Showing posts with label 2015 Everyday Zeroes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2015 Everyday Zeroes. Show all posts

Friday, December 11, 2015

Chris "The Pool Boy" Vogt from Mesa AZ threatens to commit a crime against registered citizens on live TV

The Arizona public registry states the following:

"THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ON THIS SITE IS INTENDED FOR COMMUNITY SAFETY PURPOSES ONLY AND SHOULD NOT BE USED TO THREATEN, INTIMIDATE, OR HARASS. MISUSE OF THIS INFORMATION MAY RESULT IN CRIMINAL PROSECUTION. "

Chris Vogt just made a threat on live TV. He should be scrubbing jail showers instead of pools.

http://www.abc15.com/news/region-southeast-valley/mesa/neighbors-plan-to-protest-sex-offender-house-in-mesa

Neighbors plan to protest sex offender house in Mesa
Kim Tobin
10:57 PM, Dec 10, 2015

MESA, AZ - People in one Mesa neighborhood are up in arms, ready to protest, after a halfway house for sex offenders opened up next door. The couple who owns the home says they are doing God's work, and they want to give the men a second chance. 

The home opened for business on November 21, off the Loop 202 and Power Road. It is located in the Desert Uplands neighborhood at 80th and Willetta streets.

Three sex offenders currently reside in the home. And the owners, Deborah and Steve Schmidt said they want more.

"We love them, we love them like family," said Deborah. "God doesn't draw the line there. He forgives all sins."

The Maricopa County Sheriff's Office told ABC15 they did a check on the home to make sure the sex offenders are registered to live there, but that's the only involvement they've had in the whole process. 

The battle began when the Schmidt's sent out an invitation, inviting the neighborhood for a meet-and-greet to get to know the residents.

The whole situation has neighbors scared for their children and angry the home could even open up. 

"My daughter can't ride to her friend's house anymore because I don't know what’s going to happen here," said neighbor Chris Vogt. 

"I have two grandkids, a four year old and a one a half year old," said Joe Alsworth. "And I'm not going to have them over here anymore."

The Schmidt's claim they have experienced harassment, but they still plan to move forward.

"People are threatening to kill us, burn our house down, torture us and mutilate us," said Deborah. "It's amazing what good people will do."

Of the three men, Travis Deen Owens was convicted of sex abuse. And Michael Maurer is a convicted child molester. 

The men have served their time, but for neighbors like Vogt, she says having them next door is making her relive her nightmare. 

"We wish they would come over and get to know us and not just make a blanket judgment that everyone who has committed a sex crime is a horrible monster," said Deborah. 

The invite for the Saturday party will have some unwanted guests, as neighbors say they plan to protest in front of the home. 

"We are going to make them as uncomfortable as possible," said Vogt.

Maricopa County officials said the home is required to have a special use permit. As of Thursday night, they could not confirm if the Schmidt's have one. 

The neighbors have started a complaint with the zoning department. And zoning official said they will inspect the area and see if the home is in violation of zoning laws.

They expect to inspect in the neighborhood within the next 30 days. 

Copyright 2015 Scripps Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Sunday, November 22, 2015

John Walsh found a new patsy in D'OHio senator Rob Portman

It seems my senator, Rob Portman, has been playing the patsy to John Walsh as of late. Last month, John Walsh has stated publicly that he was going to lobby Congress for the A-damned Walsh Act


So now John Walsh is getting involved with the human trafficking panic, and he was found the perfect patsy in Ohio Senator Rob Portman. Portman has obvious drank the Kool-Aid, inviting Walsh to this subcommittee. (On a related note, pronouncing the NCMEC as 'Nick-Mick" is extremely annoying.) Lets listen to Portman mention he "invited" Walsh to the subcommittee meeting (at the 48 second mark):


What I find interesting is by Portman's own Twitter page, the issue of sex trafficking in America's seventh most-populous state (Ohio's population is currently estimated at 11.5 Million) is very, very, VERY small:



So they had 13 "reported cases" in 4 years? That's 3.3 cases a year. That is a ridiculously small number. There were more people who won $1 Million or more in the Ohio lottery scratch-off ticket program (there were six of those for 2015 so far).



Did anyone notice that John Walsh had a front row seat? This was completely intentional.


So a few of you may be wondering why i'm even making a big deal of this, besides the presence of fading star John Walsh. Well, consider the fact that the "sex trafficking scare" is impacting laws against registered citizens. there are TWO "sex trafficking" bills in Congress directly impacting registered citizens:

H.R. 515 ("International Megan’s Law to Prevent Child Exploitation and Other Sexual Crimes Through Advanced Notification of Traveling Sex Offenders") Chris Smith (R-NJ)
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/hr515

S.1867 ("International Megan’s Law to Prevent Child Exploitation Through Advanced Notification of Traveling Sex Offenders") Sponsor: U.S. Richard Shelby (R-AL)
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/s1867

This panic is going to be a way to keep Walsh relevant, seeing as how America's most Wanted is no more and The hunt is getting less than stellar reviews. Walsh still gets a share of the NCMEC's cash prize each year.

One last thing before I add a news article, Because John Walsh is such a fading star, we at the Shiitake Awards have determined that Walsh is only worthy of an Everyday Zeroes Award.

http://www.wowt.com/home/headlines/Theyre-gonna-pay-Lawmakers-target-backpagecom-sex-ads-351871951.html

They’re gonna pay': Lawmakers target backpage.com sex ads

Updated: Fri 10:59 AM, Nov 20, 2015
By: Jacqueline Policastro - Email

WASHINGTON (Gray DC) - Lawmakers are going after the CEO of backpage.com, the website known to accept online ads from pimps who are selling children for sex.

CEO Carl Ferrer failed to show up as a witness at a Congressional Hearing by the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations.

His lawyers told Committee Chairman, Ohio Senator Rob Portman, that he was on international business travel.

“This subcommittee would respect any valid assertion of 5th amendment privileges but there is no privilege not to show up,” Portman said.

Frustrated lawmakers say they plan to refer Ferrer to the Department of Justice for criminal contempt. It’s a step the Senate committee hasn’t taken in more than thirty years.

The backpage.com website is a known hub for human trafficking, especially sex trafficking of children.

Senators said the rules of the website make it easier to post an ad to sell a child than to sell a motorcycle or boat. Lawmakers believe the fair market value of backpage.com is $430 million.

In an effort to bring more attention to the issue of sex trafficking John Walsh, creator of America’s Most Wanted, came to the hearing with a message for the CEO of backpage.com.

“You’re a coward, it’s all about money,” Walsh said.

Walsh told us backpage.com screens the ads they receive and actually changes them to make it harder for law enforcement to catch pimps.

“The buyers of sex with children are the number one offenders, they should be in jail. And the pimp that trafficked the child should be in jail. And facilitator of that ad to put that pimp and that child together with that pervert – that’s a crime,” said Walsh.

Walsh calls the website a shopping mall for people who want to exploit children saying he’s been trying for 3 years to help backpage.com flag and report posts advertising children for sex.

“They’re making a joke out of this committee and they are gonna pay,” said Walsh.

Tuesday, October 20, 2015

Chris Hansen is back but this time as an Everyday Zero candidate

We've heard about this pile of bovine excrement and it seems that fallen NBC yellow journalist Chris Hansen has come back to squeeze an extra minute of two from his 15 minutes of fame. Now, do I really have to discuss the past of this piece of shiitake? We should all know who this asshat is, but I'm betting you are wondering why he's only getting a nod for an Everyday Zeroes Award and not his usual Worst News Mutt. The answer is simple-- He's running his new "show" -- Hansen v. Predator if you must know -- as an independent show and he is not sponsored by any media outlet, just a bunch of online idiots who donated to his Crowdfunding project. 

So Chris Hansen is back to doing the ONLY thing he will ever be known for-- entrapping folks on the internet. 

At the moment, it is unclear if he is using the retards from Perverted Justice as he did once before. 

The folks from the Floridiotic KidsSafe Foundation is giving him an award in March. Lets see if he gets a Shiitake Award in February. 

Damn, Hansen has not aged well at all. 


Chris Hansen Is Back To Catching Predators
Only this time there's no NBC, just a star and his crowd-funded crew of online vigilantes.
BY SPENCER WOODMAN
OCTOBER 18, 2015

n mid-August, the police department in Fairfield, Connecticut, received a most unusual phone call. It was from Chris Hansen, former host of the infamous NBC reality series To Catch A Predator, which filmed the arrests of men caught soliciting sex from underage decoys online. Hansen informed the department that he was setting up a sex sting in Fairfield that would mirror the operations he became famous for a decade ago, with one key difference: This time, he was going at it without the backing of a major—or any—television network. It was just Hansen and his small team of producers, technicians, and security personnel. Hansen had chosen Fairfield as the site of America’s first-ever Kickstarter-funded sex sting.

To Fairfield’s deputy police chief, Christopher Lyddy, the operation appeared well underway: Hansen vs. Predator, as Hansen named the project, had quietly scouted for a staging house in town and had already courted an array of putative predators on social media. Hansen vs. Predator would follow the familiar format: Hansen’s crew would pose online as underage boys and girls to lure men to a house rigged with hidden cameras ready to record Hansen’s confrontation with them, and their arrests. Lyddy said that it seemed clear the sting was going down with or without the police department’s help, but it could be involved in the arrests—and the publicity—if it wanted.

Hansen’s sting posed a set of difficult decisions for the police department, Lyddy said. Fairfield had never conducted such an operation, and had not identified the online solicitation of underage partners as a particularly large problem facing the community. Not only would Hansen’s group be attracting potentially dangerous men into Lyddy’s jurisdiction, but Hansen’s brand of reality TV had proven dangerous in the past. In November 2006, in Murphy, Texas, an assistant district attorney and suspected sex criminal named Louis Conradt shot himself while being confronted by a local SWAT team while Hansen’s crew waited outside his home. To Catch A Predator was ultimately cancelled, and in 2008, NBC paid Conradt’s family an undisclosed sum to settle a wrongful death suit against the network.


“We thought long and hard about this,” said Lyddy, "but at the end of the day we completely understood that this was going to happen no matter what, and that we really had a responsibility to become involved and to ensure this neighborhood was safe.”

Beginning on October 1, Hansen’s camera crew camped out with police for four days at a decoy house in an undisclosed Fairfield neighborhood. “Every time I thought I’ve seen every possible scenario, something else comes up,” said Hansen, whom I interviewed by phone about the Fairfield sting. “You just have to be prepared at every level.”

Hansen said one man showed up with a gun in his car; another, when confronted by Hansen and his cameras said he knew him from commuting on the Metro North train together and pleaded, “No, Chris, please don’t do this to me”; another admitted to police to having previously sodomized a 15-year-old. “In almost every case they were extremely specific about what they wanted to do, which sexual acts, how they would start,” Hansen told me. “You could see the grooming process in action: ‘we’ll do this in the kitchen together, we’ll take a bath together, we’ll go to bed.’”

In all, Hansen’s sting netted ten men, all arrested by Fairfield PD and booked into the local jail with bond set as high as $1.1 million. The charges range from attempted sexual assault to “impairing the morals of a minor.” Lyddy was pleased with the sting’s results, and he said that Hansen and his team were not only excellent to work with but that, without their technological resources, the operation would not have been conducted as efficiently. But when the sting concluded without a hitch in Fairfield, Lyddy breathed a sigh of relief. “This was a four-day operation,” he said, “and we worried about things going wrong up until the very last moment of the very last day.”

Hansen was thrilled with how things went. “As Fairfield demonstrated, this is still very much a huge issue,” Hansen told me the first time we spoke. And then later, he asserted: “We just made that the safest neighborhood in America.”


Before To Catch A Predator, Hansen had enjoyed a successful career in broadcast journalism. But the sex sting show quickly launched him into a new and very particular sort of fame, while also reviving Dateline’s NBC ratings. More recently, Predator has been reportedly sold for millions to television stations around the world.

During and after the filming of Predator, Hansen also hosted a variety of less salacious operations on NBC in which—with equal vigor that he applied to suspected pedophiles—he chided petty bicycle thieves, pimps, and Nigerian scammers. Yet this apparently didn’t do it for his fans, who have frequently demanded the return of To Catch A Predator. “There was a pent up demand,” Hansen told me. “The most-asked question on Twitter or Facebook or any other social media that I participate in was: ‘When are you going to do another one?’” Finally, Hansen decided to give them what they wanted.

In crafting the Kickstarter campaign, Hansen enlisted the help of a crowd-funding expert at his talent agency, William Morris Endeavor, and put together a pitch that centered on, and almost fetishized, the intense first moments of confrontation with the men who wandered into his set houses: Funders chipping in as little as $50 could receive coffee mugs, signed photographs, and t-shirts showing Hansen’s scowling face and his famous catchphrase: “Have a seat.” Those who chipped in at least $1,200 would get to “have a seat with Chris Hansen, literally”—a lunch with the host in New York City. The campaign exceeded its initial $80,000 funding goal, bringing in $89,068. Hansen told me that he plans to at least initially release the new show as an online series, perhaps on a subscription model, but that he is currently in talks with multiple broadcast networks and digital platforms interested in picking up Hansen vs. Predator.

Many of the ingredients that make To Catch A Predator irresistible to its fans—Hansen’s raw face-to-faces, the vigilantism, and the voyeurism of public shame—have generated significant scrutiny of the show.

Critics have accused Hansen of taking men who might not be dangerous predators and facing them with a moral obstacle course that could land them in prison. Others have expressed concern that by subjecting the merely accused to the potential of mass public humiliation, the show neglects the common notion of innocent until proven guilty.

And then there’s the sheer emotional charge of Hansen’s confrontations: It might be downright dangerous. “We see situations that in a second turn volatile,” said James Drylie, a professor of criminal justice at Kean University, who has studied the ways in which arrests lead to suspects becoming violent and suicidal. “Imagine hearing: ‘lights, camera, action, you’re on TV.’ A person can just explode — they’re looking to escape and they’ll use any means.” Drylie asserts that, for these reasons, it would be necessary for a television crew to work with trained law enforcement personnel when conducting undercover sex stings.

“As Fairfield demonstrated, this is still very much a huge issue,” Hansen told me. “We just made that the safest neighborhood in America.”

And Hansen agrees—almost. “I think it would be socially irresponsible, and, from a production standpoint, unsatisfying to the viewer to conduct an investigation like this without the police,” Hansen said. But when I asked him whether he would move forward with a sting in a town without the involvement of a police force, he stopped short of ruling out the possibility. (His first two episodes of Predator were filmed without police.) “We would take a look at it certainly,” Hansen said, “depending on what kind of investigation it was, and how urgent it was.”

Sally Berenzweig, co-founder of the Boca Raton-based KidSafe Foundation, which teaches and promotes child safety, says that although the vast majority of child sexual abuse is perpetrated by family members and other acquaintances, Hansen’s show exposed what she believes to be the new hazards of strangers taking to the internet to finding children to exploit in real life. “Technology is a wonderful thing: It brings our children to the world but it also brings the world to our children.”

In March, Berenzweig’s organization will honor Hansen with its “Child Advocate of The Year” award. She says Hansen was a key figure not only in spreading the word about the dangers of online pedophiles but his show also likely played an important role in deterring would-be online predators. “He was the one that raised awareness,” Berenzweig said, “and I’m very appreciative for what he's done.”

Before Hansen set up shop in Fairfield, it had been nearly a decade since he had confronted an alleged pedophile. Yet in his absence, the influence of To Catch A Predator had only expanded, and not just in its seemingly interminable off-hour NBC reruns. The show found new life in myriad small towns and mid-sized cities where copycat stings have become wildly popular among local law enforcement. The police frequently film the stings, footage of which they distribute to local news. Even now, regional media coverage still attributes the local sex stings’ inspiration to Hansen’s former show.

Hansen vs. Predator’s Facebook page in particular praises an operation spearheaded by Grady Judd, Sheriff of Polk County, Florida, who has become the figurehead of the national trend of pedophile stings. In the years after Hansen’s show was cancelled, Judd—an evangelical Christian who routinely preaches in uniform—has built a cult of personality around conducting massive undercover sex crime operations that can net more than 100 people at a time.  “We were going after predators, pedophiles, people who were trying to attack your children online,” Judd said during a 2013 press conference about an underage sex sting that concluded on Father’s day and that he described as “our gift to not only to fathers but to all of those that have children.”

Judd’s stings themselves have courted controversy. Critics characterize them as ploys for elected sheriffs to get easy press attention. The Florida stings have also been lucrative for departments around the state: The police can sell the suspected predator’s car, which deputies frequently seize after making arrests at decoy houses.


“They target military men, they target gay men, and they target young, stupid men,” says Peter Aiken, a Florida defense attorney who represents alleged sex criminals. “Most of these guys can’t afford a good lawyer and they plead to four, five, or six years in prison,” Aiken said. “Then they get out and they’re on a sex offender registry and their lives are over.”

Hansen, who has no involvement with the Florida stings, says that his team follows strict protocols to avoid luring non-predators into making bad decisions. “The online decoy can never make the first approach,” Hansen says, adding that the online personality must be “unmistakably” underage. Hansen also says that, as a policy, his team reminds the target of the decoy’s age multiple times “so that there’s no question” as to the predator’s intent. “We approach this with integrity, Hansen said, “we’re completely transparent about our methodology and that’s the key to it.” Hansen says that his Fairfield sting used 12- and 13-year-old decoys “so that there’s no grey area.”

One of the men arrested in Hansen’s Fairfield sting was a teenager himself: a 19-year-old from upstate New York who had allegedly planned to meet a 12-year-old for sex. When I asked Hansen whether he would air the footage of the young suspect, he said: “that editorial decision hasn’t been made yet.”

But it is the editorial—or perhaps entrepreneurial—forces behind the stings that worry Drylie, the criminology professor. Drylie fears that television programs might have incentives that clash with norms of law enforcement. “What about ratings?” Drylie said. “Viewers generate shows right? So is something being done for a commercial purpose?” Drylie says he’s not worried about entrapment in the legal sense, but his concern lies rather in the ethical hazards of a television show “generating an incident” that would not otherwise occur. “You can have fantasies all day long,” Drylie said, giving the hypothetical example of a reformed sex offender, “so what if you ignite a spark in a person that otherwise would not have been reignited?” “So I wonder sometimes: is art imitating life?” Drylie said, “or is art directing life?”

“People can say: Okay, it’s not the old-fashioned traditional journalism that took place in the Houston Chronicle in 1975—it’s different,” Hansen said. “But that’s also why newspapers are having a hard time staying relevant, you know? You have to reassess the way you do things and be creative and enterprising about it, and this is a perfect example of that.”

Hansen considers what he does to be investigative journalism, and asserts that he got into the sex sting business primarily out of an interest in exposé storytelling, rather than an urge to deter criminal activity through public shame.

Hansen told me that, initially, his primary motivation was to examine the psychology “of these guys, to figure out what they were thinking.” And he believes that the dozens upon dozens of men successfully prosecuted as a consequence his investigations represent results that speak for themselves.

“When you put it all together,” Hansen said, discussing the sting in Fairfield, “not only does it take you inside the minds of one of these guys, it’s very dramatic television.”

Spencer Woodman is a freelance reporter based in New York. You may contact him on Twitter or by email at spencer.woodman@gmail.com.

Friday, September 11, 2015

The "D'oh Fund" -- A shelter threatens to close down rather than accept registered citizens in their shelters

Every time I think people can't do anything dumber when it comes to reacting Predator Panic, I'm proven wrong every time. There are few things more disgusting than seeing a program that is supposed to be helping the homeless refuse services to registered city. It is bad enough seeing Ron Book abuse his authority as head of Miami's Homeless Trust, now you have the damned Yankee version of Book in Alexander Horowitz, who states he'd rather shut down his program than help a single registered citizen. 

I could use a new job and it looks to be Horowitz will be out of a job soon. 

http://gothamist.com/2015/09/11/doe_fund_sex_offender.php

Doe Fund Fights Sex Offender Relocation To Its East Williamsburg Shelter
BY ARVIND DILAWAR IN NEWS ON SEP 11, 2015 9:50 AM

Management of an East Williamsburg homeless shelter says they would rather close the facility than make room for 50 sex offenders being sent there by New York City’s Department of Homeless Services.

Administrators from The Doe Fund, a nonprofit organization which independently owns and operates the Peter Jay Sharp Center for Opportunity, believe the transfers to be level two and three sex offenders, classified by the state to be moderate to high risks for reoffending, respectively.

“DHS did not identify them as such, but we know that levels two and three are most likely to be homeless and in the system because of the legal restrictions imposed upon them,” says The Doe Fund’s director of external affairs, Alexander Horwitz.

Those legal restrictions include prohibitions outlawing certain sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet of an area where children congregate. According to state law, sex offenders under parole or probation supervision, regardless of their risk level, are subject to residency restrictions if their victims were under the age of 18. Level three sex offenders on parole or probation, regardless of the age of their victims, also are subject to residency restrictions.

Due to the density of schools, parks and playgrounds in New York, these restrictions mean that many homeless sex offenders can legally reside at one of only 17 compliant shelters — a list that the Sharp Center, being more than 1,500 feet away from the nearest school (and three blocks from the Morgan L stop) found itself on for the first time in April.

The 400-bed Sharp Center is legally obligated to accept anyone referred to it by DHS if it has vacancies, but management says they are at capacity, and claims that this is the first time in the facility’s 12-year history that the department has attempted to forcibly move in sex offenders.

“We’ve had a long-standing agreement with the city to send us individuals who can benefit from our program, so as not to waste what are very valuable bed spaces for folks who can go to work and get back on their feet,” says Horwitz, referring to Ready, Willing & Able, The Doe Fund’s transitional housing and employment program, which operates in part from the Sharp Center.

Developed over the last 25 years, Ready, Willing & Able provides homeless men with a year or more of housing, employment and vocational training. Program members progress from working in their facilities to cleaning streets as part of “Men in Blue” crews to becoming professionally licensed in one of six careers, such as commercial driving, culinary arts and building maintenance. The final step is obtaining full-time employment and unsubsidized housing.

With Ready, Willing & Able, the Sharp Center and its other programs and facilities, The Doe Fund aims to help more than 2,000 homeless people each year. It has assisted 22,000 since the organization’s inception in 1985.

“There’s never been another administration that didn’t see the value in Ready, Willing & Able, and make an effort not to send us sex offenders,” says The Doe Fund’s co-founder, Harriet McDonald.

McDonald believes that DHS’s recent efforts are a panicked response to the murder of a Bronx shelter director by a former resident in April, as well as the sexual assault charges against a Kips Bay shelter resident and previously convicted rapist that same month.

“There was a definite knee-jerk reaction to these two terrible incidents, where all of a sudden [DHS was] saying, ‘We have to do something because the media is all over us and Kips Bay is going crazy and we look incompetent,’” says McDonald. “It’s not that the sex offenders suddenly appeared in the shelter system, of course. But [DHS] never developed a plan.”

DHS’s new plan appears to be forcibly relocating the homeless sex offenders to compliant shelters regardless of the cost.

Citing an upcoming court date with The Doe Fund over the transfers, DHS Press Secretary Nicole Cueto was unable to comment on the situation beyond issuing the following statement:

DHS must house residency-restricted sex offenders in facilities that are in compliance with the state guidelines that are at least 1,000 feet away from schools. This site is one of them. We have been very willing to work with the provider - including more funding and personnel for security, mental health and social service - but we have a legal mandate from New York State to provide shelter to anyone in need, and we can’t cherry-pick our clients.

The Sharp Center’s management says DHS fails to distinguish between their own specialized programming and “cherry-picking clients.”

“Sex offenders are inhibited, by the laws on the books and by their condition, from reintegrating with society, and because that is what our program is about, we can’t serve them,” says Horwitz. “The population that we work with ... are people who have been denied economic opportunity. From [DHS’s] standpoint, that person is the same as a person who’s homeless because they’re a sex offender? It doesn’t make any sense.”

City Council Member Antonio Reynoso, whose district includes the Sharp Center, raises another aspect of the issue: that of “fair share,” or each neighborhood doing its part in hosting services that may be undesirable to local residents but which are necessary for the city’s well-being.

While declining to speak with Gothamist, the councilmember issued a statement supporting the Doe Fund, but stressing that he is “committed to the principle of fair share.”

“There are many types of facilities that no one in any community wants in their backyard, yet all communities need to do their part,” Reynono says in his statement. “I encourage members of my community to approach this issue remembering that we need to do our part to end the homelessness crisis.”

Contradicting Council Member Reynoso’s appeal to neighborhood fairness is The New York Daily News’ survey of sex offenders by neighborhood. Relying on data from the State Sex Offender Registry, The Daily News’ map illustrates that the Sharp Center’s zip-code (11237) belongs to a cluster of Brooklyn neighborhoods with the largest populations of sex offenders in New York City. Thirty-six sex offenders reside in 11237, while just 18 reside in 11368 (Corona, Queens), the most populous zip code in the entire city.

Regardless of sex-offender-to-resident ratios, many of the Sharp Center’s neighbors are not happy about DHS’s plan. Local business owner and landlord Michelle Sandoval has lived in the area for more than 30 years and has two children who attend school not far from the shelter. She and the regular customers of her deli are concerned about the safety of the neighborhood’s young students.

“It’s definitely nerve-wracking to have to worry about that and know that she could possibly encounter someone going to school, coming home from school,” says Sandoval, referring to her 15-year-old daughter. “I don’t pick her up, I don’t drop her off; she goes on her own with her friends. It’s a big fear for me and for a lot of people in the neighborhood that I’ve been speaking with …. Everybody’s in a little uproar about it.”
If the relocation of the sex offenders does go through, Sandoval plans to start escorting her children to and from school, as well as asking her customers to write letters about the issue to their government representatives.

But it may not come to that. The Doe Fund has explicitly refused to eject any current members of Ready, Willing & Able to accommodate sex offenders. Sex offenders sent to the facility by DHS in the past have been transferred to other shelters, and The Doe Fund has sought a temporary restraining order against the 50 incoming offenders, though it was denied.

Since then, The Doe Fund has filed a suit against the city, DHS and its commissioner. According to management, losing the court case leaves them with only one option: shuttering the Sharp Center and, hopefully, finding a new home for its residents, as well as the Ready, Willing & Able program.

“These people need help, we’re not debating that,” says Horwitz of the sex offenders. “But they’re not going to get it in our facility.”

Arvind Dilawar is a writer/editor whose work has appeared in Newsweek, The Guardian, The New York Daily News and elsewhere. Follow him on Twitter — @ArvSux — or email him at arvind.dilawar@gmail.com.

Tuesday, June 16, 2015

Two possibly sexless professors wants to make it damn near impossible for the rest of us to have sex without landing on the registry

Apparently, there is a duo of college professors trying to make California's asinine "affirmative consent" law the law of the entire USA.

I think the headline needs a little fixing.

The question is NOT if the federal government has had sex (screwing the people regularly for generations counts as sex, right?), it is whether these two professors have engaged in sex in, well, EVER. The consensus view of the posters at the Washington Examiner suggest that is a likely improbability.

If their diabolical scheme somehow passes, these two will go down as the two biggest cockblockers in American history.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/has-the-federal-government-ever-had-sex/article/2565963

OPINION: SOCIAL ISSUES
Has the federal government ever had sex?
BY ASHE SCHOW | JUNE 15, 2015 | 12:01 AM 

The act of sex is not illegal. But if two members of the American Law Institute have their way, it will be — unless you follow their rules.

Law professors Stephen J. Schulhofer and Erin Murphy are trying to update the criminal code when it comes to sex offenses, believing current definitions of rape and sexual assault are antiquated. The focus of their draft is on what constitutes consent. It adopts the "yes means yes," or "affirmative consent" model that was passed in California last year.

The California law applies only to college campuses, however. Schulhofer and Murphy aim to take that definition of consent — which says that before every escalation of a sexual encounter, clear and convincing consent must be given — to the state or federal level. No one actually has sex this way, requesting permission and having it granted perhaps a dozen times in a single encounter.

But the theory that millions of Americans are having sex wrongly has gained currency among campus activists. This new attempt to alter the American Law Institute's Model Penal Code, a highly influential document that has been adopted in whole or in part by many states' legislatures, is part of a push to bring authoritarianism into the bedroom.


Schulhofer and Murphy do not intend to make sexual intercourse impossible to construe as an innocent act. But this would be the consequence of their draft. Any act of sex in which permission is not repeatedly requested and granted would put at least one of the parties, usually men, in legal jeopardy. Absent the repeated "May I…?" and affirmative responses, any woman could later have her partner locked up over unexpressed mental reservations. Men could make the same accusations.

No one who opposes this legal change argues that consent is unnecessary. But the "yes means yes" standard is so stringent that it would criminalize millions of Americans overnight unless no one reports them.

Schulhofer, a New York University law professor, has been on a crusade against rape since the 1990s. He told the Washington Examiner that when he began teaching criminal law, rape law was not part of the agenda. He was shocked that law students were not being taught such a crucial category of the criminal code.

"So I made a concerted effort to bring it into the classroom," Schulhofer said. "It was very controversial at the time. A lot of teachers did not want to get into it because it was too much of a minefield."

In 1998, he wrote Unwanted Sex: The Culture of Intimidation and the Failure of Law. In it, he challenged existing rape law and proposed a massive expansion of the legal system to address systemic flaws. One involved the issue of consent and ambiguity. Part of his solution was to use the legal system to engineer social change.

"But cultural change proceeds slowly, and porous legal standards leave many women at risk in the meantime," Schulhofer wrote in his book. "Legal reform can play a crucial part in the effort to raise public awareness and alter social assumptions about when sexual assertiveness should be considered abusive."

Using such a method to change how people have sex was also included in Schulhofer's draft of a model penal code.

"[A] vitally important function of the criminal law is to identify and seek to deter behaviors that pose unjustifiable risks, even when those risks are not yet universally understood," reads the draft. "[The criminal law] must often be called upon to help shape those norms by communicating effectively the conditions under which commonplace or seemingly innocuous behavior can be unacceptably abusive or dangerous."

Murphy is also an NYU law professor and Schulhofer's associate reporter for the draft. She told the Examiner that she joined the project because, as a woman, she "thinks deeply about these offenses on a day-to-day basis and sees both in my community and in the scholarly literature a real wrong that is going on unrecognized and un-remediated."

But Murphy also sees the other side of the equation. She was a public defender for five years and saw abuse of sex crime prosecutions including "overly harsh collateral consequences and penalties" and evidentiary rules that have "gone too far against protecting the rights of the accused."

She, too, mentioned using the criminal justice system to enact social change.

"It's interesting to me to see how quickly the mores have changed and to consider where they're going, where they're headed, what that might mean," Murphy said, adding that she and Schulhofer "wanted to bring some clarity to the system."

The American Law Institute was founded in 1923 "to promote the clarification and simplification of the law and its better adaptation to social needs, to secure the better administration of justice, and to encourage and carry on scholarly and scientific legal work," according to its charter. It is a consequential organization. The Institute's Model Penal Code of 1962 was adopted almost entirely in New Jersey, New York and Oregon, with nearly two-thirds of the states using at least some portion of it.

So, Schulhofer and Murphy want to change an important document.

The two presented their first draft of a new model penal code for sexual offenses to the Institute's 2014 annual meeting. Members discussed the draft vigorously. Because the discussion ran out of time, the draft was referred back to Schulhofer and Murphy for reworking.

They presented a reworked draft at ALI's 2015 annual meeting in Washington, D.C. It was dated April 28, just three weeks before the meeting on May 19. Schulhofer and Murphy were criticized for providing the draft so close to the meeting, giving lawyers limited time to read and analyze its 250 pages. But the "reworked" draft is actually just a reorganized version of the 2014 draft, with hardly any changes.

This made it easy for opponents to produce an opposition letter with 22 co-signers to pick the document apart. It also showed that Schulhofer and Murphy did not allow the feedback received in 2014 to affect their views.

Opponents say the draft would further burden an already over-criminalized and over-incarcerated American public.

The opponents' letter provides this common and hypothetical encounter: "Person A and Person B are on a date and walking down the street. Person A, feeling romantically and sexually attracted, timidly reaches out to hold B's hand and feels a thrill as their hands touch. Person B does nothing, but six months later files a criminal complaint."

Under Schulhofer and Murphy's new rules, according to the opposition letter, Person A is guilty of "criminal sexual contact." That's because Section 213.0(5) of the draft "defines 'sexual contact' expansively, to include any touching of any body part of another person, whether done by the actor or by the person touched. Any kind of contact may qualify; there are no limits on either the body part touched or the manner in which it is touched."

Person A would be guilty of the act only if Person B filed a complaint, but therein lies a profound problem with Schulhofer and Murphy's draft. Everything is potentially a sexual assault unless done strictly according to their rules about obtaining prior consent to every action, no matter how innocuous, of every sexual encounter. There is no need to say "no." Without the presence of a prior "yes," the act is already an assault.

By this definition, millions of Americans — perhaps almost all sexually active people — become offenders. Previously, it was not thought necessary to ask verbally, "May I hold your hand?" or "May I kiss you now?," if a couple had been together for a while, or for months or years. It was recognized that either previous requests or implicit indications had given permission for a touch or a kiss. Men and women can and often do misread signals coming from someone to whom they are attracted, but it has not been thought appropriate to criminalize a touch or a kiss attempted in light of what seemed to be implicit assent.

Proponents of "affirmative consent" rules might argue that an explicit question is not necessary if there are proper social cues. But given the scope of the proposed definitions, the only safe way to be sure a person is consenting is to ask explicitly at every step of the sexual process. Thinking that a person "seemed into you" during a date would not be a strong enough social cue to presume the person wanted his or her hand held.

The law wouldn't apply only to first dates or similar new encounters, but would apply even in committed relationships. This means affirmative consent would be mandated for every sexual encounter, even to married couples. Given that divorce and custody cases frequently produce false accusations of child abuse, it's easy to imagine false accusations of sexual abuse proliferating if Schulhofer and Murphy's rules aren't followed every time a couple has sex.

Schulhofer and Murphy's draft makes clear "that when a complainant's behavior has been passive — neither expressly inviting nor rebuking the defendant's sexual advances, that behavior cannot be considered sufficient to show affirmative permission."

Silence and passivity could automatically be construed as unwillingness, and would make a "guilty" verdict far more likely. Indeed, Schulhofer and Murphy say this is what they want, writing in their draft that "the appropriate default position clearly is to err in the direction of protecting individuals against unwanted sexual imposition."

In other words, when in doubt, convict.

When confronted with the idea that many innocent people would be wrongly accused and punished, Schulhofer falls back on extreme examples that all reasonable people agree amount to rape or sexual assault.

Talking to the Examiner, he described the example of a woman drinking heavily at a party and passing out on a couch, after which a man penetrates her with his finger while she is unconscious. Schulhofer says this is "not a crime under current law."


But actually, it is. The FBI definition of rape describes the crime as "penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim."

Schulhofer's scenario clearly fits that category.

For her part, Murphy told an ALI audience, "Obviously, no one ... would want to criminalize someone who reaches out to, you know, grab a hand or go in for the kiss," adding, "The problem is, of course, that it's not just people on dates to whom the sexual assault code applies, it also applies to people riding on the subway or walking down the street."

The acts that Schulhofer and Murphy set out to make illegal, which are actually already illegal, represent just a small number of the actions that their draft would make illegal.

When Schulhofer and Murphy presented their ideas in May, it at first appeared that they might win majority support. The first few comments from people were supportive, offering helpful tips about grammar and organization to strengthen the draft. One of the first comments, from a female lawyer from New York, addressed the issue of over-incarceration, but said opponents of the draft shouldn't be concerned with such matters since rape is an under-reported crime.

But after a couple of supportive comments, the tide turned, and speaker after speaker questioned the extreme lengths to which the two lawyers went to expand the definition of rape.

Some of the most articulate and persuasive critics were women. The most prominent and outspoken was feminist and former federal judge Nancy Gertner, who this year wrote for the American Prospect denouncing the way sexual assault accusations have created a hostile environment on college campuses. Gertner, one of the co-signers of the opposition letter, thought the draft should focus on areas of complete agreement instead of trying to use the ALI as a vehicle for social change.

"There's a very striking ... lax concern for false positives, the wrongful accusation of sexual misconduct that is inconsistent with the criminal law," Gertner said. "Like it or not, criminal law and criminal procedure are all about erring on the side of — erring against false positives."

Another woman, a former prosecutor who specialized in sex offenses, called the draft "really disturbing" and explained that Schulhofer's and Murphy's proposed rules were not in line with "how the world works."

"I look at this and say it feels like intellectually it makes sense, but we are criminalizing something and moving way past where our mores are," she said.

She added that she was able to prosecute crimes in which the victim was too drunk to give consent. "I have to prove more than if she said 'no,' but I can prosecute those cases and win those cases now."

When she returned to her seat, the lawyers sitting around her reached out to praise her for her comments.


One of the main concerns for those who oppose "affirmative consent" policies is how an accused person is supposed to prove they obtained consent when the only evidence is an accusation. Schulhofer and Murphy's draft shifts the burden of proof from the accuser to the accused, who would now have to show he — it is usually he — obtained consent in order to prove there was no assault.

This, according to the opposition letter, would make prosecutors' jobs incredibly easy. They could merely tell juries that they must find someone guilty because no evidence could be produced that consent was obtained. The prosecutor would need no evidence beyond the accusation, and could tell the accused: "Prove me wrong."

Asked about what evidence would be needed to prove that consent was obtained, Schulhofer raised the issue of credibility in a he said/she said situation, but said "that's not an issue that this draft really addresses."

But the draft explains that the "default position" should be to err on the side of the prosecution.

Murphy's answer was simply that "hopefully" there would be enough evidence to say one way or the other.

For now, their draft is going nowhere at ALI as long as members continue to oppose it as they did this year. The next chance for comment, and to see if Schulhofer and Murphy listened to criticism and updated their draft, will be in October.

Even though "yes means yes" has failed to gain traction in most states where it's been introduced, with the continued focus on sexual assault in the media and academia, Schulhofer and Murphy will not be the only ones to propose expanding California's policy across the nation. Unless more people take notice of the proposals, we could be just a few years away from having the government tell us how to have sex.

Wednesday, May 13, 2015

Tossed Salads: How lame "comedian" Joey Salads turns back advances in understanding sexual abuse 50 years

Seriously, who would take THIS asshat seriously? Yes, that's Joey Salads. 
It is bad enough dealing with so-called experts publishing faulty statistics, but it is worse when a "viral" video has people taking stats from a self-professed comedian.

Joey Salads claims 700 children are kidnapped everyday (a stat refuted by the NISMART studies, which found only 100 or so "stereotypical kidnappings" annually), then teaches folks the Leave It to Beaver era of picking up little kids. All you need is permission from the parent watching the kid and approach with puppy in hand. This couldn't have been any more stereotypical other than the parental consent. It isn't even an original experiment, as new stations have pulled the same stunt in the past. What DOES make it different is Salads sullies the experiment.

The most glaring mistake is the kids likely saw him talking to the parental units before talking to them, so it is likely the kids who saw this interaction are assumed to be okay.

Even the NCMEC stopped teaching "stranger danger."

This guy is not a good comedian, but he IS a joke.

http://reason.com/blog/2015/05/04/viral-social-experiment-parenting-video

Viral 'Social Experiment' Parenting Video Peddles Outrageously False Claims About Stranger Danger
No, strangers don't grab 700 kids every day
Lenore Skenazy|May. 4, 2015 2:37 pm

This purportedly helpful video, posted Saturday, is viral in every sense of the word. It already has nearly a million views, which means that people are sharing it like crazy, convinced that its creator, Joey Salads, is doing something other than creating terror and angst with his Stranger Danger “social experiment.”

He’s not.

The experiment consists of Salads asking parents at a playground if they’ve taught their kids not to talk to strangers—a lesson I don’t endorse, since most strangers are good and you want kids to feel confident asking them for help if need be. “You can talk to anyone, you cannot go off with anyone,” is the advice I prefer.

Mr. Salads proceeds to startle the parents by showing them that their kids do talk to strangers. He does this by going up to very young kids (kids so young they would normally not be at the park unsupervised) and asking them if they want to meet his puppies. Some go off with him.

Not addressed are a few salient facts, including the biggie: Isn’t it more than likely that these kids feel fine going off with this man because they just saw him talking to their mom? What’s more, their mom is right there! If she didn’t want them going off, she would intervene.

After this bizarre scenario that he calls an experiment—without ever telling us how many kids he approached who did not go off with him—he says 700 kids are abducted a day. But Salads curiously omits the fact that this statistic includes all abductions, the overwhelming majority of which involve family members and often include custody disputes that were resolved by police in a matter of hours or days. Salad's video, on the other hand, is designed to warn parents about strangers, who abduct just 115 children a year, according to the U.S. Department of Justice.

If 700 kids were actually grabbed by strangers on a daily basis, that would be closing in on 1 percent of all kids under age 9. So if you sent your kid to a grammar school with 500 kids, by fifth grade your child would have witnessed 25 kids—a classroom’s worth—kidnapped the way they are on “Law & Order.”

But the story of how easily a child can be lead to his doom is one that TV can’t get enough of. Here is almost the exact same “experiment,” on Headline News. As I said then:

A show that “tests” whether kids can be lured to a car with the promise of a puppy — the premise of this show — makes it seem as if this is a situation kids could very likely be faced with, something on par with, “Would your kids eat a cookie if someone offered it?” What is so hard to understand is that, first of all, the vast majority of crimes against children are committed NOT be strangers they meet at the park, but by people they know. So it is bizarre to keep acting as if the park is teaming with danger.

But this scary, misleading  message just seems to be one that everyone loves to share, as if it’s a public service. As if kids already have way too much unsupervised time outside.

Friday, April 10, 2015

Dale Wren interferes with hearing that would determine whether a man should be removed from the registry


This man is Dale Wren, an attorney working in Yuma County, AZ. Apparently he was also person who  tried unsuccessfully to get elected as a judge. Since he's not elected official, I did list him under worst politico.

To summarize the story below, this man interfered in a hearing to determine whether or not to remove a man from the sex offender registry and is trying to get the alleged victim to protest the bid for registry removal.

http://www.yumasun.com/news/sex-offender-registry-hearing-gets-continued/article_d74e7ad0-ddac-11e4-a9a5-c39be963147e.html

Sex offender registry hearing gets continued
Posted: Tuesday, April 7, 2015 10:05 pm | Updated: 10:06 pm, Tue Apr 7, 2015.
By James Gilbert, @YSJamesGilbert

A hearing for a Yuma man who was attempting to have his name removed from the state’s lifelong sex offender registry was continued recently when, by chance, the attorney of one of his victims asked that the matter be rescheduled.
Yuma attorney Dale Wren said he was at the Yuma County Superior Court on the morning of Feb. 19 when he noticed the name of James Anthony Cruz on Superior Court Judge Larry Kenworthy’s calendar and stepped inside the courtroom to find out what the hearing was about.
Upon speaking with the attorneys on the case, Wren said he was told the hearing was to consider a motion to terminate Cruz’s probation, which requires that he also register as a sex offender. He added he was also told that despite there being numerous victims in the case, only one had been notified about the hearing.
“I think it is outrageous. He needs to be monitored,” Wren said in an interview. “The lifetime probation was part of his sentence and was very important to all the girls. They will re-victimize these girls all over again if he is allowed to get off of probation.”
According to court records, on Aug. 18, 2000, Cruz, who was employed as a Community Supervision Officer for the Yuma County Juvenile Courts, was convicted of providing drugs to and having sex with several female juvenile probationers and was sentenced to seven years in prison, in addition to the probation.
The motion, which was originally filed by attorney Michael Donovan in August 2013, requests that the court terminate Cruz’s probation based on him having paid all the restitution that was ordered in the case, that he has been employed and on probation for the seven years following his release without incident, and that he had completed all of his court-ordered treatment.
Wren said that during that February hearing he informed the court that he was still in touch with some of Cruz’s victims and asked it be rescheduled to a later date, which would allow him time to inform them of the motion, as well as provide them with an opportunity to attend a future hearing on the matter or have him speak on their behalf.
“Almost all of these girls have got their lives together now,” Wren said. “It is hard to guess how (Cruz) getting off of probation would affect them.”
Wren said that he was unaware the Cruz has been trying to get his probation terminated for the past two years.
The problem, he explained, is that while victims are entitled to notification whenever the status of a sex offender changes, the girls were young at the time and didn’t request it.
“They figured he would be monitored for the rest of his life and are trying to forget about what happened,” Wren said. “Victims of this type of abuse don’t ever want to be reminded about it.”
Kenworthy granted Wren’s request and rescheduled the hearing to consider the petition to terminate Cruz’s probation for 2 p.m. on April 23.
Wren said anyone who was involved in the case who would like more information about the upcoming hearing can call his office at 329-1871.

Monday, March 30, 2015

Imagine being a woman and living 60 years being named "Eddie Manley." Now you know why she's nuts

It must be rough being a woman named Eddie Manley. Maybe that's why she's a bitter old lady. She reminds me of a certain reptile from South Florida, actually.

The only thing worse than being a woman named Eddie Manley is being the guy dating a woman named Eddie Manley.

http://onlineathens.com/local-news/2015-03-30/madison-county-woman-fires-gun-send-message-sex-offender

Madison County woman fires gun to 'send message' to sex offender
By WAYNE FORD
Updated Monday, March 30, 2015 - 9:17pm

Authorities arrested on Saturday a 61-year-old Madison County woman after she allegedly fired two gun shots as a way of sending “a message” to a convicted sex offender she didn’t want on her property.

Eddie L. Manley of Paoli Road, Carlton, was charged with aggravated assault, making a terroristic threat and pointing a pistol at another.

The shooting occurred outside Manley’s home, where the 53-year-old victim, who is a registered sex offender convicted of sexual exploitation of children, was shot in the foot with a .45-caliber handgun loaded with .410-gauge shotgun shells, according to a Madison County Sheriff’s report.

The man had cuts on his toes caused by one pellet, deputies said.

The victim said Manley’s boyfriend allowed him to come to the house to gather some belongings he left while in prison. While collecting his items, he said Manley exited her home and told him to leave, according to the report. The man said he didn’t respond to her order, then heard a gun shot. Manley began yelling and threatened the man’s life, telling him he would “never hurt another teenager again,” deputies said.

Manley told deputies that the man lied about why he was in prison and she had warned him previously to never come on her property. When she saw him, she became angry, took her revolver, with the brand name “The Judge,” and fired it twice to send “a message,” according to the report.

Monday, March 16, 2015

Delores Ann Harris says she is dumb for believing the system works after she's convicted for harassing Registered Citizen

Delores Ann Harris claims she was dumb for believing "the system works." In this case, the system worked, and she was convicted for harassing a Registered Citizen. I guess by working she meant she expected to get off.

I wonder, however, why a convicted criminal like Harris does not have a mugshot posted anywhere. If her victim was even suspected of a crime, his mug would be all over the internet. In fact, I am amazed the victim wasn't plastered on the media just because of his status.

If anyone has a pic of Delores Ann Harris, email it to iamthefallen1@yahoo.com

http://www.nvdaily.com/beck/2015/03/area-woman-convicted-for-harassing-sex-offender

AREA WOMAN CONVICTED FOR HARASSING SEX OFFENDER
FRIDAY, MARCH 13TH, 2015 @ 11:00 PM

FRONT ROYAL – All she wanted to do, Delores Ann Harris told a jury Friday, was to protect herself and her granddaughter from a man who had been convicted 21 years ago of aggravated sexual battery, a man who has been on the state’s sex offender registry since 1997.

But the convicted sex offender in the courtroom was the victim in the jury trial. And Harris, 61, was the defendant, charged with misusing information from the sex offender registry.

It took the jury only 23 minutes to find Harris guilty and even less time to impose a $1,500 fine on her for actions that the prosecution described as a campaign of harassment against Scott Costello, 43.

“The commonwealth realizes that Mr. Costello is not a sympathetic victim,” Assistant Commonwealth’s Attorney Michael Fleming told the six-member jury during closing arguments.

But, Fleming said, the state law is clear: The state sex offender registry, including details about Costello, can be easily viewed on a website but the information displayed must not be used “for purposes of intimidating or harassing” another person. Violations are categorized as class one misdemeanors carrying penalties of up to one year in jail and a maximum penalty of $2,500.

Harris represented herself at the trial. In an interview after the jury verdict, she continued to deny she had done anything wrong.

“I was dumb for thinking the judicial system would work,” Harris said.

The jury heard testimony from Costello and Rebecca Griffin about a contentious relationship between them and Harris, who was Griffin’s neighbor in an apartment building in Front Royal at the time of the offense. 

No one disputed that Harris informed the state police that Costello was staying in an apartment with Griffin, his fiancée. At the time, Costello had a different address on the sex offender registry, which would have required him to re-register if he had moved in permanently with Griffin.

In his closing argument, Fleming recounted testimony from Master State Trooper Jerry Bosserman, who could not find evidence that Costello had moved in permanently with Griffin.

Fleming said Harris persisted in her complaints, but Bosserman couldn’t determine that Costello’s visits to Griffin’s residence had violated any laws.

“Trooper Bosserman said he felt he was on the verge of harassing Mr. Costello,” Fleming said.

Harris denied earlier testimony from Griffin that she had yelled out the window at Griffin that Costello was going to prison for 20 years and asking how her sex life would be after he was gone.

“My only concern was the safety of myself and my granddaughter,” Harris told the jury.

The guilty verdict was costly for Harris. She had been convicted of the same offense in general district court and fined only $50 and sentenced to one year unsupervised probation.

Harris appealed her conviction to circuit court, where her combined fine and court costs from the jury trial will exceed $2,000.

Harris, who has moved out of the apartment building, said she plans to file an appeal with the state Court of Appeals.

Wednesday, February 25, 2015

Russell Speigle is "innocent until proven guilty," but the guilt is written on his face, in a way

So everyone who is arrested is innocent until proven guilty. However, Russell Speigle of Cottage Grove, WI, has guilt written, or rather, "burned," onto his face. If there was ever a time to use the old adage, "play with fire and you'll get burned," now is that time. If he keeps this up, he might be up for a Darwin Award rather than a Shiitake.

As an aside, vigilantes should be properly handled and cooked until the internal temperature of 165 degrees. Get your vigis ordered at least medium-well, and not rare.

http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/crime_and_courts/article_083d6199-5d56-5147-8a5e-db19123cbcec.html

Cottage Grove man arrested on suspicion of burning house intended for sex offender
2/24/15, By Nico Savidge, Wisconsin State Journal


Dane County authorities arrested a town of Cottage Grove man they say set fire to a house Sunday night in a vigilante effort to keep a sex offender from moving in there.

Russell A. Speigle, 50, was arrested on a tentative charge of arson for the fire, which destroyed a home at 4721 Gaston Circle in the town of Cottage Grove, Sheriff Dave Mahoney said Tuesday.

Investigators are now trying to determine if Speigle was responsible for another fire that damaged the same house in December, Mahoney said.

They are also looking for some pieces of evidence that could connect Speigle to the fire, the Sheriff’s Office said.

The home was to house 40-year-old Harold Nyberg as part of a supervised sex offender release program, over vocal opposition from the man’s neighbors — Speigle among them, Mahoney said.

The first fire, on Dec. 8, caused $90,000 worth of damage, the Sheriff’s Office said. The home was repaired after that blaze and was considered a total loss after Sunday’s fire.

Speigle lived “only doors away” from the Gaston Circle home, Mahoney said, and had attended a notification meeting the Sheriff’s Office held last week to tell neighborhood residents about Nyberg.

“Like many, (Speigle) voiced his displeasure” that Nyberg was coming to the area, Mahoneysaid.

An article about the notification meeting from The Herald-Independent quoted Speigle saying the neighborhood was “upset and on guard” with Nyberg set to move in.

Nyberg was convicted in 1994 of second-degree child sexual assault and was later committed as a sexually violent person to a secure treatment center in Mauston, according to courtrecords.

Despite objections from Speigle and other neighbors, some of whom are now pushing the Cottage Grove Town Board to adopt an ordinance barring sex offenders on supervised release from living there, Nyberg was set to move to the home within a fewweeks.

“The place to carry out those kinds of actions is at the public notification meeting, so that we can address those concerns,” Mahoney said. “What is unacceptable is acts of vigilantism such as this.”

Investigators talked with Speigle at his home soon after the second fire, Mahoney said, and could see that he had recently suffered burns.

Speigle’s booking photo from the Dane County Jail shows what appear to be burns across much of his face.

Mahoney did not say why investigators didn’t arrest Speigle that night, but the Sheriff’s Office said authorities learned he had left Cottage Grove soon after talking with detectives.

Investigators with the Sheriff’s Office and the state Department of Justice continued building a case against Speigle, tracked him to a relative’s home in Muscoda and arrested him there Monday, Mahoney said.

Speigle was treated and released from the UW Hospital burn unit, then booked into the jail Tuesday afternoon, the Sheriff’s Office said.

At a news conference Tuesday, Mahoney declined to say whether authorities suspect anyone other than Speigle may have been involved in the arson, or if Speigle has been cooperating with investigators.

Mahoney stressed that Sunday’s blaze put firefighters and first responders in danger, and said the “most alarming” aspect of Speigle’s actions was that he set fire to a home so close to where he lived.

“Not only did the actions of Mr. Speigle endanger public safety professionals, it endangered his own neighbors,” Mahoney said.

As they continue their investigations, Mahoney said authorities are looking for two gas canisters they believe Speigle used in the Sunday night fire.

Mahoney said investigators could see Speigle holding the red, plastic jugs Sunday night in images taken from a camera near the home that burned.

Authorities suspect the cans may have been dumped somewhere between Cottage Grove and Muscoda, and asked anyone who might have seen them to call the state arson tip line at 800-362-3005 or the Sheriff’s Office tip line at 608-284-6900.