Monday, February 10, 2014

LA - Sorrento Police Chief (Earl Theriot) pleads guilty to lying to the FBI, admits sex act

Earl Theriot
Earl Theriot
Original Article


By Amber Stegall

SORRENTO (WAFB) - According to United States Attorney Walt Green, Sorrento Police Chief Earl Theriot pleaded guilty to making false statements to an FBI Special Agent in connection with a criminal civil rights investigation.

At Monday's hearing, the US Attorney says Theriot admitted that on November 1, 2013, while serving as the Sorrento Police Chief, he responded to a 911 call about an unresponsive individual at a local gas station. Theriot admitted that he put her in the front seat of his police unit, and, instead of taking her home, he took her to his office at the Sorrento Police Department where he engaged in inappropriate sexual contact with her.

According to the U.S. Attorney's Office, Theriot also admitted to later making numerous false statements to an FBI Special Agent and a deputy with the Ascension Parish Sheriff's Office, who were investigating whether Theriot violated federal civil rights laws, among other things.

"Today, Chief Theriot accepted responsibility for his conduct. He apologizes to the community and citizens of Sorrento for his lapse in judgement," said Theriot's attorney, Roger Jordan. Jordan went on to say that his client hopes that this incident will not be a reflection on the 40 years he's spent in law enforcement.

Jordan declined to comment on how the former chief's guilty plea will affect the civil lawsuit the victim has filed against him.

On February 7, 2014, Theriot resigned as Chief of Police as required by the Plea Agreement with the United States Attorney's Office. On February 6, 2014, Theriot sent a letter to the Mayor of Sorrento and Councilmen announcing his retirement and that it would begin on February 7, 2014.

Theriot will not be allowed to appeal his conviction or his sentence, as terms of the plea deal.

To read the full Bill of Information, click here:

To read the sexual assault court documents, click here:

Theriot faces up to five years in prison, three years of supervised release following imprisonment, and a fine of up to $250,000.

Theriot will be sentenced May 22, 2014.

AFRICA - Don't scar child sex offenders

Juvenile sex offenders
Original Article


By Lindiwe Mlandu

CAPE TOWN - The Teddy Bear Clinic says child sexual offenders should be treated differently from adult offenders.

Currently, there is the automatic inclusion of child offenders in the sexual offences registrar.

Rights groups have taken the matter to the Constitutional Court, arguing that this in an unjustifiable violation of children’s rights.

Speaking to the Redi Tlhabi Show, the Teddy Bear Clinic’s Dr Shahida Omar explained how the law works.

If a child has committed an offence and is sentenced to a period of less than six months, then the child can only have his/her name removed from the registrar after five years. If the sentence is more than six months, then the child can only apply after 10 years to expunge the name off the registrar.”

She says this has a negative impact on the child.

There are serious implications in terms of the psychological well being and even in terms of their future opportunities.”

Omar says they believe the law should treat children differently.

A child cannot be treated like an adult because that’s a trickle-down phenomenon. Adults are different. And children, it has been proven empirically and from clinical practice, that children do not re-offend if they are given the necessary intervention and rehabilitation.”
- Same for adults.

She says there are proper ways to deal with the child offenders.

The Child Justice Act clearly makes provision for restorative justice where there’s an opportunity for victim-offender mediation. And in the lot of the diversion programmes, they are given opportunities to communicate and connect with their victims. They get an opportunity to ask for forgiveness and to repair.”

She says victims also get an opportunity to address their challenges.

See Also:

FL - New details released in Lakeland officer (Julio Pagan) sex case

Julio Pagan
Julio Pagan
Original Article


By Holly Bounds

LAKELAND - New details released Thursday by the 10th Judicial Circuit State Attorney’s Office provide a closer account of a 2013 sexual assault case involving a Lakeland police officer.

Also provided, surveillance video where the former officer drops the victim off in his patrol car at a nearby convenience store. Back in September, Julio Pagan was charged with two counts of armed sexual battery and one count of stalking.

The victim’s account released Thursday is chilling. She said her calls to law enforcement were ignored, leaving her helpless in a fight against one of their own.

Wearing the symbols of safety and protection, she thought he was someone she could trust. That’s why on July 4th of 2013 Lakeland police officer Julio Pagan was allowed inside the victim’s home.

Do you ever let strangers in or anything like that? Are you a friendly person?” Assistant State Attorney Brad Copley asked in an interview.

I’m a friendly person but I don’t normally let strangers in,” the victim responded. “He was an officer so it was a little bit different than a stranger.”

That’s when she said the advances started and a month later he was back, armed and on the job, demanding sex. She said he left her with no choice but to give in.

He wouldn’t stop asking me for sex for over 30 minutes,” the victim stated. “It was just non-stop.”

Scared and embarrassed, at first she stayed silent.

I was embarrassed,” the victim said. “I felt like an idiot. And it’s something that should have never happened. And I didn’t want none of this to happen.”

Surveillance video shows the pair together. Officer Pagan takes an already tipsy victim in his patrol car to a nearby store to buy alcohol. He heads out to a call and returns to her house wanting sex. This time she refuses. With no signs of the situation ending, she called authorities for help.

After laughs from a dispatcher and no response to her call, she remained helpless.

I thought it was over because I’m thinking, ‘Ok, I’ve got a 911 call,’” she stated.

Authorities finally responded in mid-September after the victim told her landlord she wanted to move because this officer would not leave her alone. When the landlord reported it to a police captain, the investigation began.

Pagan has been behind bars since his arrest in September. A hearing is scheduled in March to set a trial date. Pagan could spend the rest of his life in prison.


Original Article

This difficult case resolves the claim of defendant Myers that the Kansas Sex Offender Registration Act (KSORA), [260 Kan. 671] K.S.A. 22-4901 et seq., as applied to him, violates the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution. The determinative issue is whether KSORA constitutionally may be applied to Myers, whose offense was committed before April 14, 1994, the date KSORA took effect.

Myers was convicted in 1991 of one count of sexual battery, K.S.A. 21-3517 (Ensley 1988) and one count of rape, K.S.A. 21-3502 (Ensley 1988). The Court of Appeals reversed his convictions and remanded the case for a new trial in an unpublished opinion filed September 3, 1993. We affirmed the Court of Appeals. See State v. Myers, 255 Kan. 3, 872 P.2d 236 (1994). After remand, Myers pleaded no contest on August 15, 1994, to the aggravated sexual battery (K.S.A. 21-3518 [Ensley 1988]) of his 17-year-old victim, who was assisting her mother in cleaning Myers' law office. Myers was ordered to be processed under KSORA as a "sex offender." A KSORA sex offender is any person convicted of a named offense on or after July 1, 1993. Aggravated sexual battery is a named offense. K.S.A. 22-4902(a), (b)(9), and K.S.A. 22-4910. We note that if Myers' 1991 convictions had been affirmed, he would not be subject to KSORA classification as a sex offender. After his plea in 1994, Myers filed a motion to eliminate the requirement of KSORA registration. He challenged the constitutionality of KSORA as ex post facto legislation violating Art. I, § 10 of the United States Constitution. Myers' motion was denied, and he appealed. Our jurisdiction is under K.S.A. 20-3017. (We granted Myers' motion to transfer to this court.)

We deny Myers' ex post facto claim as to registration. The registration requirements of KSORA (K.S.A. 22-4904, K.S.A. 22-4906, and K.S.A. 22-4907) are remedial and thus constitutional. As applied to Myers, the public disclosure provision, K.S.A. 22-4909, imposes punishment in violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause. Myers is required to register under KSORA. However, his registration shall not be open to public inspection and shall not be subject to the provisions of the Kansas Open Records Act, K.S.A. 45-215 et seq.

Mysterious Dissapearances in National Parks

Grey Alien
Original Article

This is a conspiracy article about people missing from parks and what they think may be doing it, but it wouldn't surprise us if they tried to twist this into homeless sex offenders are snatching people in parks or sex offenders committing mass kidnappings in parks. You know how they like fear and hysteria.

Unexplained disappearance is the physical disappearance of people or other objects without apparent cause or reason.

Reports of missing persons have increased sixfold in the past 25 years, from roughly 150,000 in 1980 to about 900,000 this year. The increase was driven in part by the country’s growing population. But the numbers also indicate that law enforcement treats the cases more seriously now, including those of marginalized citizens.

The most amazing fact is that the U.S. national park service states they do not track missing people inside their parks and when the author of the book “Missing 411″ asks for any data associated with the missing, they want to charge him 1.4 million dollars for them to do their job. They have also blocked the ability to get records on certain cases, including a congressman who was asked to look into this.

Part 1 of 3

Playlist Link

Supreme Court justice predicts internment camps in America’s future

Justice Antonin Scalia
Justice Antonin Scalia
Original Article


A distinguished member of the U.S. Supreme Court gave a sobering reminder of how history can and likely will repeat itself when the conditions are right. Justice Antonin Scalia said that he would not be surprised if Americans were once again imprisoned in concentration camps by the federal government.

The 77-year-old justice was answering questions after giving a classroom lecture to a group of law students in Honolulu. One student asked about the deplorable 1944 Korematsu v. United States decision, in which the U.S. Supreme Court verified the constitutionality of the president ordering the mass-imprisonment of Americans in the name of national security.

Scalia cited the wartime “panic” as a reason Americans accepted President Franklin Roosevelt’s hostile treatment of citizens of his own country.

As the Associated Press reported:

“Well of course Korematsu was wrong. And I think we have repudiated in a later case. But you are kidding yourself if you think the same thing will not happen again,” Scalia told students and faculty during a lunchtime Q-and-A session.

Scalia cited a Latin expression meaning, “In times of war, the laws fall silent.”

“That’s what was going on — the panic about the war and the invasion of the Pacific and whatnot. That’s what happens. It was wrong, but I would not be surprised to see it happen again, in time of war. It’s no justification, but it is the reality,” he said.

The Korematsu case stemmed from President Roosevelt’s Executive Order 9066, which divided the country into “Military Areas” and in a real sense instituted martial law in the United States. Control of civilian territory was granted to to military commanders and the Secretary of War, who were authorized to take any freedom-restricting actions they deemed necessary to secure the homeland.

Ted Nugent Admits to Sex Addiction with Young Girls - Self confessed pedophile?

Except from VH1's Behind The Music:
In a 1998 episode of VH1′s Behind The Music, Nugent, “lambastes drug users and alcohol drinkers, but repeatedly admits (without a trace of humility, however) to being a serial pedophile. Two relationships (one with his wife and one with “musePele Massa, who was 17 when they started dating) were ended due to Ted’s infidelity while on the road, often with underage women. But Ted justifies his behavior with one of his trademark funny expressions: ‘alternative flesh management.’”

KY - Sex-offender registry misguided thinking

Guy Hamilton-Smith
Guy Hamilton-Smith
Original Article



I am a sex offender.

I know well the tremendous power of those words. In 2007, I pled guilty to possession of child pornography.

Nothing here is meant to defend what I did or to minimize the gravity of my actions. I had a major problem with pornography, and I was far too deep in denial and too scared to reach out to anyone.

Help eventually came when my girlfriend discovered child porn on my computer and went to the police. I was then and remain grateful to her for taking that step.

As I went through the legal process after my arrest, I developed a keen interest in the law, and a sincere desire to advocate on the behalf of those who are hated, who are lost, and who are forgotten. With luck, I managed to win acceptance to law school despite my conviction. I worked harder than I'd ever worked in my life, because I knew I'd have a lot to do to overcome my past. I did well in school, graduated, secured a job at a law firm after disclosing my past, and applied to take the bar exam.

Recently, the Kentucky Supreme Court ruled that I will not be allowed to take the bar exam until I am no longer on the sex-offender registry, which will be another 18 years from now.

But the point I want to make is not about me. It isn't about my case. I am not here to say whether the court's decision was right or wrong. The principles at play are much larger than me.

Strange as it may sound coming from a felon and a sex offender, I believe in the necessity of punishment. How else, after all, are people supposed to make amends for the harm that they cause?

Indeed, my experiences as a criminal defendant, my experiences in law school and by working in criminal defense inform my belief in the ideal that our justice system. That it can work to the benefit of, not only the state and the victims, but the perpetrators, as well.

After all, I believe in many ways that my life was saved by virtue of my arrest.

I am sensitive to the fact that my crime, and the crimes of others on the sex offender registry, are serious. I do not mean to denigrate the plight of victims, as I was also a victim at one point in my own childhood.

My point, rather, is simply this: punishment that becomes unmoored from considerations of proportionality, redemption and reintegration becomes poison, and we — society, victims and perpetrators — become diminished by it.

Nowhere is this more evident than the sex-offender registry. Those who find themselves constituents of the registry are routinely and uniformly denied the same second chance afforded to so many other criminal defendants after they have served their sentences.

The impetus behind the registry is the popular belief that sex offenders always commit new sex crimes. That view, however, is at odds with data from the Department of Justice and others.

For instance, a Justice study examining the records of nearly 10,000 sex offenders found that only 3.5 percent committed a new sex crime. Other studies indicate that most instances of sexual abuse are perpetrated by someone known to the victim, such as a family member, as opposed to a stranger.

There is also no evidence to suggest that sex offenders who live close to schools or playgrounds reoffend at a rate higher than other sex offenders.

The consequences of such a system are not just borne by the offenders, either. One of the common criticisms of the registry, in light of the evidence, is that it provides a false sense of security to parents.

If that is so, then invariably placing the problem of sexual offending onto just those already convicted helps in great measure to perpetuate the very evil the registry was intended to eradicate.

I know that I am not a sympathetic figure by virtue of my crime. I know that I can never change the past or undo the things that I have done.

My hope here is that we can have a discussion in this country that is long overdue — namely, what it is that we hope to achieve from our system of criminal justice.

OK - New Bill Requires Updated Photos For Sex Offenders

Sex offender registryOriginal Article


By Heather Hope

OKLAHOMA CITY - An Oklahoma mother is now pushing to make a change with the state's Sex Offender Registry. She says the pictures on the website are so old you can't recognize the people who could be a danger in your neighborhood. Now lawmakers are getting involved.

The bill is basically the same as the current Sex Offenders Registration Act. The only change is instead saying law enforcement "may" take a photo each time, it says they "shall".

"It started when I was 9 and half almost 10 and lasted until I was 12," said bill supporter, Chantal Morris.

Morris says she'll always remember how her ex-stepfather and his nephew sexually abused her and her brothers. Now a PTA mom of two, she says she still checks the Sex Offender Registry to make sure her two abusers aren't living anywhere near her. And she noticed their pictures are 10 years old.

"I'm not going to forget their face ever, but for someone who's looking on their website looking at their photo, they may not see the red flags or anything," Morris said.

Morris brought up the issue to Sen. David Holt, who wrote Senate Bill 1444, requiring that sex offenders take a current photo every single time they have to register.

"Some of these people are on that list for life, so you could have a 50-year-old photo, and the law is very clear that they only may take a photo," said Holt.

Attorney David Slane, who represents many sex offenders, thinks the law would be a waste of resources.

"And when you take and have about 5,000 people now that you're going to take they're pictures every three to six months to a year, you don't think that's going to take time. I bet you if you ask law enforcement, they'll tell you that it is going to take time," said Slane.

"If the pictures are updated yearly, then every year, you have a potential to save a child from abuse," Morris said.

The bill would require sex offenders take a new photo either every three to six or 12 months, based on their offense level. The bill passed out of the "public safety" committee last week, and is moving on to be heard on the Senate floor.

NY - So should all businesses be forced to get community approval before opening their doors?

Original Article


By Michael Canfield

When the neighbors of a recently opened group home for people with developmental disabilities on Rapids Road in Newstead first heard about the facility opening, they were receptive to having the human services agency in the neighborhood.

Just over a month later, however, neighbors have changed their position.

Problems with cars parking on the side of the road, several emergency calls to the home and news that a convicted sex offender was living in the home have all created tensions. Combine that with worries about declining property values, and residents near the home are less than happy with People Inc., which sponsors the home.

People Inc. “just force-fed it down our throats without talking to us about it,” said Joseph M. Dugan, a 23-year Army veteran who lives next door to the home with his wife and family.
- Why should a business have to come get your approval before they open?

While many on the rural stretch of road knew that a group home was going into the house, neighbors said, they had no idea that a sex offender would be among the residents. Now they have become worried about what other residents of the six-bedroom home might be a cause for concern.
- So if the ex-offender didn't live there, would it be okay then?

This is something we’ve never had to worry about,” Dugan said. “We don’t know who’s in there.”
- Why don't you go over there and ask them?  Get a tour of the place!

Michael J. Adymy, who also lives next to the home with his family, had moved to Newstead to live in the country and get away from the problems found in more populated areas. He’s starting to see those problems crop up now.

We’re uncomfortable,” Adymy said. “We moved out here to get away from it all.”

Mark P. Outten, who lives across the street from the home, said he isn’t against People Inc., just how the organization went about putting the group home in.

I’m not saying that People Inc. is all bad,” Outten said. “They do have some fantastic stuff going, but I think they did us way wrong. They didn’t care about us at all when they did this.”

Residents living near the home shouldn’t worry about safety, said Rhonda I. Frederick, chief operating officer of People Inc., noting that the home is staffed “24 hours a day, seven days a week.”

Each resident has an individual service plan, and we provide the supports they need,” she said.

Woody Allen - Innocent until proven guilty not guilty until proven innocent!

Woody Allen
Woody Allen
Where did we as a society go wrong?

Was it shows like Jerry Springer, Steve Wilkos, Nancy Grace (to name a few) that is causing our morals to decay? These shows exploit people for their own gain and don't solve anything. They only make themselves richer while society declines. They are distractions so we forget, or aren't aware of, the real problems in this world.

Why are we so quick to condemn someone these days?

What happened to the Golden Rule?

Remember, judge not lest ye be judged yourselves!

Remember back when you were growing up? Did you steal anything? Do drugs? Rob someone? Murder someone? Have sex with someone you shouldn't have? How would you like it if you could never live down your past and were always seen as that past? So why is it so easy for us to do it to others and not expect the same done to us?

Should we just skip all the nonsense and put everybody's past crimes on an online sinners registry? Wouldn't you like to know all the ex-criminals who live around you so that you can "protect" yourself from them? Or would that cause you to be paranoid, never to leave your home, or suspect everyone to be a criminal, or you yourself to be on an online registry?

Do you remember the McCarthyism era?

"Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it!" - George Santayana

Are we repeating history? Yes we think we are!

In the good-ole-days we were all innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, now we are automatically guilty, by the mob, and must prove our innocence, which is almost impossible to do!

If someone accused you of a sexual crime 30 years ago, how would you prove you didn't do it? That is why we have statute of limitations law, and courts to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, and based on evidence and facts, not hearsay, that we are indeed guilty or not.

People are wrongly accused of crimes, especially sexual crimes, all the time. Just think about it the next time you make your ex angry at you for some reason. All it would take is for them to accuse you of molesting a child or sexually abusing them, and your life is pretty much over, or your reputation is beyond repair!

Now, Woody Allen may be guilty, but we have laws and courts for a reason. If he did indeed sexually abuse his daughter, then he should've been punished for it then, not many years later. Why would the accuser take it public (all over the news) instead of filing a lawsuit?

When did we start throwing our morals out the door and ourselves over the cliff to hell?


Original Article

In 1989, then Governor Booth Gardner formed a task force to study community protection. See Governor's Task Force on Community Protection, Final Report, at I-1 (1989). As a result of the Task Force's recommendations, the Legislature passed the Community Protection Act of 1990. Laws of 1990, ch. 3. Part 4 of the act provides for the registration [123 Wn.2d 493] of adult and juvenile sex offenders. Laws of 1990, ch. 3, §§ 401-409. The Legislature stated that its purpose in requiring registration was to assist local law enforcement, declaring:

The legislature finds that sex offenders often pose a high risk of reoffense (Studies), and that law enforcement's efforts to protect their communities, conduct investigations, and quickly apprehend offenders who commit sex offenses, are impaired by the lack of information available to law enforcement agencies about convicted sex offenders who live within the law enforcement agency's jurisdiction. Therefore, this state's policy is to assist local law enforcement agencies' efforts to protect their communities by regulating sex offenders by requiring sex offenders to register with local law enforcement agencies as provided in [RCW 9A.44.130].

Laws of 1990, ch. 3, § 401. The requirement for sex offender registration, codified at RCW 9A.44.130-.140, became effective February 28, 1990. RCW 18.155.902(1). In 1991, the Legislature amended the statute to clarify and amend the deadlines for sex offenders to register. Laws of 1991, ch. 274, § 2.

The statute requires all persons residing in Washington who have been convicted of any sex offense, as defined by RCW 9.94A.030(29),1 to register with the county sheriff in the county where the person resides. RCW 9A.44.130(1). When registering, the person must provide name, address, date and place of birth, place of employment, crime for which convicted, date and place of conviction, aliases used, and Social Security number. RCW 9A.44.130(2). Any person required to register under the statute who changes residence must either send written notice of the change of address to the county sheriff, if the person relocates within the same county, or register with the county sheriff in the new county, within 10 days of establishing the new residence. RCW 9A.44.130(4). The county sheriff must also obtain a photograph of the individual and a copy of the individual's fingerprints. RCW 9A.44.130(5). The county [123 Wn.2d 494] sheriff must forward the information and fingerprints obtained to the Washington State Patrol for inclusion in a central registry of sex offenders. RCW 43.43.540. A person who knowingly fails to register is guilty of either a class C felony or gross misdemeanor, depending on the severity of the prior conviction. RCW 9A.44.130(7).


Original Article

Stringer appeals the court's denial of his application to remove the requirement that he complete sex offender treatment as a condition of his probation. Stringer pled guilty to prostitution, in violation of Iowa Code section 725.1 (2011), following a police sting operation where Stringer offered an undercover police officer $40 for sex. He was sentenced to 365 days in jail, that sentence was suspended, and he was placed on probation for two years. Stringer contends the crime of prostitution is not a sex offense under section 692A.102, and his criminal history does not justify the imposition of sex offender treatment as a condition of his probation.

The State did not file a resistance to Stringer's application, and it does not appear that it offered any evidence in support of the sex-offender-treatment condition at the unreported hearing. The district court denied the application finding sex offender treatment "will promote rehabilitation of the defendant or the protection of the community" and is "reasonably related to the offense involved." The court went on to say that "[w]hile prostitution is not classified as a sexually violent offense under Iowa law, it is sexual in nature. Further, defendant does have a false imprisonment conviction stemming from a sexual encounter. In addition, defendant's psychological evaluation describes a number of other prostitution-related encounters." The court concluded by finding a nexus between the present conviction and the sex offender treatment as a condition of probation.

"[T]rial courts have a broad discretion in probation matters which will be interfered with only upon a finding of abuse of that discretion." State v. Valin, 724 N.W.2d 440, 444 (Iowa 2006). "`[O]ur task on appeal is not to second-guess the decision made by the district court but to determine if it was unreasonable or based on untenable grounds.'" Id. at 445 (quoting State v. Formaro, 638 N.W.2d 720, 725 (Iowa 2002)). We will find an abuse of discretion "when `there is no support for the decision in the . . . evidence.'" Id. (quoting Rath v. Sholty, 199 N.W.2d 333, 336 (Iowa 1972)).