JohnH 
Member since Mar 26, 2011


Stats

Friends

  • No friends yet.
Become My Friend Find friends »

Recent Comments

Re: “Flying solo

LogicAlwaysWins (LAW),

Actually, I’d like to congratulate YOU on changing the subject and not addressing my salient points. (You insist, however, that YOUR points must be addressed. Rather narcissistic on your behalf one might conclude...)
So, let me try to rehash your so called facts (I will leave out your emotionally charged, obsessive use of the phrases “You forgot to”; “You are forgetting” which you rifled off 12 consecutive times.) Here we go:

• “..two professionals in the field have deemed him not to be a pedophile”.
 Two paid “expert” witnesses for by the defense

• “..include the categorizing behavior he exhibited, which is common in a variety of mental illness, including bipolar”.
 Grant McKenzie himself confessed that he actively searched for child pornography websites and downloaded images onto his government computer. If he was simply exhibiting “categorizing behavior” as you imply, one would assume his appetite for adult pornography and bestiality would suffice. (Collies here; Pit Bulls there; Linda Lovelace, “Come to Daddy”!) He admitted choosing Child Pornography. No where have I read that an obsession with Child Pornography is a symptom of bi-polar disorder.

• “..the fact that the State of Colorado has a legal process for allowing people like this guy back into their kids' lives - including overnight stays”.
 And also a legal process to defend innocent children from sex offenders; which was done so by the justice system in this case

• “..the fact the the State of Colorado requires physiological as well as psychological testing of sex offenders (the article refers to the plytheismograph, which is a part of that testing)”.
 Funny; the unbiased article left out the fact that the plytheismograph results are not admissible in court cases in the United States because: test results are not sufficiently accurate; results are subject to faking and voluntary control by test subjects; there’s no standardization of the testing; there is a high incidence of false negatives and false positives; the results are open to interpretation. So much for the vaunted “PeterMeter”.
• “..that his medications were wrong until sometime after the time he searched for these pictures”.
 Sometime after the time? You can do better than that, Counselor. Your “facts” elude me.

• “..that the State of Colorado only requires a person with a sex-related misdemeanor (as per the article), and that he has past the 5 year limit and is therefore most likely removed from that requirement. You can check the Denver Post. They keep an updated list of sex offenders on their website”.
 So McKenzie is now a “prior” Sex Offender. One can feel comfortable with this distinction...

• “..that the legal system DID do its job by convicting this guy, sending him to prison, and making him register as a sex offender”.
 He had his day in court. He lost. Logic always wins.

• “..the fact that the legal system DID do its job in granting dissolution of marriage and ruling that visits should be supervised”.
 You are saying that I forgot this fact? Please re read my posts, Counselor. Once again you bend the “so called” facts to buoy your porous opinions

• “..the fact that the State of Colorado Court of appeals overturned the decision of a local magistrate regarding child support in this case”.
 Appeals courts overturn decisions every day, Counselor. Well paid lawyers find legal technicalities and exploit them.

• “..that the District Court overturned the the same magistrate in her decision to send McKenzie to jail for contempt of court”.
 The first overturned decision is directly related to the second. Next!

• “..the fact he is current receiving the State Vocational Rehabilitation office to develop a skills necessary to run his own business”.
 Wow. I have no idea what this means. Another one of your “facts” Counselor?

• “..that the court, however much you may dislike the idea, is perfectly within its rights to award non-supervised overnight visits is it feels that ALL the evidence combined supports that decision. Just because the visits were made to be supervised at first, in 2004 I think, does not mean that the court must keep it that way should McKenzie petition the court”.

 The Court allowed chaperoned visits for McKenzie. That reasonable decision provided a sex offender with access to the young girls, while ensuring their safety. McKenzie’s access to the deep pockets of his parents may enable him to ultimately prevail (with appeal upon appeal). But the initial ruling of the court was a “just” one that was determined by the facts.




To continue:
(You speaking):”I do not represent McKenzie in any way, form or fashion. I'm an advocate for the mentally ill”. Counselor, you have been representing McKenzie in the court of public opinion with each of your approximately ten posts. You may not legally represent him, but to say you do not represent him in “any way, form or fashion’ is blatantly false and therefore NOT factual. Here’s a direct quote from you: “the facts that support your argument while disregarding those that hurt your argument only works to make you appear prejudiced and taints your your whole argument, whether it is actually true or not”. Unfortunately one might reasonably conclude from your false statement and subsequent quote that you have prejudiced your own argument.
(You speaking): “My only purpose is to ensure discussions concerning the mentally ill do not deteriorate into a with-burning” Once again, Counselor, I am at a loss. What are you attempting to say here?
(You speaking): “The number of posts you have made and the number of times these facts have been spoon fed to you my myself and others indicates an intense emotional tie to this particular case”. Counselor, this is really beneath you. -Such narcisistic, condescending flotsam! Spoon fed? My myself? (My myself…??)
Although I might be from the “far a way state of Maryland”, the last time I checked, I am still allowed to exercise my right to the freedom of speech. This appears to upset you, judging by the innuendo and thinly veiled implications embedded in you hyperbole. May I add, regarding your self purported advocacy for the mentally ill: one persons advocacy is another’s Law profession.
And now, to repeat my (unanswered) questions:
Based on McKenzie’s own admission that he actively searched for Child Pornography websites:

• Can anyone blame the former wife for trying to protect her children?
• Would anybody here be willing to drop their little girls off with him for an “over nighter”?

I appreciate this forum for allowing me to express my point of view on a very challenging (and as I found out) polarizing subject. Bi-polar disorder is a terrible storm that can tear down lives and destroy everything in its path. Medication can address the symptoms, but many bi-polars discontinue their medicine during their long journey. As I have expressed, I believe the well being of any children caught in the cross winds should considered before anything else. I am hopeful that this will be the case with this story. This is my last post. Thank you.

Posted by JohnH on 04/16/2011 at 1:10 PM

Re: “Flying solo

As stated by Re-flying solo: “Looks like McKenzie has many real friends and they are coming out to stand beside him”. -I apoligize to both Re-flying solo and LogicAlwaysWIns. I am not a personal friend of Mr. McKenzie, as they both appear to be, and as such do not share their subjective view of this matter. I commend them for sticking up for a friend (or possibly a relative, etc.), but find it morally repugnant that their cause may endanger the well being of two innocent girls. As Re-flying solo so eloquently stated (in reference to me): “Who are you to stand in judgment on anyone(?) Let the Judical System do their job….” (Sic) I whole heartedly agree with Re-flying solo on this point. In fact, the judicial system HAS done its’ job. Their decision was fair. The court placed the safety of the 10 and 12 year old girls at the fore front.
Re-flying solos continued: “I think you are lying about where you live, I think that friend you are trying to defend is the ex wife”. -Wrong on both accounts, RFS. By accusing me of lying, you just demonstrate the weakness of your position. “The best defense is a good offence”, etc. I assume by your prose that you are still in grade school, so I won’t belabor the point.
LogicAlwaysWIns (LAW) asked this question of me: "Why is someone in Davidsonville, MD so concerned, possibly obsessed, with a story in a "hometown" newspaper over half the country away"? Simple answer for you LAW- I searched the web and found the story. If you are the least bit familiar with the Internet, you should understand the concept of being “Over half the country away” is meaningless in this day in age. Why am I Concerned? Obsessed? I could ask the same question of you. (Loaded words these are...) Why are you possibly obsessed with this story LAW? Is Mr. McKenzie a friend or relative of yours? Are you connected with him in a professional manner? Do you represent him legally? Medically?
LAW States: Your questions and arguments and your persistence suggest a level of emotion far too high for someone who has no tie to the story, whatsoever. So what connection do you have that drives this kind of illogical participation?
Once again you reveal an interesting use of “loaded words” (Perhaps you should run for office, LAW.) -“Suggest a level of emotion” (What exactly does this mean?). -“Illogical Participation” (Who exactly has determined this?) “So what connection do you have that drives this….” In fact, I explained my tie to this story in at least two of my posts.
And so I repeat, to get back to the heart of the matter (Perhaps someone will respond this time around):
-Based on McKenzie’s own admit ion that he actively searched for Child Pornography websites, can anyone blame the former wife for trying to protect her children?
Would anybody here be willing to drop their little girls off with him for an “over nighter”?

Honestly?
Really?

Posted by JohnH on 04/13/2011 at 9:43 PM

Re: “Flying solo

Not.Buying.It,

After reading your link to the Appeals Court ruling (United States v. Captain Grant D. McKenze), I was a bit surprised that the following information was omitted from Ms. Zubick’s article:

• The accused (Mr. McKenze) admitted that he actively searched for child pornography websites and downloaded images onto his government computer.
(Gone is this innocent depiction of a few pictures that just happened to be mixed in with some adult pornography. Gone is the assertion that he just wanted to sort and categorize a batch of pictures.)

Based on McKenzie’s own admit ion that he actively searched for Child Pornography websites, can anyone blame the former wife for trying to protect her children?
Would anybody here be willing to drop their little girls off with him for an “over nighter”?

Honestly?
Really?

It seems quite reasonable that Mr. McKenzie can visit his child in a supervised environment.
It is paramount that the safety of 10 and 12 year old girls should take precedence over all other considerations. (No one of Mr. McKenzie’s supporters has disputed the ages of the children, so I assume your information is correct.)

Unfortunately for Mr. McKenzie, his actions and bi-polar condition have let him to his current situation. It’s a shame. Bi-polar disorder can destroy people, relationships and careers.
Hopefully, treatment and medication can enable Mr. McKenzie to step forward with his new life.

Link to Appeals Court ruling: http://www.docstoc.com/docs/52175818/Contr…

Posted by JohnH on 04/10/2011 at 8:32 AM

Re: “Flying solo

.....and you probably messed around with his wife and now you are trying to blame anyone you can.....
________________________________________________
What a shame.
Attack those that hold a differing opinion with personal slander.
I've seen the personal insults (moron. Learn how to read.... etc.) and now this.
Interesting that those with such empathy for others can act in such a hateful manner.
I'd like to think this discussion could rise above the mentality of a Junior High School student.
.





Posted by JohnH on 04/09/2011 at 8:48 PM

Re: “Flying solo

Logic always wins,

If Logic always wins, you lose.

#1 Once again, #1 is 100% correct on my part.
#2 LAW= Logic Always Wins.
#3 (You) “Since you responded directly to Ms. Zubeck regarding this particular post”.
(Me) Let me say it again. I did not respond to Ms. Zubeck regarding THAT particular post.

Perhaps we can agree to disagree on these points.

Last but not least-

(You) “This is not the first time you have implied this guy is not taking his meds regularly. Is that truly what you are suggesting? If it is, would you please explain how you've come about this information? You told Ms. Zubeck you live in MD, so how can you know with any certainty whether someone in CO is taking their medication properly”?

Once again, I have absolutely no idea of what you are talking about.
I live in Maryland. You read that correctly.
I have a very good friend that is bi-polar and does not take his medication.
If you bothered to read my posts you would know this.
It is not uncommon for bi-polars to stop taking their medication because they miss their manic episodes. I am sorry if this information offends you or is “too close for comfort” and I can not help it if you want to draw correlations that may or may not exist.
Bi polar disorder is an incredibly sad problem for all people concerned.
It destroyed my friend’s marriage to a brilliant, loving woman that tried her best to help him.
She was armed with medical knowledge, love and the desire to make things work, even though he flushed thousands of dollars (of her money) down the drain.
(He had a thing for extremely young and underage Asian girls.)
Bi-polar disorder impacts a person’s ability to act rationally among other things. Logic didn’t win with my friend Mark.

Posted by JohnH on 04/09/2011 at 6:02 AM

Re: “Flying solo

Logic Always wins,
Let me address your lack of logic and hopefully unintentional adversion of the truth:
1) I corrected Mark Green’s misinformation and addressed his childish name calling. (Calling people Moron doesn’t usually advance one’s position.) If you take a minute to re read my post and put aside your bias, perhaps you will see this.
2) You state that I am leaving out critical facts that hurt my argument. What argument might that be, LAW?
3) You state that I responded to Ms. Zubic regarding “this particular post”. Once again, what are you talking about? I did not respond to her about this post.

Bi polar disorder is an extremely sad thing. My friend Mark “decided” not to take his meds any more, because he missed the high he felt while while in his manic state. This is not uncommon among bi polars. Because of this, he left his family and continues on his rollercoaster ride through life.

Posted by JohnH on 04/08/2011 at 5:17 PM

Re: “Flying solo

Mark Green,
Before resorting to the childish name calling (“Moron” / “Learn to Read”), you should check your own facts and/or glasses.
Here is what the article said: “1,716 obscene images on his computer, including pictures of "naked or partially clothed young girls in sexually suggestive positions alone or with other young girls,"
It is quite a bit different after, dare I say it, YOUR “cherry picking”: (You speaking) Nowhere did it say there were 1000 pictures of underage girls. It said “there were 1716 pictures, and some of them were young girls.” I assume this was just an honest mistake on your part.

Posted by JohnH on 04/06/2011 at 12:18 PM

All Comments »

Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Saved Stories

  • Nope.
Find stories »

Custom Lists

  • Zip.
 

All content © Copyright 2014, The Colorado Springs Independent   |   Website powered by Foundation