ACSOL’s Conference Calls

Conference Call Recordings Online
Dial-in number: 1-712-770-8055, Conference Code: 983459

Monthly Meetings | Recordings (11/20 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings



NY: This 11-year-old got wrongly caught up in Pervnado


__________, a Brooklyn sixth-grader in a schoolyard tussle with two girls, got caught up in the sex-harassment tornado.

__________ insists he only tried to grab the water bottle and backpack of classmates who had tossed his stuff during lunchtime horseplay.

But the school charged him with “conduct of a sexual nature.” He was accused of trying to touch one girl’s breast and kiss her and of “humping” another girl from behind.

“Like, I’m not sexual,” the baby-faced 11-year-old wrote in a city Department of Education statement. “I do dumb thing [sic] but I’m not sexual to girls.”

The dean at MS 88 in Park Slope pressured him to admit lewd behavior or plead “no contest” and waive his right to a hearing, ____________told The Post.

“After what you did, I don’t want to see you in my school,” he said the dean, John Roumbeas, told him.

__________refused. “I told him ‘I’m not going to admit to it because I didn’t do it.’ ”

Read more



We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t
  4. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  5. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  6. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  7. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  8. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
  9. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  10. Please do not post in all Caps.
  11. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links.
  12. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  13. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  14. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people
  15. Please do not solicit funds
  16. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), or any others, the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  17. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  18. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

I’m just commenting to say I have a new favorite word:


Let us talk about society for a moment, if a boy has a hard on it is discusting and shameful and if a girl expresses her sexuality she’s lovely and admired! Um… is going on men are being targeted by a culture and mind set that testicles are the problem so men are subjected to a bias society that women who perpetrate are less dangerous! We in our Hart’s know that the majority of men/boys are naturally going to pursue girls, some girls like guys like me some don’t…etc., well people girls use sex as a weapon and the law is OUT OF CONTTROL! Helllooooo! WE NEED TO TEACH WOMEN A LESSON (FOR THE MEN) DO NOT GIVE THEM DAaaaaam thing from your life….ESPECIALLY SEX…..SOCIETY is hell bent and wants the women to rule at the expense of men! Laws that put people away for life for being young, and horny and have not been taught mature decision making as well as proper love given too them…!……The last thing men neeeed are further punitive measures!


You seem to suggest the feminist movement is not based on their desire for egalitarianism. I assure you men have long suspected just that.

I am certain if one were to attempt to draw a graph describing the correlation between the number of women in Congress and the national debt amount, we would see a strong inference indeed.

A sad state of affairs. Kid denies any wrongdoing, admirably refuses pressure to admit he had, one accuser and administrator didn’t show up to his hearing, and the one that did changed her story. He’s cleared of everything, yet the administrator – again, who didn’t go to the hearing – treats him as guilty and brushes off complaints as “following protocol.” In other words, if you were accused you are guilty, even if you have proven your innocence, and will be treated accordingly.

Why isn’t there a “protocol” for false accusers? Of course, the idea that someone would falsely accuse someone of a sex offense is completely absurd to the Gloria Allreds and Jane Velez-Mitchells of the world. But they do occur – the Duke La cross team, Brian Banks, the head of the IMF (forgot his name), Lena Dunham, et al. – and nothing ever seems to happen to them. I read Brian Banks’ accuser was forced to repay whatever money she won from the civil suit she filed against the college, but no criminal charges that I’m aware of. The old “going after false accusers discourages reporting of genuine offenses” excuse falls pretty flat, IMHO.

Considering the lifelong ramifications for those found guilty of sex offenses, I don’t think legally requiring corroboration of an accusation is asking too much.

Prudery should be a crime. Americans need to change their attitudes and inhibitions about sex and nudity and stop criminalizing these behaviors by children.


Ultimately, the databases will be used to maintain party security (political). With the databases in hand the powers that be will merely identify a threat and lend opportunities to discredit individuals who oppose them. It is already occurring through the use of biometrics. There is no turning back the clock, so now that they are built there is very little the average American can do about it.

Keep in mind who has become the top dog on SCOTUS. It is not coincidental that the very man who argued and won ALASKA V DOE ended up being granted the most powerful of positions in our government. People have wondered when machines would take over humanity. Mr.Roberts was one human who lead the way.

It is still hard for me to accept that SORNA is anything but plain indenture to state machines. While some may argue that their reasons for building them was for public safety and thus not retributive in nature, the fact remains it IS a form of indentured servitude. Indentured servitude is not permitted save for those convicted of certain high crimes.

Tim L.,

You have a slight misunderstanding of the workings of the Supreme Court. All appellate judges are required to recuse themselves from cases in which they previously participated in as attorneys, and I’m pretty sure that they at least traditionally recuse themselves from appellate review of cases they presided over as judges in lower courts. I don’t think the latter applies to US Supreme Court Justices reviewing USSC precedent, and am encouraged that Kennedy has openly questioned the SOR’s legality on those who have completed their sentences in Packingham v. North Carolina. Many have taken that to mean he is open to a case that challenges such legality, which would undoubtedly address his “frightening and high” claim made in Smith v. Doe. It only takes 4 Justices to grant certiorari (agree to hear a case), of which Roberts is only 1 of 9.

Since he successfully argued Smith v. Doe to the Supreme Court, Roberts couldn’t participate in any case challenging it anyway, including whether or not to grant certiorari. The other Justices are not subordinate to the Chief Justice, despite the title. The Chief Justice merely chairs proceedings and is responsible for administrative matters like the court’s budget. He has no authority over the other Justices in cases, and his legal opinions carry no more or less weight than theirs. While undoubtedly there are some personal influences between the Justices behind closed doors, the worst he could do to any of them is deny new office furniture.

As I understand it, it is entirely up to the individual Justice to decide to recuse him or herself and what constitutes a conflict of interest. A more important question would be if he would hear a case substantially similar to Smith and see in it a conflict. My guess is that he would probably not recuse himself. I hope to be proven wrong. Ah, here’s something about it:

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x