The Unexonerated: innocence profile < Back Steph Turner MI Steph Turner Estimated innocence score: 89 % Likely innocent when compared to cases already exonerated asexual trans person sentenced to lifetime sex offender registration Highlights of this wrongful conviction - no criminal history - always maintained innocence - transphobic & homophobic prosecution - no corroborating evidence - climate of sex abuse hysteria - no crime occurred - sensationalized coverage in local media - despite several degrees, no one will hire Key contributing factors to this wrongful conviction not a factor - minor factor - major factor - central factor 1. Witness misidentification? 2. False confession? 3. Official misconduct? 4. Junk science? 5. Jail informant? 6. Inadequate defense? not a factor not a factor central factor not a factor not a factor minor factor Other contributing factors How many other of 58 factors? 11 EIF version: D Click here to view more information at a separate website Click here for documentation to verify this innocence claim Wrongly convicted in MI of: Aiding & abetting sexual misconduct 1st degree, 2nd degree Wrongly convicted on December 13, 1993 Sentence: 30 years prison; lifetime sex offender registry Custody status: sex offender registry Dive deeper into Steph's compelling innocence Dive deeper into Steph's compelling innocence Dive deeper into Steph's compelling innocence Dive deeper into Steph's compelling innocence Prior to accepting herself as transgender, Janet (principal & codefendant) often ran afoul of the law. She appears to have suffered Asperger’s (high functioning autism), so was slow at responding to social cues. Overcoming shame of being gender different helped her escape cycles of self-defeating behaviors. She overcame dyslexia and other challenges to lead a healthy life, until this happened. Nobody's perfect Synopsis Asexual person comes out as transgender in early 90s, gets falsely accused as being a “sexual predator” homophobic stereotype. Convicted without evidence. Must register as sex offender for life. Forced into poverty and homelessness. On July 7th, 1993, Steph Turner awoke to hear voices from the other room. Steph could hear her sister Janet talking to someone. That person left, but later returned with her irate mother to accuse Janet of an incredulous crime. You see, Janet was born male and now openly transgender, long before that was socially acceptable. And Janet had yet to fully transition. At the height of the sex abuse hysteria in the early-90s, Steph came out as gender-nonconforming transgender. But living in a religiously conservative community, Steph kept it private. Steph soon came out to Janet, years after Janet had. They shared an apartment to rekindle their newfound bond. Both now freely embracing their feminine sides. Both describe themselves as asexual, as unable to feel erotic attraction unless being fully loved for their full selves. Both felt more drawn to their indigenous spirituality, of transcending the gender divide for deeper connection. A neighborhood child drew curious, peeping into Janet’s window to gawk at what she called the "man with lipstick." She later came out as gay, but understandably could not risk rejection at home because of her young age. When caught not being home on time, the child leveled bizarre claims of sex abuse unbecoming from a child. Perhaps she was exposed to porn. The child then dragged Steph into her transphobic-indoctrinated accusations. The child claimed that Janet and Steph had her pose in a photo, with her stabbing Steph in the chest with a jelly-stained butter knife. She claimed this was to scare her from talking to police, that Janet and Steph would use the Polaroid photo to claim this young girl was the aggressor. Of course, no such photo ever existed. Unbelievable? Not if you already believe trans people are subhuman. Child testimonies back then were often coached. Trans people were easily vilified. Since no corroborating evidence was necessary back then to convict for sexual misconduct, both transwomen were wrongly convicted. And both sentenced to long terms in men’s prisons. Janet did not survive. In 2001, she succumbed to cancer. Repeated efforts to overcome their wrongful convictions have failed. After serving a full 12-year sentence, Steph was discharged and finished undergraduate and graduate degrees. But now Steph must register as a sex offender for life, despite being asexual. This continues to destroy Steph's economic and other opportunities. Your support can help turn this around. Summary Accuser's needs The young complainant later came out as gay. She couldn't risk her parents' rejection. She appeared curious to Janet's courage to be openly gender nonconforming. When confronted by her mother why she was in the apartment with that "man with lipstick", she understandably fabricated a story that she was not there on her own volition but dragged there and assualted. Her parent's homophic slurs agains us reinforced this young girl's defensiveness to hide from the truth. The Grand Rapids community must be kept safe from sexual violence and the threat of sexual violence. The GRPD must respond to calls about alleged sexual violence. The local DA and prosecutors must ensure the community is kept safe from actual sexual predators. The local press needs to provide newsworthy content to its local audience, which may include sensationalizing distortions that the average viewer needs to filter out on their own. The local transgender community needed to make sense of what happened. Steph's employer had to find someone to replace the shipping & receiving role Steph had performed. Steph's family needed to find an alternate source of income. Steph's three daughters and newborn son had to adjust to a life without their father. Alisha had to find how to become a single mother during this painful adjustment. Other's needs See Steph's full Estimated Innocence Report Post-Conviction Journey Appeal results Appellate counsel filed a 60-page brief with 11 issues. Appellate panel threw out one conviction while wrongly affirming the other. The more serious charge of aiding and abetting CSC1 was reversed, but then replaced with a lesser CSC2 charge. In order to arrive to this conclusion, contrary to its norm, the appellate panel asserted the role as "trier of fact" when declaring the jury could have found Steph guilty of CSC2. Remanded back to trial court for resentencing. Reduced the sentence but failed to address the whole wrongful conviction. Steph applied for legal help from innocence projects five different times. Each time, Steph was declined for technical reasons from these under-resourced agencies. Early in Steph's sentence: To prioritize serving death row. Half way in their sentence: To priortize serving those with life sentences. Just before finishing their sentence: To prioritize serving those with long prison sentences. And after Steph was finally discharged, To serve those still incarcerated. A decade after discharge from prison but still wrongly on lifetime sex offender registry: Could not see how testing the untested DNA could lead to a reversal in court. Trying once more with the Michigan Innocence Clinic that does not rely on DNA evidence. This time, in conjunction with the Public Exoneration alternative to adversarial and alienating legalism. Innocence Movement Results Add your name to the petition to support exonerating Steph Innocence support petition What do you think about this claim of innocence? First, select the innocence claimant "With what I know of the case, I think the claimant is...* First name* Last name* Email* Submit Your first name Your last name Email Based on what I know, I think the claimant is... Submit Thank you for your support. If we get enough supporters, we may launch our own Public Exoneration campaign. Learn more below. tally count Latest tally of feedback to this innocence claim. Clearly guilty 0 Likely guilty 0 Likely innocent 2 Clearly innocent 5 Appellate Process Presents mission creep of prioritizing its institutional needs over the needs of the public. Innocence Project Replicates this mission creep when working exclusively within the adversarial legal process. Public Exoneration Corrects this mission creep by prioritizing needs over institutionalized adversarial legalism. After the adversarial options repeatedly fail, the new professional service of need-response counters with a mutual process that responsibly addresses each other's needs. When hate keeps failing to produce desired outcomes, it's time to try the power of love . Learn more "I am exploring the option to build up a campaign that takes my pursuit for overdue exoneration to the court of public opinion." of Steph Turner Follow my Public Exoneration campaign. Free. Consider becoming an active supporter for as little as $4.99 per week. Invest in restoring Steph’s freedom. Invest in yourself. Proxy for innocence claimant: Alisha Turner Public Exoneration progress: 10 How you can help us free Steph The Public Exoneration campaign unfolds in five phases. We love for you to participate in this alternative approach to exonerating them. Overview PDI step 1 PDI step 2 PDI step 3 PDI step 1 Demonstrate your innocence Sets a foundation to display your innocence Introduction Preview the 12 questions Solve personal problems Download & complete worksheet Learn More... PDI step 2 Declare your innocence Publicly establishes your innocence Overview Verify addresses Upload finished worksheet We distribute it to key recipients Learn More... PDI step 3 Follow up Expand awareness of your innocence Engaging responsive authorities Incentivizing authorities' responses More responsive or reactive Your final answers to the 12 questions Learn More... Overview Is this for you? Prove your innocence without lawyers Demonstrate your innocence Declare your innocence Follow up Learn More... Quickly show how you are a wrongly convicted innocent person by how you’re among the few who took your case to trial. Despite being found guilty, show how you consistently maintained innocence. In the face of certain parole denial, you faithfully stood your ground. This service works primarily for those who have already done their time. But now cannot get a meaningful job or find stable housing. All because of an undeserved felony record. For only a $49.48 one-time fee, establish your innocence with your own record of proven integrity. Let us inform the DA of your demonstrable innocence. We presort your claim of viable innocence for them. No lawyers involved. We incentivize the DA and others to recognize your demonstrated innocence. If they dare refuse, we are ready to appeal to the higher court of public opinion. Failure is not an option. Share this profile on social media to help spread the word. Thank you. Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp LinkedIn Copy link How you can help us free Steph The Public Exoneration campaign unfolds in five phases. We love for you to participate in this alternative approach to exonerating them. FIT BASE phase TEAM phase GROW phase GOAL phase BASE phase Set a firm foundation Sets a foundation to display your innocence Leverage your innocence Gain need-responsive skills Solve personal problems Invite peer supporters Learn More... Review your Estimated Innocence Report with your need-responder. Develop strategies to optimize its strengths and address any weaknesses. Together, you craft your dynamic “exoneration plan”. Learn to proactively endure discomforts, to resolve conflicts with authorities, to relate more integrally with reality, and more. Sharpen these skills to later incentivize unresponsive authorities. Get any personal problems out of the way. Improve yourself where you can. Remove any doubt that you are innocent of the conviction. Set the tone for your immanent exoneration. Invite friends and family who believe in your innocence. Learn to show them how they can back your efforts. And how they can attract more backers to support your case of compelling innocence. TEAM phase Build your support team Publicly establishes your innocence Onboard peer supporters to your team Practice your new skills Solve interpersonal problems Invite professional sponsors Learn More... Incentivize your followers to upgrade as supporters and contributors. Show them how they can personally benefit by becoming more centrally involved. Or at least by participating. Guide your contributors to develop the same need-responsive skills you recently sharpened. Invite your supporters to watch, to encourage them to develop these skills on their own. With these new skills, work on any interpersonal problems. Practice solving problems. Demonstrate your capacity to endure discomforts. Publicly validate your innocence. Introduce innocence lawyers and other innocence activists to this alternative to adversarial legalism. Invite then to sponsor your campaign to boost their legitimacy. Incentivize their involvement. GROW phase Engage innocence lawyers Expand awareness of your innocence Leverage your growing support Onboard professional sponsors Learn to solve power problems Practice speaking truth to power Learn More... Let your growing support network publicize your innocence, your testament to human endurance, your readiness to face conflict with respect for each other’s affected needs, and more. Demonstrate these skills to supportive professionals. Incentivize them to improve their responsiveness to neglected needs with such skills. Vouch for their improved responsiveness. Assess the responsiveness of professionals to your compelling case of innocence. Demonstrate how mutual regard for each other’s needs create s better results than legalistic adversarialism. Invite the most supportive professionals to practice these skills with you. Learn to speak the truth of your innocence in ways that authorities will openly listen. GOAL phase Engage the prosecutor Incentivize authorities to exonerate you Hold court of informed public opinion Replace cold adversarialism with love Effectively address structural problems Declare your avowed liberty Learn More... Give the courts every reason to process your innocence claim. Let them compete with the court of public opinion, as your team connects with media outlets to publicize your case. Upend the norms of the adversarial judicial process by demonstrating this more loving approach to solving conflicts. Let your loving character boldly exemplify your innocence. Unpack the imposing social norms that hinder just outcomes. Invite prosecutors, judges and policymakers to shift incentives. Publicly reward just outcomes over conviction rates. Declare your widely supported innocence before a candid world. Let your support network contest the legitimacy of any official resistance to exonerate you. Reward all who do the right thing. FIT Check if it’s a good fit This is a preliminary phase to prepare the way Self -assessment Invite supporters Get prepared Meet your service provider Learn More... Start by checking if this unique service is a good fit for you. Can the innocence claimant lead this effort themselves? Or should they delegate the leading role to another? Spread the costs early by inviting friends and family to back your wellness campaign. For free for them to merely follow. Or $4.99 per week for them to participate. Or $14.99 each week to get hem centrally involved. Get oriented to how this service operates. Connect with others exploring this alternative. Learn how this process takes a pioneering approach toward exoneration. Meet the professional need-responder. First through texting. Then in person online. No financial commitment for the first thirty days. I want to support Share this profile on social media to help spread the word. Thank you. Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp LinkedIn Copy link Exonerating Steph If the public exoneration campaign has already begun, check here at your level of support. Please note that until you join their campaign, none of these will be accessible. Followers, Supporters & Contributors Follow developments of their exoneration campaign. Progress Updates Supporters & Contributors Join the forum actively supporting their exoneration campaign. Exoneration Forum Contributors only Oversee activities contributing to their ultimate exoneration. Executive Committee sample testimonials Tanya Simpson , Claimant's cousin I was skeptical at first. I mean, how can something outside the official process help my cousin? Then I was pleasantly surprised by the amazing results. Jonathan Glenn , Claimant's coworker I always knew that Claimant was fully innocent of all charges. Now I'm glad to be a part of process that can finally help liberate my friend. Daniel Walker , Claimant's father These have been some painful years waiting for the legal process to correct this mess. Thankfully, this alternative is finally helping to bring my child home. < Back Next >

< Back Witness to Innocence not yet a parter Once a partner, find more information here about their case criteria, how to request for legal aid, along with any services. Previous Next

< Back LAS Wrongful Conviction Unit not yet a parter Once a partner, find more information here about their case criteria, how to request for legal aid, along with any services. Previous Next

React Culture React culture consists of any social or cultural norm privileging anything less than properly resolving needs . react culture - privileged reactions Privileged reaction # 9 Coerced compliance Manipulated to submit to expectations of authority. properly resolving needs Coerced compliance 8/5/26 1 Coerced compliance Defunction: Examples: Refunction: Atomization culture Accountability diffusion Degraded social contract Indulgent side-taking Pathological pragmatism Projected antagonism Structural exaction Hyperrationality culture Ascribed legitimacy Dysfunction pathway Manipulative deception Permitted evil Pseudo-rationality Zero-sum thinking Hyperbole culture Bothsidesism misuse Excessive resourcing Mass institution mission creep Petty arguing debate Relativizing universal wisdom Avoidance culture Coerced compliance Gaslighting Moral conflation Premature defensiveness Self-incriminating denials Oppo culture Coerced poor options dependence Humanity loathing Normative alienation Privileged avoidance Shame shifting

React Culture React culture consists of any social or cultural norm privileging anything less than properly resolving needs . react culture - privileged reactions Privileged reaction # 17 Manipulative deception Coerce the vulnerable with falsehood. properly resolving needs Manipulative deception 8/8/26 1 Manipulative deception Atomization culture Accountability diffusion Degraded social contract Indulgent side-taking Pathological pragmatism Projected antagonism Structural exaction Hyperrationality culture Ascribed legitimacy Dysfunction pathway Manipulative deception Permitted evil Pseudo-rationality Zero-sum thinking Hyperbole culture Bothsidesism misuse Excessive resourcing Mass institution mission creep Petty arguing debate Relativizing universal wisdom Avoidance culture Coerced compliance Gaslighting Moral conflation Premature defensiveness Self-incriminating denials Oppo culture Coerced poor options dependence Humanity loathing Normative alienation Privileged avoidance Shame shifting

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z Glossary R < back to glossary menu reactive culture (n. ) Set of social norms privileging feel-reactive reactions over need-responsive considerations. Features toxic legalism . Contrasts with responsive culture (see below). Also see avoidance culture . reactive pain relief (n. ) - DEFUNCTION A defunction of reacting to the discomfort of unresolved needs by immediately trying to ease its discomfort with little to no thought of how ignoring the unresolved needs evoking such pain tends to persist and potentially intensify the pain ineffectually avoided. Defunction similar to passive-aggressive pain relief . Contrasts with the refunctions of strategic pain relief and discomfort embrace . Recognized Impactee [RI] (n. ) [wellness campaign terminology] A person or entity recognized as impacted more from those in positions of power than they impact the social power relation. Prior to such powerholders acknowledging such potent influence, the RI is regarded as a Reporting Impactee . reflexive correlation (n. ) An empirically observable association between two or more variables that seem to change each other, which can suggest a cyclic relationship between the identified variables. While correlation is not necessarily causation , social science research typically anticipates one variable (the dependent variable ) to change as an apparent consequence of another preceding variable (the independent variable ). See cyclic correlation . The nature-based paradigm of academic anankelogy anticipates a string of dependent variables looping together to suggest that anything definable as an independent variable requires it to be isolated as a predecessor to a particular dependent variable in that part of the ongoing cycle. Each independent variable to a particular dependent variable can then be viewed as a dependent variable to a preceding variable in that cycle. refunction (n. ) Anything that raises one's ability to function more fully, improving their wellness. Opposite to a defunction . relational knowing (n. & v. ) - RK (abbr. ) - REFUNCTION To directly understand something by identifying how one thing appears to go along with another, allowing you to create your own testable hypotheses. You identify for yourself the associations between two or more things affecting your needs. You observe four types of associations: more-more : more of this, then more of that (“positive relation” as both move in same direction) more-less : more of this, then less of that (“negative relation” as both move in opposite directions) less-more : less of this, then more of that (“negative relation” as both move in opposite directions) less-less : less of this, then less of that (“positive relation” as both move in same direction) See image here . reliance taxonomy (n. ) Three levels of dependence, from less effective outcomes to excellent outcomes. Beliefer : One who defensively guards what they think is true or untrue, actively resists critique, demonstrating a low tolerance for ambiguity, high level of emotional pain from unresolved needs, and is likely dysfunctional . Faither : One who gravitates toward what others in their group finds reliable, often evades critique, craves certainty over tolerating ambiguity, likely endures mounting levels of emotional pain from unmet needs, and is primarily symfunctional . Truster : One who humbly relies on trustworthy others, invites helpful critique, demonstrating high tolerance for ambiguity, promptly embraces pain to identify and remove threats to resolve needs, reaching peakfunctionality . relief-gen (n. ) relief-generalizing (v. ) - DEFUNCTION The defunction of oversimplifying a reaction to some need to gain broad support for relieving its pain, typically resulting in more pain since the overgeneralization overlooks the specifics necessary to fully resolve the needs. This typically results in more pain from these unresolved needs, which in turn feeds this vicious cycle of continually generalizing for relief. See popgen . Reporting Impactee [RI] (n. ) [wellness campaign terminology] A person or entity asserting they are impacted more from those in positions of power than they impact the social power relation. Once acknowledged by the powerholder of such potent influence, the RI is regarded as a Recognized Impactee . residual pain (n. ) The second of four types of pain recognized by anankelogy. Residual pain occurs when partially easing a need and then the body signals a less intense level of discomfort to warn the threat to functioning is not yet completely removed. resolution path (n. ) [wellness campaign terminology] - REFUNCTION Identified steps to resolve a need or needs. Once identified and announced to others for their feedback, the identified steps get appropriately adjusted to include respect for the affected needs of others. Once concluding such inputs, the process commits all involved to enable resolution of the identified natural needs on all sides, and to also confront any selfish impediment resisting resolution. Applies to the "avowal" phase of the need-response cycle in a wellness campaign . resolution-friction (n. ) - DEFUNCTION Any resistance to fully resolving needs. Does not have to be intentional, but frequently results from an intent to avoid the pain of reported threats to functioning. This includes well-established social norms like the adversarial approach of legal systems in the judicial process and in politics. The historical way these legal structures favors a relieve-over-resolve approach tends to resist a resolve-over-relieve effort to fully resolve needs. The resulting pain typically reinforces the norms to prioritize relief over fully resolving needs that could remove cause for such pain. There is no such thing as pain apart from the body reporting a perceived theat to functioning . resource need (n. ) Something to redress experiencing a need. In the need experience funnel , it follows after core need and precedes access need . Anankelogy identifies three types, each correlating with a level of functionality. Primary resource (AKA fulfilling resource ): Something to restore one to full functioning, by helping to return to an optimal level of homeostatic balance. E.g., water to quench thirst, trustworthy friend to satisfy the human need for deep social connection, and space alone to satisfy the need for autonomous solitude. Correlates with peakfunctionality . Alternate resource (AKA placating resource ): Something to ease the requirement to function just enough to avoid pain but not enough to restore full functionality, by helping one to return to an adequate level of homeostatic balance. E.g., soda pop or coffee to ease your thirst, a distant friend willing to take some time to listen to ease feeling lonely, and enduring an occasional interruption to adequately self-reflect. Correlates with symfunctionality . Substitute resource (AKA relieving resource ): Something that does little to nothing to restore functioning but provides relief from discomfort from the warning from the body that lost functioning is not yet restored, by helping the brain feel closer to some homeostatic balance. E.g., overindulging some alcohol, depending on social media "friends" to 'like' your post to relieve feeling isolated, and wearing headphones to listen to anything that drowns out the noise while trapped in a crowd while desperately needing some privacy. Correlates with dysfunctionality . The lack of any resource correlates with misfunctionality . response conflation (n. ) - DEFUNCTION Another name for the defunction of moral conflation . response distinction (n. ) - REFUNCTION Another name for the refunction of moral distinction . response reputation (n. ) [wellness campaign terminology] - REFUNCTION One's informally or officially recognized trustworthiness to respect the needs of others. responsive culture (n. ) Set of social norms favoring need-responsive considerations over feel-reactive reactions. Counters toxic legalism . Contrasts with reactive culture (see above). responsivism (n. ) The belief and practice that responding to the unchosen needs of others, before addressing any chosen responses to such needs, can produce more favorable results than adversarial alternatives. Counters the moral conflation inherent in avoidant adversarialism with moral distinction , as a way to more effectively address and solve social problems. Need-response is the profession while responsivism is the activity. Examples: Personally Responsive to apply moral distinction Responsive Supervision Responsive Depolarization for depolarizing politics Responsive Innocence for the wrongly convicted innocent responsivist (n. ) One dedicated to applying responsivism to address social problems, as an alternative to adversarial activism that easily slips into the problem of moral conflation , which tends to perpetuate pain and problems. revenue legitimacy (n. ) REFUNCTION Linking any reception of funds or resources to the need serving mission of that powerholder. "Why should I give my money to a powerholder for them to use it in a way that damages my life? Or the innocent lives of others?" What effective accountability can the vulnerable impactee apply to the harmful impactor? Offical level "revenue legitimacy": Illegitimate: Substandard: Standard: Competitive: Transformative: Professional level "revenue legitimacy": Illegitimate: Substandard: Standard: Competitive: Transformative: rhetorical need (n. ) The widely accepted reference to a flexible or optional way to restore functioning, in contrast to anankelogical reference to an actual 'need' as inflexible (in contrast to flexible options), innate (in contrast to arbitrary experience), natural or organic (in contrast to humanly constructed), unchosen (in contrast to chosen responses ). A rhetorical need is not recognizable as objective fact , as it can be characterized as subjectively flexible, arbitrary, constructed, or chosen. Timing provides the basic distinction. The actual need occurs first, prior to awareness. The rhetorical need then follows, in response to it. Anankelogy recognizes how your core needs exist as objective facts independent from subjective experience. Your life's requirement to function occurs prior to your emotional responses to such needs. We colloquially refer to many of these responses as a need . "I need a pencil" for example, but a writing utensil itself can never restore me to optimal functioning. I say I need a pencil as it rhetorically symbolizes how I prefer to respond to my objective need to not forget my thoughts. Anankelogy characterizes any rhetorical need as more of a "preference " than an actual need. If there is any flexibility for how to restore wellness, or functionality, then it is more likely an arbitrary rhetorical need and not a specific objective need in the anankelogical sense. Examples: "I need a 'bottle' of water." You can get water from out of a cup or another way. Water is the actual, objective need, not the container for it. "I need a 'map'." You can find a route in alternative ways. Travel direction is the objective need. "I need your 'email address'." You can contact others in different ways. Social connection is the actual need. "I need 'to go home'." You likely could go to other locations to satisfy this purpose. Shelter is the objective need. "I need to replace the oil in my car." You can function without replacing your car's oil. Transportation security is the actual need. "She needs my phone number." She could contact you in other ways. Interpersonal communication is the objective need. "My boss needs me to come in early." Arriving the usual time only affects you indirectly. Economic security or resource security is the actual need. We generally prefer to convey to others how we prefer they respond to our actual needs by citing such rhetorical needs . There is some safe room for change if they refuse. We generally prefer to avoid the uncomfortable vulnerability of directly expressing an actual need that we cannot change. We easily slip into conflicts when failing to distinguish between these actual needs and our rhetorical references to them. Anankelogy identifies this problem as moral conflation . And corrects this problems with moral distinction that affirms your inflexible actual needs before questioning any flexible rhetorical responses to them. This may include character refunctions that could make it easier to recognize and acknowledge the difference. See the four anankelogical levels of experiencing your needs . RI client (n. ) [wellness campaign terminology] Another identifier of a campaigner . Or the person with the targeted wellness goal in a wellness campaign led by a proxy . More broadly, can apply to wellness campaign members who hold no official power over others in the campaign, typically in the TEAM phase. A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z < back to glossary menu

Defunctions List 1 discomfort avoidance Read More Discomfort avoidance is the habitual evasion of pain, often from failing to differentiate between positive organic pain and less positive types of pain. 2 mass avoidance Read More Mass avoidance is the widespread norm of not personally engaging with others or in something that seems uncomfortable or threatening. 3 symfunctional strain Read More Symfunctional strain is the ongoing emotional stress from needs not fully resolved, limiting your ability to focus elsewhere and often mistaken as lack of intelligence. 4 vulnerability avoidance Read More Vulnerability avoidance is the persistent evasion of dropping your guard with others close to you, typically out of fear or rejection and often a consequence of normative alienation , nomoscentricity , pistiscentricity and other defunctions .

Stay up to date about the podcast and its reporting on developments of the need-response service. Check our milestones. Read our press releases. Stay informed. Podcast newsroom Podcast description Welcome to the podcast showcasing the new professional service of ‘need-response’. The show introducing you to this new alternative to our failing institutions. If disillusioned with the legal process or disappointed in psychotherapy, this podcast is for you. And for you if you’re a disillusioned lawyer or a disaffected psychotherapist yearning for a career change. Steph and Gustavo invite you to join them each Wednesday morning on an inspiring journey to co-create this new professional field. To speak truth to power with the power of love. Need-response is about solving our general problems by resolving our specific needs. One bold act of love at a time. Need-Response media kit hardcopy Podcast seasons Developing the need-response service with potential users creates the key purpose for the podcast. Each season follows a stage in its developmental arc. Thanks to inspiration from the "I Want Product Market-Fit " substack and Gust de Backer , we anticipate the podcast seasons to roughly follow this diagram. Season 1 follows the formation of this new service. Disillusioned lawyers and disillusioned psychotherapists could be the first set of qualified need-responders learning to provide this pioneering service. Season 1 consists of two overlapping phases. - Phase 1 lays down the foundation for this visionary service of need-response . Offers listeners hope to solve problems with our inspiring and loving alternative. - Phase 2 invites and onboards new members to the Need-Responder Community . Provide opportunity to help create a meaningful alternative to our failed institutions. Season 2 begins when Steph becomes the service's first guinea pig client. Steph will test the service to see if it can establish innocence independent of the slow moving adversarial legal system. Season 3 begins when enough qualified professional need-responders can start providing the service. And then test the service's initial supply and demand, for its early price point. Season 4 begins when the service is ready to offer to the public. We expect the podcast to then feature testimonials from those uniquely helped by the service. Season 5 could branch off into specializations of this service. From helping those deep in medical debt, those burdened by student debt, those yearning to overcome political polarization, and other potential applications of this uniquely inspiring service. Target audience Our ideal listener feels exasperated by our failing institutions and seek to do something meaningful about it. They're either vulnerable to such failings or work in the systems they know are failing their clients. The adoption curve serves as our trusted guide. $25/month $5/month FREE PATRONS SUPPORTERS FOLLOWERS What is 'toxic legalism'? Contributor - for those eager to help create this new service with their skillset and means. Supporter - for those wanting to help shape this new service to fit their needs. Follower - for those wanting to become familiar with this new service. Innovators: Contributor members Listeners who are disillusioned lawyers and disillusioned psychotherapists. We encourage them to learn to be the first trained professional need-responders. They help us work out the bugs to establish this new service. Contributors are typically among the first prospective clients, who test the process and help tweak it, who are open to trying something untested, who have the need for this service and can eventually provide this service to future clients, and many will be cultivated to become the first staff of the servic e, including the first professional need-responders. We anticipate most will be disaffected lawyers and counselor attracted this to approach that satisfies much of what they find lacking in the practice of law and the practice of psychotherapy. Early adopters: Supporter members Listeners who urgently need this alternative of need-response. They explore how to be among the first clients and team members of a wellness campaign. We encourage them to provide testimonials vouching for the service’s potential. Supporters are typically prospective clients after the service gains traction, who will be among the first to try the service as early adopters; they act as something of an ad hoc board, who oversee the service’s development with a vote on key issues. Early majority: Follower members Listeners who require an alternative to law or psychotherapy. The podcast orients them to the possibilities of need-response and a wellness campaign. They can help popularize the service. Followers are typically the first to support another’s wellness efforts, who wait and see it can be of help to their particular situation and needs; to orient them to this fresh approac h. Our target audience Podcast features UPDATES Follow the show for updates on the development of the need-response service. We'll share the experience of speaking truth to power, and debrief the results with you. Plus much more. SHARED CLIPS Paid subscribers helping to test this service share their experience with you. Uploading short audio clips we can use on the show is one of the perks of a paid subscription. ILLUMINATION Get insights into how your needs work from the perspective of the new social science of anankelogy, the study of need. VIDEO CLIPS View bonus clips and additional shorts we produce as a video. Plus much more. Milestones Each milestone is to be announced publicly, with help from press releases. 1 January 2025 13 March 2025 26 March 2025 16 April 2025 23 April 2025 30 April 2025 TBD Publish the trailer to the Need-Response podcast Invite disillusioned lawyers and psychotherapists to explore this new opportunity to co-create a more effective client-centered service. Invite all lawyers and psychotherapists to become acquainted with this new service of need-response by listening to our upcoming podcast . Announce to all legal institutions the rollout of this new approach to addressing needs outside the adversarial paradigm. Tease the "Need-Response" podcast with episode 0 . Launch the "Need-Response" podcast with episode 1 . Launch the first pilot wellness campaign , with Steph as the guinea pig first client. Which will test the legal process's responsiveness to needs. Press Releases A new service could fix the damage from past transphobia and homophobia The new service of ‘need-response’ seeks to correct lingering transphobia and homophobia 13 January 2025 Read full press release ‘Need-Response’ Takes on Our Failing Institutions Lawyers and psychotherapists are about to face some competition 30 January 2025 Read full press release A new podcast wants to solve your stubborn problems The new podcast introduces a new problem-solving service called need-response 30 March 2025 Read full press release Calling All Disillusioned Lawyers A promising new professional service seeks disillusioned lawyers to help create it 20 January 2025 not yet available Calling All Disillusioned Psychotherapists A new professional service could destigmatize therapy by changing external conditions 20 January 2025 not yet available Prosecutors May Soon Face Competition Innocence claimants may have an alternative to the adversarial process for exoneration TBD not yet available Progress Updates Each of these provide a string of summary updates individually publicized in the Need-Response podcast . Need-Responder Community members receive in-depth updates. A visionary service called 'need-response' launches its own podcast The "Need-Response podcast" sparks interest in the new ‘need-response’ service. 17 May 2025 Transcript of update The 'need-response' service gains a footing addressing the problem of wrongful convictions "Need-response" fills gaps in the adversarial judicial process. 20 July 2025 not yet available The Anankelogy Foundation files for its 503(c) nonprofit status The Anankelogy Foundation oversees the new service of need-response, keeping all accountable to properly resolving each other's affected needs .. 28 September 2025 not yet available Spotify Amazon Castbox iHeart PlayerFM YouTube NR Clips

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z Glossary E < back to glossary menu earned legitimacy (n. ) [wellness campaign terminology] - REFUNCTION The refunction of establishing trusted responsiveness to vulnerable needs of those relatively less socially powerful, based empirically on measurable impacts on the needs of those under a powerholder's influence. E.g., positive or negative changes in health outcomes like chronic anxiety, major depression, and addictions. Posited as a higher form of legitimacy than widely accepted "ascribed legitimacy ", which is prone to manipulation and privileged unresponsiveness . Applies a response reputation or "response rating" to those in positions of of power. See legitimacy . easement orientation (n. ) - EO (abbr. ) One's relatively fixed or routine way to experience discomfort, which all stem from unresolved needs; either prioritizing relief-over-resolve or prioritizing resolve-over-relief . The Anankelogy Foundatdion addresses the challenge of improving one's EO with the NR101 Personal Need-Responder program. Other relevant terms: discomfort avoidance , discomfort embrace ; feel-reactive , need-responsive , passive-aggressive pain relief , reactive pain relief . engage (v. ) - REFUNCTION To openly explore each other's affected needs to resolve a conflict, as opposed to debating or disputing or arguing; to show intent for mutual regard making room for social love over norms privileging avoidance and opposition that tend to perpetuate pain and problems. Contrasts with the defunction of mutual defensiveness . engaging mutuality (n. ) - REFUNCTION Responding personally to what others may need in ways that encourage reciprocal respect for one’s own needs. Counters avoidant adversarialism . See responsivism . engaging query (n. ) A formatted invitation to consider thinking beyond an accepted assumption about something to reflect on a more specific and relevant perspective that could empirically result in resolving more needs. Invites a transition from being feel-reactive to being more need-responsive . Format: Opens with a question to compare two or more perspectives. E.g., "Which do you think is more likely?" or "Which would you prefer?" Then offers a widely accepted assumption, typically a more feel-reactive belief. "Or" to set up the illuminating comparison. Finally, a more specific and relevant perspective is offered to challenge the earlier assumption(s), as a more need-responsive belief. See examples in the openers to most blog entries here. evil (n. ) - DEFUNCTION Benefiting from diminishing the functioning of others or of oneself, overlooking less harmful or unharmful alternatives, and often correlating with a lack of sufficient awareness of the painful results. In other words, causing pathology + benefiting from it. Elements of anankelogically defined evil (the “D” element not essential but common): A ctions resulting in damage to others (or to oneself). B enefiting from the results of such harmful actions. C hoosing harmful options over benign alternatives. D esensitized to causing harm in others. See improperly resolving need s . evoked need (n. ) A requirement previously dormant now necessary to function. Emotions prompt attention to such needs, to make them focal in one's attention, to address them. Ignoring such needs compromises wellbeing, which results in more pain. Addressing each evoked need, to properly resolve them, ensures continued wellbeing. exaction invoice (n. ) A need-response communcation tool to report impersonal extraction of value coerced, often unconsciously, from powerholders to the relatively powerless. It looks like a standard invoice, listing items along with its costs. Learn more about the exaction invoice here . excessive resourcing (n. ) DEFUNCTION Organizing one’s access to primary resources in ways that both limits other’s access to such resources and limits one’s own contentment to fully resolve all of their own needs. While implicating the wealthy, this addresses the norm in Western society for single unit dwellings. Historically, families lived together with three generations: children with parents and likely their cousins, aunts and uncles, along with their grandparents. They socialized together in ways that nurtured social bonds and satisfied the need for closer social connections. While problem did exist with such close quarters, the contemporay alternative may not serve as a sustainable solution. By contrast, contemporary society atomizes families into individuals who typically live in private quarters, away from each other. Which likely contributes to alienation and other similar problems. Instead of learning contentment to cohabitate with relatives or others, our consumerist society manufactures discontentment when presenting material options unnecessary for, and potentially a harmful distration to, human flourishing. exposed need (n. ) Any core need or resource need or access need or psychosocial need easily impacted by any privileged social norm or structural problem . Compare with vulnerable need that is easily impacted by anyone in a privileged position of social influential "power" or by a power problem . Accessible anankelogy may use these terms interchangeably. A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z < back to glossary menu

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z Glossary M < back to glossary menu metapain (n. ) The body warning of the threat of too much pain in order to continue functioning. misfunction (n. ) Lowest level of a person's or entity's ability to function focused on surviving while their most basic needs continue unresolved. Sits below dysfunction in function array. moral conflation (n. ) - DEFUNCTION The defunction of failing to distinguish between unchosen needs and chosen responses . E.g., The rhetorical demand "I need a bottle of water" conflates the unchosen need for water with the chosen response to get that water in a bottle, which could be accessed in other ways. While expecting another to choose to get that water in some way fair to others, expecting another to not require water naturally provokes conflicts unnecessarily. Likewise, conflating another's unchosen need for security with their defensive chosen responses to feel more secure easily invites an avoidable conflict. See adversarialism , conflict porn and indulgent side-taking . Countered by the refunction of moral distinction that affirms unchosen needs before questioning chosen responses to such needs. moral distinction (n. ) - REFUNCTION The refunction of distinguishing between unchosen needs and chosen responses by first affirming inflexible unchosen needs before addressing flexible chosen responses to them. Answers the defunction of moral conflation . moral inversion (n. ) - DEFUNCTION - wellness resistance Reversing or displacing the good of resolving inflexible needs with the bad of not resolving such needs. And regarding the bad of not resolving inflexible needs as good. Anankelogy recognizes that every need exists as an objective fact , and every unmet need objectively diminishes one’s capacity to fully function, or to be fully well. This instills into morality an objective dimension , independent of personal beliefs or values. How we respond to needs can be relative to our beliefs and values. But the needs themselves emerge as objective facts separate from our personal agency. They objectively exist to serve our objective functioning. Which allows them to be measurable with the tools of social science. Efforts to only relieve the pain of an unmet need tends to ignore the objective fact of that need, which signals more pain to be relieved. For example, avoiding your anxiety by not facing a threat you feel that you cannot quite handle easily leaves you with more anxiety. Regarding such avoidance as good can hint at regarding a courageously bold act as foolish and therefore bad. Likewise, efforts to satiate cravings of a neglected need also overlooks the objective fact of that need, which typically results in more obsessive desires to be indulged. For example, indulging your desire for friendship by relying solely on social media “friends” can easily leave you feeling empty and craving for deeper connection. Regarding low-investment friendships as good may consider more meaningful friendships as too demanding and therefore bad. Both of these easily prompt a vicious cycle that risks pulling away from the “good” of resolving needs. Both tend to normalize the “bad” of lowered levels of functioning. These also risk sliding into the “bad” of normalizing the conditions of unmet needs. The "good" of resolving needs can appear too unfamiliar to risk trying. Some of this points to coerced dependence upon poor options (or CoPOD ). Or the results of symfunction capture that manipultes one to acquiesce to less-than-optimal choices. Increased pain occurs besides the best efforts to curb it. The good role of pain to alert one of threats to be removed become regarded as “bad” and avoided at all costs. Less healthy actions to ease such pain or satiate cravings with substitutes become regarded as “good”. The more one leans into easing their discomfort without resolving the underlying need, or settles for indulging their desires with unhelpful substitutes, the less they can function. Their diminished wellness can blind them from this reversing of priorities. Motivated reasoning supports their defensive self-righteousness. They may become unduly hostile to any critique of their moral reversal. The less their needs resolve, the more they tend to become self-absorbed in their consequential pain or obsessive desires. The more consumed by this mounting emotional discomfort, the less they can focus on other matters. They become less aware of their harmful impacts on others. They may dismiss any good faith empathy as depraved bothsidesism , to defensively protect their painful norms of alienation. Or regard mutually destructive adversarialism and avoidance as good if only to denounce efforts toward mutual understanding as morally weak. They tend to protect the familiarity of what helps them cope with their painful situation. Mounting pain of their unmet needs strains how much more discomfort they can readily handle. In short, they invert morality. What is good for resolving needs—like fully processing pain—becomes identified as bad . What is bad for resolving needs—like repeatedly ignoring the threats warned by pain or repeatedly indulging in substitutes that do little if anything to replenish what’s spent—becomes identified as good . This inversion can be isolated as observable phenomena with the social science tools of anankelogy. movement wellness campaign (n. ) [wellness campaign terminology] The third type of wellness campaign builds on the momentum of a successful project type of campaign, where at least one impactor demonstrates transformative leadership to inspire transforming social norms to solve structural problems . The other two types are case and project campaigns. mutual defensiveness (n. ) - DEFUNCTION The defunction of prioritizing discomfort avoidance and normative alienation over vulnerably engaging the affected needs during a conflict with others. mutual regard (n. ) - REFUNCTION The need-responsive refunction of attending to the needs on all sides of a conflict. In contrast to feel-reactive defunction s like indulgent side-taking , mutual defensiveness and conflict porn . A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z < back to glossary menu

React Culture React culture consists of any social or cultural norm privileging anything less than properly resolving needs . react culture - privileged reactions Privileged reaction # 22 Permitted evil Privileged illicit actions not explicitly illegal or enforced. properly resolving needs Permitted evil 8/8/26 1 Permitted evil Atomization culture Accountability diffusion Degraded social contract Indulgent side-taking Pathological pragmatism Projected antagonism Structural exaction Hyperrationality culture Ascribed legitimacy Dysfunction pathway Manipulative deception Permitted evil Pseudo-rationality Zero-sum thinking Hyperbole culture Bothsidesism misuse Excessive resourcing Mass institution mission creep Petty arguing debate Relativizing universal wisdom Avoidance culture Coerced compliance Gaslighting Moral conflation Premature defensiveness Self-incriminating denials Oppo culture Coerced poor options dependence Humanity loathing Normative alienation Privileged avoidance Shame shifting

< Back Innocence Project New Orleans not yet a parter Once a partner, find more information here about their case criteria, how to request for legal aid, along with any services. Previous Next