Kenyoun Gifford of Salen, NH downloaded CP to try to set up an RC and failed miserably

Oh the irony. This guy will likely land on the registry himself now.

https://whdh.com/news/nh-man-accused-of-breaking-into-sex-offenders-apartment-scattering-child-porn-calling-police/

NH man accused of breaking into sex offender’s apartment, scattering child porn, calling police
July 3, 2018

MANCHESTER, N.H. (WHDH) - A New Hampshire man is facing child porn and burglary charges after police say he broke into a sex offender’s Manchester apartment, scattered images of child pornography around the home, and then called in an anonymous tip to police, officials said.

Officers responding to an anonymous tip reporting a sex offender in grave danger in an apartment on Winter Street on April 12 went to a third-floor apartment, where they found the letters “PEDO” freshly spray painted on the door, according to a release issued Tuesday by Manchester police.

A search of the home, police say, uncovered multiple images of child pornography strewn about the apartment.

Feeling like “something was amiss,” the officers tracked down the 27-year-old resident, who said he thought someone was trying to set him up.

An investigation led to the arrest last month of  Kenyoun Gifford, of Salem, who allegedly broke in and left the photos as part of a “retaliatory measure against the victim,” police said.

Gifford was arrested in Hillsborough County Superior Court North Monday on charges including possessing child sexual images, burglary, criminal mischief, and filing a false report.

NH State Rep Dick(head) Marston derails relief plan against aggressive collection of registry fees

This guy's name is "Dick," but his last name should be "Head" after derailing a bill that would have abolished the $50 annual fee the state forces registered persons to pay. Of course, it wasn't enough to vote against the bill-- Dickhead Marston claimed if this bill passed, the registry would eliminate the registry. If that is true, then I see no reason NOT to pass this bill. The money saved from eliminating the registry could increase his salary, which means better glasses and some Hair Club for Men.

http://patch.com/new-hampshire/concord-nh/dornin-pay-50-year-forever-or-maybe-not

Dornin: Pay $50 a Year Forever ... Or Maybe Not

HB 587 would have abolished the annual fee former sex offenders pay to be listed in the state's online database.

By Chris Dornin, Founder, CCJR

Lawmakers killed a good crime bill this year.

Citizens for Criminal Justice Reform wrote and recruited sponsors for HB 587, which would have abolished the $50 annual “fee” the state charges citizens to register as former sexual offenders, often for the rest of their lives. The charge buys them the privilege of being publicly shamed on the State Police website. Failure to pay can get them arrested and theoretically sent to prison.

Our bill died on the House floor based in part on misinformation by state Rep. Dick Marston, R-Manchester, who posted the following blurb in the House calendar before the vote:

“There is a provision in the law that would currently allow the fee to be waived if the offender was unable to afford it. The (House Criminal Justice) committee determined that repealing the fee would have resulted in virtually eliminating the registry, which would be a disservice to the citizens of NH.”

Marston misled lawmakers, perhaps intentionally. Yes, eliminating the fee would cost the state the $93,400 a year it squeezes from registrants to pay for their scarlet letter. But the registry costs state and local government far more than that. The State Police testified they employ seven people full time to keep the registry up to date. The Manchester Police say they assign two full-time officers to track their 440 registrants on the State Police website. If that is a best practice, the rest of New Hampshire needs another eight or 10 officers full time to handle the remaining 2100 registrants. The total cost easily exceeds ten times what the state collects from registrants.

We would submit the state has no right to make registrants pay anything for being pilloried on the Department of Safety’s website. They have already paid for their crimes. Registration is not voluntary and being on the registry is not a privilege. Why should registered citizens have to pay for it? Good evidence suggests sex offender registries do nothing to protect the public anyway, despite what lawmakers say.

Former offenders have every legal and moral right to challenge the fee under state law. Sex offender registration already has crippling effects on registered citizens’ financial viability. Once a potential employer finds out a person is a registered sex offender, the door of opportunity closes. We know of many registrants who are unemployed or under employed because of their registrant status. But, if they don’t pay the state $50 every year, they can be charged with yet another crime.

As far as CCJR knows, no one has actually been arrested for not paying the registry fee, though some have been threatened with arrest if they didn’t cough up the money. The point of the fee is to raise money for the State, of course, so it’s not in the state’s interest to arrest non-payers. Putting just a few registrants in prison for failing to pay a $50 charge would soon use up all the money the State hopes to collect.

As Rep. Marston suggested, the law is not entirely heartless. It provides a way for the indigent to be excused from paying. Registered citizens can ask for a hearing before the Commissioner of Safety to decide if they are unable to pay. As you can imagine, these hearings are like having a friendly talk with the fictional Don Corleone, who famously said, “Let me make you an offer you can’t refuse.”

States normally determine indigence based strictly upon income and assets. But the Department of Safety wants to know how impoverished registrants spend their limited resources. We know of registrants who have been asked if they smoke. If so, they should smoke less and pay the fee. The same goes for cell phones and cars. The threat is always the same, pay up or get arrested.

We believe this is no way to run a free state. So we’re encouraging all registrants making less than 125% of federal poverty levels to apply for a waiver of the fee. We have posted on our website clear instructions on how to do so and, if denied, how to appeal that decision into the Superior Courts. Just follow the link ccjrnh.org/challenge_the_registry_fee.

Our hope is that many registrants will exercise their rights this way. But, even if just a few end up appealing to the Courts, the State will soon spend all the money it hopes to collect through this extortionist scheme, and somebody in power will finally figure out the registry fee is not a good idea.

“If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being.” ― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago 1918-1956

Chris Dornin is the founder of Citizens for Criminal Justice Reform.

Al Baldasaro casts the lone vote against a NH bill that outlaws local residency restriction ordinances

New Hampshire isn't a state we tend to think of when we think bad sex offender laws. In fact, the state House passed a bill to abolish residency restrictions (though the bill is sitting idle in the Senate). The bill passed 18-1 in the House committee. Who was the lone dissenter? Al Baldasaro, the gay-bashing gun nut RepubliCON from Londonberry (Dingleberry?). It is a bit bizarre for NH, making it Shiitake-worthy.

http://www.concordmonitor.com/home/10425897-95/house-committee-passes-bill-prohibiting-restrictions-on-where-sex-offenders-can-live

House committee passes bill prohibiting restrictions on where sex offenders can live
By ANNMARIE TIMMINS
Concord Monitor staff
Wednesday, January 29, 2014 
(Published in print: Wednesday, January 29, 2014)

A House committee easily passed a bill, 18-1, prohibiting restrictions on where sex offenders can live yesterday, noting that judges have twice ruled residency restrictions unconstitutional. Still, lawmakers predicted a tough fight in the Senate, which has rejected similar bills before.

“There is a perception that this bill is being soft on crime,” said Rep. Steve Vaillancourt, a Manchester Republican who voted for the bill. “All of us who have heard (this debate) know the benefits of the bill. But we’re going to need to explain it.”

Rep. Al Baldasaro, a Londonderry Republican, cast the lone vote against the bill, saying he didn’t want to tell his constituents they couldn’t determine where sex offenders could and could not live.

As many as 11 communities have residency restrictions for sex offenders, said Rep. Renny Cushing, a Hampton Democrat. Londonderry is not one of them, according to the town’s website. Locally, Tilton, Northfield and Boscawen have such restrictions. Both Northfield’s and Tilton’s ordinances prohibit people convicted of sex crimes against children from living within 2,500 feet of schools, child-care centers and playgrounds. Boscawen’s ordinance was not available yesterday.

Tilton adopted its ordinance in 2007 and added this explanation to it: “Acknowledging that sex offenders who prey on children are at a higher risk of re-offending, the town of Tilton has a compelling interest and responsibility to protect the health, safety and welfare of its children by restricting access to areas where there (is) a high concentration of children.”

However, two judges have found otherwise. In 2009, a district court judge in Dover ruled that city’s residency restriction invalid because the city had not shown a “substantial relationship” between the ordinance and the protection of children. In 2012, Merrimack County Superior Court Judge Larry Smukler came to the same conclusion when the New Hampshire Civil Liberties Union appealed Franklin’s ordinance.

Cushing, a member of the House Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee, said the bill prohibiting residency restrictions is necessary because it will take costly legal fights to undo the 11 ordinances still in place across the state. “The simple thing that can be done is to pass a bill that incorporates the . . . courts’ decisions.”

Cushing also argued that restricting housing for sex offenders pushes them “underground,” in campgrounds, under bridges and to other places the police cannot monitor. He said communities are safer if the police know where sex offenders live and require yearly registration with the local police.

Baldasaro said he was concerned that if a sex offender moved into a Londonderry neighborhood, “everyone else wants to move out.” He added, “I want to support this bill, but I have to go back to neighborhoods in my district. Who is going to protect the neighbors?”

Rep. Larry Gagne, a Manchester Republican, responded to Baldasaro.

“My first term, I was pretty much a hard-liner,” he said. “I said, ‘Put (sex offenders) in outer space. Put them all on an island.’ But I changed my mind after a (police) sergeant came in and said, ‘If they go underground, we can’t find them.’ ”

Rep. Roger Berube, a Somersworth Democrat, questioned why the state Senate has rejected several similar bills from the House in previous years. “How can they get away with that?” he asked. “It doesn’t appear the Senate is actually listening to the . . . court.”

To that, Rep. Laura Pantelakos, chairwoman of the committee said, “Sometimes the Senate doesn’t listen to anybody.”