UPDATE: Sex Offenders and the FHA Reform Act of 2010 (Housing Issues)

7-6-2010 Washington DC:

The FHA Reform Act of 2010 (HR 5072) is a good bill designed to help many folks with their mortgages, many nearing foreclosure. The bill was moving through Congress and had nothing to do with sex offenders, UNTIL it came out of committee and on the House floor, Rep. Edwards of Texas proposed Amendment 12. In essence it required that "individuals to certify that they have not been convicted of a sex offense against a minor in order to get an FHA mortgage."

Folks may remember the controversy over an amendment (Amendment 12) made to this bill, if not you can read about it HERE.

There is no doubt that this is vindictive, and in fact, simply not logical. Here is why: If a person murdered a child, they would be permitted to get a FHA mortgage and certify as mentioned. Is that logical? No! If someone was driving drunk and killed several children crossing the street at a school crosswalk, they too would be permitted to get a FHA mortgage and certify as required. Is this logical?

The point is simple, why should Congress discriminate against certain sex offenders, when worse crimes -also against children- are allowed to pass and get a FHA mortgage.

The fact is, no matter what a person was once convicted of, if they are allowed to return to society, it makes no sense to hinder their re-entry back into society. The question here is not based on safety of anyone, even children, it based on pure hatred of that type of crime. Drug offenders who supplied children with drugs are allowed to get a FHA mortgage and certify, and their citims suffer a lifetime.

Rep. Edwards said "and we want to continue to discourage any kind of federally financed reward or taxpayer-backed benefit to sex offenders reentering our communities. For example, sex offenders are already banned from residing in section 8 public housing."

Notice how Rep. Edwards misconstrues the issue, claiming -we already do not allow them in section 8 housing- but he ignores WHY; there it is a safety of other residents issue, not so with granting a mortgage.

No other federal law enacted by Congress is based on hatred of the offender or crime, they are all based on some context of "Safety." Congress is simply not allowed, under the constitution, to base laws on hatred, they are supposed to prevent hatred.

OK, so whats my point? Simple, when the House passed the bill it sent it on to the Senate, and they referred it to their Committee on Banking, Housing & Urban Affairs, and there the bill sits. That committee has a contact page (CLICK HERE) it is a form which folks can type in their personal information and a comment.

So folks, here is the mission, respectfully and as concise as possible -mentioning a few scenarios- ask them why is that Amendment -which clearly is based on hatred not safety in any context- is allowed to be in a bill that may help so many folks?

Most folks know, committees rarely read the details of a bill, so pointing out THIS PORTION is crucial to getting it withdrawn. The mission is simple, if every one of the 700,000 RSOs and their family members made one contact, I'd bet they would pull that amendment. This is the last opportunity to get it changed.

For now, have a great day & a better tomorrow.
eAdvocate

PS: I'll bet there are folks out there who can even come up with better scenarios, if so please post a comment here for others to see.

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Law limits sex felons living in halfway houses

Somewhere in this insane law I see two issues that may come out of it: 1) A Right of Association issue in some context; and, 2) Families, if they are forced to move because a son/daughter becomes a sex offender and their is another one living in the same apartment building or complex. And, there just may be other issues too. This appears to be based on banishment rather than safety of anyone.

7-5-2010 Tennessee:

Offenders have fewer places in TN to start over

A new law limiting the number of sex offenders who live in Tennessee halfway houses likely will appease worried neighbors but make it tougher for former felons to rebuild their lives.

A bill signed by Gov. Phil Bredesen last week forbids more than two registered sex offenders from living in the same residence. Rep. Mike Turner, D-Old Hickory, sponsored the bill after receiving numerous complaints about two halfway houses with eight registered sex offenders apiece in his district. Neighbors worried about their children's safety at bus stops and elsewhere, he said.

"We're seeing halfway houses sprout up in my district, the county, the state," Turner said. "There were real concerns of having houses with sex offenders in the community. I know sex offenders have to be housed somewhere. It should be away from neighborhoods, maybe in industrialized zones."

The law applies to felons no matter how old their victims. It does not apply to residential treatment facilities approved by the state, which differ from halfway houses.

Halfway houses, which don't provide treatment but require residents to follow various rules and curfews, have been considered a better alternative than imprisoning non-violent offenders. The recent Department of Correction budget crisis put an emphasis on halfway houses, because offenders pay a weekly fee for room and board.

Six halfway houses

But out of the 62 halfway houses listed on the Tennessee Board of Probation and Parole's website, only six take sex offenders. Four of those are in Middle Tennessee and the other two are in Memphis.

Probation and Parole has no oversight of the halfway houses, but they refer sex offenders under their supervision to them, said spokeswoman Melissa Mc-
Donald. They are working on notifying the halfway houses of the new law.

"This change will present some new challenges for that particular offender population," she said. "But, as they have always done, our officers will work with offenders who need placements to find appropriate situations for them."'

Harrison Fields was helping his son, James Fields, 39, find a halfway house when the registered sex offender was released from prison in Tiptonville and given a bus ticket to Nashville. The older Fields said he didn't know about the new law. His son was turned away from a halfway house and is staying at the Nashville Rescue Mission, Fields said.

Father's 'mixed feelings

"I have mixed feelings about this," said HarrisonFields, of Brunswick, Ga. "I understand the side of a victim, and I know people don't want sex offenders in their neighborhoods. Everybody needs a place to live. For these people, they will wind back in prison if there is nowhere to go."

Bill Brown, director of admissions at Christian Homes Ministries in South Nashville, was unaware of the new law.

Brown said that most people in halfway houses come from prison or substance abuse treatment centers and many are court ordered. In Tennessee, most halfway houses are privately owned and not run by state government or treatment centers. Even before the law, he stopped taking sex offenders because of neighborhood pressure.

"It's very frustrating because of the way sex offenders are marked," Brown said. "They can't get jobs. We have to remember that we are paying for them to be in prison. The laws are inconsistent, especially for the ones trying to be good citizens." ..Source.. Chris Echegaray • THE TENNESSEAN

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Churches grapple with whether to welcome convicted sex offenders

7-5-2010 National:

"All are welcome" is a common phrase on many a church sign and Web site. But what happens when a convicted sex offender is at the door?

Church officials and legal advocates are grappling with how -- and whether -- people who have been convicted of sex crimes should be included in U.S. congregations, especially when children are present:

-- Last month, a lawyer argued in the New Hampshire Supreme Court for a convicted sex offender who wants to attend a Jehovah's Witnesses congregation with a chaperone.

"What we argued is that the right to worship is a fundamental right and the state can only burden it if it has compelling interest to do so, and then only in a way that is narrowly constructed," said Barbara Keshen, a New Hampshire Civil Liberties Union attorney for Jonathan Perfetto, who pleaded guilty in 2002 to 61 counts of possessing child pornography.

-- On Monday, the Seventh-day Adventist Church added language to its manual saying that sexual abuse perpetrators can be restored to members only if they do not have unsupervised contact with children and are not "in a position that would encourage vulnerable individuals to trust them implicitly." Garrett Caldwell, a spokesman for the denomination, said the new wording in the global guidelines tries to strike a balance between protecting congregants and supporting the religious freedom of abusers in "a manifestation of God's grace."

-- On Thursday, a law took effect in Georgia that permits convicted sex offenders to volunteer in churches if they are isolated from children. Permitted activities include singing in the choir and taking part in Bible studies and bake sales.

The Rev. Madison Shockley, pastor of Pilgrim United Church of Christ in Carlsbad, Calif., which publicly grappled with whether to accept a convicted sex offender three years ago, said he hears from churches several times a month seeking advice on how to handle such situations.

"The key lesson for churches is this: The policy, however it winds up, must be a consensus of the congregation," Shockley said. "I talked to so many pastors who decided they're going to make the decision because they know what's theologically and spiritually right -- and that's absolutely the wrong thing to do."

Shockley's church will soon commission a minister to address the prevention of child sex abuse; the church also distributes a 20-page policy on protecting children and dealing with sex offenders. He declined to say how the church handled its admission of a known abuser in 2007, citing the congregation's limited-disclosure policy.

Beyond the thorny legal questions, theologians also find that there are often no easy answers to the quandary of protecting children and providing worship to saints and sinners alike.

"My own theology of forgiveness is not that it's a blanket statement -- 'You are forgiven; go and sin no more,' " said the Rev. Joretta Marshall, professor of pastoral theology at Texas Christian University's Brite Divinity School. "Part of what we have to do is create accountability structures, because damage has been done."

Sometimes, legal and religious experts say, crimes are so severe that convicted offenders must lose their right to worship.

New Hampshire Assistant Attorney General Nicholas Cort argued in court documents that Perfetto should not be permitted to change the conditions of his probation to attend a Manchester congregation, because "restricting the defendant's access to minors was an appropriate means of advancing the goals of probation -- rehabilitation and public safety." Barbara Dorris, outreach director of Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, said it may be possible for convicted offenders to attend services if "proper safeguards are in place" but that offenders "forfeit many rights when you commit this kind of a felony." In other cases, the wording of laws has made it difficult for offenders who want to worship to be able to attend church legally.

In North Carolina, lawyer Glenn Gerding is representing James Nichols, a convicted sex offender who is contesting a state statute that made it illegal for him to be within 300 feet of a church's nursery. He was arrested in a church parking lot after a service.

"Technically, a person could go to an empty church and violate the statute if that church has a nursery," said Gerding, whose client was convicted in 2003 of attempted second-degree rape and released from prison in 2008.

In Georgia, the Atlanta-based Southern Center for Human Rights successfully argued for the removal of a legal provision that would have prevented registered sex offenders from volunteering at church functions, said Sara Totonchi, executive director of the center.

Experts say churches need to abide by state laws and be prepared to handle the possible presence of sex offenders, which could mean ministering to them outside the church building.

Steve Vann, co-founder of Keeping Kids Safe Ministries in Ashland City, Tenn., said that children's safety must be paramount but that giving convicted abusers social support could help reduce additional offenses.

"We talk about covenant partners," he said, using his ministry's phrase for chaperones. "They're not just there to watch what the person does. They're there to assist the person in spiritual growth."

Andrew J. Schmutzer, a professor at Moody Bible Institute in Chicago, is editing a book titled "The Long Journey Home," which includes essays from theologians and ethicists about how churches can both address sexual abuse and predators.

"The churches are on the cusp of trying to figure out what they can do," he said, " without scaring the public and without breach of confidentiality." ..Source.. by Adelle M. Banks

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

The Conversation: The Sex Offender Registry

7-5-2010 National:

The Forbes.com community argues all sides of this controversial list.

Last week Forbes Opinions columnist Lenore Skenazy pushed buttons with her incendiary column "Shred Your Sex Offender Map." It is well worth reading, not that everyone agrees with her premise: The registry is useless and hurts more than it helps.

No need to go into what it means to be a sex offender: a person who commits a sex crime. If only, laments Skenazy. What it really means shifts from one legal jurisdiction to another (sex with a prostitute will get you on the list in five states while it's urinating in public in 13 states). And is there a difference between a Mary Kay Letourneau, convicted of raping her 12-year-old student, and someone who was caught in a victimless FBI sting on Craigslist? Besides two years in prison for the former and six years for the latter, nothing as far as the registry and its fear factor are concerned.

She also points to all the wasted police time and attention in tracking the list. And what about the thought of your own child winding up a registered sex offender for dating the wrong high school freshman, for chrissake?

To date the column has 87 comments and an active discussion on ForbesWoman's Facebook page. Here, a highlight reel of some the most concise and spirited statements from the community.

LastTrain, a commenter on Forbes.com wrote: "The registry is filled with low- and no-risk offenders--people falsely accused, people lied to by someone underage, people who have been framed, even older teens who have offered a younger teen a ride in their car. There are also many legitimate sex offenders who are dangerous, repeat offenders."

But how is a concerned community member to know the difference when they're scanning the registry? LastTrain continued: "You will see an offender and a crime listed for them. You think you can tell the difference between someone who is a violent offender and someone who was a 19-year-old who had consensual sex with his girlfriend who happened to be three years younger? If so, you must possess some special powers. Both offenses can be listed as 'Aggravated Sexual Assault with Force.'"

The story of just such a charge came from rsolfighters, who shared how her husband of 14 years was charged for a sex offense at age 18 when he slept with a coed one year his junior at a college party.

A guilty plea and community service led to being grandfathered into Adam's Law, a 2006 child safety act named for Adam Walsh, and Megan's Law, which requires airing sex offenders' laundry lists of dirty deeds to the public for life. "Because of the restriction laws, we can't choose to live or accept jobs where we want to," she said. "The police have to check up on him every month to make sure he is living where he is [registered]. It's a waste of their time."

Nearly a third of the comments on Forbes.com told of their own stories of those of friends or family members who were placed on the registry for various reasons. In most instances teens were placed on the registry for dating girls just months younger, and their lives "are ruined."

By and large, though, commenters (often parents of young children) were unforgiving of sex offenders and appalled that Skenazy would think otherwise.

"Thank goodness for the Sex Offenders Registry," said ErnieB. "Not only is it helpful it is a right of every citizen to know if a sexual deviate is living in close proximity to their family. If you believe you have been wrongly singled out, then you should fight to get the registry changed. But don't take away my right to know about perverts because part of the registry may need to be modified."

Diana Dietzschold Bourgeois on Facebook wrote: "I think everyone should know if there are sex offenders living in their neighborhood so we can protect our children. Seems like the people that did not break the law should have the rights…not the criminals."

"Oh yes," said Audrey Magee on Facebook. "I want to know! I have two children and I check the registry list for my neighborhood once a month and will do it until the day I die!"

Gail Marie Beliveau had little sympathy: "My understanding is that a sex offender cannot be 'cured.' If they are let out, the fact that they 'served their time' means nothing."

Going one step further, Nokuthula Banda said, "I think sex offenders should be locked away for good. Anyone who forces themselves on little kids, or anyone for that matter, does not deserve to be free."

Motherof5 used to feel the same way--until she did more research. "There are five sex offenders living in my ZIP code. We looked into all of them. None of them are what I would see as a risk. Yet all of them are having all of their rights taken away: they can't get a job, they can't visit their kids in school. As a mother, I want to protect my children. But to punish these people like this, when they don't pose a risk, is so wrong that I feel a great deal of empathy for these 'sex offenders.' You know the system is wrong when you now feel empathy for 'sex offenders.'"

Fascismbegone agrees: "Sex offender laws obviously need reform so that we focus on the truly dangerous only. The original intent of Megan's Law was to do just this, but greedy politicians expanded laws beyond belief for their own benefit…We need reform."

But how? Pitbull 2010 said, "I think the Dugard case [referring to Jaycee Dugard, who was found after going missing 18 years] illustrates in a graphic way that the registry experiment is a dismal failure. We need to reform the laws and take them back to their original purpose, which was to be a tool for law enforcement only, and only repeat or violent offenders should be required to sign it. "

"What we should focus on is creating filters," agreed Allison 2010, "ways to separate the dangerous, risky criminals from the pack." ..Source.. by Meghan Casserly

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

UPDATE: Supplemental Guidelines - ALL Suggested Comments Together

DEADLINE for Commenting: 7-13-2010 11:59 PM

The NEW Supplemental Guidelines affecting SORNA registrants were posted in the Federal Register on 5-14-2010. Within those proposed guideline changes are good and helpful (i.e., those affecting juveniles, ) changes. We are not suggesting ANY comments to those proposed changes as they are fine as written.

However, there are other proposed changes which infringe on registrants personal rights, some constitutional, and even curtail registrants movements in the community and on the Internet. There is one which even suggests monitoring registrants Internet usage and maybe even their e-mails. These are the ONLY types of proposed changes we have suggested folks comment on. To that end, the following are suggested comments about the NEW Supplemental Guidelines.

For those who do not know what to write and comment, and would rather use the suggested comments, and read the supporting reasoning later on, ALL of the following "Suggested Comments" have links back to the explanations, if you wish to read them. At the end of this post are instructions of WHERE to POST Comments, so folks may simply copy and paste personal or the suggested comments into the Regulations.gov form. And, "Anonymous comments" are possible, no personal information is required.

---

The following suggested comments is from this commentary: Action Alert: Supp. Guidelines - Section I (B Internet Identifiers) Part-3

Note: To get everything into a comment that needs to be there, the following suggested comment has been carefully worded so that it DOES NOT violate the Regulations.gov 2,000 character limit. The comment is 1,984 characters including spaces, so if you modify it, be careful lest you violate the 2,000 limit.

Accordingly, an appropriate comment might go like this:

OAG Docket No. 134

To Whom It May Concern:
Acknowledgement forms are used to prove the agency has complied with due process (notice of registrant obligations). see Supplemental Guidelines (SG) "The acknowledgment forms signed by sex offenders regarding their registration obligations are ....definitive proof of such knowledge." FR 75 at 27365.

The Kid's Act (KA) identifies a registrant's right to challenge when denied access to a social networking site (SNS)(42 USC 16915b(b)(5)). But, forms fail to notify registrants of that (forms must function for obligations and rights), and the SG fail to establish any grievance system for improper denials. The KA fails to acknowledge need for a grievance system, and further denies registrants access to courts state and federal (42 USC 16915b(c)(5)(A)) for any claims related to the SNS use of the National Sex Offender Registry (includes the checking system) not identified in the KA (42 USC 16915b(c)(5)(B))(Intentional, Reckless, or other misconduct).

Registrants -in spite of any convictions- have 1st Amend. right of "Free Speech" and anonymous speech (McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission 514 U.S. 334 (1995)) as well as anonymous online speech (Doe v. Shurtleff, 2008 WL 4427594 (U.S. Dist Court, the District of Utah 2008) and ACLU of Ga v. Miller, 977 F. Supp. 1228 (N.D. Ga 1997)). And, registrants DO NOT lose their "rights of action" (42 USC 1983 and/or 1985 etc. or state equivalents) by virtue of being a registrant, nor can Congress or the states divest registrants of those "rights of action" for simply being a registrant in a sex offender registry. Such clearly violates ex post facto prohibitions.

Registrants need, and SG must provide a system to exhaust all administrative remedies -state and federal- before presenting claims to courts, including claims beyond the limitations set by KA (42 USC 16915b(c)(5)(B)). "Right of court actions" cannot be denied for simply being a sex offender registrant!

Thank you.

---

The following TWO suggested comments are from this commentary: Action Alert: Supp. Guidelines - Section I (B Internet Identifiers) Part-2

Accordingly, an appropriate comment might go like this:

OAG Docket No. 134
To Whom It May Concern:

All RSOs -in spite of convictions- are entitled to First Amendment right of "Free Speech" and anonymous speech ( McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission 514 U.S. 334 (1995)) as well as anonymous online speech ( Doe v. Shurtleff, 2008 WL 4427594 (U.S. Dist Court, the District of Utah 2008) and ACLU of Ga v. Miller, 977 F. Supp. 1228 (N.D. Ga 1997)).

In spite of erroneous implications that, "all RSOs are online sexual predators," a claim which allowed the Kid's Act to become law, there is no evidence that RSOs are, or will become, such people. The implication has further damaged RSOs' Internet reputation and character worldwide, causing a hostile society, hampering rehabilitation and reentry into the community.

Supplemental Guidelines must PROHIBT ALL INTERNET -searching or monitoring of RSO Internet Identifiers found in the "checking system" (including accessing of Internet accounts)- ( all suggested by 42 USC 16915b(c)(3)(D) "Rule of Construction") absent probable cause of a crime. RSO personal rights must be addressed in the SG. RSOs regularly engage in non criminal activity and speech, conversing with family, friends acquaintances and when discussing political issues resulting from their status as a RSO.

Finally, some of the "checking system" Internet Identifiers lead to personal bank accounts, medical records and other family matters, such implicating different constitutional and statutory rights, state and federal. No one has any right to this personal non criminal information, more reasons why the Supplemental Guidelines must PROHIBIT use of the Internet Identifiers in the "checking system." Without controls RSOs have no way to protect this life critical information.

Thank you.

Accordingly, an appropriate comment might go like this:

OAG Docket No. 134

To Whom It May Concern:
The Kid's Act vests RSOs with a right to challenge a denial to a social networking website, when the website bases its denial on information from the checking system (42 USC 16915b(b)(5)(A)).

However, there is no "Grievance System" for RSOs to exercise their First Amendment right to grieve a illegal denial by a social networking website, to the U.S. AG (or State equivalent), those who control the checking system.

Examples of Illegal denials: If the SNS website fails to provide a RSO with a timely "Notice" -or- a "Notice" as outlined in the Kid's Act (42 USC 16915b(b)(5)(A)).

The Supplemental Guidelines MUST make allowances for such a grievance system given the provisions of the Kid's Act (42 USC 16915b(b)(5)(A)).

Thank you.

---

The following TWO suggested comments are from this commentary: Action Alert: Supp. Guidelines - Section I (B Internet Identifiers) Part-1

Accordingly, an appropriate comment might go like this:

OAG Docket No. 134.

To Whom It May Concern:
THIRD PARTY VENDORS and OTHER JURISDICTIONS: Prohibition of publishing registrants e-mail address and other Internet identifiers publicly, MUST be EXTENDED, to third pseudo-jurisdictions who often have or run (as a contracted service)local public sex offender websites. (ex: Offender Watch) This supplemental guideline wording appears to exclude "many" who may not protect registrants' information if they are provided registrants' information, and registrants may suffer civilly or criminally. These need to be regulated or denied registrants' information.

Thank you.

Accordingly, an appropriate comment might go like this:

OAG Docket No. 134.

To Whom it May Concern:
DISTRIBUTION OF INTERNET Ids by means OTHER THAN PUBLIC WEB SITE: To allow such distribution -without notice and specific registrant approval- would violate all registrants' federal privacy rights (Title 5 USC 552a(b)), and the Terms of Agreements registrants have with Yahoo, Google, etc. which hold registrants responsible for their Id's security and use.

Should specific Internet Id's be released to someone, registrant would have no way to track who the unknown party is, or how they use the ID, and any misuse would make registrant responsible and may even result in criminal charges. Registrants have a right (5 USC 55a(c)(3)) to know who the unknown party is, and a system must be created to specifically notify and obtain a registrant's approval before handing out private Internet information.

Registrants Internet character and reputation have already been stained by politics and the media treatment of all registrants, a registrant does not need some unknown person making matters worse and possibly placing them or their family in harms way.

Thank you..

---

The following TWO suggested comments are from this commentary: REVISED: Supplemental Guidelines - Section II (A International Travel)

Accordingly, an appropriate comment might go like this:

OAG Docket No. 134

To Whom It May Concern:
The Supplemental Guide states: "SG Section II Interjurisdictional Tracking and Information Sharing-- A. International Travel: Certain features of SORNA and the SORNA Guidelines require the Department of Justice, in conjunction with other Federal agencies, to develop reliable means for identifying and tracking sex offenders who enter or leave the United States. See 42 U.S.C. 16928; 73 FR at 38066–67."

42 USC 16928 states: "REGISTRATION OF SEX OFFENDERS ENTERING THE UNITED STATES. The Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall establish and maintain a system for informing the relevant jurisdictions about persons entering the United States ..."

42 USC 16928 does not permit preventing or controlling registered sex offenders who chose to LEAVE the United States.
Thank you.

Accordingly, an appropriate comment might go like this:

OAG Docket No. 134

To Whom It May Concern:
Given that, 42 USC 16928 imposes a duty on the USAG (and other federal agencies) to inform relevant jurisdictions of persons -entering the United States- who are required to register, 42 USC 16928 -in no way- permits restrictions on DOMESTIC travel (movement within the United States) of ALL registrants in every state registry.

To construe 42 USC 16928 as the Supplemental Guideline does, is overreaching and extending it to do things, it simply, is not authorized to do.

Finally, it cannot be forgotten that many RSOs are part of a family unit, and short of eradicating these family units, these overreaching controls impermissibly affect the entire family unit.
Thank you.

---

The following TWO suggested comments are from this commentary: ACTION ALERT: Supplemental Guidelines - Section II (C Acknowledgement Forms)

Accordingly, an appropriate comment might go like this:

OAG Docket No. 134

To Whom It May Concern:
State acknowledgment forms FAIL to notify registrants of FEDERAL SORNA requirements, FEDERAL Guidelines (which interpret SORNA and subtle points) and Sec. 2250 requirements, but ONLY mention what is required by State registry law.

The FAILURE of the State acknowledgement forms to notify -ALL REGISTRANTS- of the above, places certain registrants in peril of arrest, prosecution and prison for doing many things customary to daily life. i.e., registrants living near state borders customarily attend family church services, medical appoints, do shopping, etc., and these may be in a bordering state. The FAILURE to notify registrants, of Sec. 2250 at least, places registrants in peril if stopped by police. Registering in the bordering state is even frustrated or impossible because there is no residence to report in that state.

Further, a death of a family member, or friend, may require ANY registrant to cross state lines (temporarily or for several days) or may require travel to another country. The FAILURE of State acknowledgment forms to notify registrants of how to handle such emergencies, and vacations that cross state lines for more than 3 days, all place registrants in peril.

State acknowledgement forms are inadequate in many respects, mainly forms FAIL to notify registrants of SORNA requirements including Federal Guidelines interpreting SORNA, and Sec. 2250.

Thank you.

Accordingly, an appropriate comment might go like this:

OAG Docket No. 134

To Whom It May Concern:
Neither the 2010 Supplemental Guidelines nor the 2008 Final Guidelines require states to notify registrants of changes in Federal or State laws, when they do change.

The State acknowledgement forms need to function as forms that notify, not just as forms used to prosecute registrants when they fail to follow requirements of Federal or State law.

Thank you.

---

The following suggested comment is from this commentary: Action Alert: Concerns with Supp. Guidelines - Section IV (Retroactive Classes)

Accordingly, an appropriate comment might go like this:

OAG Docket No. 134

To Whom It May Concern:

The supplemental guideline (IV. Retroactive Classes) brings sex offenders who are no longer in the criminal justice system, which includes former sex offenders whose registration terms have expired, back under SORNA requirements, if they commit a NEW felony or misdemeanor, including those which are not sex offenses.

It is discriminatory to force sex offenders to return to the criminal justice system (which includes SORNA requirements [see SG]), based on NEW non sex offenses, when non sex offenders are not required to return to the criminal justice system (in any fashion similar to SORNA), based on NEW non sex offenses.

Clearly the Supplemental Guideline (IV. Retroactive Classes) is discriminatory, based on felonies and misdemeanors, and violates equal protection under the law.

Thank you.

---

WHERE TO POST COMMENTS:
OK, are your comments ready? Or, above are "suggested comments" (background color is yellow), you can use if you wish, but each must be a separate comment on Regulations.gov

Remember, you can submit a comment as "Anonymous," no personal information is required.
Read carefully so that your comment will appear as "Anonymous."

So click here:
http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#docketDetail?R=OJP-2010-0001

Look on the lower left where it says "Comment Due 7-13-10 11:59 PM" just click on that and enter what you have prepared, or the above suggested comments, remember to copy each as a separate comment.

---

END OF POST

---

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Suspect's death haunts wife, witnesses

7-5-2010 Ohio:

Police: Man committed 'suicide by cop'

The flashbacks and nightmares don't come as often, but they still can creep up with surprising intensity.

"It's almost like I can smell the smoke and the diesel fuel, and I hear the sirens and the helicopters," said Calvin Loyer. "It's just eerie."

A career trucker for 30 years, Loyer hasn't driven a big rig since July 7, 2009, when the driver of a white Cadillac came left of center on a Columbus freeway, fixed his eyes on Loyer and hit him head-on.

"I can see his facial features vividly, just like I'm looking at a photograph of him," he said.

The man in Loyer's head, the one he can't shake, is Abram Bynum.

A year has passed since Bynum, facing a 19-count indictment that accused him of being the "High Desert Serial Rapist" of Lancaster, Calif., drove into the path of Loyer's tanker truck on I-70 near Pickerington. Witnesses and police think Bynum was trying to end his life.

When that failed, a completed Columbus police investigation found, Bynum feigned having a gun to draw the fire of pursuing officers.

"It's really burned in my head," Officer Timothy O'Donnell told investigators later. "He looks disgusted or bent out of shape, and he's got this look in his head, like 'What do I gotta do to get you guys to shoot at me?' That's what I remember."

"I do not recall the suspect saying anything," Officer Emanuel P. Edwards said. "I do recall seeing his face before he raised his hands and pointed as if he was going to shoot us. He would have what I describe as a smirk on his face at that time."

When it was over, six officers fired 51 shots between them. The autopsy documented 23 gunshot wounds.

The consensus remains that Bynum, 35, committed "suicide by cop." A Fairfield County jury cleared the six officers of wrongdoing, and an internal review found they were within Police Division policy to shoot Bynum.

Sgt. Rich Weiner, a division spokesman, said dashboard video from one police cruiser shows the split-second decision officers made under pressure. One moment they're trying to save Bynum from the wreckage. The next, they're forced to shoot him.

"There is nothing that can prepare an officer for the moments after they've pulled that trigger," Weiner said.

The aftershocks of that afternoon linger for others.

The events left Vicky Begue of Pickerington thankful that she and her son went their separate ways that day. Otherwise, he might have been driving just ahead of her, and right into Bynum's path.

The events left Bynum's wife, a law student studying for the California bar, caring for their two children while hoping to clear her husband's name.

And they left Loyer struggling to be whole again.

Weiner said, "There are a lot of people here affected by what happened, people who just happened to be driving down the road that day, the truck driver who never would have imagined being involved in that crash, the family of the individual who was shot. They didn't choose for this to happen."

The mom

Vicky Begue saw the helicopter first.

She was headed to T.J. Maxx to buy a cross pendant for a necklace she was making for a friend. She was a few cars behind Loyer when he began to swerve.

"Then all of a sudden I see the cab jerk to a right angle," Begue said. "In the same moment, this Cadillac comes flying over the cab."

Oh my God, she thought. They're both dead.

She saw officers running, guns drawn. Fearing she was in their line of fire, she pulled beside Loyer's truck.

Fuel spilled onto the asphalt. She learned later that the main tanker was empty, but at that moment, she envisioned a conflagration enveloping the rig like the one in Alfred Hitchcock's The Birds.

This is going to be a fireball, she thought.

She fled, hearing the crackle of gunfire behind her. She called police later to tell them what she had seen.

Her thoughts still go to her 24-year-old son, Alex.

He was headed in the same direction for a dentist's appointment and was running late. As she waited on Rt. 256 to merge onto I-70 west, she noticed he was in traffic beside her, going straight to take Livingston Avenue.

He'd never make it on time going that route. She debated calling to chastise him: What are you doing? Get in front of me and take the freeway.

"I just left it alone, and I'll never forget that," said Begue, 57. "I could have been the one who sent my son to his death."

When she called him afterward, she was still shaking.

"Thank God you didn't go on the highway," she said.

The wife

Despite what authorities say, Christy Bynum does not believe her husband was the man who raped a 17-year-old California girl in 2004 after convincing her to hop in his car to get out of the rain.

She does not believe he was the man who raped a 38-year-old woman earlier that year, telling her, "Don't worry about it," when the victim screamed, "What did you do to me?"

Christy met Abram in 2000 while she was a student at Capital University law school. They moved to California because she was from there. They married in Malibu in 2005. They had two daughters, the youngest born in April 2009. He sold cars for a living, Chevys and Saturns and Hondas.

Christy Bynum questions the integrity of the California investigation and doubts the existence of DNA that detectives say linked her husband to five rapes.

She said her husband, visiting his family in Columbus last summer, told her he had voluntarily given police a sample of his DNA on June 29. He said he didn't know why they wanted it.

"I was probably more worried about it than he was," she said. "I was very upset with him for giving it to them without knowing exactly what they wanted it for. He was like, 'Hey, I don't have anything to hide. Let them exclude me.'"

Christy Bynum, 34, of Lancaster, Calif., doesn't believe that he was fleeing police that day or that he tried to commit suicide.

The couple last spoke that morning. She said he was excited to return to California. Their 4-year-old daughter, Skyler, is mildly autistic, and Bynum was devoted to her. He would take her to therapy, to the movies, to Chuck E. Cheese's. Over the phone when he was away, she would sing to him and recite her ABCs.

"There's no way he would have chosen to leave her," Christy Bynum said.

She said the family plans to sue Columbus police. She believes authorities and the media spread misinformation, including unproven allegations that he might have been Columbus' "Quick-Strike Rapist" who preyed on women in 2003 and 2004.

Sgt. Terry McConnell of the Columbus special victims bureau said last week that police did look at Bynum as a possible suspect in the local cases, which remain open.

"We are not closing those cases and associating them with him without better evidence," he said.

Christy Bynum said, "I don't believe he was a rapist, I don't believe he had an issue with rape, I don't believe he would have had to have raped anybody."

Timothy O'Quinn, one of the lead Los Angeles County detectives, knows she doubts their case. "It was something he had hid from his family very well, a hidden life," he said.

The trucker

Loyer seemed all right at first. He had done nothing wrong, after all.

Then the 58-year-old trucker sank into a deep depression. He slept fitfully, plagued by nightmares. He grew angry.

"After 30 years in driving all kinds of conditions and traffic from coast to coast and all points in between, how could this happen?" he asked.

He thinks about this, too: If Bynum hadn't hit Loyer's rig, would others have died? People such as Vicky Begue - in her Honda CR-V - might have been less likely to survive such a ferocious collision.

"I truly believe that he knew eventually he would be caught, and I don't think he intended to be caught alive," said O'Quinn, the L.A. detective.

Loyer was physically ready to return to trucking in November, but his doctors haven't signed off on him yet. They are fearful, just as he is, that he could suffer a panic attack while on the road.

So he stays home in Mount Gilead and collects workers' compensation. He and his wife try to make ends meet with the support of friends and family.

The dreams and flashbacks seem to be waning. That has to be something.

"It's not very much anymore that I see him." ..Source.. by Theodore Decker, THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Have a HAPPY and SAFE 4th of July AMERICA

---

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

S.C.'s tab $7.4M for predators

7-3-2010 South Carolina:

Treating each sex offender in program costs state about $63,000 per year

For 12 years, South Carolina has tried to protect the public by keeping its most-dangerous sex offenders locked up behind concrete walls and razor wire long after their prison sentences have ended.

But that sense of security comes at a steep price.

The state shells out about $7.4 million each year to treat those confined under the Sexually Violent Predator Act, which allows authorities to lock up some sex offenders indefinitely for the purpose of alternative care. That translates to about $63,000 per offender annually for each of the 119 predators in the program.

And that doesn't include the legal costs associated with the commitment process or the money spent on food, utilities and space within a state prison, state officials said.

South Carolina is one of 20 states to enact laws under which sex offenders can be jailed for life in the name of public safety. These measures gained traction in the 1990s when growing public fears about sex offenders coincided with prosperous times in which state budgets were flush with cash.

But a recent report by the Associated Press found that the costs for this get-tough tactic have soared far beyond what people envisioned at the time. An AP analysis found that states with civil commitment programs collectively will spend $500 million this year alone to treat 5,200 offenders deemed too dangerous to return to the streets.

Those costs have put the squeeze on many governments struggling to cut expenditures in a crippling recession that has forced layoffs, furloughs and deep program cuts. Though South Carolina spends a good deal less than many other states on its predator program -- New York spends $175,000 per inmate and California, $173,000 -- the effort is still a drain on already strained coffers.

Still, there appears to be little support among lawmakers in South Carolina and other states to pull back on these programs and be seen as soft on rapists and child molesters, the AP found. While states such as Colorado have put their money into increased supervision of sex offenders in the community, officials here insist it's just not worth the risk to let these predators out.

Sen. Mike Fair, a Greenville Republican who chairs the Senate Corrections and Penology Committee, said the predator program's growth comes at a "crummy time" from a budget perspective, "but I think we will continue to do whatever is necessary to keep that program funded."

"I think the public supports that as well," he said.

The state Department of Mental Health, which runs the predator program, has seen its overall budget drop 33 percent between 2008 and the coming fiscal year, for which about $147 million has been set aside for the agency, according to department figures.

While programs and services throughout the agency have been cut or curtailed as a result, the predator unit cannot be touched because it is mandated by state law, said Mark Binkley, general counsel for the department.

"The program continues to be a growth area, and it doesn't bear its share of cuts because it can't be cut," he said. "And that just magnifies the share of cuts on other programs."

It is anyone's guess where it will end, as more offenders are added to the unit and the population ages and requires more medical care. The number of predators in the unit has nearly doubled since 2005, as has the program's budget. This has led to concerns about space constraints as well.

Most of these predators are housed in a unit deep within the maximum-security Broad River Correctional Institution in Columbia, in a prison wing originally designed for death-row inmates. A small group of "medically fragile" offenders are kept at Columbia Regional Care Center, a private detention health care facility.

"Space is our critical issue," Binkley said. "Between the two facilities, we have found space for all of the residents and we are providing treatment for all of the residents, but it's very crowded."

The sexual predator act requires a court hearing, similar to a trial, to decide whether a person suffers from a mental or personality disorder that makes him likely to commit sexually violent acts. Once confined, offenders receive mental health treatment, drug and alcohol counseling and other services aimed at helping them control their behaviors.

Authorities have screened 5,498 offenders since the predator law was enacted in 1998. Of those, 192 offenders -- around 3.5 percent -- have been committed as sexually violent predators, said Mark Plowden, spokesman for state Attorney General Henry McMaster.

By comparison, there were 12,244 registered sex offenders walking the streets of South Carolina as of last week, according to the State Law Enforcement Division.

The AP analysis found wide disparities among states in the amount of time predators are confined for treatment. While California has returned nearly 200 offenders to its communities, no one in Minnesota's program as ever gotten out, the AP found.

In South Carolina, the courts have released 65 people from the state's program after treatment. Six others left in caskets after dying in the program.

Those who remain are considered too dangerous to live among us. Among those sent here: Kenneth R. Whitcraft of Berkeley County, who was involuntarily committed in 2002 following a 16-year prison term for forcing a 12-year-old boy to perform a sex act; Johnny Matthews, a janitor convicted of lewd acts on children at a North Charleston Head Start Center; and James Carl Miller, who sexually assaulted a 1-year-old in Lexington County in 1998.

Charleston County Associate Probate Judge Jack Guedalia headed a statewide committee that examined the predator program in 2005. He said the program is a necessary tool to protect the public and he hopes budget and space constraints don't drive officials to set more predators loose in the community.

"The problem, of course, is that these people are such high-risk offenders," he said. "What should be the cost of protecting all the kids and women out there from them? Where do you draw the line on something like that?" ..Source.. Glenn Smith, The Post and Courier

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

RSOL 2010 National Conference: Washington DC

Reform Sex Offender Laws (RSOL) National Conference News
Sex Offenders Meet Media

UD study says state wastes millions of dollars on treating low-risk juvenile sex offenders

Sex Offenders, Lawyers and the Burden of a Voice

---

---

---

---

---

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Sexually Violent Predator program needs more funds

As to those released in Virginia they talk about recidivism and trip wires, but there is no mention of the therapy programs which are obviously failing if recidivism exists. The catch catch catch talk tells us the focus is not on prevention, its on monitoring which is the failure of most government programs.

7-3-2010 Virginia:

Four years after the General Assembly toughened its laws in regards to sexually violent predators, the state is having a tough time dealing with the number of them in jail. And most aren’t going anywhere anytime soon.

The Virginia Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services (DBHDS) Commissioner James Stewart, III presented a report to the Senate Finance Committee last month, requesting more money to cover expenses for its growing detained population of “sexually violent predators,” or SVPs.

The Virginia Center for Behavioral Rehabilitation (VCBR) in Nottoway County and the SVP program spends roughly $91,000 for each of the 200 beds in Fiscal Year 2010. Stewart says the cost is high because the program has been in developmental stages.

The DBHDS has been in charge of individuals deemed SVP since 1998, when the General Assembly set up a system of screening sexual offenders that cloisters off the criminally dangerous ones just before they finished their sentences in prison. The General Assembly gave it legs in 2003 when it granted funding to the program.

Because Virginia is a civil commitment state, sexual offenders in their final 10 months of prison are evaluated and processed by committees in DBHDS.

“Cases recommended for SVP civil commitment by the Commitment Review Committee are tried in the Circuit Court and may be released, granted SVP conditional release, or civilly committed to VCBR,” said DBHDS spokeswoman Meghan McGuire via email.

Civil commitment is the policy keeping sexually violent predators under the state’s eye.

“In states that have civil commitment, you can’t keep those individuals in prison after their release date, it’s unconstitutional,” said Indiana Sex Offender Management and Monitoring Program (SOMM) program director Adam Deming. “You’ve got to classify them as a detainee or a civilly committed individual under statute because they were given a sentence at the time sentencing of their crime, so to keep them in the Department of Correction would be against the law.”

Former Florida SVP program director Deming oversees the process in Indiana, a non-civil commitment state. Sexually violent predators in Indiana are classified before they serve time, but they don’t feel the effects of that until after their release.

“When they are released from the department of corrections back into the community there are different supervision laws and registration laws that apply to them, such as life time parole, the requirement that they comply with GPS monitoring and life time registration, for example, as a sexually violent predator,” said Deming.

Indiana monitors sexually violent predators after release and has a 1 percent re-offense rate. Virginia cannot keep sexually violent predators under the department of corrections after they have served their sentence, so the DBHDS can sometimes keep them as detainees.

After the General Assembly directed DBHDS to build and operate a secure facility for these people in 2003, the department could only fill a few beds in a 48 bed, temporary section of the Southside Virginia Training Center deemed the VCBR.

In 2006, the General Assembly added more traits and offenses to the definition of a sexually violent predator, increasing the eligibility by 350 percent and causing the number of filled beds to rise steeply. The VCBR moved to a new $62 million facility in Nottoway County, where it now houses 300 beds and about 200 sexually violent predators.

Under the original list of qualifying crimes, the facility projected they would bring in one admission per month. Now they project 5 new additions per month and they brought in 10 in May 2010.

As the numbers increase, there is little relief in the form of released offenders.

The DBHDS has released about 20 predators since the 1998 distinction, several of whom have failed and returned to the facility, McGuire estimates. Two have re-offended, one caught in the prelude to a rape and the other caught with a camera snapping photos from under a partition in a woman’s dressing room.

“In the General Assembly, we love to make these policy decisions that are reactive, sometimes without regard to the fiscal impact, but we are not making it any easier to locate these people in the community with laws that we continue to pass,” said Sen. Thomas K. Norment (R-James City) at the meeting. “I’m not sure if we as a legislative body have reflected on the incidental costs of that as we tighten up the ability to place them in the community.”

Stewart said studies and experiences show there are “very few people who are successful” at rehabilitating back into society. There has been some promise for success in Indiana, he said.

“These people have typically burned most of their social bridges, so they don’t have family or friends who support them,” said Director of Sex Offender Services Steven Wolf. “We tend, because we use a community containment model in Virginia, we tend to catch people on these technical violations, that’s our trip wire, long before they become sexual violations.”

The DBHDS foresees a new building for these predators in the next decade, as beds are filling fast and the department does not foresee a plateau or a decrease in SVP candidates, McGuire said in an email.

“Even if you had the revenue stream to go forward with those bonds next year, it’s still going to be 5 years before you get it done,” said Sen. John Watkins (R-Midlothian).

Watkins sits on the Senate finance committee, but not the public safety subcommittee. He doesn’t think this program is sustainable, considering the budget issues the state is facing.

“Everybody wants you to downsize government, but everybody wants you to take in more prisoners and have more sophisticated, high cost programs to oversee them,” said Watkins.

Commissioner Stewart was not available by phone. ..Source.. Elizabeth Hillgrove

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

7th Circuit Rules Against Traveling Sex Offenders

7-2-2010 7th Cir:

(CN) - Congress can enforce criminal penalties for sex offenders who travel between states without registering, the 7th Circuit ruled.

Isaac Vasquez, a registered sex offender in Illinois, was indicted for violating the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act for failing to register after traveling to California.

He claimed the Commerce Clause does not allow Congress to impose registration requirements on those convicted of intrastate offenses. He also claims the law is unconstitutional because it unfairly punishes sex offenders who travel.

"[I]nterstate travel inherently involves use of channels of interstate commerce and is properly subject to congressional regulation under the Commerce Clause," Judge William Bauer said.

The court also held that the law can compel federal registration before interstate travel occurs, citing the intent of the act to prevent harm to citizens in states where sex offenders are not registered.

Judge Daniel Manion dissented, saying that Congress only has the power to make those who travel register - not those simply residing within a state.

He cited the Supreme Court's recent decision in Carr v. United States, which determined that intent is relevant; simply crossing state lines does not necessitate registration, the court held.

By upholding Vasquez's conviction, Manion says, "the court endorses a significant expansion of congressional power." ..Source.. JOSEPH CELENTINO

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

N.J. psychologist fired, faces loss of license after alleged relationship with sex offender patient

7-2-2010 New Jersey:

A top state psychologist who oversaw therapy for hundreds of incarcerated sex offenders was fired for allegedly having a sexual affair with a patient, two lawyers involved in the case said.

The ongoing internal investigation centers on the relationship between Natalie Barone, the psychologist, and Michael Bordo, a sex offender, according to Bordo’s state-assigned lawyer, Mary Foy.

She said the sexual misconduct allegedly occurred when Barone was his therapist at one of two specialized institutions for sex offenders in Avenel.

Barone’s lawyer, Jack Furlong, denied she did anything wrong.

"I’ve yet to have anyone substantiate those allegations to what any fair-minded person would consider a standard of evidence," he said.

The internal investigation began last year when an off-duty corrections officer spotted Barone and Bordo taking a summertime stroll down a Jersey Shore boardwalk, according to three state officials with knowledge of the case.

The Department of Human Services would only say it dismissed Barone on April 30 for conduct unbecoming and violating policies on relationships with patients.

Barone has appealed her firing and requested an administrative hearing. She may face more sanctions, according to the attorney general’s office. Spokesman Paul Loriquet said her psychologist license is being reviewed and could be revoked by the State Board of Psychological Examiners. State rules prohibit psychologists from sexual relationships with patients within two years of therapy ending.

Barone was a top official within the state’s civil commitment program, which keeps sex offenders deemed particularly dangerous locked up after their prison sentences have been completed. While the Department of Corrections runs the facilities and provides security, Human Services provides treatment through psychologists such as Barone.

Bordo was civilly committed after serving a prison sentence for sexually assaulting two teenage girls. During his confinement in Avenel, he received one-on-one counseling from Barone, according to his former lawyer, Heather Ellis. Furlong would not comment on any therapy sessions.

Human Services did not publicly disclose Barone’s firing until facing inquiries from The Star-Ledger. Spokeswomen there declined to discuss the investigation in detail because it is an internal disciplinary matter. And little information is available on Bordo because civilly committed sex offenders are technically considered patients, not inmates.

CROSSED PATHS

Barone, 37, began her job as administrator of psychological services in 2002, the number two position in the civil commitment program’s therapeutic operations. That made her responsible for about 100 staff members providing treatment to New Jersey’s 426 civilly committed sex offenders, currently housed at two Avenel facilities called special treatment units. Her state salary was $92,422 a year.

By law, therapy is supposed to be an integral part of day-to-day confinement within the facilities. A special court determines whether sex offenders should be released by evaluating how far they have progressed in their therapy and how likely they are to commit a new sex crime.

Bordo, 33, took a very different path to Avenel. He was 19 years old when he was arrested in Cape May County for entering a bedroom being shared by two teenage girls he knew and sexually assaulting both, said Meghan Hoerner, an assistant prosecutor there. In 1996 he pleaded guilty to two counts of aggravated criminal sexual contact and was sentenced to five years in prison.

As he neared the end of his sentence, New Jersey passed a new law allowing authorities to civilly commit sex offenders. Bordo was one of the first people in the state to be civilly committed, according to Ellis, his former lawyer.

In 2007, the court used to evaluate the sex offenders said Bordo should be released because he was no longer highly likely to commit a new sex crime, Ellis said. But she said facility officials recommended against the release, saying Bordo wasn’t ready.

"Because he was locked up so young, he didn’t have any life skills. He’s been raised in an institution," she said. "The goal was to get him prepared as much as they could."

The institution’s view of Bordo changed, she said, after he began one-on-one counseling with Barone in December 2008. Ellis, who represented dozens of sex offenders during her career at the public advocate’s office, said it was uncommon for any therapist to provide individual counseling at the facility, let alone one of the institution’s top people.

RELEASE AND RETURN

Bordo was released June 3, 2009, free for the first time in 13 years.

That summer an off-duty corrections officer working a security job on the side spotted Bordo with Barone on the boardwalk in Seaside Heights, three officials said. An internal investigation was conducted by the Department of Human Services, spokeswoman Ellen Lovejoy said.

Furlong did not comment on whether Barone and Bordo were together on the boardwalk.

Around that time Bordo ran into trouble, records show. On Aug. 3 he was stopped for running a stop sign in Newark. Police said he was driving without a valid license and had marijuana in the car, according to records from Newark municipal court.

Bordo was returned to Avenel for violating his conditional discharge, which was contingent on him staying out of trouble with the law.

The records show all the Newark charges against Bordo were dismissed except for the $239 fine for driving without a valid license, which he paid on Nov. 12. Even though he had not committed a new sex crime, authorities successfully pushed to get him recommitted. He is now in Avenel for more treatment, said Foy, his lawyer who is an assistant deputy public advocate.

As the investigation continued, Barone was suspended without pay on Oct. 10, according to Human Services.

Furlong said Barone tried to resign but the department did not accept her resignation and pushed ahead with the termination proceedings. Lovejoy said the department addressed the matter appropriately. "The department takes action when a policy violation has been determined," she said.

Furlong would not say whether Barone and Bordo had an affair, saying he had "no comment on the rumor mill." He would not make her available for an interview.

Barone is currently planning a life beyond New Jersey and no longer lives or works in the state, Furlong said. She also withdrew from a private psychology practice in Somerville last year.

"The circumstances as they presented themselves last summer made it clear the state of New Jersey was no longer a hospitable place to work," Furlong said.

But she appears to still want to work in the same field. Two days before she was fired by the Department of Human Services she obtained a new license to practice psychology in Pennsylvania. Charles Young, spokesman for the Pennsylvania Department of State, said authorities will review Barone’s case. He would not say what action the state might take, but said if she loses her license in New Jersey, she might also lose it in Pennsylvania. ..Source..

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Knowing Your Rights: American Like the Fourth of July

7-2-2010 National:

(Originally posted on The Seminal.)

Taking a road trip this summer? You might want to have the Constitution riding shotgun.

Back in April, Arizona passed a nasty racial profiling law that will require police officers to demand immigration or citizenship papers from anyone they stop, detain or arrest who they suspect may be in the country unlawfully. What constitutes “reasonable suspicion” that someone is unlawfully in the U.S.? Don’t look to the law for guidance; there is none.

Though the law is not scheduled to go into effect until the end of July (and the ACLU and others are in court trying to keep it from ever becoming effective), Arizona’s history of racial profiling is cause for concern. The Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office — under the direction of the notorious Sherriff Joe Arpaio — is already under investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice.
That’s why more than 30 ACLU offices across the country — from Maine to Alaska to Texas — have issued travel alerts encouraging residents of their states to make sure that, if they travel to Arizona, they understand their constitutional rights during law enforcement encounters. And the ACLU’s handy new pocket card — “What to Do If You’re Stopped by Police, Immigration Agents or the FBI” (also available en español) — is here to help.

The information applies to all people in all states — regardless of race, ethnicity, religion or citizenship status — so whether or not your summer travel plans include Route 66 to Flagstaff, you should check it out. There’s even a mobile version you can get on your phone (as long as you have a web browser). Here’s a quick taste of what you’ll find:

YOUR RIGHTS

•You have the right to remain silent. If you wish to exercise that right, say so out loud.

•You have the right to refuse to consent to a search of yourself, your car or your home.

•If you are not under arrest, you have the right to calmly leave.

•You have the right to a lawyer if you are arrested. Ask for one immediately.

•Regardless of your immigration or citizenship status, you have constitutional rights.

YOUR RESPONSIBILITIES

•Do stay calm and be polite.

•Do not interfere with or obstruct the police.

•Do not lie or give false documents.

•Do prepare yourself and your family in case you are arrested.

•Do remember the details of the encounter.

•Do file a written complaint or call your local ACLU if you feel your rights have been violated.

As we celebrate the Fourth of July, what better way to honor our Constitution than to learn the rights it guarantees to all of us? ..Source.. ACLU

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Teen Sex

7-2-2010 Showtime Channel:

Penn and Teller are not only world-famous comedians and magicians, they're also die-hard skeptics. Each episode takes topics such as abstinence, life coaching, cryptozoology, 12-step programs and psychics and uses principles of magic and trickery - as well as good ol' fashioned hidden camera sting operations - to smoke out ``nonsense peddlers'' and reveal how they operate.

Tonight's episode was about "Teen Sex" and covered every aspect of the issues advocates face with all these sex offender laws. While their language is errrr (graphic) so were a few of the scenes, revealing.



The show lasted about 25 minutes and was really good and mentions more stats which Advocates can draw on. The show was on SHOWTIME and future dates follow, check your local listings to see if they are the same:

Adults take drastic measures to combat the perceived dangers of teen promiscuity.

Sat 7/3 12:30-1:00am
Sun 7/4 1:15-1:45am
Mon 7/5 12:00-12:30am
Tue 7/6 12:00-12:30am
Wed 7/7 9:00-9:30pm
Wed 7/7 11:00-11:30pm

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Sex Offender Registry reliability could be significantly improved

7-2-2010 Vermont:

From the Vermont State Auditor's Office:

MONTPELIER –“The last several years have been marked by the amplified legislative and public attention to the issues of strengthening the monitoring of sex offenders in Vermont,” said Tom Salmon, CPA, reporting today on the results of the audit of the Vermont Sex Offender Registry (SOR).

The Vermont Sex Offender Registry (SOR) and, in particular, that portion of the Registry that is posted to the Internet ___ were created to ensure that the general public and law enforcement agencies know about offenders convicted of sex crimes and who reside, work or go to school in the state. “The reliability and timeliness of the SOR information are critical to meet these goals”, said Tom Salmon, “and were the focus of our audit.”

This audit was conducted at the request of the legislature (Act 58 in 2009). Act 58 required the Auditor’s Office to provide a report to the senate and house committees on judiciary, the house committee on corrections and institutions, and the joint committee on corrections oversight prior to the posting of addresses on the Internet Registry for those offenders that meet the criteria set forth in the Act. Sen. Dick Sears, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said the report reflected what the Legislature was seeking. “We’ll be spending time reviewing the findings and recommendations with an eye toward improving how the State manages the information on the Sex Offender Registry,” he said.

The work was performed at the Department of Public Safety’s Vermont Criminal Information Center (VCIC), which manages the Registry, and the Department of Corrections (DOC) and the Courts, which provide critical information to the Registry. As of mid-February 2010, the SOR had 2,633 records, of which 1,549 were of offenders that were residing, working, or going to school in Vermont (i.e., community-based offenders).

Overall, the audit found a sizeable number of errors in the registry. In a statistical sample of 57 offenders selected for in-depth analysis, the Auditor’s Office found that 16 and 29 offenders’ records contained critical and significant errors, respectively. In addition, the Auditor’s Office used an automated data analysis tool, IDEA, to review the entire SOR database of 2,633 offenders for data anomalies or logical inconsistencies. This analysis found an additional 165 critical and 30 significant errors.

The most serious errors were related to offenders who have been registered with the SOR in error or offenders who were registered with the SOR for longer than statutorily required or whose registration was terminated prematurely. For example, there was one offender who should have been registered for life but whose record had already been erroneously expired by VCIC—in other words he was no longer listed as a registered offender.

Among the causes for errors were data entry and calculation mistakes, incorrect or unclear information provided to VCIC, misapplication of the statutory requirements, SOR system anomalies and glitches, and incomplete backfilling of data elements required due to the changes in law. “As the law related to sex offender registration becomes more complex, it is critical that the SOR system and processes keep up with these changes,” Salmon said.

The audit also assessed whether controls were in place to prevent errors, omissions and outdated registry data. Overall the audit found that the established controls were largely manual and were not always documented or applied consistently.

The report’s recommendations emphasize that improving the SOR’s reliability will require the joint efforts of VCIC, DOC and the Courts. The Auditor’s Office also recommended that in the short-term VCIC review discharge dates, end registration dates, internet status, and risk assessment and lifetime registration flags of all registered offenders.

Public Safety Commissioner Tom Tremblay said: “Vermont has accomplished much in the last few years to strengthen its laws to hold sex offenders more accountable and to provide the public with an important information tool. It is imperative that the data in the registry is accurate and reliable. The audit has provided a roadmap to get there and I look forward to inviting the Auditor back for a review of the system improvements within the next three months.”

Commissioner Andrew Pallito of the DOC said “We appreciate the work of the State Auditor’s Office on this important project. The Department of Corrections is committed to working with our colleagues in the Department of Public Safety, with the Court Administrator’s Office and the Legislature to improve the reliability and timeliness of the registry. We have all made improvements, during the course of the audit, to how we manage the data and processes necessary to attain that common goal. I am confident we can implement the remaining report recommendations in the next few weeks and further improve the registry’s reliability.”

The State Auditor also noted that during the audit VCIC, DOC and the Courts demonstrated a high degree of understanding of the seriousness, importance and urgency of improving the SOR’s reliability and have already fixed errors identified during the audit and made some process and control improvements. The State Auditor expressed confidence that implementation of the report’s recommendations will improve coordination between the involved organizations necessary for the effective redesign of the sex offender registration process with the goal of enhancing the safety of the Vermont public. “It is clear that all parties have a common goal; a reliable system with controls in place to provide assistance to law enforcement and educate Vermonters about sex offenders in their communities, especially parents trying to keep children safe from sexual abuse,” Salmon reflected.

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Audit finds major, repeated problems in Vermont sex offender registry

If the state cannot get the input correct, should we believe the information therein is secured?

7-2-2010 Vermont:

MONTPELIER — A blistering audit of the state's sex offender registry found many errors, some of them significant, in the program.

Some of the mistakes uncovered in the report by the office of State Auditor Tom Salmon were fairly mundane. But the audit also found cases in which sex offenders who should have been on the registry were not included, and cases in which someone was included when they should not have been.

“We are in agreement with the auditor's findings. We all knew and understood during the legislative session that an outside audit would be helpful,” said Thomas Tremblay, the commissioner of public safety. “We want to make sure we get it right. This audit has already been helpful in creating a plan so we can move forward.”

Few familiar with the system, which includes both a publicly accessible Internet portion and the larger state listing which includes more offenders, were surprised that it contained mistakes.

However, several state officials or people familiar with state law said they were very surprised by the number of potentially significant problems with the list.

“I was surprised at the number of significant errors,” said State Sen. Richard Sears, the Bennington Democrat who, as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, oversaw the drafting of the laws expanding the registry in recent years.

State Rep. William Lippert, the Hinesburg Democrat who chairs the House Judiciary Committee, agreed with his Senate counterpart that more needs to be done before offenders' home addresses are listed.

“I appreciate the work of the auditor's staff in producing a thorough report. I am glad we made the decision to ask for an audit of the reliability of the registry information before adding addresses,” Lippert said. “I don't think anyone, with a 79 percent critical or significant error rate in the statistical sample as well as other errors, would consider this a favorable audit.”

“I think it is important that there be a follow-up audit to give us a level of confidence prior to posting addresses on the registry,” Lippert concluded.

The audit may have a practical effect as well. Legislation required that a favorable audit of the system be performed before addresses of sex offenders would be included on the internet registry.

Sears said, for his part, he does not consider the audit a favorable one.

“Certainly this audit in my view is not favorable,” Sears said. The audit was only released Wednesday afternoon and it is not entirely clear yet if state government will move forward on including offender addresses, but Sears said he thinks to do so would risk a possible court fight over the matter.

“I suspect they are at the same place, which is that we need to get it right,” he said of the administration.

The audit looked at 57 individual cases in depth. Of those cases 16 offenders' record had errors rated as cricital, defined as the most serious mistakes, such as not including offenders who should have been on the list, and 29 more of those 57 records had significant errors.

The auditors also used computers to review all 2,633 sex offender records in the Vermont system. Among those records, 15 offenders were registered after they should have been off the registry under law. Another 12 had been removed prematurely, including one record which was removed three years early.

Allen Gilbert of the American Civil Liberties Union of Vermont said it should not be a surprise to anyone that there are mistakes in the sex offender registry.

“In fact, I'm surprised the auditor didn't find more errors. Not only did the people in charge of the registry make errors, but they didn't correct them when they were pointed out,” Gilbert said. “The ACLU sued the Department of Public Safety in October of last year over a set of errors involving an individual who shouldn't have been listed on the registry. When he pointed out the errors and asked they be corrected, the department ignored him.”

And Gilbert pointed to a 2005 legislative study committee on the issue which concluded in part “there is insufficient evidence to determine whether posting information about registered sex offenders on the internet is a valuable and effective public safety tool” but added that the public wanted such an Internet registry.

“It is dangerous to do something you are not sure is a good idea and whose reliability you can't guarantee,” Gilbert said.

Salmon said the state officials who oversee the system worked well with the auditors and want to improve the system.

“There is not a lack of effort by the state,” he said.

“Overall the audit found that the established controls were largely manual and were not always documented or applied consistently,” according to the report.

If the state makes the changes and improvements it has proposed he believes the errors found in the audit will be corrected, Salmon said. The audit recommended reviewing key pieces of offenders' records in the system, such as discharge dates and lifetime registration flags.

Tremblay said if the system does not include an offender when it should, or it if incorrectly includes someone, it must be corrected.

“Any error either way is a problem,” he said. “I am disappointed with the fact that there are errors. That being said we knew there would be.”

The state has a responsibility to those Vermonters relying on the information in the system and to offenders, he said.

Sears said that although the mistakes are worrisome it is worth noting how unusual such a review of a state sex offender system is.

“I don't know of any other state that has done this kind of performance audit of their registry,” he said. “This may start a trend.” ..Source.. Louis Porter Vermont Press Bureau

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Changes to the Sex Offender Registry in SD

7-2-2010 South Dakota:

Changes to the sex offender registry go into affect today.

They are state wide requirements, that each individual county now needs to adjust to and prepare for.

KDLT's Krystle Kacner tells us what changes are taking place, and what they could mean.

South Dakota already makes it easy to check any neighborhood for sex offenders .

"The biggest thing is being on top of and being aware of where sex offenders live, what they've been charged with, and just take appropriate caution if you feel that's necessary," said Lincoln County Sheriff Dennis Johnson.

Now, the state is taking it even further. Grouping offenders into three tiers depending on the severity of their offense, the first tier being the most serious.

"Obviously this tiered system is a very large change and time will tell on how successful it is because there are still certain requirements, certain sex offenses where people still have to register for life. And the other two tiers where a person would at least be eligible after a certain amount of time to request removal," said Johnson.

If they are eligible they have to go to court to petition to get off the sex offender list. However an attorney will not be appointed for them and all of those court fees will be up to them.

"Its not just somebody can just write a piece of paper and expect to be taken off of the sex offender registry, I think it's going to be given a lot of scrutiny," said Johnson.

Lincoln County Sheriff Dennis Johnson says this could give some that perhaps do not need to be on the registry an opportunity to get off it and he says he has come across such cases in his career.

Johnson also feels confident there will be many people trying to get off the list in the next few months. In fact he says he's gotten many questions about it already.

Another change that went into affect today: Sex offenders only have three business days now to register as opposed to five.

And officials say in South Dakota, the only days that are not considered business days are Sundays and some National Holidays. ..Source.. Krystle Kacner

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...