David "The Diaper" Vitter at it again! Adds another anti-registrant amendment to another spending bill

Earlier this year, David Vitter sought to ban registrants from the Food Stamp program through a farm bill amendment. Now, Vitter is injecting his self-loathing into HUD. I know that registrants with a lifetime reporting requirement is already banned from HUD, but apparently Vitter wants that rule extended to all registered citizens.

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?

http://congress-courts-legislation.blogspot.com/2013/07/alert-update-sen-vitter-requests-that.html

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))

You can have sex with a 16 year old in Ohio, but if you talk about it you could be a sex offender

Does anyone proofread laws? Apparently Ohio does not. If you don't think some podunk sheriff won't try to convict someone for what is described below, well, you need to read this blog more often.

http://reason.com/blog/2013/06/28/hookup-shocker-the-sex-is-legal-but-talk

Hookup Shocker: The Sex Is Legal, but Talking About It Is a Felony!
Jacob Sullum
Jun. 28, 2013 4:16 pm

This week the Ohio House of Representatives unanimously approved a bill ostensibly aimed at fighting "human trafficking" that makes it a crime to "solicit" a legal act: sex with someone who is 16 or 17 years old. The age of consent in Ohio is 16. Yet under H.B. 130, a 20-year-old who asks a 16-year-old to have sex with him, or a 21-year-old who does the same with a 17-year-old, thereby commits a fifth-degree felony, punishable by six to 12 months in jail and a $2,500 fine. He also has to register as a sex offender. But if the teenager broaches the subject, or if the sex proceeds without any explicit verbal reference to it, no crime has been committed. Here is the relevant provision:

No person shall solicit another, not the spouse of the offender, to engage in sexual conduct with the offender, when the offender is eighteen years of age or older and four or more years older than the other person, and the other person is sixteen or seventeen years of age, whether or not the offender knows the age of the other person.

Since there is no requirement that money change hands, this provision criminalizes ordinary sexual propositions if one person is 16 or 17 and the other is at least four years older when it is the older person who makes the suggestion, even though the sex itself remains legal. Having sex is fine, as long as you don't talk about it beforehand.

The elimination of any knowledge requirement, which is problematic even when the "solicitation" involves someone below the age of consent, is especially so when the person approached is 16 or 17. Since the difference between a 16- or 17-year-old and an 18-year-old may be difficult to discern, someone keen to avoid a felony charge would be wise to demand proof of age before saying anything about sex. And if the object of his attention happens to have a fake ID—as teenagers pretending to be older than they are sometimes do, especially when they go to bars or clubs—that is no defense. As Granville, Ohio, attorney Drew Mc Farland notes, the bill imposes  a "strict liability" sta ndard, meaning that "even an honest mistake is unforgiven." Mc Farland, who drew my attention to this bill, suggests one such scenario:

A mature 17-year-old is lawfully in a liquor-serving establishment and meets a 22-year-old who suggests they go back to his or her place for some sexual fun. Under this change in the law, the 22-year-old is guilty of a felony.

Legislators already define "human trafficking" broadly enough to include consensual sex (when it occurs in exchange for money). Now Ohio is poised to classify merely talking about consensual sex, even when no money is involved, as a species of sexual slavery.

The Ohio Senate is expected to take up the bill after returning from its summer break.

US Congress adding amendment to deny food stamps from registered citizens

In recent years, Congress has attempted or succeeded in denying Small Business Loans, college aid, and FHA loans for people on the registry, now they want to ban registrants from obtaining food stamps. And you'll never believe who pushed for the amendment. None other than that diaper-wearing disgrace of a Louisiana Senator David Vitter. Since prostitution is a registerable sex offense in Louisiana, this asshat should be on the registry and denied his pension. If David Vitter can be forgiven by the legislature, then that forgiveness should extend to ALL registered persons.

eAdvocate has broken down the amendment added to S-954, a freaking farm bill of all things, here:

http://sexoffenderresearch.blogspot.com/2013/05/action-alert-senate-farm-bill-s-954.html

The details of the Amendment follow:

AMENDMENT NO. 1056
(Purpose: To end food stamp eligibility for convicted violent rapists, pedophiles, and murderers)
    At the end of subtitle A of title IV, insert the following:
   SEC. 4019. ELIGIBILITY DISQUALIFICATIONS FOR CERTAIN CONVICTED FELONS.
    Section 6 of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2015) (as amended by section 4004) is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(s) Disqualification for Certain Convicted Felons.--

    ``(1) IN GENERAL.- -An individual shall not be eligible for benefits under this Act if the individual is convicted of--
    ``(A) aggravated sexual abuse under section 2241 of title 18, United States Code;
    ``(B) murder under section 1111 of title 18, United States Code;
    ``(C) an offense under chapter 110 of title 18, United States Code;
    ``(D) a 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)); or
    ``(E) an offense under State law determined by the Attorney General to be substantially similar to an offense described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C).

    ``(2) EFFECTS ON ASSISTANCE AND BENEFITS FOR OTHERS.--The amount of benefits otherwise required to be provided to an eligible household under this Act shall be determined by considering the individual to whom paragraph (1) applies not to be a member of such household, except that the income and resources of the individual shall be considered to be income and resources of the household.

    ``(3) ENFORCEMENT.--Each State shall require each individual applying for benefits under this Act, during the application process, to state, in writing, whether the individual, or any member of the household of the individual, has been convicted of a crime described in paragraph (1).''.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia. 
   UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST--H. CON. RES. 25

Miami attempts to exclude registrants from homeless protections

This is yet another sad legacy of the Julia Tuttle Causeway debacle, which continues to this day despite shutting down the camp nearly three years ago.

This is FloriDUH politics at its finest. It wishes to reinstate the practice of harassing and destroying the belongings of those forced into homelessness. http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/04/11/3339297/miami-to-go-to-federal-court-to.html


Miami to go to federal court to undo homeless-protection act  

BY CHARLES RABIN AND ANDRES VIGLUCCI
CRABIN@MIAMIHERALD.COM
The City of Miami, concerned that loitering homeless people are stunting downtown growth, will go to federal court in an attempt to undo major provisions of a historic legal agreement that for 15 years has protected the homeless from undue arrest and harassment by police.

Miami commissioners voted unanimously on Tuesday to petition the courts to alter a landmark settlement in the 1988 Pottinger v. Miami case, in which 5,000 homeless people and the American Civil Liberties Union sued the city, contending that the police practice of sweeping them off the streets and dumping their belongings for loitering, sleeping on sidewalks or other minor offenses was unconstitutional.

The case, settled by consent decree in 1998, led to a significant expansion of public services to the homeless that has been held up as a national model. The settlement also bars Miami police from arresting homeless people for such “involuntary, harmless acts’’ without first offering them an available bed in a shelter.

Under the resolution adopted Thursday, which drew little to no public attention before the commission meeting, the city will hire an outside attorney to ask a federal judge to grant police greater latitude to detain homeless people and seize and dispose of their belongings. The city will also ask the judge to exclude sexual predators from the Pottinger settlement’s protections.

North Carolina wants to make it a felony to expose your vagina (or breasts)

You know what they say, duct tape fixes everything."
--NC State Rep. Tim Moore

I made a rhyme :) I guess Jerry Springer or the Mardi Gras people may want to reconsider visiting NC state if this passes. But HB 34 is something a little duct tape couldn't fix, according to one state rep.

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/politics/nc-state-rep-tim-moore-advises-women-duct-tape-nipples-avoid-arrest#

NC State Rep. Tim Moore Advises Women To ‘Duct Tape’ Nipples To Avoid Arrest


By Michael Allen, Thu, February 14, 2013
The North Carolina State House Judiciary Committee recently approved House Bill 34, which makes it a felony to purposefully expose “private parts for the purpose of arousing or gratifying sexual desire.”

According to WRAL.com, the bill's definition of “private parts” includes a woman’s “nipple, or any portion of the areola.”

Women could spend up to six months in jail for a first offense. However,  any incidental nipple exposure by breastfeeding mothers would be exempt.

State Rep. Sarah Steven said that women could use pasties or nipple coverings: “They’d be good to go."

“You know what they say, duct tape fixes everything,” added State Rep. Tim Moore.

State Rep. Rayne Brown is co-sponsoring the bill because GoTopless.org activists held a topless women’s rights rally in Asheville, North Carolina last summer (graphic video below).

“You’ve got local governments passing ordinances to protect themselves from just this thing,” Brown said. “These folks don’t need to be doing that, but they do it because they’re not sure about the law.”

Montana's SB 113 will allow even past false accusations to be used against you in future accusations

This bill will open the door to a variety of abuses  as cases where a person was found not guilty to be used as evidence. This is the opposite of rape shield laws, which already stack the deck against the accused. This is a very dumb and dangerous bill that will lead to many false convictions.


http://www.kfbb.com/news/local/Prosecutors-Seek-a-Bill-That-Allows-Evidance-of-Other-Crimes-In-Prosecution-of-Sexual-Offenses--187214201.html


Prosecutors Seek a Bill That Allows Evidance of Other Crimes In Prosecution of Sexual Offenses
By Chudney Matta
Story Created: Jan 16, 2013 at 5:30 PM MST
Story Updated: Jan 16, 2013 at 9:29 PM MST 
It's a bill that has been presented before involving sex offenders and their criminal history.

The bill seeks for prosecutors to be allowed to use criminal backgrounds of an alleged offender as evidence in new cases.

Prosecutors from all over Montana spoke in support of the bill that would crack down on repeated sexual offenders who perhaps were not found guilty the first time due to lack of evidence. 

Senator Andres Blewett says the bill protects vulnerable children and doing everything that can be done to protect them is what this bill seeks. 

Those that testified say passing this bill would make it easier for prosecutors to build up a case involving a child and a sexual offender. 

Prosecutors say the hardiest part of cases with children is the lack of testimony from the child. But senators are reluctant in passing the bill saying they worry about the creditability of the evidence that could be used.