I know you were left to assume a significant amount about what I actually did. When people know I was sentenced to a 5 to life term they usually assume some violent/coercive kidnapping or rape. I don’t want to minimize the serious of my act but it was not violent act.

I don’t talk about my the actual facts about what I did in my offense unless people ask. People sometimes assume the worse of me due to my Life sentence but sentencing in this country has a wide range from state to state. In my birth state my charge would have been a misdemeanor, in Utah, at that time under a new law, it was a 1st degree felony. (The law has been repealed). You can draw your own conclusions from that but no one, with the exception of the prosecutor wanted me jailed at all. Not the victim or his family (which is not uncommon under like circumstances), nor the state appointed therapist who evaluated me and agreed with my private therapist, nor the probation officer who prepared my pre-sentencing report. They all signed off on a diversion program but the judge’s hands were tied because of the law.

People often bring their *own* experiences to such discussions. As a result both victims and offenders have to deal with what is often the aggregate societal (and even political) view of what their own personal circumstances *should* be based as much or more on assumption or flat out myth rather than the reality of the actual circumstances. I think that’s true of much political discussion and media discourse today.

Sex abuse is a serious problem and one has to wonder if sensationalism in the media and political opportunism resulting in increasingly stiffer penalties for offenders and reporting, housing restrictions and requirements for ex-offenders are really helping facilitate restorative justice for victims. Or is it just a convenient and virtually foolproof effective way for a politician to enhance their public safety bonafides? Some offenders are living under a bridge for chrissake. How safe can that be?

As for restorative justice in my case. When he was twenty, Ryan and I took a long walk together, alone. I looked into his eyes and apologized for what I did and for what he had to endure because of it and he looked into my eyes and told me he had forgiven me long ago. For me, that talk we had is holding up pretty well.

It’s generally accepted that those who abuse were most likely themselves abused growing-up – hence the generational pattern of a wounded victim later wounding others, very often in the same way as he was – which is why a victim should care about “generational patterns.”

So, it’s entirely possible – if not probable – that someone who was [spanked, emotionally intimidated, molested, slapped, humiliated, beaten, etc] will act out the very same behaviors with the roles reversed and wound the next victim down the line.

The problem isn’t that people who commit these acts are inherently bad – just the opposite – they are each inherently good just like all of us. The problem, instead, is that they have been subjected to an incredibly powerful conditioning experience that society tells them should fill them with shame and a sense of personal weakness.

It’s the festering of the un-healed wound that practically guarantees the future wounding.

Whether the wound-er or the wound-ee, they are all suffering in a vicious cycle. The key to healing is breaking the wounded-victim-wounding cycle through honest self assesment, love and understanding, imvho.

My hat’s off to the poster for putting it right on the table and speaking to it bravely from a position of personal responsibility – he said he was wrong and paid his debt to society, showed understanding, and felt compassion for the victim and his family – like I said, he’s healthier imo than a loyal Bushie who can’t distinguish right from wrong when challenged for loyalty.

I say that a victim of abuse is not well-served by his support group if their expectation is that he will always carry scars – the no parole sentence from ‘friends’ – how ironic. I would challenge you to take a different look at the problem and, instead, view it this way:

The child/person’s basic goodness is in there beating away in his heart, but it’s not as accessible to him as it could be due to strong, traumatic conditioning.

Analogy: If a miner is trapped below, you would do everything you could to get him out, right? Staying angry at the guy responsible for the cave-in isn’t going to help the miner. Connect with the miner, however, and get him oxygen (Love), and together you can be re-united.

But, you gotta believe in full healing – for everyone – or you won’t really try and all you’ll be left with is a lifetime of anger and frustration.

One day you may see the poster’s successful reclamation of his integrity as actually reason to celebrate for all – he broke the same cycle that everyone else – wound-er and wound-ee – has to break. If he can do it…

Again, radiofreewill, the child never gets paroled from something forced upon him/her.
Sex offenders have a low rate of “transformation”, or rehabilitation. Not my own conclusion.
I don’t think the victim really cares about the perp’s “generational patterns”.
What’s restorative there?
Its a low bar set given either choice.

Scott Jennings is all over the place (Monica’s office, GSA, where else?) Is he scheduled to testify because both Monica and Doan certainly seem to have needed his help to violate the Hatch Act.

Also, when and how did Kyle Sampson know that he had a finalized list of USAs to be fired…since he was only the compiler. Who — in his view — was the decider? Who did Monica think was the decider? Who did Gonzalez think was the decider? Who did McNulty think was the decider?

Excellent questions!

I’d suggest going after Ms. Doan and getting her to point a finger or two toward someone in the WH and then turning our attention to some lesser figures, such as Mr. Jennings, in the WH.

Let the leads from DOJ and GSA, and any other agencies of interest, lead to individuals and projects within the WH.

Even if you only get to people like Mr. Jennings in the WH, that will quickly lead on to others like Harriet Miers and KKKarl Rove.

So now that Monica has admittted to breking the law in regards to interview questions, does she get removed from the bar?

I vote yea.

Of course, in a strangely masochistic way she’d probably love it. Being martyred and all, she’d be an icon for all Regent U. lawyer grad Republicans for the future.

First in her class(!)…to be indicted and lose her law license!

Now, apply this to everything we’ve heard has been illegally happening at the Justice Department…as well as all other departments.

I seem to recollect a biblical phrase: “By their fruits you will know them.”

Bush, Cheney, Rove and Miers are definitely behind the widespread evil and lawlessness permeating our federal government.