The MSOP...

The MSOP...
FEAR BASED STRESS BOX Click on pic of MSOP!

Friday, March 29, 2013

Sports/SupportBoxers

I will have professional, Market-Ready Samples by the end of April for my innovative new Brands/Products which I invented, and am Patent Pending status with the United States Government:

www.SportsBoxers.com  (Non-Medical)
www.SupportBoxers.com  (Medical)

Try a 6-Pack Today at:

www.TEVEnterprises.com

A View From My Office:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/rz3whbqvr5sow3i/2013-01-07%2016.47.18.jpg

MN S. Ct: Business As Usual

The Minnesota Supreme Court passed on three seperate illegal and unconstitutional SDP Sex Civil Commitments last week in which they had the opportunity they have had for two decades to declare these sex commitment schemes (SDP/SPP) UNCONSTITUTIONAL or at least accept REVIEW AND ESTABLISH A 75% Numerical Value to the legal term "Highly likely"--Long overdue!

Thursday, March 28, 2013

Death of Static-99/St-99R

Based on what we now know, the Static-99 and it's progeny, the Static-99R shouldn't be used in Court. If you don't believe me, please see the professional paper below by one of my colleagues on SOCDA who practices in Florida. Bear in mind that despite the evidence being overwhelming that this instrument massively overestimates risks to feed the booming SVP business $ line the corrupt developers' greedy little pockets with cash and riches born or grief and state sanctioned murder, HCAO John Kirwin defends this instrument publicly in Task Force meetings, and even has the audacity to state that it UNDERESTIMATES RISK due to the issue of unreported offenses.

What John Kirwin conveniently fails and intentionally omits from his "analysis" that the ill-informed and misguided DHS-Controlled Task Force leans on as their go-to man for all things civil commitment is the irrefutable fact that any and all unreported real sex offenses are far outnumbered by false, unfounded sexual allegations, such as all the State has in my case in which these "victims" wanted to remove me from the picture as I was actively working to shut down their sex line: The Buddy System. Super Lawyer Fred Goetz (www.FrederickJGoetz.com) never bothered to share that EVIDENCE with my jury at trial.

Despite the Chief Judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals stating that "Highly likely" to reoffend should mean no less than 75%, Mr. Kirwin stated publicly at a Task Force meeting I have on audio that his interpretation as a prolific SDP/SPP prosecutor is "at least 50.1%", which at least partially explains his decisions to commit low, low-moderate, moderate, moderate-high, high, and the less than a dozen actual SVP-Level Risk individuals he has doomed to suffer a slow, torturous death under the transparent guise of McTreatment.

Please see the attached paper by Dr. Dean Cauley eulogizing this horrible instrument that massively inflated risk estimates which contributed, along with the corrupt "experts", "Minister's of Justice"/Persecutors, and judges all too eager to sentence men to a slow, cruel death called "Treatment", to the Unconstitutional Human Rights Violation/McTreatment Concentration Camps:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/7qm8vxnpmiwwcnx/DeathofStatic99.pdf

Monday, March 25, 2013

Static-99R Under Fire (Again)

Here is a link to one of my colleagues' blog: Forensic Psychologist Karen Franklin from California discussing the latest firestorm over this instrument which outrageously overestimates risk especially when applied by corrupt Minnesota Judges, who've  committed hundreds of low/moderate risk men.

http://forensicpsychologist.blogspot.com/

Friday, March 22, 2013

Judge Stauber's Dissent



STAUBER, Judge (dissenting)
I respectfully dissent. I would reverse the district court’s order indefinitely
committing appellant Cedric Scott Ince to the Minnesota Sex Offender Program (MSOP)
and would hold that the district court’s determination that Ince is a Sexually Dangerous
Person (SDP) is clearly erroneous.
Background
Ince is a 23-year-old man who has been incarcerated since the age of 19, with the
exception of eight months of successful intensive supervised release (ISR) in the
community prior to his civil commitment trial. Ince’s incarceration resulted from his
rape of a 19-year-old woman when he was 18, and his subsequent conviction of thirddegree criminal sexual conduct. Ince had an earlier juvenile adjudication for fifth-degree
criminal sexual conduct at age 17 involving a 17-year-old girl. Both parties agree that
Ince’s substance abuse played a factor in these crimes. The district court’s determination
is purportedly based only upon Ince’s two sexual offenses.
The question posed by this appeal is whether Ince is highly likely to reoffend by
engaging in future acts of harmful sexual conduct. See Minn. Stat. § 253B.02, subd.
18c(a) (2010); In re Linehan, 557 N.W.2d 171, 180 (Minn. 1996) (Linehan III). In
attempting to determine whether Ince is highly likely to engage in future acts of harmful
sexual conduct, the district court reviewed the evidence in the record under the specific
criteria set forth in In re Linehan, 518 N.W.2d 609, 614 (Minn. 1994) (Linehan I). The
district court determined that Ince was highly likely to engage in future acts of harmful
sexual conduct and therefore qualified as a sexually dangerous person subject to civil D-2
commitment. The district court’s conclusions with regard to these criteria are
unsupported by the evidence in the record.
Linehan Factors
Customarily, several experts are employed to provide evaluation and testimony at
civil commitment trials. Here, Dr. Penny Zwecker, Dr. Rosemary Linderman, and Dr.
Peter Marston each submitted reports. The court specifically “found the testimony of Dr.
Peter Marston particularly persuasive and convincing.” The court used this testimony in
evaluating Ince under the Linehan factors. These factors include: (1) the person’s
demographic characteristics, including age, education, etc.; (2) the person’s history of
violent behavior; (3) the base rate statistics for violent behavior among individuals of this
person’s background; (4) the sources of stress in the environment; (5) the similarity of the
present or future context to those contexts in which the person has used violence in the
past; and (6) the person’s record with respect to sex therapy programs. Linehan I, 518
N.W.2d at 614 (determining whether an allegedly SDP is highly likely to engage in future
acts of harmful sexual conduct).
The concurrence notes that the Linehan factors may be “outdated or unduly
inflexible in light of subsequent developments in the nature of the expert evidence that
typically is introduced in SDP commitment cases.” The concurrence proposes that
because of the “heavy reliance on actuarial risk-assessment tools, it would seem
incongruous for the caselaw to relegate those actuarial tools to the margins of the legal
analysis.” While the concurrence may in fact be accurate, for the purpose of this dissent,
it seems incongruous to ignore the law established by the Minnesota Supreme Court, D-3
which outlines important dynamic factors affecting defendants, in favor of following a
practice. Actuarial scores alone are not determinative of whether a person is highly likely
to reoffend. In re Commitment of Navratil, 799 N.W.2d 643, 649 (Minn. App. 2011). I
therefore employ the Linehan factors to determine whether the district court’s
conclusions were correct.
Demographic Characteristics
The district court determined that Ince’s age, gender, history of violent behavior,
and mental-health diagnosis indicate that Ince has an increased risk of re-offense. This
finding is based primarily upon Dr. Marston’s testimony at trial that Ince’s age,
aggressive behaviors, diagnosis, and gender all place him at “an increased risk.”
Ince is a 23-year-old man who has been incarcerated since the age of 19, with the
exception of eight months in ISR prior to the conclusion of his civil commitment trial.
He has battled substance abuse since adolescence. His first clinical diagnosis of
substance abuse was at the age of 17. Dr. Marston conceded at trial that Ince’s substance
abuse has played a significant factor in his mental illness and in his violent behavior. Dr.
Marston testified that Ince had “a poor behavioral history from day one, but . . . it got
quite a bit worse when he began using chemicals and alcohol.”
Ince also suffers from various forms of mental illness. Dr. Marston testified that
Ince has been diagnosed with ADHD, antisocial personality disorder, and psychopathic
disorder. Dr. Marston’s written report explains that because Ince is male, not married,
and suffers from ADHD, his likelihood of reoffending is higher. How this makes Ince
any different from the vast majority of the sex offender population is entirely unclear.D-4
The majority highlights Dr. Marston’s testimony that Ince’s “antisocial personality
disorder and psychopathic disorder are at their peak at his age,” indicating that his
likelihood for re-offense is higher as a result. However, the majority ignores Dr.
Marston’s acknowledgment that Ince’s mental illness and aggressive behaviors are
closely correlated to his substance abuse. Dr. Marston testified that “if we take [Ince’s
substance abuse] away, my question then becomes – so if we take that away, then are we
back to a person who has just ADHD and isn’t really a psychopathic person.” In other
words, remove the substance-abuse problems, and the mental illness and aggressive
behavior may diminish as well. In fact, Ince has removed the substance-abuse problems.
He has been sober since October 2008.
At its best, Dr. Marston’s testimony on this issue is ambivalent and inconsistent.
Ince is a 23-year-old man who has been incarcerated since the age of 19. His two
relevant offenses were committed at the ages of 17 and 18. Dr. Marston’s ambivalence
fails to demonstrate that Ince is “highly likely” to reoffend.
History of Violent Behavior
The district court determined that Ince’s prior criminal offenses were “recent,
serious, and extremely violent” and indicated a lack of self-control. This is the entirety of
the district court’s conclusions on the second Linehan factor.
The record supports the district court’s finding that Ince’s prior crimes were recent
and serious. The record also supports the finding that Ince’s most recent crime was
“extremely violent.” But the record does not support that Ince’s first crime was
“extremely violent.” As to the lack-of-control factor, as the majority notes, “it is not D-5
necessary to prove that the person has an inability to control the person’s sexual
impulses.” Minn. Stat. § 253B.02, subd. 18c(b) (2010). Yet the majority cites Dr.
Marston’s testimony regarding the lack-of-control factor – the fact that Ince raped his
second victim three weeks after being placed on probation for raping his first victim. In
other words, Ince raped his second victim approximately one year and eight months after
raping his first victim. Dr. Marston clearly testified that this fact supports the lack-ofcontrol factor, which is unnecessary, according to section 253B.02, subdivision 18c(b).
If the lack-of-control analysis is removed from the equation, we are left with the
district court’s findings that Ince’s crimes were recent, serious, and (one was) extremely
violent. Ince was adjudicated as a juvenile for the fifth-degree criminal sexual conduct
offense, and as an adult, convicted for the third-degree criminal sexual conduct offense.
The thought that a defendant may suffer the consequence of MSOP incarceration for the
balance of his life based substantially upon a fifth-degree criminal sexual conduct crime
he committed as a juvenile is a precedent that I feel uncomfortable setting. Further, after
his first offense, Ince was put on probation, but he was not provided the intensive
programming and tools that have since been made available to him during his
incarceration and ISR, and which would continue to be made available to him were he to
continue with ISR. It is also noteworthy that following his conviction, the district court
granted a downward sentencing departure.
Ince does not have the history of violent behavior that is required for an SDP civil
commitment. He is a young man who, as a teenager, committed two qualifying crimes. D-6
The district court’s findings on this factor are scant, and Dr. Marston’s testimony does
not support a conclusion that Ince is “highly likely” to reoffend.
Base Rate Statistics
The district court noted Dr. Marston’s testimony that “the base rate statistics
indicate Ince is at a high risk compared to the typical sex offender in the community.”
Dr. Marston further testified that Ince’s number of “one night stands” indicates that there
could be more victims than have thus far been discovered. This testimony is clearly
speculative, without evidentiary basis, and insufficient for the third Linehan factor. The
factor, in its entirety, states: “the base rate statistics for violent behavior among
individuals of this person’s background.” Linehan III, 518 N.W.2d at 614. These
statistics are “data showing the rate at which rapists recidivate, the correlation between
age and criminal sexual activity, etc.” Id. The district court merely makes a conclusory
statement with regard to this factor, without evidentiary basis, concluding that Dr.
Marston testified that this factor was satisfied.
Dr. Marston’s statement in his written report that Ince’s behavior is associated
with a lifetime recidivism rate of 39 percent is based upon one particular study published
in 1998. Dr. Marston concludes in his testimony that this is “a high risk” in comparison
with sample populations. Dr. Marston also testified that Ince was three times more likely
to recidivate than the average sex offender. However, Dr. Marston further testified that
because Ince had not reoffended during his eight months of ISR, the likelihood that he
ever would reoffend would be lower, because the first year following release is the most
crucial in predictive determinations.D-7
Dr. Marston relied upon the results of actuarial assessment tools administered to
Ince. The idea that an actuarial test can predict how a person will respond to any number
of influences, situations, events, temptations, or obstacles with any level of accuracy is
fundamentally unsound. Dr. Marston himself even conceded during testimony that
evaluating human behavior is “difficult to quantify.” And when asked at trial whether he
could “predict with any statistical reliability who will and will not succeed,” Dr. Marston
responded “I wish I could.” Dr. Marston further testified that “[p]art of the problem with
our risk assessment is that we don’t – you know, when we’re trying to calibrate this kind
of thing, I think we’re out of our depth.”
This is exactly the point. These issues are indeed difficult to quantify, and
employing a numeric actuarial assessment tool is sorely deficient when dealing with
human subjects and the myriad components that constitute a human life. The
concurrence proposes the use of actuarial assessment tools to the exclusion of the other
Linehan factors because of their popularity with psychiatrists, who believe the tools
nicely blend historical facts with professional judgment. But the question becomes,
doesn’t an actuarial assessment inherently involve judgment and intuition? An actuarial
assessment is a test administered by psychiatrists and psychologists that assigns numeric
values to aspects of a human life, like a person’s criminal history, his mental disorders,
and his answers to questions posed in evaluating him. These actuarial assessments are
subjective assessments, even though they use numeric values, and they rely heavily upon
psychiatrists’ judgments and intuition in an attempt to objectify a clearly subjective
process.D-8
At a civil commitment trial, the district court then reviews these “judgments” as
presented through expert testimony. The district court makes credibility assessments of
these expert witnesses, and these assessments are almost wholly protected from appellate
review based on our standard of review.
The concurrence offers that the “predictive validity of actuarial instruments has
significantly improved in the past twenty years.” If accurate, this is good news, but it still
means that we as a society are civilly committing hundreds of people – for life – who
may never have reoffended had they been released. Actuarial assessment tools simply
are not as accurate as they need to be in predicting who needs to be locked up forever in
order to protect society. As the concurrence highlights, nowhere in this nebulous area
can we get a truly accurate prediction.
Even were I to believe that these actuarial assessment tools were adequate support
for committing people to MSOP, the test results in Ince’s case are far from unequivocal.
Dr. Marston’s initial written report on Ince indicated that he scored Ince at a +5 on the
Static 99-R test. However, Dr. Marston testified that in reviewing this rating the evening
prior to his testimony, he altered his score to a +6, based solely upon his assessment of an
incident where Ince simulated masturbating on a school bus in front of other students
when he was 14 years old, an incident that the district court stated it was not considering.
This last-minute modification is extremely important, if not determinative, in the
outcome for Ince, because a score of +5 puts him in the “moderate-to-high” range of
likelihood for reoffending – generally not committable – whereas a score of +6 puts him
squarely within the “high” range for reoffending, thus more likely committable.D-9
The majority highlights testimony that appears to indicate that Dr. Marston’s +6
score exists independent of the bus masturbation incident and squarely places Ince in the
“high risk” category. Specifically, the majority provides that “when asked about the
impact of the increased point, Dr. Marston testified that changing the score of the Static-
99R did not ultimately affect his overall opinion.” The majority then quotes Dr.
Marston’s testimony: “It simply increases his score past the threshold of 5, which is
moderately high category of risk to high risk. So it nudges his score into that category.
And I had placed him in that category already.” Dr. Marston’s reference to “that
category” is clearly the “moderately high category of risk to high risk,” not the purely
“high risk” category. The majority further ignores Dr. Marston’s testimony that he
changed his rating in order to add “an additional point, with reference to the 2004 bus
incident.” And when asked whether his rating “was changed today because of the 2004
incident,” Dr. Marston responded, “[c]orrect.”
The district court may have indicated that it gave “some credibility” to the bus
masturbation incident, but it also specifically stated that it was not relying upon the
incident in its analysis, and that it was only relying upon the two sex offenses to evaluate
Ince. Consequently, the district court’s finding that Ince is at a high risk of reoffending is
not supported by the evidence in the record.4
The most accurate evidence clearly
4
In further support of a conclusion that Ince has nothing more than a moderate-to-high
risk of re-offense, the district court found that:
On October 14, 2009, Duncan Anderson, Psy.D., filed a
psychosexual evaluation report with the Scott County District
Court, described above. Ince’s score on the Static-99 placed D-10
demonstrates that Ince has a moderate-to-high risk of reoffending, a far cry from
establishing that Ince is highly likely to engage in future harmful sexual conduct.
We need to also discuss sex-offender recidivism rates in general, because it
appears that these rates may be far lower than what we have been led to believe.
“[S]tudies with the strongest methodology show that the recidivism rate for sex offenders
is as low, and often lower, than re-offense rates for criminals convicted of non-sexual
crimes.” Eric S. Janus & Emily A. Polachek, A Crooked Picture: Re-Framing the
Problem of Child Sexual Abuse, 36 Wm. Mitchell L. Rev. 142, 162 (2009). In 1994, the
U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Justice Programs conducted a study that followed
9,691 sex offenders who had been released from prison across the United States. In the
three years following their release, 5.3 percent had recidivated. Matthew R. Durose, et
al., U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Recidivism of Sex Offenders
Released from Prison in 1994 (2003), available at
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=1136. And, if Dr. Marston’s
him in the moderate-high risk pool for sex offense reconviction. Ince’s score on the Stable-2007 placed Ince in the
moderate-high risk for sexual re-offense. Sex offender
treatment was recommended.
And the district court further found that:
The psychologist noted that Ince scored +8 on the Minnesota
Sex Offender Screening Tool-Revised (MnSOST-R),
reflecting a high risk for re-arrest for a sex offense. Ince
scored a +3 on the Rapid Risk Assessment for Sex Offense
Recidivism (RRASOR), reflecting a moderate risk for sex
offense reconviction. Ince also scored a +5 on the Static-99,
reflecting a moderate-high risk for sex offense reconviction.D-11
testimony is accurate, and the first year is the most crucial to predicting whether a sex
offender will reoffend, then this is an accurate statistic.
Eric Janus discusses a far more compelling study in his 2003 law review article.
See Eric S. Janus, Minnesota’s Sex Offender Commitment Program: Would an
Empirically Based Prevention Policy Be More Effective?, 29 Wm. Mitchell L. Rev. 1083,
1094 (2003). He cites a Minnesota Department of Corrections study that followed a
group of individuals who were referred for commitment but were not committed for a
period of 6.5 years. See id. One would think that this would be one of the most similarly
situated groups of people to those who have been civilly committed, because they are
among the individuals the DOC finds most likely to reoffend. The DOC found that in 6.5
years, 18% of that group recidivated. Id. Recidivism rates are skewed in general, thus
any reliance upon them in this case is purely speculative.
Sources of Stress
The district court found that since Ince’s release from prison, Ince has received
“support in the community and has attended [Alcoholics Anonymous], attended sex
offender treatment, maintained sobriety, and obtained employment.” This finding is
bolstered by the fact that during Ince’s eight months of ISR prior to the conclusion of his
civil commitment trial, he appeared to have arranged a relatively stable lifestyle. He
obtained employment, leased a home, purchased a vehicle, and remained sober during
those eight months. He now has a strong relationship with his father along with other
significant familial support. His grandparents are preparing to move into his residence
with him, providing even more stability and support. But most notably, Ince did not D-12
reoffend during his eight months of ISR. He may have had a minor violation of his ISR
contract, but that is not the issue here – the issue is whether Ince has removed the sources
of stress from his environment that indicate that he is highly likely to reoffend.
The majority points to Ince’s antisocial personality disorder in this analysis. An
antisocial personality disorder should not be considered a source of stress. The full factor
for analysis is “sources of stress in the environment,” Linehan I, 518 N.W.2d at 614
(emphasis added), and has been interpreted as “sources of stress in the offender’s
environment,” In re Stone, 711 N.W.2d 831, 840 (Minn. App. 2006). An antisocial
personality disorder is not an external influence in a person’s environment. An antisocial
personality disorder should clearly play into a discussion of a person’s demographic
characteristics or base rate statistical analysis, but not in an analysis of sources of
environmental stress.
Ince has removed the sources of environmental stress that prompted him to
commit the prior sexual offenses. Any other finding on this factor is unsupported by the
record.
Similarity of Future Context to Past Context Containing Violence
The district court noted that Dr. Marston testified that Ince “is not in exactly the
same setting he was in” before he committed his offenses. The district court further
noted Dr. Marston’s testimony that as supervision of Ince disappears, Ince’s “disorders
[will] take over,” and “he will be at high risk to sexually reoffend.”
The district court is again relying upon speculative future predictions given by Dr.
Marston instead of focusing on the similarities or differences of Ince’s current and future D-13
context to his past context. In focusing on the comparison of Ince’s current/future
context with his past context, we are left only with what the district court finds on this
specific matter, which is simply that Ince “is not in exactly the same setting.”
This statement is clearly correct. Ince has attained and maintained sobriety, he has
obtained employment, purchased a vehicle, leased a home, and completed programs to
help him overcome his substance abuse and deal with his sexually violent criminal
history. The programs, along with his age, maturity, and family support have provided
him with tools he did not have at age 18, prior to incarceration. Ince has remained sober
since his arrest in October 2008. Dr. Marston conceded that Ince’s associations with
friends must necessarily be different in the future because of Ince’s parole contract. Ince
may have struggled with honesty in his treatment, but this is hardly a consideration in
determining whether he is highly likely to reoffend. Dishonesty is a human failing, not a
failing specific only to sex offenders.
The majority highlights Dr. Marston’s testimony that Ince has a history of
“‘beating the system’ and this type of behavior will reassert itself without a secure
setting.” This begs the question of whether a “secure setting” need necessarily be MSOP.
More importantly, Ince’s proclivity for “beating the system” is irrelevant to the specific
issue of whether Ince’s past/future contexts are different or similar. The record shows
that Ince’s future context will be starkly different from his past context. Any other
finding is not supported by the record.D-14
Sex Therapy Programs
The district court found only that “while Ince is engaged in treatment, CORE had
operated under the wrong assumption that Ince had participated in treatment before.”
The district court further found that Ince had no valid Relapse Prevention Plan and that
he had been terminated from chemical-dependency treatment. The issue is “participation
in sex therapy programs,” not chemical dependency, nor relapse prevention plans, nor
incorrect assumptions promulgated by Ince. As to that issue, only the district court’s first
finding (that Ince “is engaged in treatment”) is relevant. The record shows that Ince has
participated in sex therapy programs since his incarceration. Ince’s ISR required him to
undergo sex-offender treatment. He did so in January 2012, entering CORE. Ince
successfully completed two parts of CORE prior to the conclusion of his trial.
The majority highlights Ince’s struggles with chemical-dependency treatment,
wherein he struggled due to lack of cooperation. These facts are irrelevant to the issue of
Ince’s participation in sex therapy programs. We are left with no fact other than that Ince
completed two parts of a sex therapy program. Consequently, the district court’s finding
is unsupported by the record.
“The key to civil commitment, and the argument that makes it ‘constitutional,’ is
the assumption that the dangerous sexual offender can be distinguished from the typical
repeat offender.” 799 N.W.2d at 652-53 (citing In re Civil Commitment of Ramey, 648
N.W.2d 260, 266 (Minn. App. 2002)), review denied (Minn. Aug. 24, 2011). Nothing in
the record supports a conclusion that Ince has been anything more than a typical offender.
His crimes were sexual in nature, but civil commitment is not a substitute for the criminal D-15
justice system, which is the system that has been vested with punitive powers over all
crimes, including sex crimes. Civil commitment should be reserved for people like
Dennis Linehan, who committed numerous sexual assaults, pleaded guilty to kidnapping
in a case in which he was suspected of first-degree murder, and sexually assaulted a 12-
year-old girl shortly after escaping from prison. Linehan I, 518 N.W.2d at 611. Civil
commitment should be reserved for the unequivocal case. This is not that case.
Highly Likely Analysis
The concurrence makes an important point when it states that the term “highly
likely” to reoffend, as used in the civil commitment process, has never been adequately
defined. The concurrence researches possible interpretations of “highly likely” and
concludes that “highly likely” should mean a defendant who has at least a 75% chance of
reoffending. It is entirely appropriate to interpret the term “highly likely” with the
understanding that 678 of the 679 individuals committed to MSOP have yet to be
released from “treatment.” This understanding comports with the requirement that
defendants “should not be asked to share equally with society the risk of error.” Linehan
III, 557 N.W.2d at 180 (quoting Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 427, 99 S. Ct. 1804,
1810 (1979)). “Highly likely” should therefore be interpreted to require a finding that a
person is so likely to reoffend that he should be locked away in MSOP for the rest of his
life.
District Court’s Credibility Determinations
The district court concluded that the testimony of Dr. Marston was most credible,
and relied upon it to the exception of other testimony and evidence. The district court D-16
found Dr. Marston’s testimony to be more credible than the testimony of the other two
psychiatrists who testified at the trial, including the court-appointed psychiatrist. The
reasons for this are unclear.
Minnesota Department of Corrections’ Independent Legal Counsel
The fact that this case even made it to the district court for a commitment hearing
is also interesting and strange. The SDP/SPP Screening Committee charged with
determining whether to forward the matter to the county attorney to pursue a petition for
civil commitment initially determined that Ince’s case should not be forwarded to the
county attorney. The case was forwarded for commitment only after the Minnesota
Department of Corrections’ Independent Legal Counsel, who was not a part of the
referral process, “trumped” the recommendation of the screening committee.
The record reflects that counsel “participated in the [screening committee]
meeting” and reviewed the screening committee’s report. Counsel then recommended
forwarding Ince’s case to the county attorney despite the committee’s decision otherwise.
Counsel’s recommendation acted to override the report of the committee charged with
independently evaluating Ince’s case.
Counsel’s recommendation is supported by a brief memorandum, wherein he
languidly analyzes the six Linehan factors, most of which clearly favor Ince, but
summarily concludes that Ince’s case should be referred to the county attorney. The
Department of Corrections has an established practice for determining whether to
forward such cases to the county attorney for prosecution under the civil commitment D-17
laws, but the Department of Corrections’ counsel’s involvement clearly subverted and
prejudiced this established practice. I find this disturbing.
Conclusion
Given that 678 of the 679 people who have been civilly committed to MSOP
remain in MSOP, we must approach these cases with an appreciation for their gravity and
an understanding that every case must be scrutinized to ensure absolute compliance with
the law. A civil commitment to MSOP is, essentially, a life sentence. Only those people
who are truly “highly likely to reoffend” should be committed to the program. Clearly,
the courts have failed to follow the “highly likely to reoffend requirement,” because,
since 2003, the number of sex offenders who have been civilly committed to MSOP has
increased by 357%. In 2003, MSOP had 190 “clients.” Eric S. Janus, Minnesota’s Sex
Offender Commitment Program: Would an Empirically-Based Prevention Policy Be
More Effective?, 29 Wm. Mitchell L. Rev. 1083, 1089 (2003). Now, MSOP houses 678.
This is an unsustainable system.
Yet this system will continue unabashedly so long as district courts are allowed to
rely solely upon actuarial assessment tests to attempt to predict whether an individual will
reoffend. District courts will rely upon these tests, as communicated to the court through
expert testimony, and will make credibility assessments insulated from appellate review.
Given the standard of review, it will continue to be almost impossible to overturn even
borderline cases such as Ince’s case.
“As the guardians of our constitutional order, the courts have promised that they
will ‘intervene before civil commitment becomes the norm and criminal prosecution the exception.’” Eric S. Janus, Failure to Protect: America’s Sexual Predator Laws and the
Rise of the Preventive State, at 26 (2006) (citing Linehan III, 557 N.W.2d at 181). We
break this promise by affirming a decision to civilly commit a 23-year-old man for two
acts of sexual violence committed as a teenager, before he had even fully developed
emotionally and intellectually. As the dissent stated, “To affirm the order for
indeterminate commitment under these circumstances is to approve the warehousing of
another borderline candidate for treatment, with no guarantee that he will receive
meaningful treatment.” Navratil, 799 N.W.2d at 653. I could not agree more. D-18

Clear & Convincing to Beyond a Reasonable Doubt

These Sex Commitments MUST be changed this Session to Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt! The standard of Clear and Convincing is low, despite dissenting views on the Task Force expressed.

District Court Judges throughout Minnesota have abused the Clear and Convincing burden and there is adequate precedent for the Proof Beyond A Reasonable Doubt in Kansas and numerous other SVP States, which reflects the fact that the Task Force members are not adequately educated yet about these cases, which I'm sure will change as this process continues forward.

Clear and Convincing is the burden that Addington v Texas established, and the context in that case is actual Mental Illness, in which traditionally the commitment durations are very short, oftentimes just weeks or a few months. These SDP/SPP cases are essentially life sentences and the burden should be the highest level as well as jury trials.

Rec. 8: "Highly Likely" 75% Per Judge's Johnson/ Stauber

Recommendation 8:

"Highly Likely" needs to be Statutorily established at 75% as recommeded by Chief Appellate Judge Johnson & Judge Stauber in the watershed SDP Appellate Decision In Re Cedrick Scott Ince.

VERY CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS

Thursday, March 21, 2013

MSOP-ML TO MCF-LL To Give DOC Tx Beds

A way forward is to vacate all civilly committed sex offenders from MSOP-ML, and transfer them to MCF-Lino Lakes, where there is a well established, successful treatment program that could be amended to accommodate civilly committed sex offenders.

The hundreds of beds that are currently being occupied in Moose Lake would then be converted to DOC-MSOP or DOC-SOTP--Treatment Beds badly needed for men deemed high-risk and in jeopardy of being civilly committed, who may not be civilly committed if they do well in treatment.

MCF-LL is a medium-security prison that would be more than adequate as a secure treatment setting, and the Metro location would solve the Clinician shortage in Moose Lake and afford metro visiting.

Rec. 7: Minnesota Ex-Offender Program (MEOP)

Minnesota and the DHS would be wise to repackage their broken, failed Program from a Model of  a "Sex Offender" Program to an Ex-Offender Program. The nomenclature change may seem an insignificant, unnecessary idea, but I assure you the truth could not be further.

Ask any credentialed Clinician/Therapist whether it is more likely a sexual offender will benefit from sex offender specific therapy/treatment being called and treated as a "sex offender" vs being called and treated an an "ex-offender" and I believe you will get a consensus that the latter is more effective.

DHS should make an announcement that the Minnesota Sex Offender Program is being renamed the Minnesota Ex-Offender Program (MEOP), and that providing therapy and treatment for the maladies the State maintains the Ex-Offender currently has in order to safely and successfully reintegrate the Ex-Offender back into the community ASAP is their Mission, which will promote Public Safety.

DHS should make a clear new Policy change stating that offering ADEQUATE, EFFECTIVE Therapy/Treatment in order to promote Public Safety is MEOP's "Highest Priority" with Safe, Successful Reintegration (SSR) being the MEOP's new mantra/battle cry. Remove "World Class".

I strongly urge removing Nancy Johnston as Executive Director for numerous reasons I've detailed throughout this blog, but whether DHS takes that necessary measure or not, this idea would boost morale in the extreme, and signal that real change is underway that will also be noted in Karsjens.

Wednesday, March 20, 2013

Cedrick Scott Ince: Precedent Setting

Despite the fact that Cedric Ince has temporarily been illegally and unconstitutionally committed as a "client" for "Care and Treatment" (MSOP euphemisms for Abuse and Torture) and "World Class" "Treatment" in the State's  $75$ MILLION Deliberate McTreatment Habitrail, this is the most important appellate decision in the to-date illegal and unconstitutional SDP/SPP case law in MN.

I profiled this kid in a prior blog post: http://msoptaskforceinfo.blogspot.com/2012/11/kstp-tv-ch-5-story.html

This Dissent by Judge Stauber is a Watershed Moment in SDP Law in Minnesota and will hopefully spur the Supreme Court to finally strike down these sex commitment laws as Punitive, Violative of Double Jeopardy, Ex Post Facto, Equal Protection, Cruel and Unusual Punishment, etc.

Judge Stauber joins Kevin Burke, Esther Tomjanivich (sp?), Alan Page and the very few select judges in Minnesota who have applied the true law and constitution in these cases--not the vigilante, Witch Hunt Injustice that will never stand the test of history, although it will undoubtedly add to the State's "Sex Offender" Murder Toll as more clients reintegrate into society via a Final Transport from Tim Pawlenty and the other CRIMINALS' FINAL SOLUTION TO THE "SEX OFFENDER" PROBLEM, TO A REAL HOSPITAL FOR A FINAL FAMILY VISIT IN THE MORGUE.

Here is the link to this critically important case in which one Judge of three on the Minnesota Court of Appeals dispensed JUSTICE--In a very long overdue important and extremely courageous lambasting of the Minnesota Sex Offender "Program".

http://www.mncourts.gov/opinions/coa/current/opa121691-031813.pdf

Barbaric Use of SECLUSION: Correction ORDER

Here is a link to the Correction Report stating that MSOP's REPEATED FORCED PLACEMENTS ON ME IN PROTECTIVE ISOLATION/SECLUSION IN THEIR TORTURE-CENTER "HOSPITALS" FOR FOLLOWING RULES WERE ALL IN VIOLATION OF MY CIVIL RIGHTS:

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/24465959/Correction%20Order%203.7.070001.pdf

"Client"/"Patient" PETITION

HERE IS A PETITION THAT MSOP HOSPRISONERS HAVE CREATED AND MAILED TO ME RE THEIR "WORLD CLASS" "CARE AND TREATMENT" via DHSuffering::


https://dl.dropbox.com/u/24465959/Defending%20Freedoms0001.pdf

12/18/03 Ltr to Pawlenty

Here is one of my communications to then-Governor Pawlenty rubbing his nose in his Failure To Protect Dru Sjodin which led to the retaliatory Political Petition to Commit Me as "DANGEROUS":

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/24465959/12.18.03%20Ltr%20to%20Pawlenty0001.pdf

Tuesday, March 19, 2013

Legislative Bills: Inadequate To Avoid Takeover at Present

There are two bills making their way through the Legislature relating to the MSOP at present. One of the Bills introduced that DHS was behind might just well be called the Evenstad Bill as it addresses one of the issues I identified to MSOP/DHS in 2006, and that was the incorrect legal classification of men on Judicial Hold Order Status as "Patients" Nancy Johnston, Gary Grimm, Jennifer Service, Amanda Powers, Alyce Knack-Fraley, Tom Lundquist, David L. Pingry, Jerry Kerber, Anne Barry, Michael Tessneer, Wes Kooistra, Cal Ludeman, among others failed to remedy along with removing sadistic treatment "Plans" on me and numerous other men while I/we was/were on Judicial Hold Order Status in direct violation of MSOP Policy and Procedure.

The second Bill is substantive vs technical (as the previous one is that has a companion bill) and it reflects the Task Force and more specifically the Legislature's total inability to show any leadership, moral authority or courage as a whole, and specifically the Committees who fund this Human Rights Abomination every year like clockwork, without fail, despite making some hollow noise about the 73 MILLION TAX DOLLAR MONEY PIT THAT THIS BROKEN BEYOND REPAIR, PUNITIVE, RETRIBUTIVE, VINDICTIVE "WORLD CLASS" "TREATMENT" "PROGRAM" WHOSE "CLIENTS"/"PATIENTS" EVENTUALLY ARE DISCHARGED WITH A TOE TAG AND SENT TO THE MORGUE. THE LEGISLATURE HAS KILLED AT LEAST 19 people so far in their STATE PROGRAM, AND DONALD BETZOLD MADE IT CLEAR TO ME IN WRITING HIS BELIEF THAT HE IS ABOVE THE LAW--THAT ALL OF THE PEOPLE RESPONSIBLE FOR AT LEAST 19 MURDERS, AND ILLEGAL, UNCONSTITUTIONAL PUNITIVE PREVENTION OF 700+ TODAY AND 821 WITHIN TWO YEARS WHEN THE REAL DANGERS, THE TRUE THREATS, AND THE REAL CRIMINALS FILL THEIR BARBARIC 60.5 HUMAN BEING ("Sex Offenders") QUOTA IN A STATE WHERE NO EVIDENCE BEYOND LYING FLAPPING GUMS IS LEGALLY SUFFICIENT TO CROWN YOU A RAPIST. DON BETZOLD IS THE ONE SINGLE PERSON MOST RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MOST EGREGIOUS HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS SINCE THE INTERNMENT OF JAPANESE AMERICANS DURING WWII.

BETZOLD TOLD ME WITH GLEE AND PRIDE OF A FOOL THAT HE WAS THE "CHIEF" AUTHOR OF THE ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL SDP ACT WHICH IS THE MAIN REASON THE STATE OF MINNESOTA IS IN THE DIRE FINANCIAL, LEGAL AND MORAL CRISIS IT IS IN THAT ASSOCIATE JUSTICE ALAN PAGE PREDICTED WOULD HAPPEN UNDER THIS LAW: ABUSE BY DONNAY AND THE DOC, ABUSE BY MINNESOTA JUDGES WHETHER DISTRICT COURT, APPELLATE COURT, SUPREME COURT FEDERAL COURTS--IT MADE NO DIFFERENCE FOR 20 YEARS AS MINNESOTA JUDGES SENT 100s of LOW, LOW-MODERATE, MODERATE, MODERATE-HIGH, and HIGH RISK OFFENDERS WHO WERE STILL NOT MEETING COMMITMENT CRITERIA UNDER THE US CONSTITUTION AND CONTROLLING CASE LAW HENDRICKS/CRANE DESPITE WHAT THE LAUGHINGSTOCK OF THE FEDERAL CIRCUITS--THE CORRUPT RIGHT WING CONSERVATIVE BUSH APPOINTEES ON THE 8TH CIRCUIT WHO HAVE ALLOWED THIS EIGHTH AMENDMENT CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT FACTORY OPERATE FOR 20+ years! ABUSE BY COWARDS LIKE TIM PAWLENTY WHO FAILED TO PROTECT DRU SJODIN EVEN AFTER I SENT HIM THE 5-page BLUEPRINT FOR SAFETY THAT STATE "LEADERS" HAVE STILL NOT IMPLEMENTED. THESE PEOPLE ARE DANGEROUS FOOLS AS THEY GAMBLE WITH THE LIVES OF INNOCENT CITIZENS EVERY DAY IN FAILING/REFUSING TO IMPLEMENT MY Dru Sjodin Legislation--Solve the DEADLY GAP problem I identified for you whole Dru was still alive and had a bright future of endless possibilities and a lifetime to live cut short because of the likes of Donnay, Pawlenty and the Minnesota Legislature to pass my Common Sense Proposal to monitor and supervise high risk sex offenders for their lifetimes whether they have "expired" their sentences. PROSECUTORS AND AG's in "Support" roles dispensing ILLEGAL, UNCONSTITUTIONAL GET 'EM ON THE BACK END VIGILANTE WITCH HUNT JUSTICE TO FILL ENROLLMENT IN THE STATES TAX PAYER FUNDED 73 MILLION $McTreatment$

Anyway, the Bill does absolutely nothing to address any of the Central Issues as I know them to be as it does not:

1) Provide for a Moratorium on sex commitments until the Constitutional Issues are resolved. Every commitment since James Nobles Report is invalid. When Gov. George Ryan faced similar evidence of a broken, failed system--in Illinois DNA evidence proved that 13 men on Illinois DEATH ROW, WHO HAD EXHAUSTED EVERY STATE AND FEDERAL APPEAL IN THE ABSOLUTELY CORRUPT AND BROKEN CRIMINAL JUSTICE MODEL IN THE USA WHICH IS A FARCE WITH POLICE, PROSECUTORS AND JUDGES ALL PLAYING GOD WITH CITIZENS AND MUCH MORE OFTEN THAN NOT VIOLATING ANY AND EVERY RULE, LAW, ETC THAT THESE HYPOCRITES SWEAR OATHS TO OPERATE HONORABLY IN, WHICH IS VERY RARE. THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM IS A CASTE/CLASS SYSTEM WHERE THE WEALTHY EVADE CONSEQUENCES AND BUY FREEDOM DESPITE GUILT AND THE POOR AND VULNERABLE ARE OFTEN ASSAULTED AND BEATEN BY THOSE CHARGED TO PROTECT AND SERVE AND THE MINISTERS OF JUSTICE ARE THE WORST CRIMINALS OF ALL--FAR MORE MANIPULATIVE, LIARS, ETC. THAN THE SCUM OF THE 6 prisons the State punished me in for a decade despite being an INNOCENT MAN WHO NEVER COMMITTED A SEX CRIME IN HIS (MY) LIFE.

2) Burden of Proof at Hold Hearing from Preponderance to at least Clear & Convincing and ideally to Beyond  Reasonable  Doubt. I said this in my Public Comments months ago before Chair Magnuson Hoisted Me By My PETARD FROM MY 2-MINUTE TOMMY DRILLS, Lol.

3) Commitment Burden from C & C to Beyond Reasonable Doubt as in the Kansas Statute that passed Constitutional Muster;

4) Petitioner's Burden from Preponderance to Beyond Reasonable Doubt (or at least C&C) if Respondent/COMMITTED PERSON LOL (I always said use "RESIDENT" for your catch-all term)
is deemed appropriate candidate for placement in the LRA option of the Bifurcated System Sen. Sheran has courageously authored with Senator Tony Lourey. At least these two legislators are making an effort!

I DON'T BELIEVE THIS BILL IN CURRENT FORM LET ALONE AFTER THE PROSECUTORS HAVE THEIR WAY AS SEN SHERAN SAID SOMETHING ABOUT THEM STRENGTHENING THE LANGUAGE WHICH IS INSANITY AS THE WAY FORWARD IS WHAT I AM SUGGESTING AND NOT WHAT THE PROSECUTORS/STATE WANT. THEY WANT AS MANY "SEX OFFENDERS" AS THE STATE CAN TRULY OR FALSELY LABEL IN THIS WORK CAMPS THAT PRODUCE CHEAP LABOR AND HUGE REVENUE FOR THE STATE VIA THE ILLEGAL UNCONSTITUTIONAL PHONE SYSTEM I WENT ROUNDS WITH MSOP/DHS IN BACK IN 2006.

  DHS HAS DONE NOTHING WITHOUT PRESSURE FROM LAWSUITS and/or  MONEY ISSUES. THEY HAVE MEN IN MSOP COMMITTED SINCE 1977 who call me regularly.

MSOP CLIENTS ARE HAVING A WEBSITE SETUP CALLED MSOPTRUTH.ORG AND I WILL DO EVERYTHING IN MY POWER LEGALLY TO PROMOTE THIS SITE WHICH WILL HAVE THE PUNISHMENT PLANS/REPORTS AND PROTECTIVE ISOLATION, RESTRAINTS, SECLUSIONS, BARBARIC SADISTIC TREATMENT PLANS THAT AMOUNT TO ABUSIVE BRAINWASHING "PROGRAMMING"! I CAN'T WAIT UNTIL PBS DOES DOCUMENTARY!




N.H.: Sane SVP Practice


N.H. Civil Commitment Law Rarely Invoked

In 2007, when New Hampshire began allowing the most dangerous sex offenders to be held past the end of their sentences, officials worried they might need a new facility to house all the people who would be committed.
Six years later, though, that projection hasn’t panned out.
Only two people are being held under the state’s sexually violent predator law. And two counties — including one with the second-highest court caseload in the state — have not initiated even one civil commitment.
The route, which can result in inmates being committed for treatment past their sentence in five-year increments, is complex and includes a jury trial where a prosecutor must prove the inmate has a mental abnormality that makes him likely to re-offend. The law, aimed at the most extreme cases, is deliberately narrow, and many county prosecutors who spoke with the Monitor said they use it infrequently because they rarely have cases they believe fit the statute.
But other prosecutors — particularly those who have gone through the process at least once — point to factors like funding, limited sentencing options under the statute and restrictions placed on what evidence is admissible in court as deterrents to using the law.
No county attorney said those challenges would keep him from going forward with a civil commitment if one was warranted.
But many said they will avoid it if they can.
“The (sexually violent predator) civil commitment process is flawed,” Merrimack County Attorney Scott Murray said. “And that is what necessitates the use of creative alternatives to protect the public.”
Last week, Murray’s office did just that.
After filing a civil commitment petition last year against 64-year-old Denis Gagne, a child rapist whose sentence was set to expire in June, prosecutors pulled the case on Wednesday when Gagne pleaded guilty to another assault on one of his prior victims.
The crime happened in 1989; his then 7-year-old victim is now 30.
Below Projections
Passing the civil commitment law was former governor John Lynch’s top priority in 2006, a year when he was running for re-election. Earning the strong support of Democrats and Republicans, the legislation passed quickly and by a wide margin.
Under the law, county attorneys are notified by the state prison when an inmate who has committed one of several applicable crimes is nearing release. The Department of Corrections was unable to provide data on how many notices it sends out annually, but officials said that in general the number could range from none to about 20 each week. Several county attorneys told the Monitor that a majority of those inmates are granted parole, meaning they have likely completed sex offender treatment and wouldn’t qualify for an extended sentence.
If a county attorney believes a person they’ve received notice for remains a danger, they can ask for a review by the state’s multidisciplinary team, a group of licensed psychiatrists and psychologists who specialize in sex offender diagnosis and treatment. That’s happened 34 times since 2007.
In 11 of those cases, the team decided the person was a sexually violent predator, a ruling that allows prosecutors to file a petition with the court.
Geoffrey Souther, who has been chairman of the state’s multidisciplinary team since the law created it, said that initially he and others anticipated receiving many more requests. One expert, he remembers, estimated that most states with sexually violent predator laws see an average of five civil commitments each year for every million people in the state.
Six years after the law took effect, that means New Hampshire could have seen anywhere from nine to 57 people committed by now, Souther said.
“We were all collectively saying, ‘Oh my goodness gracious. How are we going to do this?’ And we were thinking that we were going to get absolutely swamped with referrals from county attorneys,” he said.
Instead, the multidisciplinary team has received requests at a steady but modest rate, ranging from two to nine per year.
The 11 inmates they concluded were sexually violent predators have resulted in just two commitments: William Ploof, who was convicted by a jury, and Thomas Hurley, who agreed to a three-year commitment without going to trial. (That period is ending soon, and the Hillsborough County prosecutor who handled Hurley’s case said he recently filed another petition to keep him incarcerated for another five years, as the law allows.)
In Merrimack County, prosecutors initiated but then dropped two cases, Gagne recently, and William Decato shortly after the law passed.
Deputy Attorney General Ann Rice, who helped write the legislation, said last week it doesn’t surprise her that New Hampshire’s numbers aren’t in line with the civil commitments from other states because the law is geared to address a small but dangerous group.
“It’s a pretty arduous process to go through,” she said. “I think the county attorneys have been very diligent in terms of looking at the people who are potential candidates and deciding whether they should pursue the sexually violent predator process.”
Limited Options
Part of that decision includes weighing the risk involved in a civil commitment petition, according to Murray.
The law is essentially all-or-nothing. For instance, if prosecutors had pursued the sexual predator process against Gagne and didn’t convince a jury that he has a mental abnormality making him likely to re-offend, he would have walked free with no oversight.
Instead, prosecutors charged him with a crime more then two decades old and accepted a plea agreement in which they dropped the commitment attempt and Gagne agreed to spend up to seven more years in prison.
Equally important, according to Murray, was Gagne’s agreement to be supervised by the Department of Corrections for the rest of his life.
Supervision, or other alternative sentences, aren’t options under the predator law. According to Murray and others, they should be.
“They literally walk out. They have no support, no supervision, no treatment, no money. There is no transition,” said Michael Valentine, a prosecutor in Hillsborough County who has handled seven civil commitment cases, far more than anyone else in the state. “That is something that most other states have developed.”
Dan St. Hilaire, who brought the state’s first civil commitment petition when he led the Merrimack County Attorney’s Office, knows that frustration acutely. His office dropped that case against Decato when experts ultimately concluded he didn’t fit the scope of a sexually violent predator.
And though Decato had another suspended sentence hanging over his head at the time he was released, St. Hilaire was unable to impose it or any form of supervision. Less than two years later — after he had “maxed out” of prison without completing sex offender treatment — Decato raped a woman in Manchester.
“That’s why supervision is so important,” St. Hilaire said. “You can get somebody to do the treatment or do home visits, make sure they’re not drinking and using other drugs, make sure they’re checking in with a mental heath worker, make sure they’re taking their medications, make sure they have a job and are compliant. All of theses things are very important and are not tools under this particular law.”
It’s unclear how supervision would work under the law and if prosecutors would still need to prove that an inmate was a sexually violent predator to see it imposed. But St. Hilaire speculated that the parties could agree to supervision as a way of avoiding a trial, or a judge could impose supervision rather than commitment.
Essentially, St. Hilaire said, it would be a bargaining chip.
“When you’re negotiating a case, the main factor for the respondents is they’ve already served their max sentence. They have nothing to lose (if they go to trial). All you’re asking is for them to serve more time,” he said. “The chances of a plea bargain in that case are very low.”
Weighing the Risk
When weighing whether to continue seeking a commitment against Gagne – which could have resulted in life confinement if he didn’t succeed in treatment — or taking a plea deal, Murray said he and Assistant County Attorney Kristin Vartanian looked to the cases in Hillsborough County for guidance.
What they saw worried them.
Judges there, according to Valentine, have limited the use of evidence helpful in proving the basic element of the case, that the person is likely to re-offend. In assessing that risk, psychiatrists can use an assessment known as the Static-99R that predicts a person’s risk of recidivism.
The experts then compare those numbers to data sets of other sex offenders, ranging from low to high risk. The low-risk numbers include all sex offenders, including those who have been successful in treatment, while the high-risk set includes people who have failed counseling, served multiple sentences for sexual assault or had violent tendencies.
Valentine said judges in Hillsborough County have only let evidence in at trial comparing the inmate to the lowest-risk group.
“They’re not allowing us to say, ‘Look our person is more like this high-risk group.’ ... So we’re being limited in the usefulness of the actuarial instrument,” Valentine said, adding that he believes the approach creates an artificially low appearance of the person’s likelihood of re-offending.
According to Valentine, the same problem hasn’t arisen in other states where legislatures have validated the use of the Static-99R within their civil commitment laws. He added that the test has changed in recent years, which makes it suspect to judges in New Hampshire who aren’t as comfortable with the assessment as those in states with long-standing predator statutes.
Lawmakers here need to follow the example set out by other states, according to Murray, who said that until there is a set standard for using the assessments, he’ll continue looking for creative ways to avoid the law unless it’s completely necessary.
“The Legislature needs to amend the statute to deal with the evidentiary issues associated with the introduction of psychiatric testimony, the expert opinion testimony,” he said. “And until they do, this is going to be a real tough process to go through. And it is the last resort.”
Expensive to Prosecute
All the county attorneys who spoke with the Monitor are quick to say that money will never keep them from filing a civil commitment petition if one is warranted. But funding, they added, is a major challenge associated with the law.
Murray estimates that one civil commitment petition costs about $30,000 to prosecute, at least 10 times more than an average case. The money goes mainly to costly experts who spend hours reviewing the inmate’s file, testifying at initial hearings where a judge decides what evidence to allow and then speaking at the trial.
While Valentine said his office allocates money specifically for civil commitment petitions each year, that isn’t the case in most offices where the law is used less frequently.
When Murray considered prosecuting a civil commitment in early 2011, he asked for and received a $30,000 appropriation from the county. But that case, much like Gagne’s, was settled when the inmate pleaded guilty to another crime. Murray said he used some of the remaining money to begin the case against Gagne last year.
In Coos County — one of two counties, along with Rockingham, that hasn’t made any requests of the state’s multidisciplinary team — there is no appropriation in the budget for such cases. Coos County Attorney John McCormick said he’d find the money if an applicable case came across his desk.
Finding the time to prosecute it, he said, would be the bigger challenge because his office has just two attorneys.
For offices that don’t have someone on staff familiar with the law — like Valentine in Hillsborough County or Vartanian, who prosecutes the cases in Merrimack County — taking it on is a daunting task. Ideally, many said, a team at the attorney general’s office would work on cases across the state, the same way the public defender’s office handles them. (Inmates facing a civil commitment are typically defended by Anthony Sculimbrene, who did not return a request to be interviewed for this story.)
Instead, the cost and learning curve falls on each individual county, a move Murray called a “downshift.”
“The state is responsible for correcting them or modifying their behavior (while in prison),” he said. “And I think the state ought to bear the cost of continuing their confinement for treatment purposes if they don’t meet an appropriate standard.”
Few Changes Made
Just weeks after the law went into effect, some legislators and officials began to question if it was rushed through the State House without being properly vetted.
The sexually violent predator legislation includes about two dozen provisions other than the civil commitment process, and most of the debate at the Legislature focused on changes to mandatory minimum sentencing standards.
Mostly, though, people agreed that it was a good law that would be tweaked in the future.
“I think we’ll likely revisit this bill several times,” then-Rep. David Welch, chairman of the House Criminal Justice Committee, said in early 2007.
That hasn’t been the case, though. The law was edited in 2009 and 2010 to change mostly procedural issues, according to Rice. In 2009 the Legislature lessened the severity of deadlines imposed in the law in response to three cases being dropped in Hillsborough County because court deadlines were missed.
It makes sense that there haven’t been substantive changes, according to Rice.
“There have been so few of the proceedings under this law,” she said.
“You know, the more a law is used and applied, that’s when you find out when there are problems or what needs to be changed.”

Saturday, March 9, 2013

Walter Mondale & Cong. Rick Nolan Alerted

The State of Minnesota has taken a Butterfly In The Wind, and Caged Him As A Label:

http://books.google.com/books?id=v7ZJIgkYhkcC&pg=PT52&lpg=PT52&dq=orlando+lindgre+mn&source=bl&ots=RvLcIW2_V-&sig=0vsn3anwkd-uB7RCB9kTf_sNtoY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=vms7UZjPMcPVyQG1hIHwDQ&ved=0CD8Q6AEwAjgK

If anyone thinks Orlando was in a plight earlier, imagine the plight MN/MSOP has him in now!

This "client" called me Thursday and told me he wanted to go home and that the two year sentence to MSOP for "treatment" in 2006 by Judge Albrecht expired in 2008.

Mr. Lindgren's Court-Appointed Attorney, Hennepin County Commitment Defense Project "Coordinator" Douglas F. McGuire, cajoled his client into "stipulating" to his life sentence of Nancy Johnston's Abuse & Torture (Care & Treatment) Regimen, and Mr. Lindgren clearly stated he wants to withdraw his life sentence and petition the SRB for Full Discharge.

Thursday, March 7, 2013

Orlando Lindgren: Victim of John Kirwin, Doug McGuire & Judge Albrecht

I first met Orlando Lindgren in St. Cloud Reformatory in 1999. I was out on the Flag (Recess from 23 hours in cell for 1 hour) calling my Dad with the latest on my wrongful conviction and my journey into our State's prison system as an innocent man, victimized by the likes of Beth Roberts, Stu Shapiro, Francis J. Connolly, Brent Sizer and other sick, sadistic predators along the way.

Seeing Orlando for the first time, I was struck me with compassion and sympathy when I saw his deformed little body in his wheel chair, eyes cross eyed so bad he could barely see the numbers let alone dial them but dial them he did. In an astouding feat of human courage, Orlando Lindgren had lifted his broken body out of his wheel chair to call his mom, and I  couldn't help but overhear Orlando telling his Mom not to worry about him, that he was safe, and that no one would try to harm him because he was so weak and vulnerable.

I still hear him today as clearly as I did 15 years ago telling his Mom, "Dddddddddont Cccccry, Mom. Iiiiiiiiill bbbbbbbbeeee ooooo kkkkk." This little man in a broken's boy's body with a heart as big as the massive yard I would later push Orlando's  chair around after I asked him after we finished our calls if he was safe in here and he told me no, he was terrified, didn't know a soul but didn't want his mom to be scared and worry herself to death over him. He feared being locked away so long his Mom might die. I suggested we pray on it and we prayed his Mom would survive his incarceration.

I told him I would look out for him and see to it that no harm would come to him, and I kept my promise to him throughout our bits. I got the word out his first week he was "off limits" and the word stuck.

At Lino Lakes we would attend many Christian Services and Retreats together, along with another Brother in Christ, Brian Minks. The staff at Lino would marvel and laugh as Brian and I would shout at the top of our lungs across the yard and baseball field, "ORLANDO!!!" when he would be switching out for chow or going to and fro Health Services, his cottage called "Kellogg" etc.

Years later in 2006 I see him under the worst possible human circumstances: a bloodthirsty, crazed Governor named Tim Pawlenty, abusive State "leaders" carrying every retributive State Torch while the Witch Hunt rolled on unabated:

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/24465959/good%26burstein_2010_ajfp_svp_witch_hunt%5B1%5D.pdf

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/24465959/New%20American%20Witch%20Hunt.Krueger.pdf

Orlando was very excited when he returned from court one day telling me that he had "Stipulated" per his attorney's advice Doug McGuire, Hennepin County Civil Commitment Coordinator. Orlando's attorney and the Court told this vulnerable adult that by agreeing to enter the MSOP VOLUNTARILY, via Stipulation, he would be agreeing to do "Treatment" for two years and then he would be released. That was my client, Mr. Lindgren's understanding upon returning to his Unit at Pexton 1 North the day he was tricked and cajoled into signing a life sentence of abuse and slow, torturous death at the hands of the most brutal enemy any Minnesotan ever faced in battle: The State of Minnesota.

Mr. Lindgren phoned me yesterday and told me plainly he never signed up for what the State has done to him: A deliberate, intentional moving target/chemelion of a "treatment" "Program" which is morphed into the latest "Treatment" fad just long enough until men navigate the State's McTreatment Habitrail. Orlando Lindgren told me to ask Doug McGuire to Petition him for Full Discharge NOW!

Mr. Lindgren is severely physically and developmentally disabled and the judge who committed him, the doctors. DA/AG, MSOP TEAM 60-Day "Review" person, Doug McGuire: SHAME ON ALL U!

Orlando Lindgren"s "Risk" is miniscule. He is a Level 1-Lite victim of the State of Minnesota.

Nancy Johnston: My Treatment Homework

On August 6, 2006, TEAM MSOP/Nancy Johnston attempted to coerce me into writing a 1-page paper confessing to the false rule violations MSOP had accused me of, under threat of "consequences/restrictions"--MSOP-Speak for PUNISHMENT. I was ORDERED to additionally provide the TEAM with the interventions I was to undertake to make sure these "violations" never occurred again.

Here was the result of the MSOP power and control play/Brainwashing attempt:

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/24465959/8.6.06%20Constructive%20Component.pdf

Thanks for playing.

A Mother's DEMAND FOR ACTION!

 
From:Tom Evenstad (tom.evenstad@live.com)
Sent:Wed 3/06/13 2:23 PM
To: David Osmek (sen.david.osmek@senate.mn); cindy meyer (cindymeyer@hotmail.com)
Cc: Cindy Pugh (rep.cindy.pugh@house.mn); NY Times (nytnews@nytimes.com); Heather Carlson (hcarlson@postbulletin.com); ontherecord@foxnews.com; Kathy Sheran (amrichter53@aol.com); Tammy Annen (shore@hickorytech.net); Annie Lincoln (soft@charter.net); Andy Leer (Andy.Leer@house.mn); Amanda Kremer (amanda@jonesmagnus.com); Jim Abeler (rep.jim.abeler@house.mn); Mark Albert (malbert@kstp.com); Ken and Abby Dawkins (kenandabby@gmail.com); Dwight and Mabel Semler (lena5449@charter.net); Ardy Sorensen (ardy.sorensen@yahoo.com); aforliti@ap.org; Adam Dowd (ryan@sodlaw.com); Alex Jones (writers@infowars.com); Anne Poulin (poulin@law.villanova.edu); admin@rockwoodpsyc.com; ADA.complaint@usdoj.gov; Bob Riedel (riedel@bellsouth.net); bethakamimi@hotmail.com; Barry Scheck (info@innocenceproject.org); Brian Southwell (bzzbjr@netzero.net); Bill Donnay (william.b.donnay@state.mn.us); Karen Franklin PhD (blog@karenfranklin.com); Jon Brandt (jonbrandt@aol.com); Ben Brandon (ben.brandon@3rblaw.com); Brandon Stahl (bstahl@duluthnews.com); Mary Beth Mitchell - OLAX (mmitchel@mail.maricopa.gov); Brian Abbott (brian@dr-abbott.net); Jon Brandt (jbrandt@mapletree.org); Bridget Gernander (Bridget.Gernander@courts.state.mn.us); Tony Cornish (rep.tony.cornish@house.mn); csamuelson@aclu-mn.org; Corey Yung (cyung@jmls.edu); Eli Coleman (colem001@umn.edu); Chao Xiong (cxiong@startribune.com); Paige Calhoun (pcalhoun@wdio.com); Erwin Chemerinsky (EChemerinsky@law.uci.edu); Terrance Campbell (tcampbell3920@comcast.net); cecil ragland (cdr239@gmail.com); Brittany Compagnone (lil_countrygirl@ymail.com); cthornberg@kvrr.com; gitrdone1@ymail.com; Jack Rice (contact@jackrice.org); *DHS_Commissioner DHS (Commissioner.DHS@state.mn.us); Don Jarovski (don.jorovsky@state.mn.us); Dave Goodwin (dgoodwin@gustafsongluek.com); Mark Dayton (mark.dayton@state.mn.us); Dennis Johnston (djohnstonlisw@msn.com); Diane Lytton (dlytton@prodigy.net); Dan Gustafson (dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com); Doug McGuire (doug@hcba.org); Margrettab Dwyer (dwyer001@umn.edu); Lisak (dlisakfc@gmail.com); Deborah Gilman (lawyer@deborahmgilman.com); Derek Logue (iamthefallen1@yahoo.com); Task Force (dhs.socctaskforce@state.mn.us); Joel Dvoskin (joelthed@aol.com); droepke@forumcomm.com; doug@mcguirefisher.com; Donna Dunn (info@mncasa.org); Paul Demko (pjdemko@gmail.com); Mary Durham (mary.durham@kpchr.org); Lucinda Jesson (dhs.info@state.mn.us); Peter Erlinder (proferlinder@gmail.com); estawicki@mpr.org; Elizabeth Loftus (eloftus@uci.edu); Fred Friedman (fred.friedman@pubdef.state.mn.us); John Fabian (john@johnmatthewfabian.com); Michael First (mbf2@columbia.edu); Jessica Geil (jessica.j.geil@state.mn.us); Holly Wakefield (under006@tc.umn.edu); Mike Hager (michaelchager@msn.com); Robert Hahn (roberthahn@valleynewslive.com); Adam Heder (adamheder@paulhastings.com); Michael Thompson (info@drmichaelthompson.com); Warren Maas (info@projectpathfinder.org); Steven Hart (info@proactive-resolutions.com); Steven Hart (info@violenceriskassessment.co.uk); info@amyklobuchar.com; Joe Marguiles (j-margulies@law.northwestern.edu); Peter J. Nickitas (peterjnickitas@mac.com); Warren Limmer (sen.warren.limmer@senate.mn); Tina Liebling (rep.tina.liebling@house.mn); Tony Lourey (sen.tony.lourey@senate.mn); Steve Lee (slee@gfherald.com); liz.young@senate.mn; Martiga Lohn (mlohn@ap.org); lucy.morgan@house.mn; Peder Mewis (Peder.Mewis@senate.mn); Sarah Moen (smoen@gustafsongluek.com); mark@marksanford.com; Peter Nickitas (peterjnickitaslawllc@gmail.com); Nicole Pittman (pittman@hrw.org); news@pequotlakesecho.com; njep@legalmomentum.org; Roberta Opheim (roberta.opheim@state.mn.us); opinion@startribune.com; Innocence Project (tom.evenstad@live.com); Rich Stenek (sheriff@co.hennepin.mn.us); Paul Reitman (preitman3236@aol.com); Kathy Sheran (sen.kathy.sheran@senate.mn); Shana Rowan (info@usafair.org); sam Sigelman (ssigelman@lindquist.com); John Stuart (john.stuart@pubdef.state.mn.us); Roger Sweet (r.sweet@att.net); Sheila Brandt (shelia.m.brandt@state.mn.us); Stacie Weeks (stacie.weeks@senate.mn); sen.jeff.hayden@senate.mn; Terry Yzaguirre (terry@mplsmirror.com); virg.evenstad@yahoo.com
Hi Big Dave (Senator Osmek)

Please read MSOP HosPrisoner Adam Meyer's Mother's letter and respond to our direct request of you to draft and introduce an MSOP TRANSITION BILL, SO MS MEYER's SON CAN GO HOME AS HE IS A LOW RISK TO REOFFEND AND HE IS IMPRISONED BY UNCONSTITUTIONAL STATE LAW FOR A CRIME OR CRIMES HE HAS YET TO COMMIT! (Pardon pun)

MSOP IS A PRE-CRIME "Program" Big Dave that is abuse and brainwashing. That's it.

Now what are you going to do about this? We want action this week!!! We DEMAND ACTION!!!
https://www.dropbox.com/s/yhopggp1blhh71g/Cindy%20Meyer_MSOP.pdf
A MOTHER's PLEA...WILL ANY PERSON IN THE LEGISLATURE HAVE COMPASSION, COURAGE AND VISION TO ANSWER???

Is there even one person whose conscience dictates action???

Tom Evenstad
Ex-HosPrisoner

Sent from my iPad

Sunday, March 3, 2013

"Hospital" Review Board 10/20/06

On Friday, October 20, 2006 I made my first of two legendary appearances before the HRB:

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/24465959/HRB_10.20.20060001.pdf

Below I have included a link to the document I referenced re the MSOP:

PRISON 4 SEX OFFENDERS:

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/24465959/BCA_Prison%204%20Sex%20Offenders.pdf

Here is a link to my TREATMENT ASSIGNMENT NANCY JOHNSTON ORDERED IN WHICH MY INCENTIVE TO NOT BE PUNISHED FOR A RULE VIOLATION OR VIOLATIONS I DID NOT COMMIT WAS TO CONFESS IN WRITING VIA A "CONSTRUCTIVE COMPONENT" (Seriouly...Lol, and bear in mind I was AT the MSOP on a HOLD ORDER, and not IN THE MSOP, as in the "Treatment Program". Here was the result of an early MSOP brainwashing attempt on me on August 6, 2006, Pexton 1 North Admissions Unit, Peak of Dru Sjodin Witchhunt:

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/24465959/8.6.06%20Constructive%20Component.pdf

TEAM MSOP: Thanks for playing.

Immoral DA's/AG's

The men confined within the MSOP have the Moral High Ground in the State's War on Sex. The prosecutors in this State are supposed to be "Ministers of Justice". Instead, they administer injustice.

Saturday, March 2, 2013

Executive Nullification

Tim Pawlenty is largely responsible for the crisis we find ourselves in as a State with regard to the MSOP problem. Governor Pawlenty was a weak, cowardly man who failed Dru Sjodin, failed to fire or even discipline Tom Roy's World Class Risk Assessors, who voted to forward for commitment innocent "sex offenders" like myself, extremely LOW RISK inmates like Brad Stevens, Josh Cox and Ryan Navitril, while RELEASING THE LIKES OF DONALD BLOM, RODRIGUEZ  and Steven Johnson, while the Minnesota media has ignored all of this evidence, with the exception of Larry Oakes. The GENERAL PUBLIC HAS NO KNOWLEDGE OF THIS AND MN MEDIA ISN'T INFORMING THE PUBLIC! Minnesota media hasn't had the courage to stand up for human rights!

Governor Dayton has really surprised and disappointed me as I mistakenly thought he was a good guy and a man of conscience who would never allow barbaric treatment of any MN CITIZENS! I have been shocked and appalled as my efforts and my 85 year old dad's efforts to even receive a call back or an acknowledgment from Governor Dayton of my issues re The Executive Order, a Moratorium of sex commitments until some constitutional issues are resolved, who is his APPOINTED STATEWIDE  SEX OFFENDER COORDINATOR WHO IS A TOTAL NO SHOW IF SUCH A PERSON EXISTS--Not Present at Task Force meetings, SCAP HEARINGS, ETC.

Governor Dayton's staff has been incompetent and is so out of touch they referred me to MSOP and Nancy Johnston to answer who Mark Dayton's Statewide Sex Offender Coordinator is. Gov. Dayton has shown that he is as spineless as the coward he preceded, and he refuses to intervene in the worst human rights crisis this State has ever experienced. That failure to act has him in very serious legal hot water that is at 211 degrees and fixing to boil. I have reached out to him repeatedly only to receive my usual greeting of being ignored and disrespected. Good thing I have great lawyers!

Governor Dayton: Please repeal Tim Pawlenty's Executive Order re MSOP! I thought that was going to be among your first actions as Governor. What you are doing is wrong in forcing the judges of the SCAP to deal with MSOP discharges! They haven't let ANYONE OUT IN AT LEAST 8 YEARS!!!

In the same time Judges in our State, like Judge Nelson have condemned 500 men without civil commitment qualifying mental illnesses, which means that there is nothing to"treat". Shameful.

Since you trust MSOP with your 73M budget, Governor Dayton, trust MSOP to handle discharges!!!

PLEASE ORDER A MORATORIUM ON SEX COMMITMENTS AS YOUR STATE'S PROSECUTORS AND LORI SWANSON's PEOPLE ARE UNABLE TO UNDERSTAND THAT FOLLOWING THE AUDITOR'S REPORT THAT COMMITMENTS NEEDED TO CEASE AT LEAST UNTIL THE CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS LIKE GEOGRAPHICAL COMMITMENTS ARE ADDRESSED AND REMEDIED! No shame in these criminals game!

Legislative Nullification

The legislature is the body of people with the most responsibility for the Human Rights Tragedy playing out in Saint Peter and Moose Lake. The legislature foolishly passed the SDP Act out of illogical, emotional motivation, and this unconstitutional Act Has not been repealed since that time.

The Legislature has funded this abusive, sadistic government program unabated since the beginning. No matter how much evidence is presented to the House and Senate that MSOP is systemically broken, unconstitutional, and a human rights violation, these people fund this 70+Million waste.

 The legislature has refused to call a Moratorium on sex civil commitments in this State even after the Legislative Auditor put it in black and white for them: SDP/SPP COMMITMENTS IN MN ARE ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS. MEN WHO WOULD BE LEVEL 1-LITE, like Brad Stevens, had they had the fortune to come from HENNEPIN OR RAMSEY COUNTIES, but are LEVEL 3 + CIVIL COMMITMENT MATERIAL IN SMALL TOWN MN, WHERE LORI SWANSON's DEDICATED ATTORNEY's GENERAL "SUPPORT" them per Matthew Frank of the AGO. Angela Helseth Kiese appears to have 100's of victims under her belt, possibly more than even Dr. Death himself, John Kirwin of Hennepin County, whose obsession with committing people has been his life's work and the legacy he will leave on this earth: Here lies JK: He committed his life to committing people to a place where they were subjected to electric shock "therapy", and numerous other forms of torture administered by sick, sadistic criminals like "Dr." Robert S. Bauer.

Robert S. Bauer: a demented, recidivistic sex offender who has no image on the Internet, and who provides no warning to the men coming into the MSOP as alleged sex offenders, only to be greeted by Bauer, a real sex offender ready to molest you via genital "exam" that will be unlike any physical exam down there you have ever previously experienced in the community or even in every jail and prison lockup in this State.

MSOP's Mad Hatter, Robert S. Bauer's genital exam is something special all right, and after this guy physically and sexually assaulted me during my "exam" I later learned was prohibited under State Law and MSOP POLICY AND PROCEDURE, Dr. Bauer aggressively demanded I allow him to conduct a "Prostate Exam" in which he attempted to coerce me into submitting to his desired, planned digital anal/rectal assault of his vulnerable little "patient" he thought he was dealing with on June 15, 2006.

I may be the only known victim of MSOP MAD HATTER's desired, planned digital anal/rectal assault to have escaped that fate by having the courage to stand up to this cruel, manipulative bully on his home turf--MSOP-Saint Peter.

This Proposed Patient turned the examination around in a hurry (by demanding my entitlement to counsel present via speakerphone to document Doc Bauer's determined, extremely coercive and very forceful attempts to gain my compliance--classic grooming techniques) to Bauer's utter disbelief and visible dismay. He was enraged that even in a controlled environment, due to myriad cognitive distortions and gross thinking errors, he had lost control of his victim--textbook signs of sadism and extreme psychopathy--my first day of 400 I was forced to spend in violation of my civil liberties, constitutional rights and against my will in the MSOP--the worst of the worse of the state prisons.

Judicial Nullification

Judges in Minnesota have violated the constitutional rights of alleged sex offenders for over two decades and my legal team and I are planning to hold all of them we are able to identify legally accountable. The actions/behavior/conduct of the cumulative Minnesota State Courts and the Federal Court: District of Minnesota has amounted to illegal, unconstitutional Judicial Nullification of alleged Sex Offenders in our State.

I used the term "alleged" sex offenders even in the context of convicted sex offenders as I learned the hard way that in Minnesota, any false sex allegations are likely to result in conviction in a State that requires NO EVIDENCE for RAPE, CHILD MOLESTATION, EVEN AGGRAVATED RAPE...NO EVIDENCE OF ANY KIND! Look it up. I did from prison in 1999 trying to see how I could be a convicted sex offender despite my never having committed a single sex crime or "offense" in my life.

District Court judges throughout this State have sent men to the abyss of MSOP KNOWING it is not a legitimate treatment program, where you go to get treated and discharged once the course of treatment has taken effect--no, judges in MN knew in advance that they were condemning these men to a "life sentence" as a MN Distict Court recently described an MSOP commitment, in a Prison 4 Sex Offenders as the BCA calls the MSOP, abuse and punishment is the real "care and treatment" and "Completion is not the focus" of the State or the MSOP Administration per Ann LeValley-Wood.
Indeed, Judge Nelson on the Task Force condemned every one of the 8 men he had authority over--Geographical commitments that even the defense attorney on some of the files said were low/moderate risk inmates, and not remotely true SVP civil commitment criteria outside of MN.

I will give it the old college try here to publicly list these dispensers of injustice, cruelty and victimization. I will list District Court judges, appellate court judges, State Supreme Court judges and Federal Judges: District of Minnesota. We will also examine the SRB/SCAP process that has no full discharges despite the vast majority of MSOP "clients" never having met civil commitment criteria.

Men like Brad Ronald Stevens.

Post in Progress