Saturday, October 25, 2008

CO - Football game's streaker was Madden's son

View the article here

So why isn't he labeled a sex offender? I am sure there were children there who saw this, and it was a sex crime, but, he's the son of a state representative, and laws do not apply to them, we all know that.

10/25/2008

By Heath Urie (Contact)

House majority leader says 17-year-old son regrets running naked Friday night

A 17-year-old boy arrested Friday night for streaking in front of about 6,000 football fans at Boulder High School is the son of a prominent state legislator.

State House Majority Leader Alice Madden (Email), an influential Boulder Democrat, confirmed Saturday that her son, Tom, was arrested for what she called a "pretty stupid" stunt.

"Every year it seems like someone streaks at this football game," said Madden, an attorney and member of the state Legislative Council. "Unfortunately for us and our family, this year it was our son."

The teen was arrested during half-time at the cross-town rivalry football game between Boulder and Fairview high schools.

Fans saw the streaker running across Recht Field, carrying a fake sword, which his mother said was to represent his pride in the Fairview Knights.

Tom Madden, a junior at the school, managed to dodge several security guards before he fell over a fence and was caught. He was booked at a Boulder juvenile detention center and later released to his father.

"I think he's in shock that something he thought was funny could end up being something very, very serious," Alice Madden said. "My husband and I are very disappointed. We've talked about it a lot and he faces punishment at home and he's going to have punishment at school."

She said she does not know whether the teen will be suspended from school.

"He said he wishes he could take it back," Alice Madden said. "I think the whole process was one (of him) thinking it was very funny and what happens at these games, and now he realizes everyone else and the police take this far more seriously."

The boy faces a class-one misdemeanor charge of indecent exposure, Boulder police Sgt. Pat Wyton said Saturday.

The charge carries fines ranging from $500 to $5,000 and/or a sentence of six to 18 months in jail.

Wyton said it's also possible that a judge would order the teen to register as a sex offender, although that scenario is unlikely because a judge might view the stunt as less serious than other indecent exposure offenses.
- Of course, he's the son of someone who is known and liked, so he will get slapped on the wrist!

"It's a kid running across a field as a prank ... I'm sure he's going to get some kind of referral or restorative justice," Wyton said.
- They would not say that if it was a 30 or 40 year old man, now would they?  HYPOCRISY, IT'S THE AMERICAN WAY!

Alice Madden, who will leave the state House in January due to term limits, has been a supporter of such programs.

Earlier this year, she co-sponsored a bill including restorative justice programs -- such as mediation -- in the juvenile justice code. The bill was signed into law in March.

Contact Camera Staff Writer Heath Urie at 303-473-1328 or urieh@dailycamera.com.


Letter sent to the ACLU and HRW regarding S431

07/25/2008

I've researched, and been disturbed by something about which I dare not write... but I cannot remain, even so silent.

The writing of this passage may place me in danger, but again, silence would render me derelict in the duty to the Constitution, and to the people of the United States.

When one cannot speak for a group, cannot speak in their defense without being charged with the same kinds of crimes for which they are accused, then it is ever more vital to speak. To do otherwise would be to encourage both tyranny, and totalitarianism.

I've been watching with concern a number of laws passed by congress, and I propose a new test... a test of reasonableness, and of legality which is, prima facie, a test of what constitutes a civil right, of reasonableness and conscience.

The Wetterling Act provided for a central database of 'sex offenders' and created a system of access that allowed law enforcement to provide possible suspects for sex crimes. It was limited to only the courts, and only the police. This, I feel, was an utterly valid act, insofar as it only affected those whom were adjudicated after the passage of the law.

However, of late, myriad amendments, modifications, and adjustments of the law have passed, creating ever more draconian measures. Upon the opening of the registry (under 'Megan's Law') there have been increasing reports of both abuse, and vigilante 'justice' meted out by individuals. After the 'Adam Walsh Child Safety Act' the restriction on offenders, and the supervision was further increased, at their own expense, without the adjudication process, or a jury trial.

The latest attack comes on the internet. Though earlier references to the internet existed, the latest 'KIDS' act instantiates a ruling that, by nature of the act, substantially limits, and depending on interpretation, completely removes the rights of those judged as 'Sex Offenders' on the registry to be on the internet.

How is this bad, one might ask? It makes our children safer! Does it? Does it really provide any vestige of security?

Ask yourselves this: How common are these crimes, and how are they judged? The truth is, any question about sex, sexuality, or discussion of pregnancy or virginity is, by definition, a sex crime on the internet. Any discussion of responsible activity, the dangers of date rape, questions or surveys about masturbatory habits, and even this particular document, by fiat, are defined as a sex offense, simply because, if a child reads this article, it deals with sex.

Is this wisdom? Is it just or good?

Yes, some sex offenders engage children on the internet by deception. The same proportion equally have the criminal thinking allowing them to attack children, or adults, without regard to the internet. The criminality of the thinking does not change with the internet of without it.

However, in America, we cannot attack someone for what they 'might' do. Without regard for those esteemed congressmen who claim that we 'should' there is no constitutional power to do so, at the county, state, or federal level.

The only way rights can be removed, the only way restrictions can be placed, and the only way attainder can be processed is via the court of law, and trial by jury, including the doctrine of jury nullification that is, since the 13th century, the right by which the jury tries the very 'legality' of the law itself.

In our country, however, since 1990, and the O.J. Simpson case, we have abandoned this doctrine, and the courts are prohibited from speaking on it. The right still exists, but the defense cannot speak of it, nor can the prosecution or the judge, due to sanctions.

Is this a wise, or just course? Is it consistent with the jurisprudence to create a system by which a person is guilty, until they can prove themselves innocent beyond the shadow of a doubt.... and the shadow of a doubt bar is raised high enough that they can never again become innocent?

Were this any other class of persons, shoplifters, persons guilty of assault, identity thieves, persons guilty of banking fraud, or those guilty of gross and deliberate malfeasance of office, would we react the same?

The pertinent sections of the KIDS act (S 431) are as follows:

SEC. 2. REGISTRATION OF ONLINE IDENTIFIERS OF SEX OFFENDERS.

(a) In General- Section 114(a) of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification ACT(42 U.S.C. 16914(a)) is amended--

(1) by redesignating paragraphs (4) through (7) as paragraphs (5) through (8); and

(2) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following:

`(4) Any electronic mail address or other designation the sex offender uses or will use for self-identification or routing in Internet communication or posting.'.

(b) Updating of Information- Section 113(c) of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (42 U.S.C. 16913(c)) is amended by adding at the end the following: `The Attorney General shall have the authority to specify the time and manner for reporting of other changes in registration information, including any addition or change of an electronic mail address or other designation used for self-identification or routing in Internet communication or posting.'.

(c) Failure To Register Online Identifiers- Section 2250 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) in subsection (b), by inserting `or (d)' after `subsection (a)'; and

(2) by adding at the end the following:

`(d) Knowing Failure To Register Online Identifiers- Whoever--

`(1) is required to register under the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act
(42 U.S.C. 16901 et seq.); and

`(2) uses an email address or any other designation used for self-identification or routing in Internet communication or posting which the individual knowingly failed to provide for inclusion in a sex offender registry as required under that Act;

shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.'.

So.... if you are guilty of a misdomeanor sex offense (public urination, exposure 'mooning') due to Adam Walsh, you're on the registry. You may have recieved a one month sentence (or no sentence, but a warning 'not to do it again') but failure to register all online identifiers or routing identifiers is a felony punishable by ten years in prison?

Is this just? Is it reasonable for the purposes for which it is enacted? Will it be effective? Are there any less restrictive measures that could be emplaced?

The term 'other designation for routing' includes the following, off the top of my head that I know of: Anonymous UDP packet headers, DHCP discovery packets, IP addresses (often dynamic, and no notification when they change), email and email server routing systems (which are not under the user's control). MAC addresses (changes on every machine and router)

There is a further requirement to register chat names, defining a 'social networking site' as the following.

SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.


Section 111 of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (42 U.S.C. 16911) is amended by adding at the end the following:


`(15) The term `social networking website' means an Internet website that--


`(A) allows users, through the creation of web pages or profiles or by other means, to provide information about themselves that is available publicly or to other users; and


`(B) offers a mechanism for communication with other users.

This defines any system (internet telephony, vocal communications, visual or optical communcations (including assistance devices for the deaf) political commentary sites, morse code via the internet, php scripts, bulletin boards, and any other potential communication systems, including games.

In effect, and in process, by writ, it removes the right to legal use of the internet by persons not convicted of any further crimes.

Let us extend this ruling to its logical ends! Since it is illegal to do any of this on the internet without registration, let us say that there is a greater danger in person. Therefore, no sex offender can go into any place without marking themselves with a tattoo, brand, or distinctive clothing, nor can they speak without first identifying themselves as a sex offender, nor can they write any publication for any newspaper without registering the article, nor can they speak in any assembly. They cannot attend churches, as they are a social networking site, and children may be present.

In effect, the law claims a clear and present danger for which these persons must be regulated, without regard for what their current actions are, and without regard for law, or due process. It creates a system of attainder with no judicial review, by which any new law can alter the original, and create a system of ever-changing laws, which must by complied with, without regard to what the prior amendments were.

In effect, it is a punishment, not for the crimes which the person has committed (For which the onus ended when the sentence did) but a punishment for the crimes which they may possibly commit in the future.

The actual recidivism rate (from the US DOJ, and the Arizona Department of Corrections) for sex offenses in specific is actually lower than for any other crime. The statistics say that sex offenders are more likely to recommit for a sex offense per capita than any other offender is... but still, and even so, other offenders account for over 92% of all new cases of sex offenses.

The specialization level of the small percentage (between 6 and 12%, depending on the population) is extreme. However, does this excuse the attainder of the rest of the population? Does it excuse marking them with a taint as deserving the punishment?

H.R. 4472 was emplaced, in the words of one of those discussing it (I can't call it a debate, as there was no room for amendment under the suspension of the rules) was, in the house:

From the Esteemed Congresswoman:

"Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the bill that we have before us, the Children's Safety and Violent Crime Reduction Act.

February 23 marked the 1-year anniversary of Jessica Lunsford's death. I knew the family; I knew the grandmother. If Jessica were still with us, she would have been in the fifth grade. She would be learning about decimals and fractions and the solar system. Instead, her life was taken by a sex offender who assaulted and murdered her, and then buried her in his backyard. That is what this bill is all about, going after those, as someone once described, pond-scum predators."

The bill was described as legal in its ex-post facto obligations because it served a regulatory purpose as well as not having any 'punitive intent'.

How is the above not a statement of punitive intent? How is a bill not punitive, when by any measure of the definition of punishment, it clearly creates legal obligations, subjects those obligations to criminal sanctions, requires the payment of fines and fees in regards to those sanctions, opens the person to both abuse and vigilante 'justice', and prevents in any way, form, or measure their self protection, in a time when the Supreme Court has judged that they have no individual right to police protection, and by the legislation, in many cases, have had their civil rights removed already, including the right to vote and the right to keep and bear arms?

If such a legislation is not constitutional in any other case of offender, how is it constitutional in this case?

What makes an act punitive? Is it the intent of the act, or the way the act is used? I would argue that it is both, either, and more.

If such an act, placed up against any other class of persons, with the same penalties in a 'civil' action, can be viewed as punishment... then it is punishment.

If the act would be considered unjustified and cruel applied to congressmen, persons guilty of domestic assault, judges, murderers, city workers, bad check writers, adult kidnappers... how is it somehow not punitive here?

I concur, that the measure with congressmen, judges, city workers, is not the same measure as the others, nor are teachers, counters of the vote, or any other purpose.. but if the law would be considered punitive applied to them, the same standard applies.

In truth, though, I feel that, in spite of the prohibition in the Constitution of the U.S, under Article 1, section 9 against ex post facto laws and bills of attainder being only discussed in criminal cases, it is just as applicable in civil cases which can be no less punitive or wrong.

The attacked rights fall within the freedom of assembly, regardless of the venue. They are no less constitutional for being in a forum.

This is not to say that one cannot be prosecuted for acts done in such a forum. Slander, libel, and the like, are no less valid in an online forum than a real forum.

However, you cannot punish all for the acts of a few.

Tried By Conscience


NY - Man Alleges Cops Sodomized Him With a WalkieTalkie

View the article here

10/24/2008

NEW YORK — Prosecutors are investigating allegations that five New York City police officers attacked a tattoo parlor worker and sodomized him with a walkie-talkie in a subway station.

The 24-year-old man says the officers then wrote him a disorderly conduct ticket and abandoned him as he was writhing in pain.

The police department disputes the allegations and strongly denies the man was sodomized.

"Police officers grappled with an individual who they observed smoking marijuana after he had fled and resisted being handcuffed. His assertion that he was sodomized is not supported by independent civilian witnesses on the scene," NYPD spokesman Paul Browne said in a statement.

The case is being investigated by the police department and the Brooklyn District Attorney's office.

The accusations brought back memories of the 1997 assault of Abner Louima, who was beaten and sodomized with a broomstick in a police precinct by officers in one of the most notorious cases of police brutality in NYPD history.

In the latest case, lawyers for the accuser came forward Thursday afternoon with the startling allegations, and a hospital confirmed that he was admitted on the day of the alleged attack and spent four days there.

The man sought medical care again on Thursday, complaining he was urinating blood and suffering lingering pain.

Lawyers say five police officers approached Michael Mineo on Oct. 15 around 12:30 p.m. because they believed he was smoking marijuana near a subway stop in Brooklyn.

When the tattoo parlor employee entered the station, he claims officers jumped him from behind, handcuffed him and wrestled him to the ground, according to attorney Stephen Jackson.

Mineo told his lawyers that he felt a foot on his neck as the officers beat him, then yanked down his pants and sodomized him with the walkie-talkie. The lawyers say the officers took the bleeding Mineo into a police car, wrote him a disorderly conduct ticket and left him at the subway station.

"My God, this just sent chills throughout my body when I heard this," Jackson said. "This is one of the most horrendous acts of police brutality."

One of Mineo's co-workers took him to the hospital, where he remained most of the week with internal injuries. His attorney says the hospital administrator contacted the Brooklyn District Attorney's office because it appeared Mineo was the victim of a sexual assault.

Jackson said medical records corroborate Mineo's story, but would not immediately provide copies of them. Mineo was not available to speak. Brookdale Hospital officials confirmed that he was admitted on Oct. 15 and discharged four days later.

Jackson said he and Mineo didn't go public with the allegations right away because they wanted to give prosecutors time to investigate.

A law enforcement official, speaking on condition of anonymity because the investigation is ongoing, said many initial details about the incident cast doubt on Mineo's claims.

For instance, the official said Mineo initially yelled at the scene that he had been shocked with a stun-gun by the officers, but none of the officers was carrying the weapon.

The Brooklyn District Attorney's office says it doesn't comment on any open investigations. Mineo was previously arrested in June on a charge of gang assault and criminal possession of a weapon.


SC - Sex offenders have 5 p.m. Halloween curfew

View the article here

10/25/2008

COLUMBIA - Sex offenders on probation or parole in South Carolina will again have a 5 p.m. curfew on Halloween.

The Department of Probation, Parole and Pardon Services plans to check on the nearly 1,200 sex offenders it monitors through phone calls and home checks.

The agency says offenders cannot host parties, give out candy or even have their outdoor lights on from 5 p.m. to 10 p.m. Halloween.

Last year, several South Carolina counties required all sex offenders to show up at events at the sheriff's office on Halloween.


WI - Alderman examines Franklin sex-offender philosophy

View the article here

10/22/2008

Zoning, nuisance ordinances keys to neighbor’s plan

By JOHN SCHULTZ - jschultz@cninow.com

Two sex-offender residency ordinances — one that would be part of Muskego’s zoning ordinances and a nuisance ordinance that would allow the city to take police action — would be a good one-two punch in controlling sex offenders.

That was the message Franklin Alderman Steve Olson (Email) brought to the Muskego Committee of the Whole last week.

Olson was instrumental in passing Franklin's sex offender residency ordinances that resulted in a man on the state's sex offender registry being forced out of the home he owns in Franklin. The city's actions in forcing the man out were recently upheld in circuit court.

Since Muskego is considering a similar ordinance, Mayor John Johnson and council members asked Olson to speak to them Oct. 14 about Franklin's experience.

"Our zoning ordinance set the groundwork for us to be successful in enforcing our nuisance ordinance," Olson said. "Zoning ordinances have more teeth."

He said state laws cannot preempt local zoning ordinances. Then, Franklin used its nuisance ordinance to get the injunction to force the sex offender out of his home.

City needs to identify goal

Olson said it is important for Muskego to set its goal in crafting an ordinance.

"Our goal is to protect the safety of our children," he said of Franklin. "We tailored the ordinances to our community."

Areas where children congregate such as schools, churches, day care centers, parks and trails were set up in the Franklin ordinance as places the targeted sex offenders would be prohibited from visiting.

"You're not too dissimilar to us," Olson told the Muskego officials. "You have a lot of rural areas. There's lots of opportunity for stranger danger."
- Not from what statistics show.  90% or more of all sexual crimes, occur in the victims own home, or close family, to stranger danger is a hyped up myth!

Besides the two-pronged attack on resident sex offenders, Olson gave Muskego officials a little of Franklin's philosophy that has made its sex offender ordinances successful.

"We believe we ought to be responsible for our own sex offenders," he said. "We'll take ours, but don't give us anyone else's."

That philosophy shows the courts that Franklin is not out to completely ban sex offender residency.

Franklin's ordinances set its child safety zones within 2,000 feet of defined areas.

"We considered 2,500 feet, but we were concerned we couldn't justify it," Olson said. "The 2,500 feet ruled out 99 percent of our community. That would make it difficult for us (to defend in court)."

Olson urged city officials to get census tract information and find out exactly where children live in the city. That will help in deciding the number of feet to be used in the ordinances.

Smaller communities would use a lower number of feet. Greenfield is looking at 1,500 feet and Greendale at 500 feet, Olson said. Being a densely packed urban area, Olson called Milwaukee's proposal of 2,500 feet "absurd."

State role debated

Franklin passed its sex offender residency ordinances in January 2007. It was the second community in the state to pass such legislation.

Now many communities are forming similar ordinances, Olson said. Franklin got involved early because Milwaukee was eyeing Franklin's House of Correction site as a place to house people on the sex offender registry.

Seventy-two of what Olson called "the worst of the worst" people on the sex offender registry could have been moved there.

"We turned that back, but realized the state was not going to stop there," Olson said. "We realized we would need to take control of our city if we were going to have any sense of security in our community."

Johnson wondered if local ordinances would be the best move for Muskego. Maybe state legislation is the answer.

"A lot of people believe the state will be the next player in this game," Johnson said.

"If all of us do reasonable (municipal) ordinances, what purpose would the state have in going around this?" Olson asked.

The uniqueness of each community makes local ordinances the way to go, he said.

John Schultz can be reached at (262) 446-6611.


The Scapegoat


What is Mob Mentality?

View the article here
Wikipedia

So now, instead of acting civilized, and thinking things through, we've become "The Mob," out on a "Witch Hunt!"

The term “mob mentality” is used to refer to unique behavioral characteristics which emerge when people are in large groups. It is sometimes used disparagingly, as the term “mob” typically conjures up an image of a disorganized, aggressive, panicked group of people. Social psychologists who study group behavior tend to prefer terms like “herd behavior” or “crowd hysteria.” The study of mob mentality is quite fascinating, and it is used to analyze situations which range from evacuations gone awry to the moment when demonstrations turn violent.

The larger study of herd behavior considers groups of all animals, not just humans. People have been observing group behavior of flocks, herds, gaggles, pods, kindles, and other assortments of animals for thousands of years, but it was not until the early twentieth century that observers started applying scientific theories about crowd behavior to humans. Several books published in the teens discussed mob mentality, along with various ways to combat it.

When used in a pejorative sense, the term implies a group of people which has gotten out of control. For example, in a news story about a store sale at which people were trampled, the journalist might use “mob mentality” to describe the selfish behavior of the people who attended the sale. Such stories illustrate the desperate actions which people will involve themselves in during a period of resource competition; people may mob trucks with relief supplies, trample each other at big box stores, or riot in the streets in response to resource scarcity or a perceived scarcity.

However, “mob mentality” is about more than just crowds which have gotten out of control. The field of psychology is very interested in the ways in which human behavior change in response to new social situations. People behave very differently in small groups of individuals than they do in big crowds, for example, and their behavior in crowds is affected by a wide variety of factors.

The study of group behavior can analyze situations to see where, when, and why they went wrong. Stock market crashes, for example, can be precipitated by mob mentality, as people start to panic in response to fluctuating markets. The evacuation of the Titanic, in which a small fraction of the available lifeboat space was utilized, is another great example of mob mentality, illustrating the need for organized evacuation plans and drills so that people know what to do in an emergency.

The study of crowds has also been used to study grim topics like the rise of antisemitism in Germany under Hitler, the riots between Muslims and Hindus which broke out when India was partitioned, and the genocide which took place in Rwanda in 1994. Psychologists hope that by studying mob mentality and crowd behavior, they can prevent such events from recurring.

See also:


OH - Grandparents unite to protect trick-or-treaters from sex predators in Summit County

View the article here

Wow, everyone is afraid of their own shadows these days.  Why don't parents be parents and go around with their children on Halloween, instead of the fear-mongering, mass hysteria, moral panic?  You sure this doesn't mean "God Awful Stupid People?"  Out comes the mob! So now, we've created a new breed of predator!

10/24/2008

AKRON -- Among the trick-or-treaters in Akron on Saturday night will be grandparents looking to keep their little ones safe from sexual predators.

Grandparents Against Sex Predators (GASP) plans to increase its patrols this weekend as local communities hold beggars night and kids can seek candy go door-to-door.

With 20,000 Registered Sex Offenders across Ohio, GASP and deputies from the Summit County Sheriff's Office believe there's too many children at risk of knocking on the wrong door of someone who may do them harm.
- Not if parents would stop whining, be parents, and go along with their children! 

"We're going to set up and go from neighborhood to neighborhood," said Carl Rakich, a grandfather and GASP member. "We'll have several cars out in each of the areas. We're going to park the cars and patrol the neighborhoods individually. Just to be out there to be visible and so people will be aware."
- Good, at least you are being parents, or grandparents.  Also, don't forget about the other 364 days of the year.  You people think sex offenders will always re-offender, if that was the case, there would be a lot more on the news, now wouldn't there?  Out comes the mob!

GASP members will wear vests that identify them as volunteers with the Summit County Sheriff's Office, and they'll observe children in designated neighborhoods during trick-or-treat activities.

"We're going to have our patrol out in full force, but this way it's an extra set of feet out on the road to provide visibility and safety for the children," said Bill Holland, inspector with the Summit County Sheriff's Office.

GASP members will communicate using cell phones and will notify deputies at the first sign of trouble.


TX - Cedar Park mulls sex offender limits

View the article here

Karma usually comes back to haunt you, so don't go screaming when your on child is slammed with the "sex offender" label.

10/24/2008

CEDAR PARK - (KXAN) - The City of Cedar Park is researching the possibility of placing living restrictions on sex offenders.

The issue came up about a month ago, when Patsy and Tom Griffiths asked the council to consider imposing restrictions. Residency restrictions would ban sex offenders from living within a certain number of feet from parks, schools, daycares or anywhere kids may congregate.

There are approximately 40 registered sex offenders living in the city of Cedar Park, and limiting the restrictions to just high risk offenders is also an option the council is considering.

"That's why they are called 'high risk'said Griffiths. "The test that they were given before they were released says that they are going to re-offend, so why do we want to take a chance on a high-risk offender hurting one of our boys or girls?"
- Yes, it may say the are going to re-offender, but who is the fortune teller who is predicting this?  Also, if these so-called "tests" say they "are" going to re-offender, why are you letting them out in the first place?  Are you wanting another child to be harmed, so you can further punish sex offenders?  And who is performing these so-called "tests?"  A person who is truly a danger, as they would have you believe, is not going to obey the rules anyway, and if the limit is 1000 feet, are they magically OK at 1001 feet?  USE YOUR FRIGGIN' BRAINS FOLKS!

Before an ordinance can be passed by Council, Cedar Park has to make sure various restrictions they may impose are legal. The Council also has to consider how to handle an offender who already lives in a child safe zone.

"I think the council was definitely concerned when it was brought up," said Melanie Carr, a spokesperson with the City of Cedar Park. "They definitely want to look into it. We're always trying to enhance and protect our citizens with the services we provide."
- I think you are BSing, and you just want to look good to the sheeple, that is what I believe!

Cedar Park parent Danny Lacey hopes the legal issues can be worked out, so his two boys are protected.
- Even if they pass a law, your child is no safer than before the law was passed.  You are just one of the sheeple I am talking about, who love for the Government to dictate when you can and cannot do something, and so you have a scapegoat to blame when something does happen, which I pray doesn't.

"Do whatever you can to protect our kids," Lacey said. "I know we have some things in place like getting on the Web site to see where they live, but keeping them from moving in would help us even more."
- You say, "do whatever is takes!"  Then why don't they take your kids a way from you, because statistically, you are more than likely the person who will sexually abuse them.  Statistics show than more than 90% of sexual assaults, happen by family, and 90% or more from those NOT on the registry.  So maybe we should take your kids, and put all the kids on an island somewhere, for their protection!

The City Attorney's office, as well as other members of the city staff, will continue researching the issue. Information will be presented to the city council during future meetings.


PA - East Wheatfield OKs rules for Megan’s law offenders

View the article here

Whatever law this is, clearly it's about all sex offenders, and not all sex offenders are predators like this reporter eludes to.  I have searched the Pennsylvania Legislature web site, and find only one bill SB-771, but this is from April 2007.  So if anyone can find an updated bill, let me know, so I can add it here.

10/24/2008

BY FRANK SOJAK - The Tribune-Democrat

ARMAGH — East Wheatfield Township supervisors on Friday unanimously passed an ordinance that its solicitor believes is one of the strongest in the state in protecting residents from violent sexual predators.

Last month, Richard M. Vavro, 54, a convicted child molester, moved to Armagh, which is surrounded by East Wheatfield, upon his release from the state prison in Cresson.

Vavro must register for life as a violent sexual predator.

Vavro’s move infuriated residents of Armagh and East Wheatfield who are concerned about their children.

Township Solicitor Timothy Burns believes the ordinance is one of the most restrictive in the state and will protect the defenseless.

State officials have indicated they are receptive to the ordinance and the concerns of residents, he said. That’s a positive sign, he said.

The ordinance places restrictions on where a predator can live and requests that state parole officials provide the supervisors with ample notice so that the supervisors can do all they can to make sure residents are protected, he said.

Currently, only schools and police are notified and that is just before the offender moves, he said.

The ordinance calls for state parole officials to meet with the supervisors and the public, he said. Under the ordinance, the penalty for the state failing to comply is $1,000, he said.

Offenders would be barred from living near child-care facilities, senior-care facilities, open spaces, community centers, public parks, recreational facilities, schools and school bus stops.