Tuesday, November 13, 2012

MD - Police officer Elliot Simon accused of sexual assaulting an 18-year-old while on duty

Original Article

You will notice that they do not release the officers photo, like they do in many cases that involve police, but when it's a celebrity, politicians, or someone from the general public, they splash the photo everywhere. Why do police get such protection? Everybody else is just as likely to be victimized in jail/prison, so why should police get special protection? Click the "/Crime-Police" label above to see many more officers committing sexual crimes, mostly in Florida, from what we've seen. We need to remember though, he is innocent until proven guilty!


BALTIMORE (WJZ) — Another Baltimore City police officer has been accused of breaking the law. This time, it’s a sexual assault. The allegation is the latest in a string of misconduct cases. Adam May investigates the severity of the problem.

Over the last few years, dozens of Baltimore City police officers have been convicted of misconduct or corruption and it’s put Baltimore on a bad list.

Baltimore City police officer Elliot Simon was accused of sexually assaulting an 18-year-old while on duty.

I made it clear to the commissioner that if we had bad actors in the police department, that we need to get rid of them,” said Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake.

The mayor expressed outrage first to WJZ at a neighborhood revitalization event. The allegations follow the high-profile conviction of another officer for running a heroin ring and a towing scheme that sent more than a dozen officers to prison.

It tarnishes the good work so many are doing to bring down crime and strengthen our neighborhoods,” Rawlings-Blake said.

A non-profit think tank has been analyzing police corruption the last few years and they discovered Baltimore is one of the worst. The Cato Institute ranks Baltimore 15th in the nation with more than 46 incidents of police wrongdoing in 2010, the last year analyzed.

I don’t trust them at all,” said one resident.

WJZ heard a range of complaints from many residents who live in the Northwestern District, home to many recent police issues.

A lot of times they ask for our help and people don’t feel comfortable helping us,” the resident said.

Those opinions are a challenge for the new commissioner.

I have no tolerance for misconduct or officers that violate the public trust,” said Police Commissioner Batts.

An FBI report says police departments should fight corruption with strong ethics policies and leadership, better hiring practices and punishment for offending officers.
- This isn't just about police officers, corruption is everywhere, and no matter where it is, it should be stopped.

The state’s attorney’s office is still reviewing the allegations against Officer Simon. For now, he’s suspended without pay.

Officer Simon is a 14-year veteran of the police force.

UK - Internet ban on convicted sex offender 'unreasonable', rule judges

Original Article


By Owen Bowcott

Court of appeal's decision to uphold complaint over internet restriction could set precedent in hacking and fraud cases

Banning anyone from the internet is an "unreasonable" restriction, two appeal court judges have ruled, suggesting that access to a computer at home has become a basic human right.

The decision by Mr Justice Collins and Judge Nicholas Cooke QC signals judicial recognition of how pervasive digital communications are in an era when a multitude of services can be obtained online.

The decision could prove a challenging precedent in computer hacking and fraud cases where suspects have frequently been banned from using computers for recreational purposes. At least one computer-hacking suspect, [name withheld], has been prohibited from going online.

Upholding a complaint from a sex offender that he was being cut off from the world, the two judges declared it was "unreasonable nowadays to ban anyone from accessing the internet in their home".

[name withheld] had been convicted of using a secret camera to film a 14-year-old girl in the shower. [name withheld], 55, of Dartford, Kent, doctored a shampoo bottle and hid his mobile phone inside it to take the surreptitious video of the girl.

He was arrested after the youngster spotted a flashing light in the bottle. Police investigated and subsequently found hundreds of sexual images, featuring animals and children as young as four, stored on [name withheld]'s computer.

He was sentenced to a community order with three years supervision at Woolwich crown court in June. He was also subjected to a sexual offences prevention order (Sopo), banning him from owning a computer, using a camera in public and coming into contact with children at work, and allowing the police to raid his home at any time.

His lawyers argued that the prevention order was unnecessary and disproportionate. When it was imposed the crown court judge had remarked that it should last until the day [name withheld] died.

Collins and Cooke, sitting in the court of appeal, overturned it and replaced it with an order that [name withheld] must make his internet history available for police viewing.

Collins told the court: "The judge imposing the Sopo said, 'I anticipate that you will die subject to this order – that is my wish anyway.' They were not appropriate remarks to have made."

He also criticised the "lurid language" used by the crown court judge, concluding that the order imposed on [name withheld] was "entirely excessive". He added: "Nowadays it is entirely unreasonable to ban anybody from accessing the internet in their home."

See Also:

"Involuntary porn" site tests the boundaries of legal extortion

Craig Brittain
Original Article

Since when did extortion become "legal?" The new site owner should check out Offendex.com as well.


By Timothy B. Lee

Site posts leaked nude photos without consent, charges $250 to take them down.

In the era of Polaroid cameras, you didn't have to worry too much about a racy snapshot you took in the privacy of your bedroom becoming available to the general public. But thanks to the rise of digital cameras and the Internet, that's now a real risk. Hackers, disgruntled exes, and other vindictive individuals who gain access to your compromising digital snapshots can share them with the world with a single click.

Recently, a number of websites have sprung up to cash in on the public humiliation of others. One of the first such sites was [site removed], which solicited nude pictures of ordinary Americans submitted by third parties. To maximize the humiliation, the photos were posted along with identifying details such as name and home town. The site's owner, Hunter Moore, reportedly raked in thousands of dollars a month in advertising revenue, and he made the rounds on television talk shows defending his site.

Moore finally shuttered the site earlier this year, but others have jumped in to fill the sordid niche he pioneered. One such site is the creatively named [site removed]. Like the original, it features naked pictures of ordinary Americans, generally submitted without the subjects' consent, as well as personal information such as their names, hometowns, phone numbers, and screenshots of their Facebook pages.

Sleazy, yes—but is it extortion?

If you think [site removed] couldn't be any sleazier, then [site removed]'s seems determined to prove you wrong. A link on [site removed] reading "Get Me Off This Site!" leads to the website of "[site removed]," an "independent third party team" that, for a modest fee of $250, will "issue a successful content removal request on your behalf." It brags of 90 successful removals from [site removed].

It seems pretty obvious that "[site removed]" isn't actually independent of [site removed]. Indeed, copyright and First Amendment attorney Marc Randazza has found circumstantial evidence that [site removed] and [site removed] are, in fact, both owned by a man named Craig Brittain.

Randazza has made taking down [site removed] a personal cause. "I want to hurt [site removed]. I want to hurt them bad," Randazza wrote in a recent blog post. "If anyone out there has been scammed by these crooks, contact me," Randazza wrote. "I will represent you pro bono."

Is it even illegal to run a site like [site removed]? "Involuntary porn" sites are so new that the courts haven't really dealt with them before.

In an interview earlier this month, Randazza told us that his legal strategy would depend on the client, but that he would likely sue Brittain for copyright infringement. Depending on where the client lived, he said there were also likely to be private torts available under state law.

We asked Paul Alan Levy, a free speech lawyer at Public Citizen, whether a victim of [site removed] would have a case against the site. He drew a parallel to other cases that have dealt with allegedly extortionate websites.

CA - Santa Ana RSO's jailed all day while registering

Sent to us via the contact form and posted with the users permission.

By John Smith:
I am a registered sex offender. John Smith is not my real name, but I'm using it here. I'm on the registry for a child porn conviction in 2003 for life, and I live in the city of Santa Ana California. I wanted to tell you how Santa Ana runs their registration process, and wondered if we could get some sort of relief.

I give you COMPLETE PERMISSION to print this letter.

Santa Ana requires offenders to come in at a designated point of time in a group to register. Usually, there are about 20 of us. We are required to arrive before 8:00 AM. Once we are all there, they take us to a booking room where they completely frisk us as one would be frisked after being arrested. Afterwards, they take us to another room where we are required to change to a jail uniform and slippers, and our street clothes are actually sorted in an open area. We have to remove our ID's out of our wallet. I haven't been in a process where someone was missing an ID, but I was told that if that happened, the sex offender would be subject to arrest.

After we are put in a jail uniform, we are frisked again to make sure we aren't taking anything like a pen or watch, then we are taken down the corridor through the jail to a cell that is in sight of the other prisoners. They all know that we are RSO's, so they hoot and holler; it seems to be the high point of their week. In the cell, we have to remain while they process us 2 at a time.

During the registration process, two relatively hostile investigators ask questions about what we are doing. They confirm employment and business information. The past couple of years, they have actually called my place of residence as well as my employer while we were sitting there. If we are out of compliance as far as address or employment, then the immediate registration process is terminated and a case is opened to investigate a registration violation. The RSO is then taken to a holding cell to be booked for suspicion of a registration violation.

Now, I know that there is no requirement for those off parole to answer questions. But the overwhelming intimidation factor discourages such actions and we end up telling them about our daily activities, our Internet activities, and they ask us if we ever entered schools (and now parks). I would imagine if we answer yes, they would immediately arrest us.

Once the questions are answered, they go over our registration point by point and make sure we understand each point before making us initial them. They do not allow us to read it beforehand, but make us follow the inquisitive protocol.

Finally, they lead us to the sex offender picture area and take our picture. Keep in mind that we are in our jail uniform, so it looks as if we are active prisoners. We then have to go to the process area and await some administrative tasks (or perhaps they are doing further investigations; I don't know), and finally they make us review all the paperwork before they are finished.

Once we are finished here, we are returned to the jail cell, and the next couple of registrants are taken. At no point are we allowed to leave, and of course the jail has a toilet. The rest of the prisoners get meals; and when they get lunch they taunt us a lot more.

Now keep in mind, we have to sit in a cell with no TV, with no reading material, and no way to communicate with the outside world. Finally, late in the afternoon we are let out of our cell, marched down the corridor past the screaming banshee prisoners, and allowed to get back in our street clothes. Now, I've placed cards in special places in my wallet and also placed a small paper in my money area so if the money were removed, the paper is dislodged. In every case, I found that my wallet had been looked through. (I've since stopped bringing my cell phone because I would bet that they would look through the listings and the history.)

So to recap: at 8:00 we are taken to a booking room, get frisked, have to change to a jail uniform, march us past hardened jail prisoners who know we are RSO's with the ensuing catcalls, locked into a cell with no TV, reading or writing material, led to an interrogation room where they question us about our activities and even call our employers and landlords, take about half an hour to fill out about 10 minutes worth of paperwork, parade us past more prisoners to the photograph area, take our pictures in prison garb, march us back the prisoners, and lock us back in the cell until everyone is processed, released anywhere from 4:00 PM to 5:30 PM from the cell, march by the prisoners one more time, change back into our street clothes, and finally released with our paperwork.

Now, I'm off parole. How many constitutional violations has the state committed against me? I can think of several: Illegal search, both of person and of items, illegal incarceration, illegal questioning without benefit of a lawyer, and finally, slander of my character, by posting me in a jail uniform as my registration picture. Don't believe me? Filter the Megans Law list for Santa Ana. Note that most, if not all, registrants are wearing the same jail uniform top, even those who've not been arrested for decades. Call the registrants in Santa Ana.

Unfortunately, I don't have any money to fight this. I've told two lawyers but they wanted several thousand dollars, and the ACLU has not responded to me. And it seems like they are getting more and more bold. It would not surprise me if one day we had to stay the night, which would screw me as I work nights doing inventory, and would hate to lose increasingly hard to get jobs.

Thanks for listening to me. You do understand why I can't give my name, but it should be easy to confirm what I said simply by looking at the Megan's Law site for RSO's in Santa Ana (nearly all are in prison garb), as well as maybe contacting a couple more RSO's to confirm this. I doubt Santa Ana PD will cooperate. Please tell anyone who can help us if you can, and publicize it as well, though I fear that people would LOVE this to happen everywhere.

See Also:

California Sex Offender Registry
Verified, all from this county are wearing the blue or orange jail uniforms

OR - Residents outraged sex offender treatment center near schools

Original Article


By Patrick Preston

PORTLAND - Hundreds of homeowners are furious they've been in the dark about the existence of a sex offender treatment center near their children's schools for nearly a year.

There are no signs outside Whole Systems on Milwaukie Avenue, but from the playground of the Boys and Girls Club, the door of the sex offender treatment center can be seen. The Montessori school is also less than 300 feet from the center.

Many homeowners are just now learning about the center and some of them expressed fear and anger Monday night at a loud and tense meeting in Sellwood.

One hundred twenty convicts from Clackamas and Multnomah counties receive court-ordered counseling at the center for crimes such as molestation, possession of child pornography and rape of a minor.

"You just don't put this type of population in the middle of a residential neighborhood with lots of stay-at-home moms, lots of young kids," said Robin Springer, who organized the meeting.

Whole Systems moved to its current location from Oregon City last December but most of the 100 people who gathered at the meeting never complained because they didn’t know about it.
- So it's been there for almost 1 year, and no problems, which again, proves that sex offenders are not the evil "monsters" the media, police, politicians and others believe, and that recidivism is low.  If they were as bad as people believe, there would be crimes all over the place, but there isn't.

"It's just unconscionable to me; in fact, I find it morally reprehensible," Springer said.

Meeting organizers made their goal clear, which is to get the sex offenders out of the neighborhood, but not everybody stuck to that agenda. A few tried to defend the treatment center and one couple was drowned out with applause until they left.

And the director of Whole Systems, Johneen Manno, crashed the meeting but was asked to leave.

Outside the meeting, Manno said she's open to relocating.

"I would like to talk to the property owner about that (getting out of the lease) and if he feels it's a good solution, then absolutely," she said.

Manno said she tried to tell the community about the treatment center but few at Monday night's meeting thought she tried hard enough.

They're now telling schools, churches and the rest of the community to talk with kids about the center. And they say they plan to pressure the landlord and whoever else they need to, to remove the sex offenders.

See Also: