Editor’s note:  Boone, 31,  has two days ago been found guilty of the attempted murder of three men, three counts of aggravated sexual assault and three counts of administering a noxious substance (ie, his semen). You can read about the controversial case here.

This article written by Michael Burtch for PositiveLite.com originally appeared on PositiveLite.com on August 10, 2011.

The Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network provided the following comment this week:  "The Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network is not involved in the criminal case decided today in Ottawa and will not offer comment on the specific facts, legal arguments and resulting sentence.

In general, the Legal Network opposes criminal charges for HIV non-disclosure in cases of otherwise consensual sex, because an overly broad use of the criminal law does more harm than good. We recognize that criminal charges may be warranted in limited circumstances such as those rare occasions where an individual has a malicious intent to infect someone and there is a scientifically significant risk of transmission. 

We oppose charges for non-disclosure in cases of oral sex, where the science confirms that the risk of transmission is approaching zero. We also oppose charges in cases where people practice safer sex (e.g., use condoms) or have a low viral load, again because the risks of transmission are not scientifically significant enough to justify criminal prosecution."

As to further further reaction, The AIDS Committee of Ottawa has provided a statement which you can read following this interview.

***************

Michael Burtch: On April 28th I conducted an interview with Steven Boone at the Maplehurst Correctional Facility. Steven had asked that I use my pulpit as a blogger for PositiveLite.com to share his experiences about being behind bars and being charged under the criminalisation of HIV non-disclosure We agreed that questions pertaining to the specifics of his trial were off limits, and that the interview would not be posted until the conclusion of his preliminary trail on July 14th . On that date, Steven made national headlines when judge David Wake dropped all attempted murder charges again him.  He will stand trial for 21 other charges in early 2012. 

(The story "HIV infection not a death sentence" was covered in PostiveLite here. )

Michael Burtch: Can you describe your arrest? What happened?

Steven Boone: I was at a friends house just chilling when I received a phone call around midnight on May 5th/6th, 2010. The call showed up as a Private Number, it was Sergeant McGetrick of the Ottawa Police Services. She explained to me that she needed to speak to me, I asked if it could wait until the next day and she said that it couldn’t wait. I became concerned and asked her point blank if I was under arrest and she said no, she just wanted to talk, then I would be free to go. We arranged to meet at a Tim Hortons at 12:30am. I had left my car at home, so my friend drove me to the Tim Hortons. When we got there, there was no sign of the Police, so we decided to go through the drive thru and get Iced Caps. By the time we got to the window, we were surrounded by a SWAT team and I was arrested.

MB: You’ve now been in jail longer than you’ve been HIV+. Can you tell me a bit about what life behind bars has been like for you over the last 12 months?

SB: It’s been difficult. Most of the people I meet are career criminals, drug addicts, and violent offenders, since I’m none of these, and I don’t consider myself a criminal, I don’t really feel that I fit in with those around me. I’m forced to associate with people I would not usually associate with, which causes me great anxiety on a daily basis. The food served is below standards and the jail guards treat inmates like we’re cattle. This experience has been the most humiliating and degrading experience of my life.

MB: You’ve had your name, picture, sexuality, and your HIV status released by the Ottawa Police to the media. How has that impacted your experience behind bars while you await trial?

SB: It has seriously impacted my experience behind bars because I have experienced homophobia, and discrimination in relation to my HIV status, by both fellow inmates, as well as jail staff, as a result. I also spent several months in segregation as a result of the publicity in my case. I’ve also suffered from verbal death threats, physical assaults, and sexual abuse, all unprovoked, by other inmates and even corrections staff. Despite being in “Protective Custody” I haven’t felt very protected. By releasing  my name, picture, sexuality, and HIV status, the Ottawa Police put my life in unnecessary danger and caused many dangerous events to take place. Because of this, I’ve had to be moved to Maplehurst, a jail 6 hours from Ottawa, in Milton, Ontario where I can maintain a low profile and remain safe. This was something I had to request.

MB: What’s been the impact on your friends and family since the release of the details concerning your charges?

SB: It’s been difficult especially for my family, mostly because I’m still incarcerated and because of all the publicity. Everyone in my family has been very supportive. My Mom tries to make it to my court appearances as often as possible, as do my sisters. When I’m in Ottawa, they all try to visit as much as possible, unfortunately, inmates are only allowed two visits per week. Initially, the Ottawa Carleton Detention Centre was often turning away my family and friends who would try to visit. My Mom, who would drive an hour to see me each time, was especially upset by this. Another issue is that inmates are only allowed to make collect calls, which generally causes outrageous phone bills for family members who have landline telephones (as cell phones do not accept collect calls).

MB: I was shocked when you told me that Public Health served you with a Section 22 after you were already incarcerated. What kind of support are you getting around your HIV status from behind bars, agency or otherwise?

SB: As you know Michael, I’m in regular contact with the AIDS Committee of Ottawa and the staff there have been really supportive since my arrest. I have also been receiving support from PASAN (Prisoners HIV/AIDS Support Action Network) surrounding my HIV status. I have a case worker with PASAN named Mooky, whom I speak to over the phone on a regular basis and comes to visit me at the jail whoever possible. PASAN is a great resource for inmates living with HIV, and they even put out a newsletter called ‘Cell Count’ for inmates. ‘Cell Count’ brings HIV/AIDS awareness to the prison population, a well as prisoner rights information, inmates are encouraged to submit artwork, poems, and their own thoughts, there’s also a pen pal section. Anyone can check out the PASAN website at www.pasan.org .

MB: You started HIV medication while imprisoned. Have you been regularly receiving your doses? Have you been experiencing any side effects?

SB: Yes, I started HIV medication in September 2010 after asking for several months to be placed on them. I’m only actually taking one pill a day, it’s called Atripla. The only side effect I’ve experienced is vivid dreams [but] my HIV specialist says [I’ve reacted] very well to the medication, my viral load is now undetectable I am very happy to report. There have been a couple of instances while being transferred back to Ottawa where I was denied my HIV meds. I’ve brought this up with Mooky, and he assures me that the next time I am transferred, he will make sure it doesn’t happen again.

**************************

Statement from the AIDS Committee of Ottawa.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

November 1, 2012 - Since 1985 the AIDS Committee of Ottawa (ACO) has provided support, prevention, education and outreach services from an integrated anti-racism anti-oppression social justice framework that promotes the holistic wellbeing of those living with, affected by, impacted by and at risk of HIV/AIDS in Ottawa. Given these values, ACO would like to express its discontent and trepidation given the guilty verdicts of Steven Boone on October 31, 2012.

Yesterday’s verdicts go beyond Steven Boone, as it sets an unwarranted precedent for all people living with HIV/AIDS. The severity of the charges against Mr. Boone was far too great as HIV is not the threat it once was. An AIDS diagnosis in Canada today is rare and highly treatable. Thanks to advancements in pharmaceuticals and medical treatment, PHAs (people living with HIV/AIDS) are now able to lead long, healthy, and productive lives. Yesterday’s verdicts contradict medical science and merely promote fear and hatred. These verdicts have painted Steven Boone, and peripherally all PHAs, as malicious and toxic.

These verdicts will aid to increase rates of HIV in Canada as talking about sex goes back into the closet and stigma against people living with HIV/AIDS continues to thrive. Today, 30% of people living with HIV in Canada are not aware of their status. The fear these verdicts perpetuates will discourage individuals from accessing sexual health testing and treatment. Consequently, the demonization of people living with HIV as vectors of infection only hinders HIV education and prevention programs.

ACO cannot ignore the homophobia and sex negativity that plays into this case. This case depicts the continual targeting of PHAs seen through disproportionately high conviction rates in HIV non-disclosure cases compared to considerably lower conviction rates in other sexual assault cases. This trial will only act to fuel the stigma associated with HIV/AIDS. In an ideal world, we would all be able to talk about sex and our sexual health openly and honestly, and negotiate safer sex. However, we live in a world where disclosing one’s HIV status means one is met with physical violence, stigma, and criminalization.

These verdicts, in conjunction with the Supreme Court of Canada’s recent ruling on HIV non-disclosure, has unraveled decades of work done in HIV prevention and education. Furthermore, expecting the law to replace each of our responsibility to protect ourselves and our partners is flawed logic.  HIV is a medical issue, not a legal one and Canadian law is not a replacement for a condom. The spectacle of the court case and the Crown’s arguments have provided citizens with faulty facts regarding HIV transmission and ignored the complex realities PHAs face each and every day. These verdicts are nothing to be celebrated. No one has “won”. Criminalization is not the answer.

“…’I’ll be judge, I’ll be jury’ said cunning old Fury,

‘I’ll try the whole cause and condemn you to death.’”

Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland 

The recent Supreme Court of Canada decision seems to have everyone reeling. On the one hand, they made a decision, which is a good thing. On the other hand, the decision has too many grey areas and we’re not all comfortable with that. 

In talking with a sexual partner who is aware of my status, he supported the view that I am, albeit unfortunately, responsible to protect him from me. I pointed out, yet again, that we must all of us assume that our sexual partners have something we don’t want to get and that we all have something we don’t want to transmit. In my mind this includes all sexually transmitted infections, not just HIV. We used to say that in the 1980s, but I don’t hear it much anymore. 

A friend on Facebook, told me she had posted a comment on an editorial in the Globe & Mail. I started reading the comments and quickly had to stop. The vitriol spewed from the readers was more than I could handle and I realized that in the court of public opinion, we are still considered the vectors of disease and I suspect many would love to see us all sent to the leper island – thereby keeping safe the innocent lambs who refuse to take responsibility for their personal behavioural choices. 

I’m torn between the agency-based argument that we’ve been shuffled a step backward and my own internal view that in fact I am responsible for keeping HIV away from my sexual partners. I am responsible – but that does not negate the responsibility of others. 

Perhaps there’s a little of the Nanny State living in this twisted view. We must all be protected from that which might harm us: we are not responsible, others are. But that holds as well for those of us living with HIV. We wish to remain blameless and innocent in the potential transmission of the virus. And we are not. And neither are others. 

Most people don’t understand what safer sex is. Perhaps we dropped the ball on that one after the meds improved. We saw treatment as a panacea for education. We started to get our lives back and the AIDS industry shifted it’s focus away from sex and toward needles. Education about safer sex is still out there, but with health authorities squarely moving toward “harm reduction” (which now means needle exchange), there is a new scramble to figure out how we get the safer sex message out to people. The stigma campaigns are a good start, but they reach a limited audience, often preach to the converted and don’t talk about personal responsibility. Instead, they harp on the message of “why do you hate us?” 

Until we go back to the beginning and start over with the relentless messages about condom use, personal responsibility and safety there will be no change in public awareness of how HIV is and is not transmitted, and we can talk about undetectable viral loads until we’re blue in the face. 

The early days of AIDS and the “gay plague” are with us still. The blame game continues to rage on both sides and Supreme Court or not, we will never be able to legislate common sense. 

What interesting times we are in! The developing story of HIV,  with all its multiple threads, has always been a bit of a three-ring circus,  but now it’s more like a six-screen Cineplex. And the main feature these days, the Supreme Court ruling on the Mabior and D. C. cases, is now solidly occupying all six stages. 

That’s understandable, but it’s hardly good. Barry Adam, in his excellent report on the impact of criminalization on people living with  HIV remarked  “disclosure has become a leading part of the discourse on HIV.” That was before the Supreme Court decision and of course it’s much truer today than ever.  Important as this discussion is, the issue of when to disclose should never, I'd suggest, occupy centre stage in our collective efforts to end the epidemic.  Focus on getting to zero, if the takeaway message from this summer’s International AIDS Conference in Washington D,C. is to be believed, has in fact become dangerously sidetracked.

So this is a massive and unwelcome diversion.  That view may not be popular, but I’m reminded of a quote used by fellow PositiveLite.com writer Michael Yoder in one of his recent posts.  “Follow the path of the unsafe, independent thinker. Expose your ideas to the dangers of controversy. Speak your mind and fear less the label of 'crackpot' than the stigma of conformity. And on issues that seem important to you, stand up and be counted at any cost.” Chauncey Depew said that.

Brian Finch, in a recent well-received post here said “the ruling is the ruling . . and everyone has to accept that”.  He’s right of course, so if there is work to be done it is in making sure we all understand the impact of the law. That impact is still clearly sinking in. In the meantime, here are five things that are not being  said (much).

On condoms

1. Bad news on the condom front. While the Supreme Court decision seems to be supportive of condom use, it inadvertently scuttles all our attempts to promote them as a safe and reliable means of preventing HIV transmission. Simply put, the Supreme Court has ruled condoms don’t by themselves prevent HIV transmission. The judges quantified their efficacy, (allowing for improper use and breakage) at 80%. Sadly the judges are about right on this (Weller SC, Davis-Beaty K. Condom effectiveness in reducing heterosexual. HIV transmission). Prevention experts will hope you won’t notice, because there is little else to offer randy lads on a Saturday night out but  - shudder – 80% effective condoms. All of which suggests we need new prevention technologies – badly!

2. Bad news too for the multitude of men living with HIV for whom condoms don’t work. If you can’t get it on with a condom, and the law requires both condoms and undetectable viral load to be in place to avoid disclosure now, you disclose or face the risk of prosecution, no if and or buts. That’s hardly the progress touted by many following the Supreme Court announcement. Which takes me to . . . .

On our media response

3. I suppose it was inevitable that there would be mixed messages. The HIV/AIDS Legal Network representing the Canadian coalition working on this front was quick out of the gate, correctly, labelling the decision as “unjust” and a “major step backwards for public health and human rights."  Micheal Vonn of the BC Civil Liberties Association said the same day “the advances that we were making at the lower courts have been cut off at the knees. It's a huge setback. Massive.”  Meanwhile others who represent us were singing a different tune. My own agency. for example, speaking to the Peterborough Examiner, lauded the decision calling it “a really great first step.”  I don’t see it that way at all.

Now I’ve always been against "group think" in our community BUT when it comes to advocacy positions taken by our representatives, I want them all on the same page.  In the context of this Supreme Court decision that means, essentially, labelling this a bad ruling, that it continues to criminalize HIV much as before, continues to stigmatize people with HIV, continues to be entirely unclear what significant risk (now called whatever), continues to promote increased infections by eliminating the concept of shared responsibility. That’s pretty basic stuff. Thankfully there are community consultations happening in many places as we speak, but it will be a hugely important task to ensure that everybody understands what has just taken place – and is not sending messages which hurt rather than help.

On balance

4. So there is a long list of arguments why the decision is not good, and they far outweigh the positives. But let’s be inclusive and recognise that there is also a nugget here for some in our community. It’s the equation, of course, that says “condoms + low viral load = non disclosure eligibility". We know from  Ontario research   that the condoms/disclosure combo has been the norm for many with low/undetectable viral anyway. That this now comes without the risk of prosecution is good. Of course it leaves a lot of people out in the cold, including, of course, most people not on treatment. Again that number is far too large to consider this ruling is anything but a step backwards. All I’m saying is let’s not make the mistake of being exclusionary and ignoring those who may benefit from this decision.

On ethics

5. I feel strangely brave in even going here, because we don’t often talk ethics, don’t acknowledge that there are other factors in the decision to disclose beside the legal one. But in truth we know that the law doesn’t make much difference.  Instead it is a heady mix of ethics, knowledge and socio-economic factors that guide our disclosure decisions. Those latter two are important and we talk about them al lot. The first, the ethical considerations in when to disclose, are not the subject of community discussion at all. (although interestingly they were in the Denver Principles, the forerunner to GIPA: “we feel people with AIDS have an ethical responsibility to inform their potential sexual partners of their health status” those AIDS pioneers said, before dying. I'm not sure they got it right, but ethical considerations were nevertheless there.

You could argue, and I think I’d be with you, that there is no ”one size fits all” approach to ethics, and to ignore that sounds like moralizing horribly. We must always recognize, I think, that ethical decisions surrounding disclosure can be much harder if you are disadvantaged and particularly difficult for people (often women) in a relationship of dependency or those who feel disadvantaged by age, attractiveness, or ethno-cultural background. So it’s a dangerous discussion that tackles ethical issues, but dangerous not to go there, as well. And there we sometimes falter.

Barry Adam’s  research says  “many interviewees (PHA's) voice the view that disclosure of serostatus is the morally right thing to do regardless of the law”. That position may be a luxury unavailable to everybody, nor many have the skills to do it, and besides, its necessity is questionable. BUT we need to acknowledge in our discussions with people living with HIV that the decision to disclose is not JUST a legal one. How many workshops have you been to where that is the only consideration on the table? We need to create safe spaces to change that, to create the kind of discussions we have been too timid to have in the past..

Conclusion

I think I’ve just created five new ways to upset people.

One of the beauties though of working for PositiveLite.com is that we are independent, and there is room for free thought here.  I welcome yours.

Why do we have laws which criminalize HIV non disclosure?  Far for me to argue the “other side’s” case – but  the Cuerrier decision back in 1988 makes it clear it’s a mixture of deterrent and punishment.

The deterrent, in this case, is a judicial attempt at HIV prevention. In fact many would argue the courts actions have been counterproductive and undermine more informed prevention work in a variety of ways, notably by putting the onus on the positive partner for safe sex, and introducing the misconception that  safety will be ensured only when  the poz party reveals their status. But we know that’s faulty logic. Why? Bercause there is a significant percentage of the infected (an estimated 26% in Canada) where the positive person is unaware of their infection and, chances are, is highly infectious. So the deterrent argument is as full of holes as a spider's web.

But can we prove that? There’s recent evidence from both sides of the border that the law is ineffective in its deterrent role.  In the States, here’s what HealthCanal.com recently reported.....

“A study led by the Medical College of Wisconsin (MCW) and published online today in the American Journal of Public Health found that New Jersey law requiring individuals with HIV to disclose their HIV-positive status to their sexual partners does not appear to be an effective HIV prevention intervention.

Fifty-one percent of study participants were aware that New Jersey had such a law. However,  persons who were aware of the law were just as likely as persons who were unaware of the law to disclose their HIV status, engage in less risky sexual behaviors (such as fewer number of partners), and use condoms. The majority of participants, regardless of being aware or unaware of the law, reported having been in compliance with the law for the previous year – that is, they abstained from sex or they informed their prospective partners of their HIV-positive status.

 In fact, 85 percent of participants reported that they would not be willing to engage in unprotected sex with an HIV-negative partner who was not informed of their HIV-positive status.”

To read more of that story go here.

Here in Canada, Barry Adam has conducted extensive research on the impact of criminalization on people living with HIV in Ontario.  It’s to be found on the Ontario HIV Treatment Network (OHTN) website  He summarizes thus.....

“Significant numbers of study participants feel unaffected (by the law) because they: (a) always disclose their serostatus in sexual encounters, (b) openly negotiate serostatus often preferring sero-concordant partners, (c) feel that disclosure of serostatus is the morally right thing to do regardless of the law, or (d) are not having sex anyway.”

Adam cites additional literature on the subject.  “Two studies have attempted to test the deterrent effect of criminal law on HIV disclosure and transmission by comparing attitudes and practices among risk populations in states that have and do not have such laws. Scott Burris et al (2007) enrolled 490 men who have sex with men and injection drug users in Chicago and New York in their study and found no differences between the states. “Most people in our study believed that it was wrong to expose others to the virus and right to disclose infection to their sexual partners. These convictions were not influenced by the respondents' beliefs about the law or whether they lived in a state with such a law or not” . When it came to actual conduct, similarly, “neither anal nor vaginal sex without a condom was significantly associated with beliefs about whether law requires condom use.” . Turning specifically to the 162 HIV-positive people in their study, they found no differences in the rates of unprotected anal sex in the two states, but a lower rate of unprotected vaginal sex in Illinois, the state with a specific statute regulating sex by people living with HIV. Horvath et al (2010) also found no differences in unprotected anal sex among men who have sex with men in states with and without criminal statutes.”

There is considerably more information in the Adam report about how people with HIV feel about criminaliztion here in Canada and elsewhere.  I’ll leave comment on that aspect until later.

For now, its fair to say that criminalization has had little impact on people's behaviours. Having said that, the Supreme Court decision and the subsequent media storm has created a stir in  our community. That heightened awareness of the legal risks associated with non-disclosure could conceivably result in behavioural changes. But that's speculation. Right now, we have pretty good evidence that it hasn't so far.

For Part 1, go here.

From The Body.com: "Nick Rhoades was convicted of "Criminal Transmission of HIV" in Iowa in 2008, even though his viral load was undetectable, he wore a condom and his accuser did not contract HIV. He was sentenced to 25 years in prison and lifetime sex offender registration. After a year of total incarceration, the judge reconsidered Nick's sentence and released him on five years probation, as well as the sex offender registration requirement."

For Nick’s full story go to www.seroproject.com

***************

Act 3

Nick Rhoades: June arrived, clearly nervous. I was worried she wouldn't come in at all.  Jim observed as we met for the first time.  I never said a word about my conviction. I taught her the new procedures I implemented for the front office staff that would basically make her job description change from "Night Auditor" to "Night Television-Watcher." June smiled and seemed so pleased with the stress I alleviated from her job that the rest didn't seem to matter, but whoever knows what another is really thinking? Jim began speaking of his stint at the halfway house, and the three of us made idle chitchat. I said good night to June, shook her hand again... and as I pushed the door open to leave for McDonald's, I told Jim in a loud voice (referring to his past in the halfway house), "Everyone deserves a second chance." The door closed behind me.

Since that night, no one at the hotel has mentioned "my past." My past is actually my present and my future, but whatever.

I registered as a sex offender in Marshall County, Iowa, today, Diary.  The jailer was pleasant enough. I found out that the "K" on her name badge stood for "Kathy" ... like my mom's name. Jailer Kathy commented on it when I had to give her the names of my parents.  She's not the sharpest knife in the drawer (she spelled my name wrong four times and kept having to redo her work). What took 25 minutes in Bremer County took an hour and 45 in Marshall. I was late to a dinner date. It was very odd, Diary, because she didn't ask for my email addresses, Skype handle, Yahoo messenger user name or any of that other personal information that Bremer County regularly requested. I'm sure they didn't have it on file because the deputy grumbled the entire time about having to start a file from scratch as she fumbled through the registration process. New photos (probably my sixth set since I was arrested; I'd like to see the album of my evolution through the Iowa Department of Corrections). No DNA sample this time (that has been taken three times separately).  More signatures. More offenders with their faces pressed up against the glass of their cell door windows listening and staring at me as I went through the intake process once again for my conviction of "Criminal Transmission of HIV." 

Did I transmit HIV? I don't recall that ever happening. Why would they call it that? At least the deputy who patted me down when I entered the jail was cute.  I wanted to ask him for a cavity search, Diary, but I didn't think that wise considering the circumstances that brought me to the jail. Oh, Diary! I hope he gets my phone number from my file and calls. Do you think he will??

By the end of the hour and forty-five minute process, Jailer Kathy and I had just finger-printing to do. Of course their computerized system was out of order, so we had to do it the old-fashioned way.  Jailer Kathy was very nervous and had to get instructions. She didn't put on latex gloves, though. I found that to be comforting somehow.  Was she too naive to be ignorant?  Or did she just know how HIV is actually transmitted? Maybe she just had to be home before Wheel of Fortune.

The finger-printing station was mounted at about waste-level for me.  I'm 6'2". Jailer Kathy looked to be about 5'6". Typical procedure would be for her to grab each of my fingers, roll them in the ink and then roll them on the cards in their assigned spots. We had to do each finger, left and right. Both palms. Then, both sets of fingers pressed down together at once (excluding the thumbs)... and lastly, of course, my favorite... the "Karate Chops!"  The Karate Chops have always been my favorite. You'd never be able to identify what those images were if you weren't a jailer or someone who had been arrested.  HIYA!!!  Miss Piggy flowed through my wandering mind...

I knew Jailer Kathy would take forever on the finger-printing. I felt emboldened at this point, so I took a shot and told her I had some experience at doing this. I think this was my sixth set of prints I have given the government. They have given me so much; it's the least I can do for them in return. I asked Jailer Kathy if she would mind me trying it on my own.

"If you think you can," she said. Jailer Kathy and I had built a sliver of positive rapport over the time we had spent together. We discussed (I discussed) politics and such. Why a civil servant would vote for Romney or any Republican is beyond me, Diary.

I did all of my prints in less than a minute. As I grabbed a towelette to wipe the ink off, she smiled and said, "Wow! That was great! I always smudge them all. Thanks for making my day shorter." I couldn't help but think it was a win-win.  Jailer Kathy and I said good bye. This time I was allowed to walk through the corridors of the Marshall County Jail without escort. I worked my way out of the labyrinth through the four steel doors. I was anxious to leave. I was surprised I didn't get lost. I paused at each door, waiting for the guard in some control room somewhere to see me on camera. I could feel him or her peering at me anonymously. Then, I heard the doors "pop" one-by-one as I cascaded out of the jail. Finally, "freedom" again. 

Act 4

Once I felt the luxurious 95-degree heat on my face, I called my dinner date to tell him I was sorry for being late but was on my way.  I met Allen downtown for Chinese food, frozen yogurt and then the DNC on TV. First Lady Michelle Obama looked lovely. I spaced off several times thinking how she could kick Nancy Reagan's ass into next week. Wouldn't that be a sight, Diary? Allen used to live in Chicago and told me of bars called the "Dick Dock" and the "White Swallow."  He is also a patient of my nurse practitioner, Kris Davis, at the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics in Iowa City -- the BEST CARE ANYWHERE.  I asked Kris if she knew anyone in Marshalltown I could have dinners with to get out of my hotel room and away from McDonald's (and to keep idle hands from doing the devil's work). Do you know I can spend close to $10 on fast food at one sitting, Diary? Forget gas prices. Obama needs to fix fast food prices. [Note to self: Don't forget to write the President about the high cost of Big Mac attacks.]  Where was I?  Oh yes.  Kris Davis is my angel.  She has been since '98 when I was diagnosed. I'm sad she's retiring next year. No one can take her place.

It was the end of a long day but an enjoyable evening. I was on my way out the door of Allen's apartment when I casually mentioned that I had a little legal situation that I would discuss with him sometime.

Allen softly said, "I know.  I Googled you."

[F I N]  Or is it?  Dum dum duuuuuuuuuuuummmmmmmm.......!

Ugh.

-N

P.S. For those who I haven't told the outcome, I convinced my attorneys that CNN is not an appetizing thought right now. After much deliberation, they saw it my way. I really just wanted to be on TV with Sanjay Gupta but not have to talk about HIV or criminalization.  lol  ... Still no response from the Iowa Supreme Court.

Whose life is this again?  Certainly not mine.

Nick’s case is still ongoing with Lambda Legal at the Iowa Supreme Court level – and he asks that any readers  not write letters or make phone calls on his behalf as it would likely make things worse -- despite the best intentions.