Saturday, March 14, 2009


See the lyrics below the video!

Yea, Uh
In the name of Jesus
No weapon formed against me shall prosper (PREACH)
And every tongue that rises against me in judgement thou shall condem (PREACH)
*1.For this is the heritage of the servants of the Lord (PREACH)*
*2.And their righteousness is of me saith the Lord (PREACH)*

[Verse 1]
Lord Give Me A Sign
I really need to talk to you Lord
Since the last time we talked the walk has been hard
Now i know you havent left me but i feel like im alone
Im a big boy now but im still not grown
And im still goin through it
The pain and the hurt
Soakin up trouble like rain in the dirt
And i know, only i can stop the rain
With just a mention of my savior's name
Devil i rebuke you for what i go through
And tryna make me do, what i used to
But all that stops right here
As long as the Lord's in my life
I will have no fear
I will know no pain from the light to the dark
I will show no shame spit it right from the heart
Cuz its right from the start
You held me down
And aint nuthin they can tell me know

Let me know whats on your mind
Let me know what im gon find
Its all in time
Show me how to teach the mind
Show me how to reach the blind
Show me what i gots to do
To bring me closer to you
Cuz imma go through
Whatever you want me to
Jus let me know what to do

[Verse 2]
Please show me sumthin
Im tired of talkin to him
Knowin he frontin
Cryin bout life aint nuthin
But you either be the one mad cuz u trapped
Or the one huntin
Trapped in your own mind
Waitin on the Lord
Or huntin with the word
That cuts like a sword
*3.Spoken word is stronger*
*4.than the strongest man*
Carries the whole world
Like the strongest hand
But through trials and tribulations
You never let us down
I know you're here wit us now
*5.I know you're still wit us now*
Keep it real wit us now
I wanna feel show me how
Let me take your hand
Guide me
Ill walk slow
But stay right beside me
Devils tryna find me
Hide me
Hold up i take that back
Protect me and give me the strength to fight back

Let me know whats on your mind
Let me know what im gon find
Its all in time
Show me how to teach the mind
Show me how to reach the blind
Show me what i gots to do
To bring me closer to you
Cuz imma go through
Whatever you want me to
Jus let me know what to do

[Choir + DMX]

Let me know whats on your mind
Let me know what im gon find
Its all in time
Show me how to teach the mind
Show me how to reach the blind
Show me what i gots to do
To bring me closer to you
Cuz imma go through
Whatever you want me to
Jus let me know what to do

OR - Is Oregon's sex offender registry effective?

View the article here


By WILLIAM McCALL - Associated Press Writer

PORTLAND - Vi Beatty, manager of the Oregon State Police sex offender registry, says the registry's Web site gets about 34,000 hits a day, and more when stories about offenders make the news, sometimes nearly doubling.
- Since we know that other web sites provide access to all state registries, I wonder if the vast majority of the hits to these state registries are due to stuff like web bots crawling the sites and accessing the registry to check for updates?  How are they determining if the hits are due to humans or programming code?

In addition, Beatty says, state police get more than 400 phone calls and e-mails each month asking whether people are on the list.
- So why do these people who are asking these questions, not check the registry?

"We get parents contacting us, saying our daughter is dating so and so, can you tell us whether he's a sex offender?" Beatty said.
- Check the online registry!

Public awareness about sex offenders and access to information about them has been expanding in Oregon since the first sex offender registration law was enacted in 1989.
- It's increasing due to the media, politicians and police departments hyping the fear factor, and promoting their own web sites, and when criminal data is put online, it's common sense people will be curious and check.  If they would quite discriminating, and put all criminal data online, I can guarantee you the # of hits would go up dramatically, possibly shutting down their web servers!

The public has access to that data by contacting the state police, who have maintained the list of all registered sex offenders in Oregon since 1999.
- And originally, the sex offender data was being collected, but offline and used by police only.  And it makes me wonder, why is it online now?  Maybe because the police were getting called all the time, and they got tired of it, so they exposed many people's online data to potential identity thiefs, and vigilantes, just so they'd have less work to do, IMO.  The registry needs to be taken offline, like it was before, and used by police only, and if someone wants to know who lives around them, do like you could do before, go down to the court and look it up!  You see, people are lazy, and do not want to do that, it's too much work.  But, the number of vigilante murders would go down as well!

In 2006, the state began posting a list of high-risk predatory sex offenders, a smaller group of about 5 percent of all the registered offenders, on an Internet site.

"They wanted what they term the 'worst of the worst' out there for the public to see," Beatty said.

While advocates of open government have complained about legislators passing scores of exemptions over the years to Oregon's open records law, the state has been making efforts to increase access to information about sex offenders.
- Why not increase information for all criminals?  Why just pick on one group?  That is discrimination!  Put all criminals on there, so we know about the senators, mayors, governors who were caught smoking marijuana, DUI, and also about the murderers, gang members, drug dealers, etc.  Why not put everyone on it?

The reasons have been heightened concerns about public safety, along with pressure from voters, influential lobbyists and the development of registries in other states, according to Kevin Neely, spokesman for the Oregon District Attorneys Association.

"It's been a cross-pollination of keen public interest and action by policy makers," Neely said.

There is debate about the effectiveness of how sex offenders have been tracked. Law-enforcement officials and many crime victim advocates argue sex offender registries help improve public safety, although studies on recidivism have failed to show whether there is any deterrent effect.
- Those who say it improves public safety should be showing us the studies to prove this lie.  Why do they not show us a study?  Because it's all lies!  You can see the many recidivism studies for yourself, here.  Which show sex offender recidivism is LOW, and not high like is generally believed and hyped by the media and politicians.

"It's not just a gimmick," said Kevin Mannix, a former state lawmaker and author of the Oregon mandatory sentencing law. "It's a very useful tool."
- Useful how?  Ok, you can get on the site and see all the sex offenders.  So what, how does that protect you?  Again, the offender living next door, if they wanted to harm you or your child, what would stop them from doing so?  It's useful to help pacify you into "believing" you are safe, when you are not!

Suzanne Brown-McBride, executive director of the California Coalition Against Sexual Assault, has a different take.

She contends there is a risk that notification laws can be used to run an offender out of a neighborhood and potentially undermine public safety by making the offender more difficult to supervise or transient, increasing the chances of re-offending.

She also says registries can give the impression that the listed offenders are the only people who pose a threat.

Brown-McBride advocates notification systems that provide public access to trained professionals who can explain the level of risk posed by an individual offender.

"Sadly, however, even though the public can benefit from accurate and thoughtfully considered information about sexual offenders, many mechanisms that states and local governments use to inform the public are incomplete, difficult to understand or may even be inaccurate," Brown-McBride said in an e-mail.

Oregon makes an effort to explain those risk levels.

Pat Schreiner, district manager for the Multnomah County Department of Community Justice, says the county's parole and probation officers who deal with sex offenders receive extensive training on assessing risk.

"We're one of only three states in the country to train parole officers to use clinical techniques," Schreiner said.
- Why aren't sex offender therapists, those who are experts in the field, doing the evaluations?  You expect a parole or probation officer to correctly determine if someone is dangerous or not?  I don't!

"If I'm just trusting my gut on assessment, I'm going to be wrong half the time, so these are validated, actuarial risk assessment processes," he said.

Joan Copperwheat, the Lane County parole and probation manager, says that anybody under post-prison supervision is classified with risk assessment tools, but there are multiple assessment tools for sex offenders in Oregon.
- So why isn't this risk assessment (Tier I, II or III) being shown on the registry?  How is the public suppose to know who is what?

Still, she agrees with Brown-McBride that the public should not focus on the registry as the highest risk, especially when it comes to protecting children.

"Most of the sex offenders are people you know, not scary guys who jump out from behind trees," Copperwheat said. "They might be the minister, they might be the Girl Scout leader, they might be Uncle Joe."

The main goal of the Oregon registry and similar registries in other states, officials say, is to track sex offenders after they get out of prison and to reduce the risk that they will commit a similar crime.
- So, if you make it impossible for someone on the registry to keep or find a job, keep or find a home, and they become homeless, how is that achieving this goal?  It's not!  And again, sex offenders are already less likely than any other criminal, to commit another related (i.e. sex) crime.  The registry grows daily, because of those who are not currently sex offenders, and not due to recidivism!

"What the registry laws are intended to do is make sure that people who have a criminal history of committing sex offenses are where they're supposed to be," said Ernie Allen, president of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.
- Come on Ernie, you change this all the time.  If it's to keep track of sex offenders, to make sure they are living where they should, then why does it need to be online to do this?  And also, why does it matter where they are living?  If they are not committing another crime, then what is the problem?  If they commit another crime, then, based on their history, sentence them accordingly.  If a person is out of jail/prison and off probation/parole, then what right does anyone have to know where they live, except maybe the victim?

"The primary purpose is to provide meaningful monitoring and oversight to minimize the risk of reoffending," Allen said.
- Ok, which is it.  I see three different "purposes" listed above, two from you.  Sex offenders, based on the many studies, are already less likely than any other criminal, except murderers, to commit a similar crime, so it wasn't a problem in the first place.

Nationally, the center estimates about 100,000 convicted sex offenders among the 674,000 required to register are noncompliant — about 15 percent who have not registered or provided their address.
- I am so sick and tired of the magic round number.  Show me the proof of this 100,000!  It doesn't exist, it's something someone made up, because it sounds good!

In Oregon, more than 15,000 sex offenders were registered by the end of 2008, with about 16 percent noncompliant.

By that measure, Oregon is about average and can improve, officials say.

"I'd say it's an effective tool, but we can hone it and do even better than we're doing," said Steve Doell, president of Crime Victims United of Oregon.
- How?  Care to elaborate on this?

Some cities are doing better than others. In Albany, for example, there are 336 registered offenders and 28 are out of compliance, or just over 8 percent.

"We have two detectives tasked specifically to sex abuse cases," said Capt. Eric Carter of the Albany police.

In Medford, police officer Tom Sweeney is in charge of checking up on the roughly 425 registered sex offenders in his city. Last year he managed to contact about 250 offenders and discovered 45 were out of compliance.
- So tell me, why are they out of compliance?  Is it maybe due to the draconian nature of these laws?  How many were non-compliant before the laws changed?  Why don't you show those statistics?

Still, he says that's an improvement over 2003, when he took over the Medford program.

"When we started out, we had a whole lot of out-of-compliance offenders," Sweeney said.

Even with the registry, offenders sometimes slip through the cracks.
- What does "slip through the cracks mean?"  That the police are not doing their jobs maybe?

Doell cited the case of a girl who was killed recently by a convicted sex offender in Vancouver, Wash., while he was wearing a GPS tracking device that detailed his every move.
- Ok, why point this out, if you are not going to go into more details?  The above story just proves, IMO, that the GPS, registry and residency restrictions DO NOT WORK!  Did it prevent him from killing someone?  Nope, and it never will.  Again, someone intent on committing a crime, even if there is 10 million laws on the books, will do so.

In Roseburg, a registered sex offender was arrested last July and charged with attempting to abduct a 7-year-old girl by trying to pull her into his sport utility vehicle after driving up alongside her while she was riding her bike.
- So again, nothing prevented it.  And how many sex offenders are not doing anything wrong?  Where are those statistics?  You are just picking out a few rare cases to attempt to justify the laws!  You can do that in anything!

Police or parole officers may warn the public about sex offenders classified as "predatory" at neighborhood meetings, or with the distribution of fliers, newspaper ads or by posting notices on offender residences. The offender's address, a physical description, photographs and type of vehicle driven can also be released.

Although community notification is allowed for predatory offenders, they are outnumbered about 20 to 1 in Oregon by sex offenders convicted of lesser felonies.

Less information is available about them under privacy laws, and the public must call or e-mail the Oregon State Police to see if they are registered.

Requests can be made to a local or county law enforcement agency, or a community corrections office, to find out more details or an address — if the agency can release it.

"If somebody calls in to the registry and asks, 'What you can tell me about so and so?' — under Oregon law, we can release information needed to keep the public safe," Beatty said.

The privacy of sex offenders is protected to some extent, but courts have consistently ruled they must register because it is a regulatory law and not considered additional punishment tacked on to a prison sentence.
- And that is a joke!  If they were convicted before the registry came into being, then it's an additional sentence without due process of law, and violating ex post facto, and IS PUNISHMENT!  Why don't you live on the registry for a couple years and obey the same rules, then tell me it's not punishment!  It's easy to say that when you are not the one facing the PUNISHMENT!

"The registration scheme itself has been upheld against virtually every challenge, including juveniles," said Dave Fidanque, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union chapter in Oregon.
- Well, that sounds to me like the Oregon ACLU is not doing their jobs then, because the constitution clearly states that "NO EX POST FACTO LAW SHALL BE PASSED!"

Challenges in Oregon have centered on whether convicted offenders are properly classified as predatory, Fidanque said.

Doell said he would like to see counties give sex offenders a higher priority with the $230 million budgeted for parole and probation supervision statewide.

Allen, of the national children's center, said he is pushing for more federal funding with a July deadline approaching for states to adopt guidelines leading to a national registry under the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act.

"There's a clear willingness to provide some of these funds," Allen said.

Roy Cooper (Contact), the attorney general for North Carolina, said a national registry would help keep sex offenders off social networking Web sites, such as MySpace, which announced in February it had removed about 90,000 sex offenders after Cooper investigated.
- So how many of those 90,000 sex offenders were from North Carolina, and how many were actually doing anything wrong?  Why don't you tell us that?  So we know the truth, which you clearly want to hide and make everyone assume all those 90,000 were trolling for kids to molest, which is total BS.  I am willing to bet fewer than 1% were from North Carolina, and fewer than 1% of the 90,000 were actually doing something wrong, but, you won't hear that from this man, because he doesn't want the facts to be known!

"I can see immediate benefits from a nationwide database of sex offenders," Cooper said. "It can help us immediately on social networking sites. And it would help in sharing sex offender information with other states, particularly sex offenders who move from state to state."
- So instead of kicking someone off and arresting them based on EVIDENCE that they are in fact doing something wrong, you are discrimination against them and kicking them off the sites, simply due to a label?  Sounds illegal to me, but, when you have a corrupt government, anything is possible!

GA - State law meant to protect minors gives people whose crimes were non-sexual the same outcast status as serial rapists and child molesters

View the article here


By BILL RANKIN - The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Child molesters, rapists and other sex criminals often remain dangerous even after they’ve served their time, and Georgia’s sex offender registry is designed to keep a leash on them.
- And some are not dangerous.  Someone who made one bad decision when they were young, yet the same leash is applied to them as well.  The laws are diluting the registry by throwing all offenders on their, and treating them all the same.

The law, one of the nation’s toughest, tracks most offenders until they die, dictating where they can live and work.
- So which state DOESN'T have the "nation's toughest" laws?  They all say that!

But the law has a peculiar twist: There are a growing number of registered sex offenders in Georgia who did not commit a sex offense. The law applies to anyone convicted of kidnapping or false imprisonment of a minor, regardless if a sexual act was committed.

At 17, Darnelle Harvey took part in the robbery of a Dairy Queen in Chamblee. Brandishing a gun, he ordered a 16-year-old to lie down as the holdup progressed. This got him a false imprisonment conviction, and because the victim was under 18, Harvey became a sex offender.

Now 36, he acknowledges his mistakes.

I’m no saint, I know that,” Harvey said recently. “What I did was bad, stupid, and I spent years in prison regretting it every day. But I’m not a sex offender.”
- Yet, due to this insanity, he is on the sex offender registry, and people will see that, and automatically think he sexually molested some child.  Which is obviously not true, but, that is how the general public sees it!

Some legislators agree.

The law was drawn so broadly that it has triggered another: the law of unintended consequences, Sen. Seth Harp (Email) (R-Midland) said.

“We’re trying to clarify it,” he said. “We need to concentrate solely on those who really are sex offenders so we know where they are to keep them away from children.”
- And those who are truly dangerous.  A vast majority of those on the registry are not dangerous, yet they are all lumped in, and treated equally.  They are not equal.

Harp’s legislation amends a number of provisions, including requiring those convicted of kidnapping or falsely imprisoning a minor to be on the registry only when their crimes involve a sex offense. The bill recently passed the Senate by a 52-2 vote. It is now before the House.

Rep. David Ralston (Email) (R-Blue Ridge) said lawmakers initially passed the provision with the belief that anyone convicted of committing crimes of force and violence against minors should also receive the same fate as sex offenders. But Ralston said last week he was open to revisiting the issue.

The sex offender law has encountered legal setbacks. The Georgia Supreme Court has struck down certain provisions, including mandatory life sentences for offenders who failed to register a second time.

The kidnapping and false imprisonment provisions also face a court challenge.

A Fulton County judge recently heard arguments on behalf of a man convicted of false imprisonment during a May 2000 drug robbery in Gwinnett County.

Doesn’t it sound screwy what’s going on here?” Superior Court Judge Jerry Baxter asked, when told Jake Rainer is a registered sex offender who committed no sex crime.

For Harvey, the distinction is not a small one.

When convicts serve their sentences, their debts are paid (True, unless you are a sex offender!), and they are generally free to live and work wherever they can find shelter and employment.

But the sex offender registry is a kind of life sentence. Those on it cannot live or work within 1,000 feet of places children congregate, such as parks, schools, rec centers and swimming pools.

Harvey must now report every three days to the Fulton County Sheriff’s Office and provide a location where he stays, a requirement of those who are homeless, as he is.
- It's only a matter of time before he fails to do this, then it's off to jail/prison he goes.  These very laws make you homeless and jobless, and due to these very laws, when you become homeless and cannot report on time, you are then swept back up and put into jail and/or prison!  Damned if you do, damned if you don't!

His journey to the sex offender registry began with the 1990 robbery of the DQ.

Before the restaurant closed that night, Harvey and his co-defendant, Eddie Montgomery, waited nearby in the woods, watching.

Harvey told Montgomery he didn’t want to go through with it. But Montgomery pointed his gun at Harvey and said he had no choice, Montgomery said during his guilty plea. Harvey complied.

A 16-year-old boy, the first to emerge from the DQ, was ordered to lie down — the basis of the false imprisonment charge. When the others walked out, Harvey and Montgomery robbed them at gunpoint and fled with the cash. They were arrested two weeks later.

Harvey pleaded guilty and spent seven years in prison.

Harvey learned welding after getting out of prison, but he could not accept a job as a welder last year because he had to leave the state. He recently got a job doing repair work at Big Boot Ranch in Ellenwood, but he had to leave that because the ranch hosts parties for children.

“He wanted to work, wanted to move his life along,” ranch owner John Sturdivant said.

If you can’t work, you can’t take care of yourself. When you can’t do that, it might lead to robbing or stealing. What’s left?

About 90 people are on the sex offender registry for false imprisonment convictions and another 90 are on it for kidnapping.
- So 180 people, on the sex offender registry, for a crime that did not involve sex!  So why call it a sex offender registry?  Clearly that is not what it is!

Prison records indicate at least 33 of those offenders committed a sex crime when they kidnapped or falsely imprisoned their victims.
- OK, so that brings it down to 147.

Donnie Lee Boone is not one of them.

In 1994, Boone and two others held up an Augusta restaurant. Because the men moved four employees, one a 17-year-old, from one part of the restaurant to another, they were convicted of kidnapping.

After serving nearly 12 years in prison, Boone was granted parole in 2006. But the parole board refused to release him because he could not meet the sex-offender residency requirements.
- This shows the pure ignorance of those passing these laws.  You cannot get out of prison, unless you have a place to stay, and they assume all in prison have someone on the outside to find them a place to stay, which is not always the case.  So basically, you will remain in prison forever, simply because you are alone and cannot get out to find a place to stay!  How absurd is that?

The board said he could not move in with his mother because her home was within 1,000 feet of a park, a church and a rec center. In 2008, Mica Doctoroff, an investigator for the Southern Center for Human Rights, determined that the church and park were 2,000 feet from the woman’s home. The rec center didn’t exist.
- So here, the law cannot even use a measuring device correctly, they set him up to fail, period!  Glad the SCHR was there to disprove their BS!

In April 2008, Boone was released — two years after being granted parole — and moved in with his mother.
- So he was sented to prison for XX years, and without due process of law, they tacked on another 2 years, simply because he could not find a place to stay, which these very laws made that almost impossible.  So you see, it's a catch-22 situation!

Boone, 40, is now taking online computer college classes to earn an associate’s degree in business.

I had to serve additional time for being a sex offender when I didn’t commit a sex crime,” he said. “It’s still unbelievable to us.”

UK - Predators and Peadophiles - 19 year old poses as a 13 year old

YouTube Channel

She says she is 19, but on her YouTube channel it says she is 21! And I know for a fact many people program robots to submit links and pretend to be a human being, that is a fact, so I wonder if some of these are actually robots instead of real men? Who knows?

Monday's Video:

Tuesday's Video:

Wednesday's Video:

Thursday's Video:

Friday's Video:

Poll: Bullshit Is Most Important Issue For 2008 Voters (And it's equally important for 2009)

OH - Eleven-year-old girl charged with rape

View the article here

This is just insane!  They were probably playing "doctor" and experimenting, which many children do at this age.  Now it's a crime!


By KATHY THOMPSON - Staff Writer

ZANESVILLE - Local law enforcement deals with sex offenders almost daily, but in the past couple of months, Zanesville police have dealt with one of the youngest cases officers can remember - an 11-year-old girl charged with three counts of rape.

Detective Randy Ritchason said the girl had some type of sexual contact with three other children - two boys and a girl -all under the age of 10. She was charged in Muskingum County Juvenile Court.

"I believe it's the youngest perpetrator we've had," Ritchason said. "We've had young teens before, but she is about the youngest I've ever dealt with."

Rhonda Hinkle, a supervisor with Muskingum County Children's Services, said the girl is a very rare case, but her office is continually seeing more and more children who are committing sex crimes, not just being victims.

"I think a lot of it has to do with society today," Hinkle said. "We have so many blended families today, we have all the technology that children at young ages are allowed access to and we have entirely different sets of values and issues then ever before."

Hinkle said her office investigates about 10 to 15 cases a month where a young person is the perpetrator of a sex abuse.
- 10 to 15 a month?  I find that hard to believe.  That would be 120 or 180 cases per year.  Is anyone looking into the fact this is more than likely normal sexual experimentation, which apparently everyone thinks is a crime now!  This is going to ruin many kids lives now.  So much for protecting the children!

The crimes range from rape, gross sexual imposition, sexual imposition, pornography and even "sexting" - forwarding lewd images on cell phones.

Ritchason has also been investigating a 13-year-old boy who was charged with one count of rape.

"I think people need to understand the charge of rape means any type of penetration there is during the act, no matter how slight," Ritchason said. "It doesn't necessarily mean a suspect has someone tied down or beats them and then rapes them. A person under the age of 18 doesn't have to be forced, either."


The first thing Children's Services makes sure of in any case - the child, whether it is the suspect or the victim - is safe.

Some of the offenders are kept in juvenile detention, some are allowed to return home with close supervision and ordered into outpatient counseling, while others are sent to inpatient counseling facilities.

"It depends on the severity of the crime, the age of the victim and the offender, whether or not the offender has been sexually violated, how the offender feels about the incident and whether or not they see what they did was wrong or not," Hinkle said. "Each case is unique and there are many aspects to each case."

Hinkle said jail, while a last resort, is an option.

"We take these crimes very seriously," said Hinkle. "These young offenders are evaluated, they are tested, we look at if they're willing to change, why they did what they did, how did it make them feel and they are put through the juvenile court system. A lot of professionals, both with the court systems, our system and law enforcement are involved in the decision as to what should happen to that child. It's not taken lightly."

John Shaffer, court director for the Muskingum County Juvenile Court system, said even if a young offender is allowed to attend an outpatient treatment program, it is a lengthy one.

"Most of the programs used are at least a year to two years long," Shaffer said. "I attend those sessions and there is no excuse for the offender not to attend. They have to show up. We take these crimes very seriously and don't put up with excuses."


Shaffer said he's been involved in the court system for 27 years and agrees with Hinkle that there has been an increase in recent years, but said he first started seeing an increase about 15 years ago.

Shaffer said most of the offenders he has seen in the court system have lower IQs. Their victims usually are younger children in the same home.

"It's not that they're out stalking younger children," Shaffer said. "They're already in a situation where they find children they can take advantage of."

Ritchason agreed and said most of the cases seen by law enforcement come from an older child in the home who finds a younger sibling or family member as a victim.

"These kids are watching this stuff on television, they see it on the computers, they are seeing their parent or guardians in relationships where more physical or sexual stuff is being shown then used to be or even should be," Ritchason said. "Young kids are being exposed to things today through technology and lifestyles that they really shouldn't be."

Hinkle said she has seen children as young as 10 or 11 having consensual sex.

"One of the biggest problems is not knowing where your child is and who your child is with," Hinkle said. "Parents need to know that child's friends and their parents. Don't send your child on a sleepover to someone's home thinking that the same rules you have is going to apply in that household, too."

Hinkle and Ritchason said there are signs parents can watch for to see if their child is possibly being abused. Bedwetting, withdrawing, sleeping in their clothes, making sure a belt is tightly secure on their clothes while in bed, sleeping with lights on when they've been sleeping just fine with the lights off are just a few signs.

"But we caution parents that these behaviors can mean a multiple of things," Hinkle warned. "They are warning signs that something is wrong, but not necessarily that a child is being sexually abused. Something may be wrong at school or the child is depressed about something."

Implementing sex offender registration law may prove impossible

View the article here

And in this whole article, I see nothing about the facts the registry, residency or anything else about these laws, actually work.  Many studies have been done which prove they do not work, yet the legislature continue to ignore these facts.  But they complain they do not have the funds.


By Tracy Breton - Journal Staff Writer

In 2006, Congress enacted legislation to standardize the way states classify and register sex offenders and to make it easier for the public to learn about an offender’s presence in their communities.

Under the provisions of the federal Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), each state and all federally recognized Indian tribes are required to set up centralized computer banks to track people convicted of sex crimes — even many whose sentences were completed decades ago (and in disregard to the ex post facto and due process portions of the US and State Constitutions) — and to post detailed information about each of them, along with a photograph, on a Web site that anyone can access.

The aim of the law — also known as the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Actis to reduce the number of sex crimes committed, especially on child victims, and to increase public safety (fear) through improved monitoring of sex offenders as they move from neighborhood to neighborhood and state to state. It establishes an easy way for the public to find out if there’s a sex offender living nearby or working or going to school with them or with members of their families.

Already a homeless convicted rapist has been given a 30-month federal sentence in U.S. District Court in Rhode Island for his failure to register as a sex offender when he moved from Massachusetts to Woonsocket in 2007, as required under SORNA.

But implementation of the law has proven to be a legal and economic nightmare. Some judges have ruled the act unconstitutional. Civil liberties groups, criminal defense attorneys and, surprisingly, even some law enforcement officials, are crying foul. Last week, a veteran sex crimes prosecutor in Louisiana told a subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee in Washington that implementing the law might actually result in fewer convictions of criminals who prey on young children because it will be hard to get offenders to plead guilty if they know they will be required to register on a Web site as a sex offender for the rest of their lives.

About a dozen states have gone about revising laws, reclassifying offenders and setting up new computer systems to try to comply with the law. But to date, all of them have failed to convince the Department of Justice — which has set a July 27 deadline for compliance — that they have done enough to do what SORNA requires.

The penalty for non-compliance is steep: states that don’t comply will lose 10 percent of the federal financing they receive for sex offender management programs and other law enforcement and justice initiatives (Bribery). But many states may opt out nonetheless. Already, cash-strapped California has informed the Justice Department that it will not implement SORNA even though it will mean a loss of about $2 million in federal funds this year. The reason is clear: it is estimated that it would cost California more than $59 million to implement everything mandated by the new law.

Attorney General Patrick C. Lynch said that Rhode Island will make an effort to comply, and that legislation is being drafted to make the necessary changes in the law, though it probably won’t be submitted to the General Assembly for consideration until 2010. That means the state won’t meet the Justice Department’s July deadline and will have to ask for at least one, if not two, one-year extensions so it can continue to receive the full amount of money for sex offender management programs and other law enforcement and justice initiatives. To get an extension — which must be requested by April 27 — a state must make the case that it is making an effort to “substantially comply” with the mandates of SORNA. This year, the 10 percent at stake for Rhode Island is $80,000.

But this may all be just a postponement of the inevitable. In an interview last week, Lynch candidly admitted that he doesn’t know whether Rhode Island will ever be able to comply with the mandates of the SORNA law — and whether it would be good public policy to do so.

He cited the “prohibitive cost” of implementation. It would cost millions of dollars to set up a centralized computer bank and hire workers to run it and chase down errant offenders who fail to register or update information about their whereabouts, he said. Implementing the mandates of SORNA in Rhode Island would also require the General Assembly to enact sweeping changes to the state’s juvenile-justice and sex-offender reporting and classification laws.

Under SORNA, a sex offender who is 14 or older would be required to register, with a photo, on the state’s Web site if the sex offense they were brought to court for involved violence or a victim younger than 12. The minor offender — even those whose cases go through secret Family Court trials — would have to update his registration information three times a year for at least 25 years, perhaps for the rest of his life.

Then there’s the issue of retroactivity (violation of the Constitutions ex post facto clause), another “major bone of contention,” said Lynch. A flood of lawsuits have been filed around the country by defense lawyers representing sex offenders who were not required, as part of their original sentence, to register but who are now being told they must do so because of SORNA. Even those who completed sentences 30 or 40 years ago are now being required to register if they are subsequently convicted of another offense, even if the crime isn’t of a sexual nature.

“You’ve been around the State House. What do you think the chances are” of making such broad changes in the law in just one or two legislative sessions? Lynch asked. “Probably limited and that’s being generous. So we have a fight on our hands but I think we are obligated to bring it to them …”

One of those who is sure to weigh in is Michael A. DiLauro, a Rhode Island assistant public defender who is the legislative liaison for the public defender’s office, which represents indigent defendants. DiLauro calls the mandates of SORNA “both poor social and fiscal policy.”

Statistics show that children are most often sexually assaulted by a family member or acquaintance. Thus the registration and community notification provisions of the Adam Walsh Act provide a false sense of security and misallocate resources better spent on treatment and other community support mechanisms for offenders. These have proven effective in reducing recidivism.” But registration and community notification, said DiLauro, “can lead to ostracism, homelessness and unemployment, thereby forcing offenders underground, beyond the reach of treatment providers and monitoring by probation and parole officers.”

Since SORNA became law in 2006, there have been nearly 100 cases prosecuted in the federal courts, including the Rhode Island case, where convicted adult sex offenders have been charged with failing to register, a crime punishable by up to 10 years’ imprisonment and a $250,000 fine. (A technical violation is more time in prison than the crime itself!)

Michael DiTomasso, the homeless Rhode Island defendant, pleaded guilty in Massachusetts in 1995 to raping and abusing a child and committing indecent assaults. He registered as a sex offender in Massachusetts for several years in a row but then failed to re-register within three days of moving to Woonsocket, or to update his previous registry information — both requirements of SORNA. The court record shows that DiTomasso had a history of serious drug abuse but because of his sex offender status, couldn’t enroll in an inpatient drug treatment program. He had no job; in recent years, he’d committed a string of larcenies, probably, the court said, to support his drug habit.

The defendant claimed his due-process rights were violated (which is true, based on the Constitution) with his arrest for failing to register because Rhode Island hasn’t yet implemented SORNA. But Chief U.S. District Court Judge Mary M. Lisi disagreed and sentenced DiTomasso, who eventually pleaded guilty, to serve 2½ years in prison. Now behind bars, he is appealing his sentence for failing to register. (So you see, you are damned if you do, and damned if you don't.  They set you up to fail, so they can continue to eploit you!)

MA - GAIL M. MACDONALD: Predator zones don’t work

View the article here


QUINCY- As the director of a preschool, I am entrusted with the care of 50 children every day. For that reason, I take safety issues very seriously and, like most everyone, abhor any person who would harm a child, particularly a sexual offender.

But despite my professional and personal commitment to the children of Quincy, I cannot support the proposal put forth by City Councilors Doug Gutro and Kevin Coughlin to prohibit Level III registered sex offenders from living, loitering and perhaps even working within 1,500 feet of schools, parks and other places where children and elderly people congregate.

The bottom line is that the unintended consequences of such a law would decrease, rather than increase, the safety of our city’s children.

Laws designating certain neighborhoods as off-limits to registered sex offenders can create a false sense of security.

It is only human to want to shield our children from the evildoers out there, but we live in a free and democratic society comprised of “porous” communities where people come and go as they please, including registered sex offenders.

To believe otherwise is to engage in wishful thinking.

When it comes to protecting our children, there is no substitute for adequate parental supervision and public safety education.

Another serious, unintended consequence of such an ordinance is that it will lead to avoidance behavior.

Under the current system, a sex offender who moves into Quincy must present himself to the local police to be entered into the registry.

In towns that have passed similar ordinances, sex offenders who cannot find acceptable housing often choose not to register at all.

Others falsely claim a homeless shelter as their residence.

Either way, they remain in the “shadows” and impossible to track.

When a sex offender does not register, the police cannot communicate his whereabouts to neighbors and school officials. Thus, the entire sex offender registry system is undermined.

A further challenge to this ordinance lies in its enforcement.

If this ordinance passes and a sex offender provides an address to the police which violates it, will the police have to conduct follow-up visits?

Will the police also assume responsibility for removing that sex offender from a restricted neighborhood?

And if a registered sex offender refuses to move from his residence and opts to pay – or ignore – the fine, what happens next?

Right now, neither the councilors nor the police department have answers to these questions. And the bigger question we must ask is: Do we really want to divert our limited police resources to this ordinance at a time when we are witnessing more drug use, weapons and criminal activity in our city?

Aside from the logistical challenges of this ordinance, I have serious misgivings about the civil rights implications of it. I have no sympathy for sexual offenders and, like most people, wish they were given longer sentences, even life sentences for chronic recidivists.

However, a registered sex offender is no longer a prisoner and as such cannot be denied the same constitutional rights as you and me. A law that dictates where he can live, work or even stand for 15 minutes because he may commit a crime in the future has a “police state” feel to it that I cannot accept.
- A little gender bias there, females commit these crimes as well.

Councilors Douglas Gutro and Kevin Coughlin’s proposal is well-intentioned, but our children would be better served if we demanded that our criminal justice system impose longer, harder sentences on child sexual offenders.

Passing unenforceable “feel good” laws will only undermine the sexual offender registry and compromise our constitutionally guaranteed rights.

Gail M. Macdonald is the director of the Cornerstone Campus Preschool in Quincy.

ABC - What would you do? A Young Girl in Danger!

View the article here

Sexting by HotForWords

NE - Neb. high court upholds sex-offender law

View the article here



LINCOLN - A Nebraska law that allows the state to commit sex offenders to treatment after their prison sentences have ended has withstood its first constitutional review by the state's highest court.

In an opinion issued Friday, the Nebraska Supreme Court (PDF) concluded that the law passed in 2006 by the state Legislature does not violate three clauses of both the U.S. and Nebraska constitutions.

The Nebraska court decision affirms a ruling by the Douglas County District Court in the case of a man referred to as "J.R." He was convicted in 2000 of sexually assaulting his girlfriend's daughter over five years, starting when the girl was in second grade. The assaults included sexual intercourse.

Shortly before he was scheduled to be released from prison in 2006, the state used the law passed by the Legislature earlier that same year by asking that the Mental Health Board of the 4th Judicial District deem him a dangerous sex offender.

J.R. had failed to complete a sex-offender treatment program while in prison.

Using an expert's evaluation of J.R., the board concluded that he was at risk of re-offending and committed him to inpatient treatment.

J.R. argued to the high court that three constitutional rights were violated. The first, known as the ex-post facto clause, is a protection against being punished with penalties that did not exist when an offense was committed, or were enhanced after the offense.

The second is the double-jeopardy clause, which prohibits multiple punishments for the same crime.

"We believe the law is generally punishment, or has the effect of becoming punishment, insofar as it only focuses on one group of people, those that have already completed their prison sentences," said Sean Conway, an assistant Douglas County public defender who represented J.R.

The third alleged violation was of the equal-protection clause, which provides that everyone be treated equally under the law.

In the opinion written by Judge Michael McCormack, the court said that the 2006 law imposes civil, not criminal, measures, so does not violate the ex-post facto clause.

"Although civil commitment ... does impose an affirmative restraint, restricting the freedom of dangerous mentally ill persons is a legitimate governmental purpose that has historically been regarded as non-punitive," McCormack wrote in the opinion. The opinion adds that the focus of the law is treating sex offenders, not punishing them.

And because the law is not punitive, the court concluded that it does not violate the double-jeopardy clause that prohibits multiple punishments for the same offense.

While the court concluded that J.R.'s equal-protection rights were not violated, it left the door open for future challenges because it did not review one of his key claims.

J.R. argued the law violates equal-protection rights by allowing the state to use a lower standard when deciding to commit people under the sex-offender law than is applied under the Nebraska Mental Health Commitment Act.

To be committed under that act, one must be diagnosed with mental illness or substance dependence.

To be committed under the sex-offender law, someone must have been convicted of two or more sex offenses and be considered unable to control criminal behavior. A person must also have one of two diagnoses: Either mental illness or a personality disorder.

Because one can be more easily diagnosed with a personality disorder than mental illness, it is easier to commit someone involuntarily under the sex-offender act than the mental-health act, J.R. argues.

That, he said, is a violation of the equal-protection clause.

But J.R. was committed under the sex-offender law because he was diagnosed with a mental illness, not a personality disorder, so he "does not have standing to raise an equal protection argument that does not apply to him," says the court opinion.

"I don't believe that an equal-protection argument is necessarily closed off in the future," Conway said.

The court turned down a separate equal-protection argument that the sex-offender law unfairly allows people to be held in jail while awaiting board hearings, unlike the mental-health act that allows people to be held in hospitals.

"Dangerous sex offenders pose a greater harm to society because of their inability to control their behaviors ... the mentally ill committed under the MHCA on the other hand, do not necessarily cause harm to others with their actions, so statutes that treat them differently don't violate equal protection, the opinion said.

Attorney General Jon Bruning called the court decision "a landmark ruling and a big win for public safety."

Prior to the law, "a sex offender could essentially tell us they were going to reoffend on the way out of prison and we couldn't do anything about it."

Criminal Justice Blog says "The blog Sex Offender Issues kept us in the loop on, well, sex offender issues!"

Click the image below to visit the site


View the PDF here

From a post elsewhere. This is not sex offender specific, but has important information everyone should know!


By Carl F. Worden

I have debated writing this article for months.

I am a strong supporter of law enforcement, and I have an extensive background in law enforcement. Even now, I have a number of conflicts, which cause me great concern with how the information I am about to impart to you will be used. I do not want to enable the criminals in our society to thwart justice, but I am committed to protecting the innocent from what appears to be an explosion of police abuse. In a case like this, I choose to protect the citizens.

I will start with law enforcement contacts with regard to traffic stops for suspicion of driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

The Fifth Amendment of the Bill of Rights states that we are not to be forced to incriminate ourselves. The actual wording is that you cannot be "compelled" to be a witness against yourself. If you are stopped for suspicion of DUI, these are your rights, regardless of the laws of your state.

First, you are to deny having consumed any alcoholic beverages whatsoever. You are never to admit to having one or two drinks. If you admit to consuming even one drop of alcohol, you open the door to probable cause, allowing the police officer to search your vehicle for open containers. Next, you are never to submit to a field sobriety test. You are to refuse to do so. They cannot make you walk the line, balance or anything else. If arrested, you are to refuse to allow a blood or breath test, regardless of what state law requires, such as revocation of driving privileges for a period of time. That is an attempt to compel you to be a witness against yourself. Supreme Court decisions in this area are quite specific with regard to your rights as follows: Lefkowitz v. Turley, 94 S. Ct. 316, 414 U.S. 70 (19 73). "The Fifth Amendment provides that no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself. The Amendment not only protects the individual against being involuntarily called as a witness against himself in a criminal prosecution but also privileges him not to answer official questions put to him in any other proceeding civil or criminal formal or informal, where the answers might incriminate him in future criminal proceedings." McCarthy v. Arndstein 266 U.S. 34, 40, 45 S. Ct. 16, 17, 69 L.Ed 158 (1924), squarely held that "the privilege is not ordinarily dependent upon the nature of the proceeding in which the testimony is sought or is to be used. It applies alike to civil and criminal proceedings, wherever the answer might tend to subject to criminal responsibility him who gives it. The privilege protects a mere witness as fully as it does one who is a party defendant." Maness v. Myers, 95 S Ct. 584, 419 US 449 (1975). "...where the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination is Involved ...This Court has always construed its protection to ensure that an individual is not compelled to produce evidence which later may be used against him as an accused in a criminal action... The protection does not merely encompass evidence, which may lead to criminal conviction, but includes information which would furnish a link in the chain of evidence that could lead to prosecution, as well as evidence which an individual reasonably believes could be used against him in a criminal prosecution. Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486, 71 S. Ct. 814, 818, 95 L. Ed. 1] 18 (1951)" "In Kastigar v. United States, 406 U S 441, 92 S Ct. 1653, 32 L.Ed. 212 (1972), we recently reaffirmed the principle that the privilege against self-incrimination can be asserted in any proceeding, civil or criminal, administrative or judicial, investigatory, or adjudicatory. Id., at 444, 92 S.Ct. at 1656; Lefkowitz v.Turley, 414 US. 70, 77; 94 S. Ct. 316, 322, 38 L.Ed. 2d 274 (1973)...

Miranda v. Arizona, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 384 US 436 (1966). "We have recently noted that the privilege against self-incrimination --- the essential mainstay of our adversary system-is founded on a complex of values ... To maintain a fair state individual balance, to require the government to shoulder the entire load ... to respect the inviolability of the human personality, our accusatory system of criminal justice demands that the government seeking to punish an individual produce the' evidence against him by its own independent labors, rather than by the cruel, simple expedient of compelling it from his own mouth... in sum, the privilege is fulfilled only when the person is guaranteed the right to remain silent unless he chooses to speak in the unfettered exercise of his own will."

"...there can be no doubt that the Fifth Amendment privilege is available outside of criminal court proceedings and serves to protect persons in all settings in which their freedom of action is curtailed in any significant way from being compelled to incriminate themselves."

Please also note: The above, as stated by the Supreme Court, are rights and privileges as guaranteed by the Constitution, and anyone (including judges) who knowingly violates those rights may be civilly and criminally liable under several federal statutes. Please see: United States Code, Title 18 Section 241 (Conspiracy against rights), and Section 242 (Deprivation of rights under color of law); Title 42 Section 1983 - Section 1986 (Civil Rights). Most attempts to pursue action under these laws fail, but very skilled litigators with good factual circumstances can sometimes get some satisfaction. However, if more individuals were to understand the above rights and exercise them at the appropriate times, more successful litigation could be the outcome.

Okay, you got that? You cannot be forced to provide evidence against yourself, therefore you must not allow any tests whatsoever, be it field sobriety "walking the line", or a blood or breath test. Period. If you will follow these instructions, they have no case against you and they are also barred from taking away your driving privileges under the same Supreme Court rulings.

Now to more serious matters: If you are contacted as a possible suspect, or even a witness, in any other law enforcement investigation, you are to say nothing. You are to say nothing even when your attorney is present. You are to say nothing, regardless of evidence of your guilt as presented by the law enforcement officers. You are not to try to explain away the circumstances of the evidence they present to you. You are to say absolutely nothing. No matter how tempted you are to try to talk your way out of the situation, you are to give them absolutely NOTHING to verify. If they ask you if the sky is blue on a clear day, you are to say nothing. You are to give them nothing whatsoever. Whatever evidence or witness information they have, you are to say nothing. Even denying any of their allegations can be used against you in a prosecution if it is determined later that you obviously lied. You are to stay MUTE.

The reason for this is quite simple: The evidence the law enforcement officers have is all they must be required to work with. Don't give them anything more. The only time you should consider the option of telling your side of the story is to your attorney in privacy, or in a court of law if prosecuted.

Because you have stayed mute, giving law enforcement nothing in addition to the extrinsic evidence and witness information at hand, the burden of proof available to the district attorney is severely limited and will most often result in a dismissal of charges unless their evidence and witness input is overwhelming and compelling enough for a grand jury to return a bill of indictment. And even if bound over for trial, the jury will be limited to consider only that evidence and witness input.

When you are given your Miranda Rights wherein you are informed that anything you say can and will be used against you, take it to heart: If you say absolutely nothing, NOTHING can and will be used against you in a court of law.

There are literally thousands of people behind bars today who tried to talk their way out of a law enforcement contact. Don't fall for the ploy. Law enforcement officers are trained to bluff you into making denials or statements. They will appear friendly and reasonable. They will appear willing to help resolve the matter. They will tempt you to talk about it and appear sympathetic. Don't fall for it. Say nothing. Give them nothing. Deny nothing. Give them NOTHING. Stick your tongue between your teeth and bite down - HARD. You are to be a marble statue. You do not exist. You have no past, you have no address, you have no name, and you have no social security number. You are to give them nothing whatsoever to work with.

View these videos as well!

CA - City to have its own sex offender law

View the article here

This is just getting insane.  Why can't the state make a law and all counties use that?  Eventually, if you move from one county to another, and maybe one city to another, you will have different laws.  That is just absurd.



Enforcement to be delayed until legal issues resolved

WILDOMAR - As other cities have done, Wildomar will enact restrictions in Jessica's Law on where registered sex offenders can live ---- but with a catch, City Council members decided this week.

There will be no enforcement until the state Supreme Court irons out some legal issues. That way the city can avoid lawsuits, while ensuring the restrictions are in place if and when they are enforceable, City Attorney Julie Biggs advised.
- Hopefully the Supreme Court will knock it down and say "we already have a state law, and we do not need thousands of county and city laws as well, adding to the nightmare!"

The council members voted unanimously Wednesday to have the city attorney on March 25 bring back an ordinance that will establish "predator-free zones" where registered sex offenders would be prohibited from living. The law aims to keep offenders away from places such as schools and parks where children gather.

The ordinance will require initial and final approval by the council, after which it would become effective in 30 days.

The state Department of Justice's Web site lists 19 registered sex offenders in the 92595 ZIP code, which encompasses most of Wildomar.

"I think it sends a message to sex offenders that are in Wildomar and it's on our books," Mayor Scott Farnam said of the ordinance. "It won't be enforced yet, but it lets them know we are moving forward with a tougher law."

Councilwoman Bridgette Moore said she brought the idea of a Jessica's Law ordinance to the city attorney after she was told about it by members of the county's Sexual Assault Felony Enforcement Team during a presentation at City Hall.

"I have a young son, so I really want Wildomar to be as safe as it can be," she said.
- And who doesn't?  But you could make 10 million laws, but if someone is intent on committing a crime and harming someone, they will, regardless of any laws on the books, so this is just more placebo's to pacify the county folks, and make the politicians look good!

Biggs recommended the city go ahead with the law, but not enforce it until the Supreme Court rules on a case challenging Jessica's Law, a proposition approved by the state's voters in 2006. The law toughens penalties on some sex offenders, requires sentenced offenders to wear Global Positioning Systems, and allows sex offenders to be indefinitely committed to state mental institutions.

The measure also authorizes cities and counties to ban registered offenders from moving into homes within 2,000 feet of schools and parks, but allows the government agencies to adopt even tighter restrictions.
- So now, instead of having federal and state laws, we are now having county and city laws as well.  This is just sheer insanity, IMO.

Biggs said government agencies have to enact an ordinance for the provisions of Jessica's Law to apply in their jurisdictions.

While Temecula and Murrieta have already adopted more restrictive ordinances, Biggs recommended against Wildomar using them as models.

She had concerns about both of the ordinances and cited, as one example, a provision in the Murrieta ordinance related to loitering that she said appeared to be too broad.

Meanwhile, according to Biggs, the case before the Supreme Court challenges the residency restrictions as "cruel and unusual punishment" and the application of the measure to those whose offenses don't involve children.

She said she expects the predator-free zones in Wildomar's ordinance to adhere to the 2,000-foot radius from schools and parks.
- Surely the courts are eventually going to knock these laws down as unconstitutional, which they are, if they were upholding the constitution like they took an oath to do!  Just Imagine, one county has 2,000 foot laws, another has 1,000, another 500, another 1,500, another 2,500.  What a nightmare!

By going forward with it now, the ordinance will apply on the date it is enacted to offenders sentenced from that date into the future, Councilwoman Sheryl Ade said.

"For the people in the community, it makes them feel safe," Ade said. "I'm not sure I subscribe to that (idea children are safer). There's been some challenges to the law and where ultimately we're going to put these (offenders). But it's something people in the community feel strongly about."
- And that is all it does, "makes them FEEL safe," when they are not.  Typical placebo implementation!