August 20, 2011 Ordered to Prove it Screens for Sex Offenders

If you say something in court, you better be able to prove it. Thats what this is all about.
8-20-2011 National:

A LA Superior Court Judge said he wants proof that is living up to its screening promises.

A Los Angeles judge Friday ordered an attorney for the dating website to return to court next week with proof that the site has implemented procedures to screen members to determine if any are convicted sex offenders.

The Internet dating site was sued in April by Carole Markin, who said she was sexually assaulted by a man she met on last year. She later found out the man had prior sexual battery convictions.

The man, Alan Paul Wurtzel, 67, pleaded no contest Wednesday to sexual assault.

Markin sued to compel the website to implement some type of screening procedure, such as checking prospective members against a national sex offender registry. officials subsequently announced that they would screen new members. In court today, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Carl West said he wanted to see proof that the screening was in place.

``It's a very serious claim,'' West said. ``If has adopted policies that are good for public, then everybody wins.''

He said if the company provides proof of an operable system being used, the lawsuit would likely be settled. Markin's attorney, Mark Webb, agreed. attorney Joseph Laska said the screening system is in place and he would bring the required proof to court Tuesday.

Wurtzel is facing 365 days in jail, five years of probation and lifetime registration as a sex offender when he is sentenced Sept. 19 by Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Barbara Johnson, according to Deputy District Attorney Jane Creighton.

A second count -- forcible oral copulation -- is expected to be dismissed after he is sentenced on the charge of sexual battery by restraint.

Wurtzel and the woman went out twice in 2010 and he sexually assaulted her after following her into her residence and holding her down after their second date, according to the District Attorney's Office. ..Source.. by City News Service


Anonymous said...

Are they also going to start screening members for a history of DUI, domestic violence, substance abuse, assault, battery, burglary, robbery, embezzlement, theft, child abuse, murder, etc., etc., etc.......??? Doesn't a history of these crimes also place people at risk of becoming a victim???

Anonymous said...

I am getting madder and madder at the idiocy of these types of claims. First, it should NOT be's job to check out everybody who signs up on their site. If a person is going to get involved with somebody they meet this way, THE INDIVIDUAL should take responsibility for checking the prospect out. This woman is just blaming for her own foolish irresponsibility. Further, it is impossible to enforce anyway. As an RSO, if I want to get on or any other such site, all I have to do is use a fictitious name and unregistered email address. Why are people so stupid that they think these draconian rules and restrictions are worth the paper they are printed on?

eAdvocate: A Voice said...

In response to above comments: Folks should understand that, this is a issue of liability for i.e., are they liable for putting together two people (the function of their website) where one was a known type of former criminal. AND, that former person then committed the same type of act against this woman.

All other types of crimes are not relevant because she didn't make any claim as to those, only as to a former sex offender. Lawsuits stick to the exact issues raised by the parties to the lawsuit.

Anonymous said...

Has ANYONE ever considered the possibility that this woman may have actually had prior knowledge the guy was on the registry before dating him?? Perhaps she intentionally set herself up in a scenario where she could then potentially sue
This same scenario could be played out in ALL TYPES of situations; What if a woman began dating a co-worker, alleges an attack, and had not been informed by her employer the man is on the registry?? Can she then sue the employer??