Wednesday, August 17, 2011


ATAT brings together Registered Sex Offenders along with their family members, loved ones, and friends; professionals in the fields of law enforcement, community corrections, and attorneys; professionals in the field of mental health care; legislators; the media; and the victims of sex crime. This unified effort joins effective and efficient law enforcement practices with comprehensive and cohesive social rehabilitation programs, making things better for everyone.

Click the image to visit the site

'Predator' Acquittal Exposes Vigilante Injustice

Click the image to watch the video

WV - Sex Offender Registry Enters its Fifth Year

Original Article


By Anne Moore

As states pass the deadline for implementation, a strong debate is still stirring over whether the registry makes a difference.

OAK HILL -- Five years ago, President Bush signed into law legislation making it the law of the land to keep tabs on sex offenders.

The registry was touted as a critical tool for law enforcement to ensure public safety.

It's critics; however, argue that it has made it nearly impossible for offenders to find jobs, homes, and communities, and that it may actually make their situation worse.

John Doe, a registered sex offender in Fayette County, was imprisoned for six months in 1986 for indecency with a minor, a charge which was later upgraded to assault.

When he was released, though, his personal imprisonment continued.

If I go to McDonald’s, nobody sits by me, speaks to me. I see guys talking, sitting together…they don’t want to sit with me. Nobody comes over and says “how’s it going?” They won’t speak to me because I’m poison,” said Doe.

For the rest of his life, he will have to check in every 90 days with law enforcement to confirm his home address and employer.

You can’t find a place to live. I’ve been kicked out of places four times. You can’t get into an apartment. Every place I’ve ever been, I’ve been kicked out because of this. I’ve had a stroke from all this stress. You can’t just live by yourself,” said Doe.

While some sex offenders argue it stigmatizes them beyond rehabilitation, law enforcement in Fayette County believe it’s critical to public safety.
- It doesn't protect anybody, and if it is as good as they claim, then why not have a online shaming hit-list for all other criminals? Most other criminals have a higher recidivism rate than sex offenders, but the media, politicians and police seem to think it's the opposite, well, it's not, see here for many studies that shows it's not.

It’s a very good tool. If someone’s around there committing serial sex crimes, it offers us a chance to go after that person before they get another victim,” said Trooper S.A. Murphy, with the West Virginia State Police.
- Oh please! If a person is a serial sex offender, it won't do anything to prevent them from committing another crime, if that is their intent! You are just trying to justify the extra punishment of ex-sex offenders. The registry and GPS is only good for after the fact, if the person still lives where they said they do.

More than requiring states to go public with their database, the legislation expanded the categories of crimes eligible for registration; a move which some say made it more difficult for states to track the worst of the worst.
- Yes, now they put all offenders on the registry, and all are seen as the worst of the worst. Why do we need a registry in the first place? If someone is so dangerous, then why was an evaluation not done before sentencing, then sentence them to longer time in prison? Then this online shaming hit-list would not be needed, and not wasting millions of tax payer dollars.

It definitely puts a strain on our manpower. It takes away from other things. But overall, I believe the time is well spent, if it can protect a child,” said Murphy.
- But again, you are living in Wonderland. If a person is intent on committing a crime, the registry, GPS or residency restrictions will not prevent it. So it protects nobody, it's just a placebo!

ME - US Marshals assists in sex offender enforcement operation in 2 Maine counties

Original Article

Once again, the recidivism rate for committing new sex crimes, in this story, 0%. Most are arrested due to some technical violation, because the laws are so draconian.


PORTLAND - A two-day sweep by federal and local police in two Maine counties is confirming that the majority of sex offenders are complying with state registry requirements.

The U.S. Marshals Service joined local and county officers in the sex offender enforcement operation Monday and Tuesday.

Officials say officers physically verified 54 registered sex offenders' addresses in Sagadahoc County on Monday and another 74 addresses on Tuesday in Lincoln County.

Officials say two offenders were arrested for failure to update their addresses in the state sex offender registry. Two others received summonses for failing to properly comply with the reporting requirements.

IN - New Developments In Case Of Former Sheriff (Mike Deatrick) Accused Of Sex Abuse

Mike Deatrick
Original Article


By Daniel Kemp

Mike Deatrick Faces 10 Felony Charges

CLARK COUNTY - New developments were revealed Wednesday in the case against a former southern Indiana sheriff facing criminal charges.

Former Harrison County Sheriff Mike Deatrick is facing 12 criminal charges, including 10 felonies.

Deatrick was set to stand trial next week in Clark County after a change of venue request was granted earlier this year.

Proceedings inside the courtroom lasted no more than five minutes Wednesday morning and shed some light on a deal reached.

Deatrick walked into the courtroom Wednesday flanked by his attorney and family.

Deatrick was arrested in April 2010.

According to court records, investigators said in 2007, Deatrick was armed with a deadly weapon when he caused two women working as dispatchers in the county to submit to deviate sexual conduct.

His charges include criminal deviate sexual conduct, sexual battery, intimidation and insurance fraud.

In court this morning, WLKY learned ongoing plea negotiations between Deatrick and prosecutors have resulted in a deal now filed with the court.
- And I'm sure it's a sweet deal that the general public would not get, if faced with the same.

The judge hasn't ruled whether to accept the deal.

The ruling is expected to come Monday morning.

Deatrick and his attorney left without commenting.

CA - Legal worries push back vote on sex-offender ban

Original Article



San Juan Capistrano City Council decides to look further into the legality of a proposed ordinance to ban or restrict registered sex offenders from city parks.

Though all members favored the idea of keeping sex offenders out of San Juan Capistrano city parks, legal concerns about a proposal to put the idea into law prompted the City Council to postpone a vote on it Tuesday night.
- So, can any reporter or politician point me to a slew of news reports where a sex crime occurred in a park, school or other place these laws forbid people? Like said below, the ones you pick, are not the norm, but the exception. So stop passing laws based on the exception and not the vast majority. If we passed laws based on the exceptions, then why do we not punish everyone in this country, since a few criminals have done bad things? Because we are, or were, a just society, but that is changing, especially when it's the modern day "monster" sex offenders.

"I think there are too many question marks still," Councilwoman Laura Freese said. "Even though our hearts are wanting this stringent mandate, I don't think we're ready for it yet."

The council decided to research the legality of the ordinance and vote on it at a later meeting.

City Attorney Omar Sandoval presented the council with two options for an ordinance to ban or restrict registered sex offenders from city parks.
- It's nothing more than discrimination and state mandated exile, based on lies.

Option 1, modeled after Orange County's Child Safety Zone ordinance approved in April, would allow authorities to charge registered sex offenders with a misdemeanor if they enter a city park without written permission from San Juan Capistrano Police Services. Penalties would include a fine of up to $500 and/or jail time for up to six months for the first violation. Second and third violations would mandate jail time and fines of up to $500.
- So, since ex-offenders pay taxes on the parks they can no longer use, are you going to give them a tax break?

Option 2, a modified version of the county law, would allow Police Services to grant date-, time- and location-specific written permission for individual registered sex offenders if they have a reason to be there under specific guidelines, such as accompanying a minor for whom the offender is the legal parent or guardian, or using the park for free speech or assembly, lawful employment, voting in an election or attending a religious service. Signs would be put up in all city parks.
- Is this for those on probation/parole only, or as usual, all ex-offenders? When are we going to start working on "hall passes" for all other criminals as well? Like one for DUI offenders to not be able to enter stores that sell alcohol, which would basically be all stores? Or gang members from entering gun shops or stores that sell drugs? Fair is fair, right? Oh yeah, this is not about being fair, it's about punishing the modern day leper (sex offenders) to pacify the sheeple from the fear-mongering spread by the politicians, media and police agencies, for money, ratings and votes.

A requirement for either option is that notifications be sent to registered sex offenders who live in San Juan.

Sandoval said the city has 17 registered sex offenders, 13 of whom have been convicted of offenses against minors. The city is home to nearly 35,000 residents, nearly one-fourth of whom are younger than 18, according to a city staff report.
- So out of the 13 who committed crimes against children, how many were done in a park? I am willing to bet ZERO!

The council was shown a video of Phillip Garrido, a paroled sex offender who pleaded guilty this year to kidnapping and raping Jaycee Dugard, as an example of why such an ordinance should be implemented.
- Yes, instead of showing the facts from the vast majority of sex offenders, they pick one of the worse to show everyone. That is how politics and propaganda work. Mr. Garrido is not the norm, but the exception, and most of those convicted of sex crimes, do not go on to commit more sex crimes, or kidnap children, and that is easily seen, if you read the true facts instead of what the politicians, media and police want you to see. The vast majority of studies show that sex offender have the lowest recidivism of all other criminals. So why don't we have a national shaming registry for all the other high risk criminals?

"I think this is a very important issue and a very important thing to prohibit because sex offenders who are not on probation or parole are actually more dangerous, in my opinion, than the sex offenders who are on probation or parole," said Susan Schroeder, chief of staff for Orange County District Attorney Tony Rackauckas.
- Are you kidding me? Show me the proof, not your personal opinion!

Council members had differing opinions on which option they would like to see implemented, but they had concerns with both.

Orange County sheriff's Lt. John Meyer, chief of police services in San Juan, said only Sheriff Sandra Hutchens could grant permission to allow a sex offender to enter a park and that the Sheriff's Department has no intention of granting any permissions.
- Sure would be nice to see the hard data on how many sex crimes have occurred in parks, but we all know we will never see that, because it would prevent them from passing laws based on lies, like this.

That being the case, "the city would be exposed to the liability" for any lawsuit that may occur if the ordinance is enacted, Sandoval said.
- It is my opinion, that all ex-offenders should sue the state for this infringement of their rights, even if they cannot afford a lawyer, swamp the legal system with law suits, even if you have to get a court appointed lawyer. Eventually it will bankrupt the state.

"I'm not too crazy about this," Councilman Derek Reeve said. "We have an ordinance but we don't make the decision, and you (Meyer) already said you don't foresee ever approving one. ... It just seems like we're opening ourselves up potentially to a lawsuit for a law that no one seems to know if it's even constitutional."
- Hell, if you had common sense and read the Constitution, you'd know banning people from public places is unconstitutional. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that, only someone who is corrupt and violating their oath of office.

Sandoval answered questions about a legal challenge brought in San Diego in which that city removed restrictions from an ordinance similar to the one considered Tuesday. San Diego settled with the Public Defender's Office in that case, Sandoval said.

"They didn't want to be the first test case on this matter, and the surrounding cities are also on a holding pattern because nobody wants to be the first city to get sued," Sandoval said.
- So, just like you are suppose to do in a court of law, and find someone guilty based on facts, and if there is any reasonable doubt, then throw it out, why not do the same here. Clearly it's unconstitutional

The San Juan council also would have to decide which parks to ban sex offenders from. The county ordinance lists specific parks where offenders are banned.

"I think we really need to take a very close look at each of these parks and determine which of these would be more workable," Mayor Sam Allevato said.

The District Attorney's Office has sent letters recommending that each city in Orange County consider adopting sex-offender bans like the one in effect at county parks, recreational facilities and beaches.
- Once again, what are the facts on sexual assault cases being committed at parks, beaches, or any other place you mentioned? I am willing to bet none, or very little.

In June, Westminster passed an ordinance identical to the county's, and it went into effect in July. Irvine adopted a similar ordinance but only banned sex offenders who have committed an offense against a minor. Rancho Santa Margarita and Huntington Beach are among other Orange County cities moving toward adopting such bans.

According to Schroeder, the county ordinance and the ordinance presented to the San Juan council are not ex post facto laws (one that applies retroactively to punish an act that wasn't illegal at the time it was committed). The DA's Office conducted months of research to support that claim, she said.
- Months of research? Really? So where is this "research?" I'd like to see it. And by the text the reporter added in parenthesis above, it's clearly unconstitutional, if you don't bend the meaning to suit your own purpose. Also, I like how the reporter inserted "punish" into the meaning above, when the true definition is not about punishment, as you can see here.

"I believe (the county ordinance) is constitutionally sound," Schroeder said.

She said she is confident that San Juan eventually will pass the ordinance.

Defining Sex Offenders - Freedom From Fear

Click the image to visit the site

NV-MA - Nevada's Modification Advisory

Click the image to visit the site

TX - Labeling people sex offenders even if they did not commit a sex crime?

Original Article

Well, why are they labeling people sex offenders who did not commit sex crimes in the first place? Maybe to make the registry larger so they get grant money? Which by the way, the tax payers had to pay for. This is basically corruption IMO.


By Mike Ward

After losses in court, state changes how it deals with those not convicted of sex crimes.

For more than three years, state parole officials fought to classify parolee [name 1 withheld] as a sex offender, even though he'd never been convicted of a sex crime.

Several courts said they couldn't do that without due process hearings. But little changed.

Then, in June, parole officials abruptly made an about-face. In short order, they removed the ankle monitoring bracelet that had tracked the East Texas minister's every move and then withdrew the "Special Condition X" designation from his parole, which required [name 1 withheld] to attend sex offender therapy sessions and list himself on a statewide database. And they did it without a hearing.

"I felt like a heavy burden was lifted," said [name 1 withheld], who said he can now attend church freely, go to work without having to stick to a restricted schedule and even have a computer with Internet access.

After years of fighting in court against giving parolees a hearing before they are classified as sex offenders, state officials have begun dropping the sex offender designations — in some cases without administrative hearings, according to parole attorneys.

Rissie Owens, chairwoman of the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles, and Stuart Jenkins, parole director for the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, who have steadfastly defended the past policy in court, could not be reached for comment Tuesday.

The change occurred after an 8-0 ruling by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in May affirmed what several federal courts previously had ruled: The parole board cannot unilaterally decide whether to brand a prisoner as a sex offender if he or she has not been convicted of a sexual offense.

By officials' earlier estimates, as many as 6,900 of the 80,600 parolees could be affected by the change. To review those cases would require perhaps as many as 1,000 hearings a week — an impossible number, some parole officials had said.

The change caps more than a decade of court challenges, including at least five high-profile court decisions branding the action without hearings unconstitutional — including [name 1 withheld]'s suit, which drew a strong rebuke from U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks of Austin in 2009.

Attorneys who have seen parolees' Condition X designations removed said the policy change is long overdue.

"This is a huge change," Austin attorney Gary Cohen said. "The law has been clear for years on this. But it just shows the institutional mentality of parole officials: Instead of doing the right thing, they resist and resist and resist and continue losing in court."
- Yes, they need to keep the prison business alive, and money flowing in, and what better way to do it, than to put people in prison unjustly, and label them a sex offender, which brings in more money.

"If they had (changed the policy) years ago, as they should have, they would have saved a lot of money and litigation."
- No wonder this country is going broke, due to corruption.

Bill Habern, a Riverside attorney who filed several of the cases that resulted in adverse decisions for parole officials, agreed.

"That May decision was the nail in their coffin," he said. "There are thousands of cases that could be affected."

The May decision, which harshly criticized parole officials for continuing to impose Condition X without proper hearings, involved [name 2 withheld] of Lubbock, who was convicted of injuring his two baby daughters and sentenced to 10 years in prison.
- This is what happens when you name a law the "child protection and safety act," and anyone who harms a child, is unjustly labeled a sex offender, even when sex wasn't involved.  And this makes you wonder, how many REAL sex offenders are actually in this country?  The last I checked there were over 700,000.  I wonder if that number could be cut almost in half?

When he was paroled in October 2006, [name 2 withheld] was not placed under Condition X, according to court files. But when he moved to El Paso in 2008, his parole officer ordered it — and the parole board went along.

The classification occurred even though the prosecutor and the sentencing judge determined that there had been no sexual abuse of the girls, according to the May decision.

Parolees on Condition X have a much tougher time making it on parole than others. They are severely restricted in where they can live, what jobs they can take and where they can go. Many, like [name 1 withheld], have to wear monitoring bracelets that track their every movement.

Many fail on parole and end up back in prison.
- Exactly what they want, to keep the prison business alive and raking in the dough.

Over the past decade, parolees who years earlier had been caught urinating in public, or who faced sex-related charges from an angry ex-spouse who later recanted, were placed under Condition X.

Scott Pawgan, [name 2 withheld]' attorney, said that had his client been allowed a hearing before the parole board saddled him with Condition X, the details of his case could have been properly aired.

"He never had that chance," Pawgan said.

To properly place a parolee on Condition X, several courts have held, the parole board must provide a due process hearing in which the convict can review and challenge the evidence. The board must also make a finding that the parolee constitutes a threat to society by reason of a continued lack of sexual control and issue a report documenting the decision.

For those parolees like [name 1 withheld] who already have had Condition X removed, the change has brought new freedom while still on parole.

He said he recently purchased a Harley-Davidson motorcycle and is working with a prison ministry group to bring convicts still in prison to God and help them become law-abiding citizens once they get out.

"A lot of doors have been opening," he said.