Thursday, July 25, 2013
David "The Diaper" Vitter at it again! Adds another anti-registrant amendment to another spending bill
Now, I don't think registrants CAN even get housing assistance from HUD. But I wonder why he feels the need to do this? Does his diaper need changing again?
eAdvocate pointed out that Vitter moved to avoid having the bill read. Why is he embarassed to have the amendment read?
SA 1744. Mr. VITTER submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 1243, making appropriations for the Departments of Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2014, and for other purposes; as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
Sec. __X. None of the funds made available under this Act shall be used to provide housing assistance benefits for an individual who is convicted of aggravated sexual abuse under section 2241 of title 18, United States Code, murder under section 1111 of title 18, United States Code, an offense under chapter 110 of title 18, United States Code, or any other Federal or State offense involving sexual assault, as defined in 40002(a) of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 13925(a))
Tuesday, July 23, 2013
Ken Cuccinelli is doing all he can to bring back sodomy laws. What better way to do so than by telling people if you don't brink back these laws, you'll release 90 sexual predators from prison? I wonder if Virginia will buy it.
Tuesday, July 16, 2013
The entire Trayvon Martin case has been a train wreck, but otherwise irrelevant to this blog, until now. The controversial "star witness," Rachel Jeantel, has not helped her cause with her racist comments, but of all her comments, this one takes the cake.
After hearing Rachel on the "Piers Morgan" show, her "creepy ass cracker" comment seems tame by comparison:
"PIERS MORGAN: And he was freaked out by it?
RACHEL JEANTEL: Yes. Definitely, after I say ‘may be a rapist,’ for every boy, for every man, every — who’s not that kind of way, seeing a grown man following them, would they be creep out? …
And people need to understand, he didn’t want that creepy ass cracker going to his father or girlfriend’s house to go get — mind you, his little brother was there. You know — now, mind you, I told you — I told Trayvon it might have been a rapist."
Only part of the interview is online:
Monday, July 15, 2013
Well, Joe Arpaio must have FINALLY done something wrong, because NOW he wants to harass registrants with a "volunteer posse"
Sex Offenders: Are they obeying the law?
Posted: Jul 13, 2013 5:48 PM EDT
Posted by Ceasar Hernandez
Approximately 20 teams made up of deputies and volunteer posse will be checking on the compliance level of 81 level two and level three sex offenders currently residing in the Sheriff's jurisdiction.
The Sheriff's mission is to verify that these more serious sex offenders are obeying the law by truly living at the addresses they have on record with the criminal courts. Per Sheriff Arpaio's policy, these verifications must be conducted every six months.
If deputies/posse determine that the offender is not at the proper address, a detailed report will be given to the Sheriff's Sex crimes unit to follow up for potential criminal charges.
Failing to properly register is a class four felony.
While the Sheriff's Office does not believe that a high volume of sex offenders are out of compliance, this operation is to ensure total compliance, as the Sheriff has requested.
Wednesday, July 10, 2013
Poor Nicholas Elizondo just can't catch a break: Bakersfield Barney Fife arrests him for finding one bullet
I thought I had crappy luck, but Nicholas Elizondo makes me look like a lottery winner by comparison. First, the guy served time for a crime he most assuredly didn't commit after being prosecuted by one of the chief proponents of the Satanic Ritual Abuse panic in Bakersfield. Then, the guy has been ridiculed for winning custody of his child after the mother was proven to be an unfit parent. Then, just a few days ago, this very site added a nomination to a woman who suggested the unfit mother kidnap the child because this man is on the registry.
Now, the guy was arrested, and his child taken away, because cops say they found a single bullet in his car. A bullet. Poor guy just can't catch a break!
BAKERSFIELD, Calif. (KBAK/KBFX) — A convicted sex offender has temporarily lost custody of his 6-year-old daughter after he was arrested at a traffic stop.
Nicholas Elizondo was arrested Sunday after a Bakersfield police officer found a bullet in his truck while conducting a traffic stop.
Elizondo said Monday that the bullet belonged to his 20-year-old son.
"I think the fact that I was convicted of a sex crime and my daughter was with me,” said Elizondo, “I think that played into law enforcement's decision to make a big thing out of an old rusty bullet in the back of my truck."
His daughter was with him at the time of the arrest and was taken to the A. Miriam Jamison Children's Center, where she will remain until an investigation is completed.
Elizondo said he believes it was unnecessary for police to take his daughter into protective custody.
“I had somebody who was available to take care of her," said Elizondo, referring to his son and 24-year-old stepdaughter. “There was no reason to take her into custody. She was not in danger”
The custody case of the 6-year-old girl generated public attention after the girl's mother contacted media. An Oklahoma judge awarded custody to Elizondo, who was convicted of lewd and lascivious acts with a child under 14 in 1995.
Elizondo said the charges against him were false, and that the girl was coached by her mother, Elizondo’s first wife.
The child from the 1995 incident indeed testified at a 2012 child custody hearing for the current 6-year-old girl that she fabricated the accusations, but Elizondo remains a registered sex offender.
“I just hope they give her back, so I can move on with my life,” said Elizondo. “If not, I’ll probably hire an attorney.”
The Department of Health Services inspected Elizondo’s home on Monday and has yet to determine whether to return custody.
Monday, July 1, 2013
The gist is this- a man who was very likely falsely accused (convicted during the time of the SRA witch hunts despite his accuser stating she was not molested) on the registry wins custody of his daughter because the mother is a psycho. Yet this reporter ignores her source material and writes the psycho mother should kidnap the kid.
Mom Who Lost Custody of Daughter to Sex Offender Should Just Kidnap Her
by Jeanne Sager 6 hours ago
Under normal circumstances, divorced parents should have to share custody with one another. It's what's best for the kids. But when a judge awards sole custody of a 6-year-old girl to a convicted sex offender, a man who went to prison for molesting a (different) 6-year-old girl, all bets are off.
I think I'd run far, far, far away (with my child, of course).
I wouldn't blame Lisa Knight, a mom whose ex-husband (and registered sex offender), Nicholas Elizondo, just took her to court over visitation with their 6-year-old daughter, if she did the same.
Elizondo, who lives in California, challenged Knight in an Oklahoma court recently, claiming she wasn't granting him his visits with the girl. The judge took his side.
And I'm not talking about forcing the visitation. The Oklahoma City judge (Knight and the little girl have resided in Oklahoma since the couple divorced in 2008 when she was pregnant) gave Elizondo full custody, despite the fact that a quick search of the California sex offender registry pulls up his name and lists a conviction for "lewd or lascivious acts with a child under 14 years of age," despite the fact that Elizondo was convicted of sexually assaulting a 6-year-old stepdaughter back in the '90s.
Of a child.
To a convicted pedophile!
Yeah, yeah, Dad served his time and he is the 6-year-old's biological father. But whose rights are more important here? Dad's or the little girl's?
Isn't that the point of custody hearings? To decide what is in a child's best interest?
It can't be "what's good for a child" to let a sex offender who is known to have hurt children take them home. That's the point of registries of these creeps; to let us know who shouldn't be around our kids so we can keep them apart.
Even putting a guy like this alone in the room with a 6-year-old girl is risking that child's well-being. If you were a mother who hired a sex offender to babysit your kid, you'd likely be looking at child endangerment charges (or worse).
So what's a mom to do when a sex offender gets custody?
Again, I'll admit it. I'd run. I'd take my child, and I'd skip town and never, ever come back.
I'd do anything to keep my child from a sex offender, even if that sex offender is her own father.
Because my child's right to be protected is more important than his to be a father.
What would you do if you were this mother? Would you follow the court's orders?