Victim in Montgomery County HIV case: ‘I just froze.’

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 01, 2015 11:06 PM GMT
    I've been watching this case for a few weeks. It's interesting for several reasons. They were heterosexuals, they had consensual sex, the man was HIV Undetectable. he did not use a condom. No HIV transmission occurred.

    "The HIV-related counts, which make it illegal to “knowingly transfer or attempt to transfer” HIV to another person, were dropped."

    It was Quirk, the judge, who had the final word, telling Cleaves he didn’t have the right to withhold his HIV-positive status from women before they made the decision to have sex with him. Cleaves should know about such fear. “You have had the personal, in-your-body knowledge of what pain that might inflict,” he said.

    This is the part where I think he deserves the 18 month sentence: "Then, after he was arrested and released from jail pending further hearings, he tried to get around court-ordered rules that he stay away from women, according to prosecutors, by employing a technical distinction of trying to hook up with a transgender individual."

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 01, 2015 11:28 PM GMT
    I had a problem with the original March 10, 2015 Post article, so I wrote to the journalist on the 15th. I was glad to see he included the DOJ report that I and his lawyer mentioned in the last report.

    I think he actually paid attention to the "Reporting on People with HIV and AIDS"! He refrained from using "exposing" them to HIV (see link at bottom).

    When is the media, especially the POST, going to change it's HIV reporting?

    Department of Justice 2014
    Best Practices Guide to Reform HIV
    -Specific Criminal Laws to Align with Scientifically-Supported Factors
    "Most of these laws do not account for actual scientifically-supported level of risk by type of activities engaged in or risk reduction measures undertaken. As a result, many of these state laws criminalize behaviors that the CDC regards as posing either no or negligible risk for HIV transmission even in the absence of risk reduction measures.
    2 The majority were passed before the development of anti retroviral therapy (“ART”), which the CDC acknowledges can reduce the risk of HIV transmission by up to 96%.
    3 Most of these laws do not, therefore, account for the use of ART, condoms, or pre exposure prophylaxis.
    The Article encourages states to use scientific findings to, “re-examine [these] laws, assess the laws’ alignment with current evidence regarding HIV transmission risk, and consider whether the laws are the best vehicle to achieve their intended purposes.”

    IN EVERY study: The Swiss Study, HPTN-052, The Partners Study, the ACON Study, etc. etc. there have been exactly ZERO cases of HIV transmission from a clinically Undetectable person.

    ACON 2014
    There are now at least five strategies that reasonably constitute‘safe sex’,provided that certain parameters are met.
    They are:
    1.The use of Condoms during casual encounters between men of unknown or discordant serostatus.
    2.HIV negative men taking effective pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP).
    3.Men living with HIV who only have sex without condoms when they have a sustained undetectable viral load (UVL) and in the absence of sexually transmissible infections (STIs).
    4. Effective use of serosorting between HIV positive men.
    5. Effective negotiated safety agreements.

    The criminalization of HIV is counter productive. It discourage people from being tested. If you don't know you are positive you can't be accused of "knowingly" passing HIV.