Frequently Asked Questions
Provided by the JBCHP©
Frequently Asked Questions
Provided by the JBCHP©
General Questions
Historical Record.
Provided by the JBCHP©, it’s a factual historical record of Justin Beaton’s 2016 court case and the legal action that followed regarding news articles containing inaccurate narratives. It is not meant to point fingers, absolve blame, or relive the past, nor is it a crusade to “right a wrong.” It is simply an educational archive for anyone interested in learning the facts about the now-long-ago case.
Encouragement to Others. Justin would like his experiences to be an encouragement to others. We all make mistakes and sin, but John 3:16 is what counts: “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” That’s why Justin’s ultimate goal and hope for each person is to understand The Gospel and be saved. Flavor-of-the-day gossip, news stories, and life circumstances change seemingly by the minute in our society, but when we die, it will only be us and our lives standing before God.
As a society, we need to do a whole lot less condemning of others and a whole lot more self-examining (Matthew 7:3, John 8:7). And if you’re struggling or going through something hard in your life, Justin wants you to know that God loves you and is there for you. There is also help and encouragement available from people who care. You are not alone in whatever you’re going through!
Ultimately, the answer is both yes and no. Romans 3:23 says “…for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God…” Every human being is “corrupt,” and so, yes, sinful human beings, like any other industry, are in positions within the criminal justice system. Without commenting on individual officials within it, it is sufficient to say that the issue with “the system” is its perceived “winning at all costs” model. This sometimes tunnel-vision approach leads to people not necessarily always receiving a “fair shake.” Basically, do your best not to get involved with the criminal justice system!
Yes, you should trust the police. However, if you’re suspected of, being investigated for, or being charged with a crime, you can count on a police officer caring more about their job and getting home to their family than they do you (which they should). Most cops do their jobs with honor, compassion, fairness, and integrity, but, like any profession, of course, that isn’t always the case. As a general rule, however, you can definitely trust, support, and pray for your local law enforcement. They would even appreciate you saying hello or waving to them while they’re on duty.
A more significant issue is that trusting humans (including yourself) or “the world” over trusting God will always lead one astray.
• Proverbs 2:6 – “For the Lord gives wisdom; from his mouth come knowledge and understanding…”
• Proverbs 3:5-6 – “Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways submit to him, and he will make your paths straight.”
_______________________________
With that being said, the perceived reliability of the media has declined exponentially in recent years:
• This Gallup poll reveals that a mere 34% of Americans believe the media to be trustworthy.
• This article from Fortune describes how a staggering 50% of all Americans believe that media outlets deliberately mislead them.
And what would be the reason for this? These quotes by two prominent journalists shed light on the reasons why:
“Many sites, including mainstream sites, have abandoned traditional journalistic practices and standards in search of more and more “eyeballs. Objectivity, once the gold standard of reporting, is now often seen as old-fashioned, a ratings loser. When success is measured mainly in terms of “clicks,” the outrageous beats the sober just about every time.”
— Judith Miller, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist while at The New York Times and former Editor of City Journal
“You often hear people say the news is full of lies. But most of the time that’s not exactly right. Much of what you see on television or read in The New York Times is in fact true in the literal sense. It could pass one of the media’s own “fact checks.” Lawyers would be willing to sign off on it. In fact, they may have. But that doesn’t make it true. It’s not true. At the most basic level, the news you consume is a lie. A lie of the stealthiest and most insidious kind. Facts have been withheld on purpose, along with proportion and perspective. You are being manipulated.”
— Tucker Carlson, highest rated, most-watched cable news host of all time.
Regarding any news source, and no matter the political persuasion, discernment should always be used. You certainly don’t have to be paranoid that all of the media is out to deceive you 24/7, but if it sounds sensationalized, one-sided, or if it seems as though the whole story isn’t being told, then that’s probably “fake news”—which has sadly become more and more commonplace nowadays. Mark Twain’s words from long ago seem to still resonate today: “If you don’t read the newspaper, you’re uninformed. If you read the newspaper, you’re misinformed.”
How Common: In high schools involving young staff members, situations like Justin’s could potentially be more common than people think. For example, Justin, and other staff and students, were personally aware of other staff-student relationship situations while he was at the schools—with one leading to marriage and a family.
The reason why it’s hard to know is the vast majority of these relationships are kept secret because the individuals involved don’t want it to get blown out of proportion or treated irrationally and so they keep it quiet. That’s precisely why Justin created an outline for a school social boundaries orientation video and has pitched it to school districts. He feels strongly that the measures he introduces in the orientation video will curtail and ultimately prevent these sorts of relationships indefinitely.
High Schools Nowadays: Many more girls in the high school age range nowadays are much older in appearance, maturity level, and life and relationship experience level than girls in the same age range were in earlier decades—with many seeking out, being friends with, and preferring to date older individuals who are more in line with their level of sophistication. You could take one look at current social media sites, for example, and this reality will immediately become apparent. The way cases like these are typically handled does not genuinely consider any of this, however, and that’s precisely why schools need to be unwavering in their prevention measures.
This letter from the female private investigator involved with the media legal action does a good job of bringing perspective to the realities of young adult girls and high school dynamics.
First and foremost, do not, under any circumstance, talk to or say anything to police. They are not your enemy, but if you’re under investigation for a crime, they are there to do a job. Call a lawyer immediately, either private or public defender, and be prepared to do whatever they instruct you to do.
It will be a wild ride, but you will get through it if you keep calm, and trust God. If you’ve done wrong, confess it to God and repent, and if you have to serve any sort of punishment, do so respectfully, cheerfully, and make everyone you meet wish every “criminal” they have to deal with was just as pleasant and easy to manage as you are. Use your situation to help and encourage others, not grow angry and bitter.
Any legal action that’s based on greed, revenge, spite, money, attention, vindictiveness, or shame should be avoided. It is sometimes appropriate, however, to consider legal action when an individual’s rights are not being protected. This article at GotQuestions gives a well-reasoned answer to the question.
Sadly, it seems that way because it is. But that’s not a doom and gloom answer at all! It’s important to remember that if you’re looking to the world for comfort and peace, you will never find it because it isn’t there, but true comfort and everlasting peace are possible! The truth is that true comfort and true peace can only be found when your trust is in God—the one who made you, loves you, and fully understands you!
These resources for further reading are highly encouraged:
• What is the peace of God, and how can I experience it? | GotQuestions.org
• What does the Bible say about inner peace? | GotQuestions.org
• What does it mean to have peace with God? | GotQuestions.org
Questions About the Case
Why No Trial: Fairly or unfairly, once a narrative gets crafted about a defendant, it is very difficult to come out from underneath it. By the time the facts emerged regarding the police report discrepancies, the case was already significantly far along. Had the police report reflected the actual narrative of events from the very beginning, Justin’s attorney would have likely filed to have the charges dismissed due to lack of evidence. However, the totality of the evidence supporting the correct narrative of events wasn’t uncovered until the case was significantly far along. There was a point where Justin’s attorney planned on having his private investigator pursue it, but because of the increasing circus in the public narrative at the time, as well as a few other factors, Justin’s attorney was apprehensive to continue pursuing it.
Justin’s attorney wanted to protect him as best he could; and knowing that provoking an “accepted” public narrative could be a dangerous proposition, he elected to “play it safe” and acquiesce to get the best deal for Justin despite knowing the narrative of events disseminated in public at the time were not accurate. This may seem like a poor decision or not aggressive enough, but when there’s an “accepted” public narrative piled on against a defendant, it is very difficult to challenge that in the heat of the moment. Overall, it appears that the investigation was conducted through a lens of presupposition about Justin, and the reports were crafted in a way that reflected that presumption.
Appeal Exploration: Justin and his family did attempt to appeal—and he did have grounds to do so based on a defective plea—but since the “system” is designed to stick people with convictions and make it very difficult to get rid of them, an appeal would have only brought the entire process back to square one, not thrown it out completely. At that point, with the constant piling on of the inaccurate public narrative in court and in sensationalized news coverage, Justin understandably decided that he didn’t want to continue putting his family through that, so he elected not to continue with the appeal. It’s not like he would have gotten a non-politically correct chance the second time around. It would have been the same.
Life Lessons: It’s difficult when you feel like you get the short end of the stick in life, but the answer for Justin, just like the answer for all of us when we go through a trying time, is not bitterness or anger, but gratitude. The answer is to thank God for all of his provisions and protection and to make sure we learn what he was trying to teach us through a strenuous time.
The way Justin’s case was handled was blown out of proportion, as “Girl 1” herself mentioned in a conversation they had years later), but the reality of it—and Justin would tell you this himself—is that his own actions put him in a predicament where anyone could misconstrue and mischaracterize, and that outlook places the emphasis on personal responsibility for one’s behavior and decisions—which is always the correct perspective to have. Blaming other people or institutions for your own circumstances is a miserable road to walk down that will only turn you into more and more of a bitter, vindictive person.
You can read the extensive evidence that the news reports differed from the actual version of events, which was confirmed by “Girl 1” herself.
An issue in journalism today is that news reports regarding crime stories can have a tendency to be one-sided and based solely and uncritically on police reports—which, in this particular instance, contained discrepancies. Essentially, when you have a situation where no sexual assault (behavior against the will of another) occurred, no coercive behavior occurred, no “children” were “harmed,” and Justin was not the sole initiator, those don’t really translate well into obtaining a conviction or a salacious news story—which is likely why the police report reflected an inaccurate narrative of events and likely why the news media uncritically relayed that inaccurate narrative of events to the public.
Ironically, someone from the public noticed and left this comment on a since-removed news article.
Who are they? In the interest of privacy and respect for the current lives of their families and them, their identities have been concealed and will not be disclosed. As shown heavily throughout the legal action evidence, no animosity existed between Justin and any of the young women involved despite what the public narrative at the time suggested. None of them ever came forward to complain, report, or accuse Justin of anything, and Justin has always wished them well.
Why was their mutual interest? The public narrative at the time attempted to “creepify” everything to make the story more salacious, but the reality is far less sensationalized: the young women and Justin were compatible options because they were in the same generation years-wise, and their personalities clicked. Another factor is that many more girls in the high school age range nowadays are much older in appearance, behavior, maturity level, and life and relationship experience level than girls in the same age range were in earlier decades—with many already seeking out, being friends with, and preferring to date older individuals who are more in line with their level of sophistication.
These factors led to Justin being seen as a prospect and that, coupled with the fact that occasional subs essentially just take attendance, hang out, build relationships, and aren’t responsible for grades or seen as “authority” help to explain why it happened—especially with Justin already being friendly, outgoing, and in their same generation years-wise. There was no utilization of a “position” to coerce anything. It was simply that there was genuine, mutual interest—which is why the hypothetical prospect of dating was proposed and discussed.
Facts and Statistics: It is not uncommon to see dating and married couples with a 5-10 year or more age difference, and it is not politically correct to say, but it’s also true that for all of human history, teenagers have gotten married, had jobs, had kids and families, served in the military, been charged as adults for all types of serious crimes (e.g. individuals aged 13-17 commit 50% of all child molestations, 1/5 of all rapes, and 1/3 of all sex offenses, and the most common age that someone is charged with a sex offense is 14 years old), and have generally been regarded as young adults (e.g. the judge in Justin’s case used the term “young women,” not “child,” and the officer who initially transported Justin reassured him by saying, “Don’t worry, we know this isn’t a “child” thing”).
This is precisely why whichever “age of consent” any given state or country has arbitrarily chosen is not an automatic indicator of a person’s development or maturity. It is different from person to person—which is also why the age of consent is different all over the U.S. and the world. There is no hard and fast rule. If there was, then it stands to reason that there would be one age of consent everywhere (in the U.S., the age of consent is 16 or 17 in 42 states and 18 in 8 states). For example, the age of consent is 18 in Wisconsin, but just 30 minutes south of where the case took place, you’d be in Illinois where it’s 17.
A Real-Life Case Example: There was a a 2014 case in CA that helps to illustrate how “political correctness” has gripped our court rooms and media. In this case, a young, 8th-grade teacher had a lengthy sexual relationship with one of his students, which was obviously unacceptable, immoral, and inexcusable. The typical response ensued: he was fired, went to prison, barred from teaching, called a “monster,” forced to register on the sex offender registry despite no risk assessment, desecrated in the media, ostracized by friends, family, and the community, became unhirable, etc. The school district at the time, as expected, came out against him, denounced him, and wanted to “protect children”—the whole nine yards.
But here is where the irony lies: the family of the girl attempted to sue the school district for “negligent hiring.” They lost. They got nothing. And the reason for this is that the school district’s money and reputation were suddenly on the line…and so, that’s when the truth had to come out. The school district’s attorneys successfully displayed that the girl not only had responsibility but understood her actions and consistently sought out the situation as well—even directly lying to her parents to go and meet him at hotels, etc.
To be clear, this case is not being brought up because it is condoning staff/student relationships or “victim blaming.” The reason this case was brought up is because it is entirely illogical that political correctness has gripped our courtrooms and media so tightly that a teacher with no criminal record is a “monstrous child sex offender” with his entire life ruined in one court (criminal), but the “victim” had responsibility and the family was awarded no damages in another (civil). The truth in this teacher’s case finally came out in the civil trial. The criminal proceedings were not the truth.
The original case began in 2016. It ended in 2017, and Justin did do 9 months in jail, not prison (1 year in jail with 3 months of good behavior credit is 9 months), with work release from June 2017 to March 2018 before beginning his 3-year probation term—which he completed in March 2021. The jail time, however, was not for the charges stemming from the relationships and hanging out, but for a bail jumping charge that was added to the original case. The bail jumping charge was due to attempted communication between one of the girls (who was 19 at the time) and Justin, and that situation is covered on pg. 16 of this evidence document.
With this being Justin’s first and only involvement ever in the criminal justice system, his brief time in jail and on probation were definite learning experiences.
Jail and probation are both incredibly frustrating, terrifying, and unintentionally humorous all at the same time. It’s a different, almost surreal world unlike anything in normal society, and you are under a constant microscope. Even when you’ve done nothing wrong, there’s always a chance that something could be taken out of context—and the consequences could be severe. In some respects, it’s like walking on constant eggshells 24/7.
With that being said, however, there were many COs, POs, police officers, fellow inmates, and probationers who acted with integrity and friendliness, were compassionate and understanding, and were there to help—not harm or take advantage.
All in all, Justin utilized his time in both jail and probation to encourage those around him and be a help where he could. He did things like write a funny parody jail version of ‘Twas the Night Before Christmas” and read it to the other inmates (and gave a copy to the guards) during Christmas, he implemented “Encouragement Mondays” in his jail dorm where guys were only allowed to speak in encouraging ways to one another, he gave rides to other men on probation who didn’t have vehicles, and he would routinely try and find positive outlets for men to get plugged into, as evidenced by this thank you note from another inmate.
Questions About Justin
Justin is married and starting a family. He is involved with both his and his wife’s families, as well as at his/their church. He is also always pursuing creative endeavors, whether that’s acting, songwriting, audio/video production, comedy, and so forth. Like everyone else in the case, he has long moved on, and it ultimately isn’t a part of who he is in any way. You can find out more about him on his website.
You can read his thoughts, explanation, apology, and ideas for positive change here.
You can reach out to Justin via the contact form on his website.
It sounds cliché, but you would be surprised what you can accomplish when you don’t give up! When Justin first set out to begin his attempts, he read that there is only a 1% chance that a news outlet will remove an article, and everyone he spoke with told him that he was wasting his time.
It took a lot of prayer, diligence, constant following-up, patience (sometimes months of waiting and re-touching base over and over) humanizing himself, having his homework done regarding the actual facts and evidence of the case, and a soft approach to give himself the best chance of removal. By God’s grace, many were touched by Justin’s story and felt as though helping was the right thing to do. He is forever grateful for those individuals.
There are still those few remaining, but Justin will stay diligent and dedicated in his efforts for the sake of his and his current and future family’s lives. Ironically, many of the 17 who have already removed their content surrounding his case had “no takedown” policies in place and still eventually opted to do remove. There was even one who was a hard “no” for months and then abruptly changed stances. Never give up!
The “system” is not is designed to be favorable towards “convicts,” so, typically, the only way anyone can get a conviction expunged entirely is if they were a minor when it occurred and if it was a misdemeanor offense—and even then it can sometimes be difficult to impossible.
The greater moral here is the the world seems to like to permanently brand people for their mistakes. In fact, we all do this because it provides us with an excuse to point fingers at someone else, thereby fooling ourselves that we don’t have to be accountable for our own sin when the irony is that’s all we will be accountable for in the very end. Praise God, though, that he forgives and wipes us clean if we come to him in repentance! Psalm 103:12 says, “as far as the east is from the west, so far has he removed our transgressions from us.”
Apologize and ask forgiveness from the world, and the world will heap more shame onto your head. Apologize and ask forgiveness from God, and God will forgive you, wipe you clean, and give you a fresh start! Amen for that. Psalm 27:1 – “The LORD is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear? The LORD is the stronghold of my life; of whom shall I be afraid?”
Preface: When people think of the “sex offender registry,” they tend to think of dramatized episodes of “Law & Order” or irrationally envision the “boogeyman” lurking around every corner. The reality, however, is it’s a bloated burden on taxpayer money that isn’t full of “child predators,” keeps no one safe, and exists only for politicians to pander votes in the imaginary name of “public safety.” No effort is made to decipher who could actually potentially be dangerous and who not—everyone is just lumped together, which is a constitutional violation of due process. The statistical reality is a minor is exponentially more likely to end up on the registry themselves than be victimized by someone on it.
The registry does not govern the lives of those on it: Many people also misunderstand and think the registry is some sort of criminal sentence. It is not. It is merely a default civil list compilation and nothing more. It does not govern the lives of those on it other than them having to confirm their name and address once a year. It is portrayed in the media as being more significant than it really is.
15 years, but is currently challenging that: As a generic requirement of the charges, Justin was forced to comply and register for a period of 15 years (more serious cases are typically assigned a lifetime registration) despite completing his court-appointed probation long ago. He is currently working on a petition and potentially legal action to be removed from it on the grounds that he has never once been a documented risk or danger to anyone. For instance, he worked with small children in church and at-risk youths with Youth for Christ for many years without incident—with many of the parents voicing their support for him when the case occurred. He also chose to have a professional evaluation done in 2016 to confirm that he isn’t, nor has he ever been a danger—which is what the psychologist concluded.
Court cases deeming the registry unconstitutional: There have been many court cases where an individual who has already completed their sentence successfully challenged their registry status on the basis that they were put on by default with no actual risk assessment done, without ever having been documented as a risk to anyone, and with no opportunity for review, which all violate the “Due Process” clause (Fourteenth Amendment) and the “Cruel and Unusual Punishment” clause (Eighth Amendment) of the Constitution. Contrary to the sensationalism you see on TV and in news media, “sex offenses,” (which are always lumped together but actually represent a wide severity spectrum), have the lowest recidivism rate of any crime besides murder.
You can view an extensive database of cases that address various aspects of the registry being unconstitutional and the fact that it’s statistically ineffective (or a quick Google search of “sex offender registry unconstitutional” will yield a number of results). These are a few examples:
- Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. George Torsilieri. In Pennsylvania, Judge Allison Bell Royer ruled that the registry violates the Constitution because it employs an irrebuttable presumption that all “sex offenders,” regardless of their personal characteristics and circumstances, have a high risk of reoffending sexually. That presumption is not constitutional, the Court concluded, because it is empirically false. The vast majority of “sex offenders” do not reoffend sexually, only 16% are actually “pedophiles,” and the registry does not take into account the vast difference in degree of seriousness amongst the circumstances of each individual case (i.e., a 25 year old and a 17 year old who are dating is much different than a 50 year old and an 8 year old predatory relationship).
- Meredith v. Stein. In North Carolina, Judge Terrence W. Boyle appropriately stated, “Where there is no process, there can be no due process.”
- State v. Jendusa. In Wisconsin, the Department of Corrections was ruled against for potentially exaggerating sex offense recidivism rates.
- Does v. Whitmer. In Michigan, the registry has repeatedly been found to be unconstitutional. The legislation there even drafted a new version of it with changes because of those rulings, but it is once again being challenged as unconstitutional because the new legislation was just a re-packaging of the first.
- John Doe v. Alaska. In Alaska, the Supreme Court acknowledged the unconstitutional, punitive nature of the registry and ruled that it is excessive to the extent that it applies to those who do not present a danger of committing new offenses. The Court stated that “without the likelihood that someone will commit new sex offenses, there is no compelling government interest in requiring them to comply.
General Questions
Historical Record. Provided by the JBCHP©, it’s a factual historical record of Justin Beaton’s 2016 court case and the legal action that followed regarding news articles containing inaccurate narratives. It is not meant to point fingers, absolve blame, or relive the past, nor is it a crusade to “right a wrong.” It is simply an educational archive for anyone interested in learning the facts about the now-long-ago case.
Encouragement to Others. Justin would like his experiences to be an encouragement to others. We all make mistakes and sin, but John 3:16 is what counts: “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” That’s why Justin’s ultimate goal and hope for each person is to understand The Gospel and be saved. Flavor-of-the-day gossip, news stories, and life circumstances change seemingly by the minute in our society, but when we die, it will only be us and our lives standing before God.
As a society, we need to do a whole lot less condemning of others and a whole lot more self-examining (Matthew 7:3, John 8:7). And if you’re struggling or going through something hard in your life, Justin wants you to know that God loves you and is there for you. There is also help and encouragement available from people who care. You are not alone in whatever you’re going through!
Ultimately, the answer is both yes and no. Romans 3:23 says “…for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God…” Every human being is “corrupt,” and so, yes, sinful human beings, like any other industry, are in positions within the criminal justice system. Without commenting on individual officials within it, it is sufficient to say that the issue with “the system” is its perceived “winning at all costs” model. This sometimes tunnel-vision approach leads to people not necessarily always receiving a “fair shake.” Basically, do your best not to get involved with the criminal justice system!
Yes, you should trust the police. However, if you’re suspected of, being investigated for, or being charged with a crime, you can count on a police officer caring more about their job and getting home to their family than they do you (which they should). Most cops do their jobs with honor, compassion, fairness, and integrity, but, like any profession, of course, that isn’t always the case. As a general rule, however, you can definitely trust, support, and pray for your local law enforcement. They would even appreciate you saying hello or waving to them while they’re on duty.
A more significant issue is that trusting humans (including yourself) or “the world” over trusting God will always lead one astray.
• Proverbs 2:6 – “For the Lord gives wisdom; from his mouth come knowledge and understanding…”
• Proverbs 3:5-6 – “Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways submit to him, and he will make your paths straight.”
_______________________________
With that being said, the perceived reliability of the media has declined exponentially in recent years:
• This Gallup poll reveals that a mere 34% of Americans believe the media to be trustworthy.
• This article from Fortune describes how a staggering 50% of all Americans believe that media outlets deliberately mislead them.
And what would be the reason for this? These quotes by two prominent journalists shed light on the reasons why:
“Many sites, including mainstream sites, have abandoned traditional journalistic practices and standards in search of more and more “eyeballs. Objectivity, once the gold standard of reporting, is now often seen as old-fashioned, a ratings loser. When success is measured mainly in terms of “clicks,” the outrageous beats the sober just about every time.”
— Judith Miller, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist while at The New York Times and former Editor of City Journal
“You often hear people say the news is full of lies. But most of the time that’s not exactly right. Much of what you see on television or read in The New York Times is in fact true in the literal sense. It could pass one of the media’s own “fact checks.” Lawyers would be willing to sign off on it. In fact, they may have. But that doesn’t make it true. It’s not true. At the most basic level, the news you consume is a lie. A lie of the stealthiest and most insidious kind. Facts have been withheld on purpose, along with proportion and perspective. You are being manipulated.”
— Tucker Carlson, highest rated, most-watched cable news host of all time.
Regarding any news source, and no matter the political persuasion, discernment should always be used. You certainly don’t have to be paranoid that all of the media is out to deceive you 24/7, but if it sounds sensationalized, one-sided, or if it seems as though the whole story isn’t being told, then that’s probably “fake news”—which has sadly become more and more commonplace nowadays. Mark Twain’s words from long ago seem to still resonate today: “If you don’t read the newspaper, you’re uninformed. If you read the newspaper, you’re misinformed.”
How Common: In high schools involving young staff members, situations like Justin’s could potentially be more common than people think. For example, Justin, and other staff and students, were personally aware of other staff-student relationship situations while he was at the schools—with one leading to marriage and a family.
The reason why it’s hard to know is the vast majority of these relationships are kept secret because the individuals involved don’t want it to get blown out of proportion or treated irrationally and so they keep it quiet. That’s precisely why Justin created an outline for a school social boundaries orientation video and has pitched it to school districts. He feels strongly that the measures he introduces in the orientation video will curtail and ultimately prevent these sorts of relationships indefinitely.
High Schools Nowadays: Many more girls in the high school age range nowadays are much older in appearance, maturity level, and life and relationship experience level than girls in the same age range were in earlier decades—with many seeking out, being friends with, and preferring to date older individuals who are more in line with their level of sophistication. You could take one look at current social media sites, for example, and this reality will immediately become apparent. The way cases like these are typically handled does not genuinely consider any of this, however, and that’s precisely why schools need to be unwavering in their prevention measures.
This letter from the female private investigator involved with the media legal action does a good job of bringing perspective to the realities of young adult girls and high school dynamics.
First and foremost, do not, under any circumstance, talk to or say anything to police. They are not your enemy, but if you’re under investigation for a crime, they are there to do a job. Call a lawyer immediately, either private or public defender, and be prepared to do whatever they instruct you to do.
It will be a wild ride, but you will get through it if you keep calm, and trust God. If you’ve done wrong, confess it to God and repent, and if you have to serve any sort of punishment, do so respectfully, cheerfully, and make everyone you meet wish every “criminal” they have to deal with was just as pleasant and easy to manage as you are. Use your situation to help and encourage others, not grow angry and bitter.
Any legal action that’s based on greed, revenge, spite, money, attention, vindictiveness, or shame should be avoided. It is sometimes appropriate, however, to consider legal action when an individual’s rights are not being protected. This article at GotQuestions gives a well-reasoned answer to the question.
Sadly, it seems that way because it is. But that’s not a doom and gloom answer at all! It’s important to remember that if you’re looking to the world for comfort and peace, you will never find it because it isn’t there, but true comfort and everlasting peace are possible! The truth is that true comfort and true peace can only be found when your trust is in God—the one who made you, loves you, and fully understands you!
These resources for further reading are highly encouraged:
• What is the peace of God, and how can I experience it? | GotQuestions.org
• What does the Bible say about inner peace? | GotQuestions.org
• What does it mean to have peace with God? | GotQuestions.org
Questions About the Case
Why No Trial: Fairly or unfairly, once a narrative gets crafted about a defendant, it is very difficult to come out from underneath it. By the time the facts emerged regarding the police report discrepancies, the case was already significantly far along. Had the police report reflected the actual narrative of events from the very beginning, Justin’s attorney would have likely filed to have the charges dismissed due to lack of evidence. However, the totality of the evidence supporting the correct narrative of events wasn’t uncovered until the case was significantly far along. There was a point where Justin’s attorney planned on having his private investigator pursue it, but because of the increasing circus in the public narrative at the time, as well as a few other factors, Justin’s attorney was apprehensive to continue pursuing it.
Justin’s attorney wanted to protect him as best he could; and knowing that provoking an “accepted” public narrative could be a dangerous proposition, he elected to “play it safe” and acquiesce to get the best deal for Justin despite knowing the narrative of events disseminated in public at the time were not accurate. This may seem like a poor decision or not aggressive enough, but when there’s an “accepted” public narrative piled on against a defendant, it is very difficult to challenge that in the heat of the moment. Overall, it appears that the investigation was conducted through a lens of presupposition about Justin, and the reports were crafted in a way that reflected that presumption.
Appeal Exploration: Justin and his family did attempt to appeal—and he did have grounds to do so based on a defective plea—but since the “system” is designed to stick people with convictions and make it very difficult to get rid of them, an appeal would have only brought the entire process back to square one, not thrown it out completely. At that point, with the constant piling on of the inaccurate public narrative in court and in sensationalized news coverage, Justin understandably decided that he didn’t want to continue putting his family through that, so he elected not to continue with the appeal. It’s not like he would have gotten a non-politically correct chance the second time around. It would have been the same.
Life Lessons: It’s difficult when you feel like you get the short end of the stick in life, but the answer for Justin, just like the answer for all of us when we go through a trying time, is not bitterness or anger, but gratitude. The answer is to thank God for all of his provisions and protection and to make sure we learn what he was trying to teach us through a strenuous time.
The way Justin’s case was handled was blown out of proportion, as “Girl 1” herself mentioned in a conversation they had years later), but the reality of it—and Justin would tell you this himself—is that his own actions put him in a predicament where anyone could misconstrue and mischaracterize, and that outlook places the emphasis on personal responsibility for one’s behavior and decisions—which is always the correct perspective to have. Blaming other people or institutions for your own circumstances is a miserable road to walk down that will only turn you into more and more of a bitter, vindictive person.
You can read the extensive evidence that the news reports differed from the actual version of events, which was confirmed by “Girl 1” herself.
An issue in journalism today is that news reports regarding crime stories can have a tendency to be one-sided and based solely and uncritically on police reports—which, in this particular instance, contained discrepancies. Essentially, when you have a situation where no sexual assault (behavior against the will of another) occurred, no coercive behavior occurred, no “children” were “harmed,” and Justin was not the sole initiator, those don’t really translate well into obtaining a conviction or a salacious news story—which is likely why the police report reflected an inaccurate narrative of events and likely why the news media uncritically relayed that inaccurate narrative of events to the public.
Ironically, someone from the public noticed and left this comment on a since-removed news article.
Who are they? In the interest of privacy and respect for the current lives of their families and them, their identities have been concealed and will not be disclosed. As shown heavily throughout the legal action evidence, no animosity existed between Justin and any of the young women involved despite what the public narrative at the time suggested. None of them ever came forward to complain, report, or accuse Justin of anything, and Justin has always wished them well.
Why was their mutual interest? The public narrative at the time attempted to “creepify” everything to make the story more salacious, but the reality is far less sensationalized: the young women and Justin were compatible options because they were in the same generation years-wise, and their personalities clicked. Another factor is that many more girls in the high school age range nowadays are much older in appearance, behavior, maturity level, and life and relationship experience level than girls in the same age range were in earlier decades—with many already seeking out, being friends with, and preferring to date older individuals who are more in line with their level of sophistication.
These factors led to Justin being seen as a prospect and that, coupled with the fact that occasional subs essentially just take attendance, hang out, build relationships, and aren’t responsible for grades or seen as “authority” help to explain why it happened—especially with Justin already being friendly, outgoing, and in their same generation years-wise. There was no utilization of a “position” to coerce anything. It was simply that there was genuine, mutual interest—which is why the hypothetical prospect of dating was proposed and discussed.
Facts and Statistics: It is not uncommon to see dating and married couples with a 5-10 year or more age difference, and it is not politically correct to say, but it’s also true that for all of human history, teenagers have gotten married, had jobs, had kids and families, served in the military, been charged as adults for all types of serious crimes (e.g. individuals aged 13-17 commit 50% of all child molestations, 1/5 of all rapes, and 1/3 of all sex offenses, and the most common age that someone is charged with a sex offense is 14 years old), and have generally been regarded as young adults (e.g. the judge in Justin’s case used the term “young women,” not “child,” and the officer who initially transported Justin reassured him by saying, “Don’t worry, we know this isn’t a “child” thing”).
This is precisely why whichever “age of consent” any given state or country has arbitrarily chosen is not an automatic indicator of a person’s development or maturity. It is different from person to person—which is also why the age of consent is different all over the U.S. and the world. There is no hard and fast rule. If there was, then it stands to reason that there would be one age of consent everywhere (in the U.S., the age of consent is 16 or 17 in 42 states and 18 in 8 states). For example, the age of consent is 18 in Wisconsin, but just 30 minutes south of where the case took place, you’d be in Illinois where it’s 17.
A Real-Life Case Example: There was a a 2014 case in CA that helps to illustrate how “political correctness” has gripped our court rooms and media. In this case, a young, 8th-grade teacher had a lengthy sexual relationship with one of his students, which was obviously unacceptable, immoral, and inexcusable. The typical response ensued: he was fired, went to prison, barred from teaching, called a “monster,” forced to register on the sex offender registry despite no risk assessment, desecrated in the media, ostracized by friends, family, and the community, became unhirable, etc. The school district at the time, as expected, came out against him, denounced him, and wanted to “protect children”—the whole nine yards.
But here is where the irony lies: the family of the girl attempted to sue the school district for “negligent hiring.” They lost. They got nothing. And the reason for this is that the school district’s money and reputation were suddenly on the line…and so, that’s when the truth had to come out. The school district’s attorneys successfully displayed that the girl not only had responsibility but understood her actions and consistently sought out the situation as well—even directly lying to her parents to go and meet him at hotels, etc.
To be clear, this case is not being brought up because it is condoning staff/student relationships or “victim blaming.” The reason this case was brought up is because it is entirely illogical that political correctness has gripped our courtrooms and media so tightly that a teacher with no criminal record is a “monstrous child sex offender” with his entire life ruined in one court (criminal), but the “victim” had responsibility and the family was awarded no damages in another (civil). The truth in this teacher’s case finally came out in the civil trial. The criminal proceedings were not the truth.
The original case began in 2016. It ended in 2017, and Justin did do 9 months in jail, not prison (1 year in jail with 3 months of good behavior credit is 9 months), with work release from June 2017 to March 2018 before beginning his 3-year probation term—which he completed in March 2021. The jail time, however, was not for the charges stemming from the relationships and hanging out, but for a bail jumping charge that was added to the original case. The bail jumping charge was due to attempted communication between one of the girls (who was 19 at the time) and Justin, and that situation is covered on pg. 16 of this evidence document.
With this being Justin’s first and only involvement ever in the criminal justice system, his brief time in jail and on probation were definite learning experiences.
Jail and probation are both incredibly frustrating, terrifying, and unintentionally humorous all at the same time. It’s a different, almost surreal world unlike anything in normal society, and you are under a constant microscope. Even when you’ve done nothing wrong, there’s always a chance that something could be taken out of context—and the consequences could be severe. In some respects, it’s like walking on constant eggshells 24/7.
With that being said, however, there were many COs, POs, police officers, fellow inmates, and probationers who acted with integrity and friendliness, were compassionate and understanding, and were there to help—not harm or take advantage.
All in all, Justin utilized his time in both jail and probation to encourage those around him and be a help where he could. He did things like write a funny parody jail version of ‘Twas the Night Before Christmas” and read it to the other inmates (and gave a copy to the guards) during Christmas, he implemented “Encouragement Mondays” in his jail dorm where guys were only allowed to speak in encouraging ways to one another, he gave rides to other men on probation who didn’t have vehicles, and he would routinely try and find positive outlets for men to get plugged into, as evidenced by this thank you note from another inmate.
Questions About Justin
Justin is married and starting a family. He is involved with both his and his wife’s families, as well as at his/their church. He is also always pursuing creative endeavors, whether that’s acting, songwriting, audio/video production, comedy, and so forth. Like everyone else in the case, he has long moved on, and it ultimately isn’t a part of who he is in any way. You can find out more about him on his website.
You can read his thoughts, explanation, apology, and ideas for positive change here.
You can reach out to Justin via the contact form on his website.
It sounds cliché, but you would be surprised what you can accomplish when you don’t give up! When Justin first set out to begin his attempts, he read that there is only a 1% chance that a news outlet will remove an article, and everyone he spoke with told him that he was wasting his time.
It took a lot of prayer, diligence, constant following-up, patience (sometimes months of waiting and re-touching base over and over) humanizing himself, having his homework done regarding the actual facts and evidence of the case, and a soft approach to give himself the best chance of removal. By God’s grace, many were touched by Justin’s story and felt as though helping was the right thing to do. He is forever grateful for those individuals.
There are still those few remaining, but Justin will stay diligent and dedicated in his efforts for the sake of his and his current and future family’s lives. Ironically, many of the 17 who have already removed their content surrounding his case had “no takedown” policies in place and still eventually opted to do remove. There was even one who was a hard “no” for months and then abruptly changed stances. Never give up!
The “system” is not is designed to be favorable towards “convicts,” so, typically, the only way anyone can get a conviction expunged entirely is if they were a minor when it occurred and if it was a misdemeanor offense—and even then it can sometimes be difficult to impossible.
The greater moral here is the the world seems to like to permanently brand people for their mistakes. In fact, we all do this because it provides us with an excuse to point fingers at someone else, thereby fooling ourselves that we don’t have to be accountable for our own sin when the irony is that’s all we will be accountable for in the very end. Praise God, though, that he forgives and wipes us clean if we come to him in repentance! Psalm 103:12 says, “as far as the east is from the west, so far has he removed our transgressions from us.”
Apologize and ask forgiveness from the world, and the world will heap more shame onto your head. Apologize and ask forgiveness from God, and God will forgive you, wipe you clean, and give you a fresh start! Amen for that. Psalm 27:1 – “The LORD is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear? The LORD is the stronghold of my life; of whom shall I be afraid?”
Preface: When people think of the “sex offender registry,” they tend to think of dramatized episodes of “Law & Order” or irrationally envision the “boogeyman” lurking around every corner. The reality, however, is it’s a bloated burden on taxpayer money that isn’t full of “child predators,” keeps no one safe, and exists only for politicians to pander votes in the imaginary name of “public safety.” No effort is made to decipher who could actually potentially be dangerous and who not—everyone is just lumped together, which is a constitutional violation of due process. The statistical reality is a minor is exponentially more likely to end up on the registry themselves than be victimized by someone on it.
The registry does not govern the lives of those on it: Many people also misunderstand and think the registry is some sort of criminal sentence. It is not. It is merely a default civil list compilation and nothing more. It does not govern the lives of those on it other than them having to confirm their name and address once a year. It is portrayed in the media as being more significant than it really is.
15 years, but is currently challenging that: As a generic requirement of the charges, Justin was forced to comply and register for a period of 15 years (more serious cases are typically assigned a lifetime registration) despite completing his court-appointed probation long ago. He is currently working on a petition and potentially legal action to be removed from it on the grounds that he has never once been a documented risk or danger to anyone. For instance, he worked with small children in church and at-risk youths with Youth for Christ for many years without incident—with many of the parents voicing their support for him when the case occurred. He also chose to have a professional evaluation done in 2016 to confirm that he isn’t, nor has he ever been a danger—which is what the psychologist concluded.
Court cases deeming the registry unconstitutional: There have been many court cases where an individual who has already completed their sentence successfully challenged their registry status on the basis that they were put on by default with no actual risk assessment done, without ever having been documented as a risk to anyone, and with no opportunity for review, which all violate the “Due Process” clause (Fourteenth Amendment) and the “Cruel and Unusual Punishment” clause (Eighth Amendment) of the Constitution. Contrary to the sensationalism you see on TV and in news media, “sex offenses,” (which are always lumped together but actually represent a wide severity spectrum), have the lowest recidivism rate of any crime besides murder.
You can view an extensive database of cases that address various aspects of the registry being unconstitutional and the fact that it’s statistically ineffective (or a quick Google search of “sex offender registry unconstitutional” will yield a number of results). These are a few examples:
- Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. George Torsilieri. In Pennsylvania, Judge Allison Bell Royer ruled that the registry violates the Constitution because it employs an irrebuttable presumption that all “sex offenders,” regardless of their personal characteristics and circumstances, have a high risk of reoffending sexually. That presumption is not constitutional, the Court concluded, because it is empirically false. The vast majority of “sex offenders” do not reoffend sexually, only 16% are actually “pedophiles,” and the registry does not take into account the vast difference in degree of seriousness amongst the circumstances of each individual case (i.e., a 25 year old and a 17 year old who are dating is much different than a 50 year old and an 8 year old predatory relationship).
- Meredith v. Stein. In North Carolina, Judge Terrence W. Boyle appropriately stated, “Where there is no process, there can be no due process.”
- State v. Jendusa. In Wisconsin, the Department of Corrections was ruled against for potentially exaggerating sex offense recidivism rates.
- Does v. Whitmer. In Michigan, the registry has repeatedly been found to be unconstitutional. The legislation there even drafted a new version of it with changes because of those rulings, but it is once again being challenged as unconstitutional because the new legislation was just a re-packaging of the first.
- John Doe v. Alaska. In Alaska, the Supreme Court acknowledged the unconstitutional, punitive nature of the registry and ruled that it is excessive to the extent that it applies to those who do not present a danger of committing new offenses. The Court stated that “without the likelihood that someone will commit new sex offenses, there is no compelling government interest in requiring them to comply.
____________________________
