Ok, seriously, if you guys are going to censor posts, at least ADD A NOTE that you have edited or censored posts. You are removing key points to the discussion.
I'm calling the television station in your area. This is total BS.
MayBenot, I know why he was convicted. CS Indy is deleting portions of comments.
What was the "Sex Crime" for which McKenzie was tried, convicted, and imprisoned?
You will never convince a court of law in the USA to grant [no pun intended] McKenzie unrestricted access to children. Spend all you want. It's good for the economy.
Now that I have your attention (apparently), I find it interesting that you won't answer any of my questions - yet, you expect me to answer your questions, Mr. Alvarez. Clearly, you are the same "Rob" quoted in the story, along with the PAID expert witnesses (by the McKenzie Convicted Sex Offender Funding Agency, AKA McSOFA) you continue to quote.
Quid Pro Quo, Counselor.
I am a student. Social media is the subject matter. Public debate over very sensitive social or political issue(s) is the assignment. Current events led me to this, and to you.
We are discussing techniques used to draw people away from openly available data which is incriminating for a defendant. The previous two posts from those in the McSOFA camp, are classic and textbook; albeit, a brand new textbook. I know... they're expensive!
You repeat your position knowing that most readers are sheep and will, eventually, follow you. But there are FACTS outlined by the reporter (and many I'm guessing that have been left out) from which you cannot hide - even those you've masked through the separation of military and civilian courts. I confess, my prof pointed that one out. He's former military (Judges Advocate Group) and had to explain it to me.
You already have my first name, but that's all I will tell you. I don't care to become the recipient of McSOFA's legal assault. One of the beautiful things about social media... anonymity! Sadly, McKenzie's anonymity was exposed when he decided to surf child porn on a military network. Not so smart, after all, huh?
LogicAlwaysWins, sadly, is incorrect on several issues:
1) Logic doesn't always win. I wish it did, but it doesn't. The war in Iraq? A President who has officially fired more warheads than any other PEACE Prize winner? VCR over Beta? Helloooooooo????
2) If you use Logic as the basis for your argument, you must USE Logic in your arguments - starting with quotes that are accurate. The article didn't say "picture (singular) of young girl" it said... and I'm copying this straight from the article:
"an investigation revealed 1,716 obscene images on his computer, including pictures of "naked or partially clothed young girlS [mulitple] in sexually suggestive positions alone or with other young girlS,"
It goes on to say that they were "obviously under-aged." Are we to assume, by your supposed "logic" that the fewer sexually explicit photographs of children, the more we should overlook that fact? I mean, a real and documented, easily referenced, fact. Not your variation.
Questions you have yet to answer:
1) Why would McKenzie be required to TELL his landlord that he IS a sex offender? He was quoted as saying (again, I am quoted accurately. See how that works?) "Even renting an apartment has been a challenge, because many landlords ban sex offenders." I thought you said he WASN'T a sex offender? Oh wait... that's according to your spin of what that word means.
Why would he have to do that if he weren't a sex offender? It begs the question, Counselor... Does McKenzie have to establish his physical location if he fails to sleep in is 'registered' residence? Yes or No?
2) Also, was McSOFA cut-off AFTER they were discovered to be funding their son, a man imprisoned for 1,716 images of "young" and "Obviously" under-aged girls?
Brilliant performance, Rob [the crowd cheers]. Would you like to thank the Academy? Your Agent? The fans? God?
Like all good actors, I know you are being paid well for your performance - by McKenzie's family, of course. Did you thank them too?
You like to call responders "ignorant" as they dine on the facts noted in this VERY article. But no one with an IQ over 80 is missing a thing... like the one where McKenzie was dishonorably discharged (along with his "brilliant mind") for looking at 1,716 images of "young" and "obviously under-aged" girls. If that is incorrect, then take it up with the reporter who wrote it, the paper that published it, and the criminal system that placed in in his permanent criminal record before they sent him to prison (the first time he went). But to sit there and pretend we didn't read the words printed in black and white is laughable.
Rob: "You didn't read those details in article."
The Readership: "Yes. Actually we did."
Sorry, Robbie, looks like Jedi mind tricks don't work on everyone... just the idiots. Yes, he's ill. Git it. No, really.. WE GOT IT!
That still doesn't mean he should be allowed access to children.
If he isn't a sex offender, then why does this article state "Even renting an apartment has been a challenge, because many landlords ban sex offenders."?
Answer the question, Rob. You've ignored it twice.
It has been stated, even by me, that McKenzie is clearly in need of professional help. How many times do you have to see that text before it registers? Oh wait, you are paid (very well, I'm guessing) to dilute what is being said.
The wonderful thing about the Court of Public Opinion, Rob, is that we have access to ALL public information, including McKenzie's criminal record. I thought about retrieving it and posting the facts. I may, still. But I am debating (with myself) the value when courts have already been so clear, despite the $100k McKenzie's Father has dumped into the fire pit.
I just hope his ex-wife's 'comfy life' (as you have continued to spin it) provides her with enough extra cash to respond, with proper legal representation.
"LikesToRead" said it best, for what the Grandparents have paid (I'm guessing out of guilt for failing as parents), they could have funded 416 years of SAFE visitation with those children - just in case it was a total fluke and McKenzie accidentally downloaded ONE THOUSAND, SEVEN HUNDRED, AND SIXTEEN images of (quoting the article) "young" and "obviously underaged" girls - which he then meticulouslt catalogued. Ill or not, no one who does that will be allowed unrestricted access to kids.
I still want to know if the grandparents had unrestricted access to the kids until it was discovered that they were funding McKenzie's repeated petitions. If so, their separation from the children was their own choice.
God bless America, where enough money can buy you anything you want - apparently, even absolution.
P.S. After proof-reading this post, I am definitely going to go get a copy of McKenzie's criminal record. We are already discussing this article (my fault) in one of my graduate courses so it will contribute toward my grade.
Rob, are you McKenzie's lawyer? Totallygotnailedit, are you one of his family members? If so, good for you guys! Get out here and speak up. Can you get McKenzie to participate?
Let's look at the details in the article and compare them with the commentary.
Totallygotnailedit said "Yes he took a conviction of a sex crime BUT he wasn’t one of those guys that you see on “To Catch a Predator. “ He wasn’t exposing himself on the internet, he didn’t go to chat rooms seeking underage individuals to do into private rooms with him, and he didn’t try to meet up with an underage girl to rape her. So let’s check the pedophile allegations."
Ok. Let's "check the pedophile allegations."
This article states "an investigation revealed 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,".
The charge sheet is also quoted as stating that the young girls were "OBVIOUSLY under-aged."
By the logic argued by totallygotnailedit, shooting a person does not make them a killer. Stealing something does not make them a thief. Bearing false witness does not make them a liar. And looking at "young" and "obviously under-aged" girls does not make McKenzie a Pedophile. Totallygotnailedit, he's one of the good ones who only abuses "obviously" under-aged girls, according to McKenzie, by "...download[ing] a bunch of pictures as fast as I could get them, then I would spend time sorting them. I would find ones that were tricky to categorize. I would organize them by the color of the women's hair or by various attributes and how they compared, so I could fit it into a category."
This story also reports "Even renting an apartment has been a challenge, because many landlords ban sex offenders." I stand corrected. I obviously made the assumption, in err, that he was a "registered sex offender" instead of just a regular old, legally seperated from his children, "sex offender," who has not won a SINGLE petition, despite Daddy's money.
Regarding the ex, too bad the article doesn't verify anything you, the lawyer and family member have to say. You are clearly biased. Given the responses I see so far, you are also alone in your opinion. Its Ohana McKenzie vs. ever clear-headed person on the planet.
I don't think there is a failure to to see that McKenzie is, clearly, a sick man in need of proper care. I am confident that many people with Type 1 Bi-Polar disorder and hyper-sexuality (especially when it begins to involve children) desperately want to be free from its grip. So, I am not reading comments that are insensitive to his illness.
What I'm reading is significant frustration that his family is funding repeated petitions to get their son unrestricted access to his children
So, it seems there are 3 issues on the table:
1) The Air Force failed to treat an ill Officer (basis of the story)
2) Mr. McKenzie is a registered sex offender (for child pornography) who wants unrestricted access to his under-aged children
3) McKenzie's family is funding his all of legal action
On issue #1, I think McKenzie has a clear case.
On issue #2, Allowing a registered sex offender unrestricted access to children is just absurd.
On issue #3, It is a scary thing to know that the McKenzie's can continue to petition the courts with the same result. It becomes a battle of funding, not a battle for the safety of 3 children. McKenzie's Father (Robert McKenzie) was quoted as saying "I was hoping it would be over in two to three years." Does that mean he was hoping to overwhelm Heidi with legal fees until she gave up?
(1) Were the Doctors who rendered opinions, as quoted in the original article (and again in this discussion) paid witnesses; paid by the McKenzie defense? I have read, in legal journals, that this is a common practice for a defense team.
(2) Were McKenzie's parents cut-off from their Grandchildren the day he went to prison for looking at child pornography? Or, were the Grandparents cut-off when it was discovered they were funding their son's repeated petitioning of the courts?
All content © Copyright 2013, The Colorado Springs Independent
Website powered by Foundation