESS about children and adolescent sexuality is anecdotal evidence, evidence from criminal and juvenile delinquency proceedings (which is, of course, not representative scientific data for proper scientific research) - and research on the young of other primates, monkeys.

Yet, you wouldn't want you child be subjected to an involuntary experimental treatment based on monkey research.

Moreover, I highly doubt that "Dr." Hamill ever read any research about primates or children.  He was too busy feeding his reported (after his death) "consummate shopping" habits that had to be mentioned even in his obituary.

So, there was no legal basis to deem children in foster care adjudicated as juvenile delinquents as "sex offenders", no legal basis to subject them to sexual evaluation or treatment, no scientific data as to what constitutes the norm of sexuality in children or adolescents, and thus no guidance as to how fix the perceived "flaws" in certain children's sexual and psychological makeup, especially that the approach was that the problems, if they existed at all, were only psychological, and a thorough biochemical, genetic and medical evaluation was clearly excluded in order to let Hamill and however else was profiting by the program to get a quick buck without caring one fig about the children or the legality of the whole thing.

That's exactly why experimentation of this sordid kind was done on parentless children, kept as captives in foster care and adjudicated as juvenile delinquents - without a jury, without proper legal representation (give me a break if you want to persuade me that assigned counsel for children are of good quality).  By the way, Kirkwood, in the same video, makes another blunder - he claims "anybody can be an attorney for the children".  So, from the horse's mouth...

Yet, without such data, nobody has a right to claim they know - without research and experimental data - what is normal and what is not normal in the field of child's and adolescent sexuality.

It is obvious that the child's and adolescent's sexuality and growth (same as that of an adult) is a complex interaction of social, physiological, neurological and hormonal/chemical developments.

It is clear that just one specialist - and a psychologist, not a medical scientist - will be unable to ascertain all of the factors that are impacting formation and development of certain growth and sexual tendencies in a child.

If the psychologist cannot determine what the norm in a child or adolescent is, a psychologist has no right to try to "treat" or "fix" what he has no clue about, and the alleged "success" rate of 60% reported by Kirkwood in "treating" "juvenile sex offenders" in the age range of 12 to 14 may be nothing other than a video confession to a crime of massive sexual abuse of children.

I will cover in the next blog credentials of Dr Hamill as an expert in sex offender treatment, what was included in Dr. Hamill's sex offender treatment (I had first-hand accounts from clients as to what Dr. Hamill wanted them to go through, as well as I read multiple articles and books, including by Dr. Hamill, on the topic) - and what Kirkwood may have subjected foster children to.

Stay tuned.

No comments:

Post a Comment