Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Comments from another source: I guess its not exploitation when she does it?? One of the reasons RSO laws are where they are is because of shameless media scum like Nancy Grace exploiting every single case of "high profile" child abuse or abduction in America.
NANCY DISGRACE IS SUCH A BITCH & HYPOCRITE!
And NO... Nancy doesn't exploit children...
Here she gets owned by her own staff!
How does the Adam Walsh act affect you? You might ask 'why should it affect me, I'm not a sex offender or pedophile'. The truth is, though, it does affect you. First of all, someone has to pay for it. I'm not saying the act is right or wrong, only that it needs to be paid for. That money has to come out of someone's pockets, and because of the existing acts, and the Adam Walsh act, more and more of the sex offenders cannot afford to pay for it, which means that they'll end up in prison, ultimately costing more as they then cannot contribute in taxes, in generated income, and in general to the economy.
There are other costs, however, than simple economic costs. The sex offender registry comprises everyone that's convicted of a sex offense, from misdomeanor offenses to felonies. The registry itself creates a system where, even if you were convicted of a misdomeanor, failure to register or follow the rules of the registry is a felony. In some cases, it can be a life sentence in prison. If an offender moves between states, even after a complete pardon or exoneration, they can be placed back on the registry in the receiving state.
Why does this affect you? You're not a felon, right, or having a sexual misdomeanor! Well, consider this... they're now using the same arguments as they used for sex offenders to punish those that got the contractual bonuses, and claiming that by making it regulatory, regardless of the real intent, they can take the money back. Regulatory laws... with felony punishments, targeted to a specific set of people or class of people. The regulatory system expands with each instance of such laws. Imagine, if you will, having had an unpaid moving violation ticket, a misdomeanor. Using such regulatory laws, they can come in, after the fact, claiming that it is not punishment, and restrict your use of a car.. where you can travel in it, what you can do in your home life, how you have to live, and force you to pay further fines for insurance, for licensure, and even for registration, increase the fines of any traffic ticket, and if necessary use it against you in any other court proceeding that comes up. They can change the rules at any time.
Still think it doesn't affect you? Well... the same regulations govern how you can vote, if you can own a firearm, and often are left to the interpretation of appointed bureaucrats, rather than to the rule of law.
Rights are only rights so long as they are defended for all. Creating classes, for any reason, that are outside of those protections only ensure that such classes will infinitely expand. They say 'if it saves one child, it's worth it', right? Well, consider how many children are now being charged under it. How many children must be destroyed before one is saved?
If it saves one child... it's arguable that the acts of Congress affect all children, everywhere. They're now further in debt, for generations, than ever before. Who harms the most children, and in the most irrevocable fashions? Well-intentioned laws that destroy their rights, their immunities, their liberty and freedom ensure that no child will ever grow up... unmolested by the government, and with the liberties that were to be ensured into perpetuity.
Harming anyone is wrong... whether by law, or by action. Perhaps it is time to hold our legislators, or bureaucrats, our congressmen, our police officers, our corporations to task for the harm that they do, and our lawyers, judges, and those that execute the law for the harm they permit.
After all... if it saves one child...
MO - Missouri changes the Constitution to suit their needs, which should scare everyone. Making an ex post facto law, violates the Constitution, so they change the Constitution!
By Kyle Bosch
JEFFERSON CITY (AP) - The Missouri Senate has voted to require sex offenders convicted before 1995 to register with the state.
- And thus violating the Constitution's ex post facto clause, which states "No ex post facto law shall be passed!"
The state Supreme Court has ruled that the registry law does not apply to those people because the law took effect in 1995 and the state Constitution prohibits laws from being applied retrospectively.
Senators gave initial approval to a proposed constitutional change that would carve out an exemption for the registry law. The change would also retrospectively apply a prohibition on sex offenders living near schools and a requirement of felons to submit DNA samples.
- This changing of the Constitution to get around something, should scare the hell out of everyone!
The proposal still needs another vote before moving to the House. If passed by that chamber, it would appear on the ballot.
Dinkel Family Speaks Out
Another Article Here
The son and husband of a convicted sex offender will hold a news conference today to discuss a decision by Covington Catholic to ban the boy's mother from his high school graduation.
A lawyer for Alex and Tom Dinkel issued a press release saying the decision by the school was unfair and "self righteous". They plan to hold a news conference at 2 p.m. to discuss the decision. We will not be covering the news conference live on Local12.com because of questions about what will be said.
Jeni Dinkel was convicted in 2007 for the rape of a 15 year old male classmate of her son. Dinkel admitted under oath that she had sex with the boy over a four month period in 2006. She served a 60 day prison sentence.
In a letter to Dinkel dated last Tuesday, the Diocese of Covington says the decision by the probation officer to allow Dinkel to go to the graduation was not binding. The letter states, "After giving this matter careful consideration, we have decided that, due to the communal nature of the graduation events, there is no acceptable way of allowing you to attend without adversely affecting other families and participants."
The letter goes on to say that Dinkel will not be allowed to attend any graduation event at the school, including Mass, the baccalaureate luncheon and commencement. It then says, "We hope that you will respect this decision and not place Covington Catholic in the position of having to turn you away at the door... If you do appear for the graduation events despite this notice, the security guards and/or police will have instruction to enforce or directive and remove you, if necessary."
On Thursday, Deter's office sent the Diocese and Covington Catholic school officials a response, requesting they reverse their decision and saying Dinkel could sit in the last row and come at the last minute to the events. Deter's letter calls the parties "self-righteous" and goes on to say, "You are punishing Alex Dinkel... The conduct and behavior of Covington Catholic students, parents, and administration in this matter reveals a cesspool of immoral behavior."
NOTE: The bills below are for the 2009 session. To find older bills, click the image above. Use the first link below to show all 2009 bills, which may be new, and not listed below.
- All 2009 bills pertaining to "sex offender"
- Videos pertaining to "sex offender" issues
- HR-731 - Jenny's Law - To amend title 38, United States Code, to exclude individuals who have been convicted of committing certain sex offenses from receiving certain burial-related benefits and funeral honors which are otherwise available to certain veterans, members of the Armed Forces, and related individuals, and for other purposes - Introduced on 01/27/2009, Rep. John Shadegg [R-AZ3])
- HR-1375 - To ensure that sex offenders and sexually violent predators are not eligible for parole - Introduced on 03/06/2009, Rep. Ben Chandler [D-KY6]
- HR-1623 - To protect children from sexual exploitation by mandating reporting requirements for convicted sex traffickers and other sex offenders against minors - Introduced on 03/19/2009, Rep. Christopher Smith [R-NJ4]
- HR-1750 - Tracking Registered And Convicted Known (TRACK) Sex Offenders Act - Introduced on 03/26/2009, Rep. Michele Bachmann [R-MN6]
- HR-2462 - Convicted Child Sex Offender DNA Index System Support Act - Introduced on 05/18/2009 - Rep. Peter King [R-NY3]
- S-1146 - Sex Offender Registration Tips Program Act of 2009 - Introduced on 05/21/2009, Sen. Charles Schumer [D-NY]
By JEFF CARLTON Associated Press Writer
DALLAS — Wiley Fountain spent 15 years in a jail cell for a rape he did not commit.
Now the wrongly convicted man is serving another kind of time. He's free, but he's homeless.
After squandering nearly $390,000 he received from the state as compensation for his time behind bars, Fountain, 52, spends his days collecting aluminum cans for 35 cents a pound. He spends his nights in a tattered sleeping bag on the asphalt behind a liquor store in a run-down South Dallas neighborhood.
To other exonerees and their lawyers, Fountain is the worst-case example of the need for reforms in how the wrongly convicted are compensated. They are asking the Texas Legislature to increase compensation and to expand its offering of social services to give newly freed men a better shot at a second chance.
"First they lock you up and throw away the key, and when they turn you loose, they unlock the door and act like they've never known you," said Billy Smith, a Dallas exoneree who served about 20 years of a life sentence on a wrongful conviction of aggravated sexual assault. "I had no money, no place to stay, no medical assistance, no anything."
DNA evidence has freed 36 wrongly convicted people in Texas, including 19 in Dallas County. That's the most in the nation, according to the Innocence Project, which works on DNA exoneration cases. But unlike parolees, exonerees get almost no help from the state when they first re-enter society.
That could change this year.
State Rep. Rafael Anchia (Contact), D-Dallas, filed a bill to increase lump sum compensation from $50,000 to $80,000 for each year of incarceration. The bill also would require the state to pay some of the compensation in annuities, assuring exonerees a lifetime income. The payments would be retroactive to exonerees who already received lump sum payments, including Fountain, and would cease if there was a subsequent felony conviction.
"I don't imagine any of us locked up more than 20 years have a lot of experience managing personal finances," said Charles Chatman, who was exonerated in January 2008 after nearly 27 years.
The bill also would provide exonerees the same health insurance given to state employees, a crucial benefit for those who often emerge from prison with severe health problems but no way to get medical coverage.
Smith's lawyers attempted to sign him up for Social Security disability, which would have made him eligible for Medicare coverage. But the government rejected Smith's application, saying he hadn't paid enough into the system to qualify for benefits.
"It's critically important," Innocence Project policy analyst Rebecca Brown said of services for exonerees. "The needs people face upon release are profound. They require everything from housing to clothing to transportation to medical attention."
The outcomes for exonerees are mixed. Anthony Robinson, an exoneree from Houston, became a lawyer. Larry Fuller, who received $1 million in state compensation, "is doing pretty well," said Clay Graham, a Dallas-area attorney who works with exonerees. James Giles, who spent 10 years in prison on a wrongful rape conviction, lives with his wife in Lufkin, where they run accounting and bail bonding businesses.
Those are the success stories. At the opposite end there is Fountain and other exonerees who find themselves in trying circumstances. Keith Turner, wrongly convicted of a 1982 aggravated sexual assault, served four years of a 20-year sentence and now lives in a boarding house, Graham said.
Eugene Henton's situation was more complicated. He pleaded guilty to a 1984 sexual assault he did not commit to avoid a lengthy sentence. After serving 18 months in prison, he was arrested again on unrelated drug possession and assault charges and this time received a 40-year sentence, based on his prior violent criminal history. After DNA testing proved he was innocent of the original sexual assault, he was released on time served.
Henton said he spent years searching for a job, toting news clippings and court rulings to prove to employers that he was wrongly convicted. Until recently, no one would hire him.
"I'm shunned," Henton said. "They get a background check, and they say, `I can't hire you because of this rape case.'"
Of the 25 states that provide some form of compensation to exonerees, Vermont's program is considered the closest thing to a model, Brown said. It offers up to $60,000 for each year of incarceration, 10 years of state health coverage and repayment for lost wages and attorney's fees.
Vermont, however, has had no DNA exonerations, according to Innocence Project figures. Texas' nation-leading number of exonerees was fueled by a stream of bad convictions in Dallas, which alone has had exonerations than all but two states.
Exoneration hearings have become common events in Dallas courtrooms in recent years. They've also highlighted the lack of social services available to the wrongly convicted.
Such services are commonplace for convicts paroled out of prison. Parolees receive $50 and a bus ticket to anywhere in Texas upon release, and another $50 when they meet up with their parole officers, said Jason Clark, a spokesman for the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.
There are re-entry centers in major cities that offer employment help, counseling and substance abuse treatment, and there are halfway houses for parolees who need additional supervision.
"We're not releasing people so they can be homeless," Clark said. "That doesn't happen."
But that's what routinely happens to exonerees, who are released suddenly and with no place to go.
"It's really terrible," Smith said. "People who get out on parole have a better chance of getting started on the right foot than a person who has been exonerated."
An ad hoc support system has sprung up in the absence of services from the state. Fellow exonerees have become fixtures at hearings for the newly freed.
They offer whatever help they can. Chatman has organized clothing drives and other exonerees have chipped in for prepaid cell phones. Giles presents a $100 bill to newly freed men, a nod to the money parolees receive.
Outside help tends to come from faith groups. Jaimie Page, a professor at the University of Texas-Arlington, has started a counseling program that earlier this month attracted several ministers and a Catholic church volunteer. Paige said faith-based groups have helped out, but so far there has been no assistance from government agencies. Funding for her program runs out in October.
Also at the recent counseling session were 11 exonerees, 10 of them from the Dallas area and an 11th from Houston who has since become a lawyer. It had the feel of an Alcoholic Anonymous meeting, with exonerees introducing themselves and briefly telling their stories: "My name is Patrick Waller, and I was wrongly convicted of aggravated robbery and aggravated kidnapping. I spent 16 years, two months and 24 days in prison before I was exonerated."
On the day of the meeting, Fountain was about five miles away, outside the liquor store where he spends most of his time. On cold days, he finds shelter in a nearby vacant home.
"I'd do it a whole lot different," said Fountain, thinking about getting another chance. "I've got to live life like I'm supposed to. I can't blame nobody but me."
Good, looks like this judge is a good man. This DA should be fired. Wait until his son or daughter gets caught doing the same thing, and you can bet, he will be singing a different tune, if that occurs. Watch the video. This man is a scumbag. These kids were in their bras, which you see every day at the local beach, and he is claiming it's child porn. So why isn't he down at the local beach prosecuting all the people there as well? Makes you wonder why he thinks it's child porn. Does the photos make him uncomfortable? Maybe he has some other issues? The video ticks me off. They continue to mention a crime, but what crime was committed? Since when did sending pictures of yourself in your bra become a crime? JERK!!
By MICHAEL RUBINKAM
ALLENTOWN (AP) — A federal judge on Monday temporarily blocked a prosecutor from filing child pornography charges against three northeastern Pennsylvania teenagers who appeared in racy photos that turned up on classmates' cell phones.
U.S. District Judge James Munley ruled against Wyoming County District Attorney George Skumanick Jr., who has threatened to pursue felony charges against the girls unless they agree to participate in a five-week after-school program.
One picture showed two of the girls in their bras. The second photo showed another girl just out of the shower and topless, with a towel wrapped around her waist.
- So in their bras isn't child porn, and the topless with a towel wrapped around her waist, doesn't say if it covered her breasts or not. If it did, then it's not child porn. And like this article mentions, the DA doesn't say what is in the pictures or will show them to anyone, so this sounds like another Mike NiFong to me.
"We are grateful the judge recognized that prosecuting our clients for non-sexually explicit photographs raises serious constitutional questions," Witold Walczack, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, said in a statement.
"This country needs to have a discussion about whether prosecuting minors as child pornographers for merely being impulsive and naive is the appropriate way to address the serious consequences that can result" when teens send sexually suggestive photos of themselves and others to one another, he said.
Skumanick, who has said he can prosecute the teens as "accomplices" in the production of child pornography, said he would consider an appeal.
- But how is someone who is not nude, child porn? You see this much down at the local beach!
The ruling "sets a dangerous precedent by allowing people to commit crimes and then seek refuge from state arrest in the federal courts," he said.
- What crime occurred? If they were not nude, then it's not child porn! No article I have seen, has said the kids were nude. You are just a DA hell bent on prosecuting someone, and ruining someone's life, IMO. Just another Mike NiFong!
The photos surfaced in October, when officials at Tunkhannock Area High School confiscated five cell phones and found that boys had been trading photos of scantily clad, semi-nude or nude teenage girls. The students with the cell phones ranged in age from 11 to 17.
- Nude photos is a different story, but still, I don't think ruining a kids life for making a stupid mistake, is morally right! And what is semi-nude? Either you are nude, or you are not!
Skumanick met with about 20 students and their parents last month and offered them a deal in which the youths wouldn't be prosecuted if they took a class on sexual harassment, sexual violence and gender roles. Seventeen of the students accepted the offer, but three balked and sued Skumanick last week.
- So did these 20 kids have lawyers? Did anyone press charges against them? If not, then you can't offer them anything. You are just scaring them, which may be good, but not the way you are doing it!
The suit, filed by the ACLU, said the teens didn't consent to having the picture distributed and that the images are not pornographic. The ACLU said Skumanick's threat to prosecute is "retaliation" for the students' refusal to participate in the class.
Munley's decision to grant the teens a temporary restraining order prevents Skumanick from filing charges while the lawsuit proceeds.
The girls "make a reasonable argument that the images presented to the court do not appear to qualify in any way as depictions of prohibited sexual acts. Even if they were such depictions, the plaintiffs' argument that (they) were not involved in disseminating the images is also a reasonable one," Munley wrote.
Under Pennsylvania's child pornography law, it's a felony to possess or disseminate photos of a minor engaged in sexual activity, "lewd exhibition of the genitals" or nudity that is meant to titillate.
The judge said he "offers no final conclusion on the merits of plaintiffs' position" and scheduled a hearing on the case for June 2.