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
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.
- 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.
- subjecting foster children in New York City to experimental treatment with toxic AIDS drugs;
- siphilis experimenation on orphans in Tuskagee and Guatemala; see also here