Chris Smith of NJ is using a backdoor policy to ban registrants from obtaining passports

Chris Smith of New Jersey tried pushing International Megan's Flaw to the populace a couple of years back, but it stalled. Now Smith is trying to attach this bad piece of legislation to a current bill, H.R. 2848. I wonder how deep he dug in his ass to pull this out.

http://chrissmith.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=344968

Int’l Megan’s Law Amendment to Protect More Kids 
Smith Provision Made Part of the State Department Bill 

Washington, Aug 1 - A legislative effort by U.S. Rep. Chris Smith (NJ-04) to restrict the passports of U.S citizens who have been convicted of sex crimes against children took a leap forward today when it was unanimously approved by the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

    Smith wrote an amendment which is now part of the U.S. State Department authorization bill, H.R. 2848, which is expected to be on the House floor in September. It grants the Secretary of State discretion to limit the valid duration of passports for convicted sex offenders listed on the National Sex Offender Registry, or to revoke the passport of an individual convicted by a court of competent jurisdiction in a foreign country of a sex offense.

    “The amount of travel by known predators is staggering,” said Smith, who has worked for years with the family of Megan Kanka to promote legislation that would protect children from sex offenders. “A report released by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that nearly 4,500 registered sex offenders apply for U.S. passports each year. Since a passport is valid up to 10 years, some offenders can remain unwatched for years. According to the Protection Project of Johns Hopkins University, sex tourists from the United States who target children make up a significant percentage of child sex tourists around the world.” Click here to read Smith’s statement to the full committee.

    “Authorizing the State Department to restrict the passports of registered sex offenders has the ability to deter and protect,” said Smith, a leader in Congress on human rights issues, including sex trafficking of women and children. “Predators who have been convicted for sexually exploiting children have used long-term passports to evade return to the United States and have moved to a third country where they continue to exploit and abuse children. By requiring child sex offenders to renew their passports, more regularly, we can curtail the current 10-year window of unchecked travel and offer greater protection for vulnerable women and children around the world.”

    Megan Kanka, a seven-year-old from Smith’s district in Hamilton, N.J., was kidnapped, raped, and brutally murdered in 1994. Her assailant was a convicted, repeat sex offender living across the street, unbeknownst to families in Megan’s neighborhood. Due to public outcry in response to the tragedy and to hard work by Megan’s parents, Richard and Maureen Kanka, the New Jersey State Legislature passed the original Megan’s Law (NJSA 2C: 7-1 through 7-II) to require public notification of convicted sex offenders living in the community. Smith supported a federal Megan’s Law which became law in 1996 and other child protection measures.

    “In order to better protect children, this amendment would allow the Secretary of State the discretion to revoke the passport of an individual who has been convicted by a court of competent jurisdiction in a foreign country of a sex offense,” Smith said. “It also allows the Secretary the ability to determine the appropriate period of validity of any passport that is issued to a sex offender.”

    Smith authored similar legislation to protect children in 2010 called The International Megan’s Law. That bill would establish a model framework for international law enforcement notifications when convicted child sex offenders pose a danger to children in a destination country. The bill passed the full House in 2010, but the Senate failed to act on the bill.

Lynna Lai's lies

Lynna Lai is featured here today because she takes her yellow journalism to the next level. It is bad enough Lai lies to the public by using the perennial buzzword "loophole" to describe a bad law that cannot be applied retroactively. The story is made worse when she targets one registrant and begins showing the man's registry poster to the neighbors for good measure.

There is no "loophole" when the law allows one to reside where he wants.

Cleveland Sucks.

http://www.wkyc.com/news/article/309760/3/Loophole-makes-it-easier-for-sex-offenders-to-live-close-to-schools

CLEVELAND -- In two weeks, kids will soon fill the sidewalks, heading back to school. Near Cleveland's Rickoff Elementary School, young students will walk by the home of registered sex offender who lives across the street.

Another registered sex offender, whose victim was also a juvenile, lives 2 houses away from the school.

Meanwhile in Columbia Station, in Lorain county, the newest resident on Fremont Drive, is not welcome here.

"Most of the neighbors are concerned. Most of us have young children," said Chris Candella. "He's a convicted sex offender and he's living directly next to a day care."

Joseph Lapinta, convicted of unlawful sexual conduct with a minor, is now living right behind a day care -- a violation of the law.

Lapinta was defensive when asked about neighbors' concerns.

"I'm not a bad f------ guy, you know what I mean?" he said.

But Candella and his neighbors want him out of the neighborhood.

"He just keeps slipping through the system, and he's now living next door to us," he said.

Lapinta and other registered sex offenders slipping through a loophole in the law, banning sex offenders from living within 1000-feet of a school or day care. And there's not a thing that sheriff's deputies can do about it.

That's because the Ohio legislature made enforcement of the law -- up to civil courts.

Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine says it's up to neighbors or city officials to sue the sex offender, and ask a judge to order an eviction.

"I don't want anyone to think that there isn't a remedy," said DeWine. "There's teeth in the law in the sense that a lawsuit can be brought, the person can be evicted from that house."

However DeWine agreed that the lack of a criminal penalty for violations makes it easier for sex offenders to ignore the residency law.

Using the online Cuyahoga Sheriff's Office Sex Offender Registry, Channel 3 News analyzed the number of registered sex offenders living near Cleveland public schools. We found that 63 out of 70 pre-K through 8 schools had at least one registered sex offender living within 1000-feet of school property.

A total of 166 registered sex offenders are living very close to the city's elementary and middle schools. Most of them committed their crimes before the ban took effect in 2003, so the restrictions do not apply.

However, we found 28 registered sex offenders are clearly living in violation of the law.

One of them is Radames Gonzalez, who was convicted of gross sexual imposition of a girl under the age of 13. Gonzalez now lives near Cleveland's Orchard-Halle Elementary School on the city's west side.

"Oh, heck no!" exclaimed neighbor Perry Mitchell, a father of 6 girls. "I can tell you my kids won't be going across the street."

Whether in the city or the suburbs, it's up to citizens to be aware -- by using your sheriff's department's sex offender search website.

"We tell the community to use it as an investigative tool, " said Detective Katie Oleksiak from the sex offender unit of the Cuyahoga Sheriff's Office. "Whether it's for your neighborhood, to buying a house, to even dating, or a new neighbor."

Other states with similar residency restrictions for sex offenders are now considering attaching criminal penalties for violations. Such a bill is currently pending in the New York state legislature.

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))

Ken Cuccinelli exploits Predator Panic (tm) to revive defeated anti-sodomy laws

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.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2013/07/18/ken_cuccinelli_the_republican_candidate_for_governor_in_virginia_wants_to.html

Ken Cuccinelli Really Wants to Ban Oral Sex

By Amanda Marcotte

 | 

Posted Thursday, July 18, 2013, at 11:49 AM

YIKES

Screen grab from www.vachildpredators.com

Ken Cuccinelli wants to keep kids safe from sexual predators by banning oral and anal sex—between consenting adults. On a website his campaign just launched, Cuccinelli, the Republican candidate for governor in Virginia, paints himself as the only real protector of children, because of his efforts as Virginia attorney general to reinstate a law banning all naked fun-time acts besides vaginal intercourse. 

Cuccinelli's claim is that only by reinstating the Crimes Against Nature law, which Cuccinelli dishonestly calls the "Anti-Child Predators Law," can the state of Virginia prosecute people who rape children. Never mind that rape is already illegal, child molestation is already illegal, and statutory rape is already illegal. His website says that a full 90 sexual predators may come off the sex offenders registry (the site is vague on how) if oral and anal sex isn't banned outright for everyone, a claim that hopefully will remind voters that enforcing such a law would mean that adults having consensual sex in their bedrooms could become "sex offenders" if they're caught. 

Like his peers, Cuccinelli knows that you're supposed to come up with a reason these anti-sex measures aren't really about sex, but never has a man been so bad at maintaining a cover story. He swears that the law won't be enforced as written to prosecute consensual sex between adults, even though the Supreme Court ruling that made this type of ban unconstitutional, Lawrence v. Texas, was in fact about arresting a couple having consensual sex in private. Cuccinelli's "just trust me" argument is especially hollow in light of his past behavior, as reported by Think Progress:

In 2004, a bipartisan group in the Virginia General Assembly backed a bill that would have brought the law in line with the Supreme Court’s ruling. They proposed to eliminate the Crimes Against Nature law’s provisions dealing with consenting adults in private and leaving in place provisions relating to prostitution, public sex, and those other than consenting adults. Cuccinelli opposed the bill in committee and helped kill it on the Senate floor.

Oral sex is almost universal among sexually active adults. The Centers for Disease Control finds that nearly 82 percent of men and 80 percent of women ages 15-44 admit to having had it. The Kinsey Institute's research shows that nearly everyone who is having vaginal intercourse also admits to having oral sex. The very few who don't cop to this no doubt want to keep their jobs working for the Cuccinelli campaign.

Rachel Jeantel on Piers Morgan: Zimmerman "Might be a Rapist"

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:

Well, Joe Arpaio must have FINALLY done something wrong, because NOW he wants to harass registrants with a "volunteer posse"

It is hard to believe that America's DUMBEST sheriff, Joe Arpaio, has never been featured in the long history of the Shiitake Awards. And we all know that politicians tend to focus on sex offender issues only as a last resort, if they are in a scandal, or if that person needs to look like he's working. Well, we know Sheriff JOKE isn't a stranger to the scandals, nor has he needed attention. Thus, one can only wonder what his motivation is behind his "volunteer posse" to check on registered citizens. Did Joe FINALLY cross the line and is in danger of getting in trouble?

http://www.kpho.com/story/22833522/sex-offenders-are-they-obeying-the-law

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.

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!

http://www.bakersfieldnow.com/news/local/Registered-sex-offender-has-daughter-taken-away-after-bullet-arrest-214789391.html

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.

Jeanne Sager blatantly misquotes her own source on the Cafe Mom website

I generally leave the nominations for "Worst News Mutt" to real journalists or at least the more respected websites. I'm not really sure I'd put CafeMom up there as one of the better sites, but the blatant stupidity from Jeanne Sager at CafeMom is the reason this award was created.

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.

http://thestir.cafemom.com/big_kid/157765/mom_who_lost_custody_of

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.

FULL custody!

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?

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.

They are coming out of the woodwork-- Tragedy Vultures swoop in to exploit a tragedy to further careers

Let us be clear-- I believe the murder of an 8-year old girl in Florida is tragic and the person who did this should be punished. But what is truly sad is people are coming out of the woodwork.

For now I'll call these people "Tragedy Vultures," people like Mark Lunsford, Florida politician Janet Adkins, Ann Duggar from the Justice Coalition, and David Rowe of No Peace For Predators are exploiting the tragic BUT RARE case to further their agendas.

The Tragedy Vultures:

Mark Lunsford: Lunsford has been well represented here at the Shiitakes and is obviously looking for a quick buck since his meal ticket Hank Asher died.

"This guy apparently wasted no time in laughing in the face of law enforcement and legislators," Lunsford said. "I can feel every ounce of pain that her parents are feeling. It tears me up inside to know that another child has been senselessly murdered."

"We've got to come to some kind of solution for these children so they're not victims," Lunsford said. "Parents need to be educated. Law enforcement needs tools. Prosecutors need laws. Legislators, what do you need? Another child to be murdered?"

Ann Dugger, of the Justice Coalition, says the current laws are good ones, but she says dangerous offenders like Smith need to stay behind bars.

"If they're off the street, absolutely, they don't need to be around society," Dugger said. "They don't need to be around children. They don't need to be around their prey."

FloriDUH state Rep. Janet Adkins, R-Fernandina Beach -- “It is my intent to ensure that the Duval Delegation take action in reviewing the current laws that relate to sexual offenders and make the necessary changes to help ensure our children are protected from those that would cause them harm,” Adkins said in a statement. As a mother of two, Adkins said the case hit close to home for her.“My heart is broken for the family of Cherish Perrywinkle and those she has left behind,” she said. PS- VOTE FOR ME!

David Rowe, No Peace For Predators: Rowe is getting fat, I might add. He's spouting the same crap, harsher penalties and the like. What a waste of space.

As this case continues to play out in the media, expect to see more vultures circle Cherish's story.

Mug shot website sues Utah sheriff for jail photos

A private business extorting registered citizens for money is being sued in California, and mugshot magazines are facing challenges in court. They are for profit ventures designed to shame and humiliate people. But one company has the audacity to sue a sheriff for refusing to release mug shots to them. I dislike cops but in this instance I have to give props to this sheriff.

http://www.ksl.com/?sid=25367880&nid=148&title=mug-shot-website-sues-utah-sheriff-for-jail-photos

SALT LAKE CITY (AP) — The owner of a website that publishes inmate booking photos is suing a Utah sheriff for denying a public records request for more than a thousand mug shots.

The Salt Lake County Sheriff denied the records request in February, saying his office could refuse because it holds copyright control over the images.

Attorneys for Kyle Prall, who runs the website bustedmugshots.com, argue in documents filed last week in 3rd District Court that if the court doesn't overturn Sheriff Jim Winder's "wrong and selective denial," it would set a "dangerous precedent" beyond mug shots into broader rights of public access to government records.

In January, Winder stopped posting booking photos to his metro jail's online roster, citing websites such as Prall's that display the images and charge former inmates a removal fee. Some of the sites charge hundreds of dollars and then fail to follow through by removing image or identifying information.

The websites are using the records created by his office to hurt people and make money, he said.

"I believe that the practice of using these mug shots to belittle and abuse our citizens is immoral and repugnant," he said when discussing the websites in general during an interview Tuesday.

"A compassionate society does not utilize the scarlet letter," he said.

Former inmates say the websites make them pay twice for their crimes, and some have contacted Winder, sometimes mistakenly believing his office is cooperating with the websites and publications.

"This has a huge impact on these people's lives," he said. "It's hurting people."

Winder said after he took down the images from the sheriff's website, "people made kind of a mad dash to get them" and the office began receiving public records requests for batches of the mug shots, such as Prall's request.

Prall did not return further messages seeking comment.

According to information on bustedmugshots.com, the website will remove photos and information for free if a person can prove they were found not guilty or had the charges dismissed.

Otherwise, the website charges $98 to $178 to take down the information. The higher fee will buy a "rush" removal where the record is cleared within two business days instead of 20.

A statement on bustedmugshots.com says by publishing the photos and inmate information, such as details about the person's arrest, helps the public stay informed and safe.

Prall submitted a records request in late January seeking copies of mug shots for everyone arrested or booked into the Salt Lake County Jail this year from January 11 to January 27.

In February, the sheriff's office declined the request and said the 1,388 mug shots that fall in that time period were "protected materials to which access must be limited for purposes of securing or maintaining Salt Lake County's proprietary rights."

Prall appealed to the county council, which voted to uphold the denial, so now he's taking the issue to court.

"We think it's legally unfounded," said Prall's attorney David Reymann. "Mug shots have been public records and have been routinely released for many, many years."

Using words such as "bullies," "extortionists" and "trash," Salt Lake County Sheriff Jim Winder on Thursday blasted tabloid magazines and websites that post mug shots from his jail and then demand money for the pictures to be removed.

"This is a government agency saying 'we own the public records and we can refuse to release these records to the public,'" he said.

Reymann argues in court documents that if a government agency argues it can deny access because it holds the copyright to those records, "virtually all government records would be off limits to the public," and the state public records law "would be meaningless."

Winder called that argument "ridiculous" and said that just because the government produces a record doesn't mean it can be used for any and all purposes.

Earlier this year, the Utah Legislature passed and Gov. Gary Herbert signed a measure that aimed to prevent people from using jail booking photos for mug shot websites. The legislation bars county sheriffs from handing out a booking photograph unless the person requesting it signs a statement swearing they will not place the image in a publication or on a website that charges people to remove photos.

The law wasn't signed by the governor until April 1 and became effective on May 14.

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

"Award Winning" liberal blogger Meg Lanker-Simons threatens to rape herself

All of a sudden, the internet is abuzz with false allegation arrests. Thankfully in this instance, no one was falsely arrested. Rather, this woman made a threat of rape... against herself! What a fitting end to Child Abuse Awareness Month. Seeing some of the comments on this story in the media shows how deep the "rape culture" mantra has become embedded in our society.

Meg Lanker-Simons was a liberal blogger who won an award for her blog "Cognitive Dissonance," but now she's in the running for a different kind of award. A Shiitake Award! (As a side note, I lean to the left, so I'm going to join in on the political bashing. This girl is a dingbat.) Unfortunately, the rape-culture believers have fiercely defended her, even blaming "rape culture" for this false allegation.

(A second story with more pictures, screenshots, and coverage of a protest encouraged by Meg's false threat can be found HERE)

http://www.laramieboomerang.com/articles/2013/04/30/breaking_news/doc518002170be89677502843.txt

UW Police: Facebook post was a hoax -- UPDATED
Citation: UW woman 'admitted' making controversial statement
BY JOSHUA ROBERTS / JOSHR@LARAMIEBOOMERANG.COM • TUESDAY, APRIL 30, 2013


The University of Wyoming Police Department issued a citation Monday afternoon in Albany County Circuit Court for Meg Lanker-Simons, a woman allegedly threatened last week in a social media post authorities now contend was a hoax.

The citation is for interference, a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment up to a year and a fine up to $1,000.

"Subject admitted to making a controversial post on UW Crushes webpage and then lied about not doing it," according to the citation.

She is scheduled to appear at 9 a.m. May 13 in Circuit Court.

The post was made to the UW Crushes page April 24 on Facebook and described Lanker-Simons as "that chick that runs her liberal mouth all the time and doesn't care who knows it."

The post also referenced a graphic, sexual act against Lanker-Simons.

"One night with me and shes gonna be a good Republican (expletive)," the post read.

The post created a stir on social media and at the university, with school officials issuing statements denouncing the post against Lanker-Simons and campus police opening an investigation.

Lanker-Simons could not be reached for comment.

UW released a statement Tuesday afternoon regarding the citation.

"This episode has sparked an important discussion reaffirming that the UW community has no tolerance for sexual violence or violence of any type," UW spokesman Chad Baldwin said. "The fact that the Facebook post apparently was a fabrication does not change the necessity for continued vigilance in reassuring that we have a campus where everyone feels safe.

"It's important that this event does not undermine the progress that has been made in this area."

According to the UW statement, Lanker-Simons received the citation as a "result of false statements she made to the UW Police Department."

The citation followed a police interview of Lanker-Simons and a search of her computer equipment pursuant to a warrant, UW reported.

UW Police "obtained substantial evidence verifying that the offending Facebook post came from Lanker-Simons' computer, while the computer was in her possession."

Pamela Kandt, co-convener of the Episcopal Women's Caucus and a Casper activist, came to Lanker-Simons' defense Tuesday.

Last week, after the controversial post went public, Kandt lobbied university officials for a "swift response to this outrage."

"I will tell you, I believe Meg is innocent of this outrage," said Kandt, adding she believes the citation issued by police is a "classic case of blaming the victim."

Kandt said she has spoken with Lanker-Simons following the citation's issuance.

UW Police, Kandt said, "have bullied her and they have pulled a bluff."

"This is the worst episode of 'Law & Order' you can imagine," Kandt said.

She added, "I mean, my God, who would do this to herself?"

Sara Ylen's pathological lying finally catches up with her

Who is Sara Ylen, you ask? She is a fairly well known rape "victim." So why did I use quotation marks around the term "victim" just now? Because her entire rape claim is false. And in an attempt to get more attention, she filed a false rape claim. And another. And now, she finally got arrested for filing a false felony and tampering with evidence. She could get up to 14 years in prison. She should serve at least the same amount as the man she falsely accused.

Sara Ylen claimed she was raped by a man in a Meijer parking light in broad daylight then picked her victim at random off of the public sex offender registry (making her relevant for this blog). The man she accused was convicted after less than one hour of jury deliberation, despite absolutely no evidence other than Sara Ylen's testimony, and in 2003 the man was sentenced to the maximum penalty, 15-35 years.

So while a man sat in prison for years, the victim of a false accusation, Ylen got a lot of attention. Her false rape case was featured on the Oxygen TV series "Captured." She spoke at rape awareness events like "Walk A Mile In Her Shoes." She even claimed she was battling cancer as a result of HPV she supposedly received from the rape that never occurred.

She needs professional help. She has made multiple accusations over the years so I suggest civil commitment.

http://www.thetimesherald.com/article/20130502/NEWS01/305020049/Sara-Ylen-taken-into-custody


Sara Ylen taken into custody
In connection to assault report
 May 2, 2013   |   7 Comments

A 38-year-old Lexington woman was taken into custody Thursday on charges of tampering with evidence and reporting a false felony in connection with a sexual assault she reported to police Sept. 18. She could be arraigned as early as Friday.

Sara Ylen was arrested Thursday in Lexington and transported to the St. Clair County jail, Maria Miller, Wayne County assistant prosecuting attorney, said in an email.

A report of a false felony is punishable by up to four years, while tampering with evidence is punishable by up to 10 years, Miller said.

Officials said Ylen reported the attack while in St. Clair County, but said it happened in Sanilac County.

Sanilac County Sheriff Garry Biniecki said Ylen alleged she had injuries related to the rape and was showing signs of bruising. But officers were able to determine the injuries were makeup, Biniecki said.

The cases ended up being handled by Wayne County prosecutors after St. Clair County Prosecutor Mike Wendling asked the state attorney general’s office to reassign the case due to his office’s relationship with Ylen in the James Grissom case.

Grissom was prosecuted and convicted of sexually assaulting Ylen in 2003. She said the attack happened in the parking lot of the Fort Gratiot Meijer.

Following the conviction, investigators in Michigan, California and Colorado determined Ylen had reported she had been sexually assaulted in other instances but could not substantiate those crimes.

Charges against Grissom were dropped after the Michigan Supreme Court granted Grissom a new trial after learning of the unsubstantiated claims.

Wendling requested the dismissal instead of a new trial, citing the length of time since the alleged incident and new evidence that had been discovered.

Grissom was released from custody Nov. 19, after almost a decade behind bars.

Separately, Michigan State Police Detective Sgt. Brian Ferguson is conducting a fraud investigation involving Ylen.

Ferguson said the case has been handed over to the Sanilac County Prosecutor’s Office.

Lucy Higgins, administrative assistant for Sanilac County Prosecutor James Young, said the fraud case is still in the process of review.

Details about that case have not been released.

The Times Herald normally does not identify victims of sexual assault. Ylen was identified when she asked the paper to tell her story.

Valley Brook Oklahoma resident Bobby Burgess petitions us for an Everyday Zeroes Award

Bobby Burgess and his petition
for a Shiitake Award

How many times over the years has Hands Up ministries in Oklahoma been targeted by people determined to shut them down? More times than I can count. Once again, someone is trying to shut down one of the few  outreach ministries in Oklahoma (probably THE only one) that helps registered citizens who are struggling with homelessness.

This guy, Bobby Burgess, is gathering petitions to shut the program down. He's collected 150 signatures. But will he get enough signatures to win a 2013 Shiitake award? Stay tuned to find out.

In the meantime, maybe the guys at the coffee shop can start a petition against this guy.

http://newsok.com/loitering-sex-offenders-are-making-valley-brook-residents-uneasy/article/3803998/?page=1


Loitering sex offenders are making Valley Brook residents uneasy

Residents of Valley Brook, a small Oklahoma City suburb known for its strip clubs, are upset that convicted sex offenders are being allowed to work and hang around two local businesses.

VALLEY BROOK — Residents of this small Oklahoma City suburb best-known for its strip clubs and recent scandals are upset that convicted sex offenders are being allowed to hang around two local businesses in town.

During the last meeting of the town's Board of Trustees, a petition signed by more 150 Valley Brook residents was submitted to elected officials, detailing their concerns.

Town Trustee Lewis Nieman said residents are upset that Joe's Addiction — a coffee shop — and Free Store Boutique — a thrift store — are routinely admitting sex offenders from the nearby Hand Up Ministries trailer park.

On its website, Hand Up Ministries describes itself as “faith-based prison aftercare program for men and women that have just been released from prison.”

It's been widely publicized in recent months that convicted sex offenders are allowed to live in the trailer park, which is just across the street from Valley Brook.

“A lot of people are concerned about it,” Nieman said. “We've only got about 400 adults in town, so having more than 150 people sign the petition is a pretty good amount.”

The petition, started by Valley Brook resident Bobby Burgess, is seeking help from the town's Board of Trustees.

Burgess, who has four small children, said the sex offenders and other homeless people who hang around Valley Brook are gaining in numbers.

“I'm tired of them being a nuisance, hanging around the neighborhood,” he said. “They don't just hang around the coffee shop ... they hang around the creek that runs through here; they're always asking people for money and walking up and down the street at all hours of the day.”

Burgess said Valley Brook is home to many children, and he believes it's just a matter of time before something happens.

“Look, they may not all be sex offenders, but sex offenders are known to live over there (Hand Up Ministries),” he said. “A lot of the kids will talk to them, just because they've been taught not to be rude. You can imagine what will happen eventually ... given enough time.

Both Joe's Addiction and Free Store Boutique are in the same shopping center in Valley Brook. A handful of strip clubs and other businesses are clustered nearby. The town hall and police station are nearby, too.


The businesses and municipal complex line SE 59, the tiny town's northern border. Residents live south of the shopping center, in between Eastern Avenue and Crossroads Boulevard.

‘We don't discriminate'

The coffee shop's owner, Jamie Zumwalt, denied that her business is a haven for sex offenders.
“We allow anyone who wants to hang out there to do so,” Zumwalt said.

“And not just to drink coffee ... We have a food pantry on Saturdays for groceries; we have the Free Store for physical needs. ... We don't discriminate against anyone.”

Zumwalt said Joe's Addiction is more than a coffee shop. She said the businesses she runs in Valley Brook also offer free counseling services.

As for the sex offenders, Zumwalt said she hasn't had any problems with them.

“They are just like any of the other folks that we are helping,” she said. “Some of them are homeless, some are drug addicts or alcoholics. ... I'm unaware of any sexual problems ... from the folks who hang out there.”

The Rev. David Nichols, the founder of Hand Up Ministries, said he can't control where the sex offenders who live at his trailer park go or whom they interact with.

“I own the property and I have staff there, but they are not in prison anymore,” Nichols said. “It's up to the coffee shop whether they let them come there, not me.”

Nichols also said that most of the “sex offenders” who are concerning Valley Brook residents are likely homeless and not living at his trailer park.

“It's easy for them to blame me, but there are hundreds of homeless sex offenders living in that area — and all over the city,” he said.

“Most of them are not from my place.”

Next step

Nieman said local residents who signed the petition want the town's Board of Trustees to refuse to renew Zumwalt's business license, which would essentially put her out of business.

In Valley Brook, business owners must renew their business licenses once a year.

“I don't know if we're going to do that,” Nieman said. “We'll take it up at a future meeting and see what happens.”

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.

Bradford County FloriDUH sheriff Gordon Smith wants to increase vigilante violence to prevent crimes

It is not simply the proposal that Bradford County FL Sheriff Gordon Smith has issued that draws my ire, but the attitude of this guy. Just read the story below. That's Floridiot logic for you-- create crime to prevent crime.

http://www.actionnewsjax.com/content/topstories/story/No-more-hiding-out-for-sex-predators-in-Bradford/zfO5EERPZ0-CwMHhmDN76w.cspx


No more hiding out for sex predators in Bradford County

Reported by: Leslie Coursey Email: lcoursey@ActionNewsJax.com

Print Story Published: 4/08 5:38 pm Share Updated: 4/08 8:32 pm 

STARKE, Fla. -- "I don't want another victim," Sheriff Gordon Smith says it's that simple. 

To alleviate any confusion parents might have about where sexual predators live, he's posting big red signs, bearing the predator's names, in front of their homes.

"If you're selling Girl Scout cookies, if you're selling whatever, you'll know at that door lives a sexual predator," he said.

The sheriff says the idea came from his staff. He said parents kept calling with concerns. And when they looked, he said "We had more sexual predators in our community than all those other counties, comparable to our size, we had more than all them together. So that's an issue."

Florida law states, as Sheriff, he can notify his community about sexual predators any way he sees fit.

"And as I see fit means putting up a sign," he said.

And if the predators have a problem with it, he said, "If they don't like it, they got an option. Leave!"

The Sheriff's Office says the signs cost less than $10 a piece. They'll use inmate labor to post them this week, making the burden on the taxpayer minimal. 

The signs will only be posted at the homes of sexual predators, not sex offenders. The difference is that a predator is a either a repeat offender and/or their crimes are violent with a victim under 12.

Nathan willing to risk life as a registered sex offender for TV ratings

I have seen plenty of reality TV stunts but this one has to be the dumbest yet. So this show is apparently some reality show/ documentary much like Borat. I don't know if this is just a silly act, a farce like Borat was, but it does illustrate the insanity of the registry. If it is all fake, it is clever writing.

Nathan himself says this:

"We've all seen escape artists risk death before, but tonight, I'm going to risk something even worse. Becoming a registered sex offender for life."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/08/nathan-for-you-claw-of-death-sex-offender-stunt_n_3038437.html


This week's "Nathan For You" is unlike anything we've ever seen. Taking a risk that could result not only in embarrassment but imprisonment, Nathan Fielder handcuffs himself to a metal frame and gives himself 90 seconds to escape before a robotic claw pulls down his pants in front of a crowd of children, with a police officer standing by to arrest him, thus making him him a sex offender for life.

Why? Nathan explains that he needs to show audiences that he is willing to risk his own embarrassment in addition to embarrassing the business owners he features on his show, but we think it's a spot-on satire worthy of Sacha Baron Cohen, examining and mocking the lengths that American reality shows go to in order to exploit its stars. If people are willing to humiliate themselves on "Fear Factor" and "Killer Karaoke" to get on TV, who's to say that they won't risk being in the sex offender registry for some airtime, too?

So does Nathan escape the handcuffs, or does he get arrested? We've seen the show, but our lips are sealed -- we simply must insist that you watch on Thursday at 10:30 to find out what happens.