View the article here
A 39-year-old woman who was an inmate at the Sacramento County Main Jail has sued the county and five individuals, claiming she was repeatedly raped by a lesbian sheriff's deputy.
- So what is the point of bringing up the person was a lesbian? What difference does that make? If she was indeed raped, then it doesn't matter if it was by a man or women. This is just further discrimination and hate speech, if you ask me.
The divorced mother of two spent nearly 3½ years in the jail, charged with submitting a fraudulent insurance claim, attempted grand theft and failure to appear. She was sentenced June 11 to four years and eight months and paroled the next day, never serving a day in prison.
Her lawsuit was filed Monday by attorney Stewart Katz in U.S. District Court. The Bee is not naming the plaintiff because she claims to be a victim of sexual assault.
Deputy Paula Sue Wood, 42, is described in the complaint as "a pathologically aggressive lesbian … who, at her request, was assigned to work at a female housing unit in the main jail. She had successfully resisted several suggestions that she change assignments."
- Sounds like this reporter might be a homophobe or something. Again, why bring up the women was a lesbian?
An inmate reported what was going on in January 2007, and an inquiry by jail staff was undertaken, the suit says. "No one attempted to speak to (the plaintiff) during the course of this investigation," it charges. "Not only was Deputy Wood quickly cleared, but apparently the reporting inmate received discipline for bringing a false complaint against an officer."
- So if it was a "false claim," which it could have been, what evidence shows it was a false claim? Or is it simply the "good ole' boys" protecting one of their own?
But three months later a former jail inmate reported the situation to the internal affairs unit at the Sheriff's Department.
The deputy was placed on administrative leave in late April 2007, and eventually allowed to resign. She was charged with having sex with an inmate, pleaded no contest, and was adjudged guilty May 28 by a Superior Court judge.
Wood was sentenced Wednesday to 90 days in a work furlough program, meaning she can leave the jail to go to her place of employment and report back when she is not working. Following her completion of the program, she will be on unsupervised probation for three years.
- So why doesn't this women have to register as a sex offender?
She was ordered by Superior Court Judge Stacy Boulware Eurie to stay away from the victim.
Wood refused to talk to a reporter after the hearing.
The suit says the plaintiff first had an awareness Wood "was becoming obsessed with her when, while in the control room of her housing unit, Deputy Wood held up a sign stating, 'You fascinate me.'"
Wood coerced the heterosexual victim into having sex in August 2006, the suit says. She estimates that between then and April 2007 she was compelled more than 20 times to engage in sex with Wood.
The suit seeks an unspecified amount of monetary damages. In addition to the county and Wood, it names as defendants former Deputy Clement M. Tang; Sheriff John McGinness; Capt. Scott Jones, who has been the jail commander since January 2007; and Chief Deputy Mark Iwasa, who preceded Jones at the jail.
The 54-year-old Tang, described in the complaint as "an opportunistic heterosexual," is accused of French kissing (the plaintiff) "while she was the sole occupant of a holding cell awaiting a court appearance."
Reached Tuesday by phone at his south Sacramento County home, Tang declined to comment. Tang, a 27-year veteran of the department, retired when faced with the allegations.
The lawsuit contends that the Sheriff's Department "has a custom and practice of dismissing reports of inappropriate coercive sexual acts by deputies of either gender, whether in the jail or elsewhere, as being consensual conduct."
However, where once there was a stream of lawsuits over inmate treatment, they have been scarce since McGinness assumed command of the Sheriff's Department two years ago and put Jones in charge of the jail.
McGinness and Jones defended the department's handling of the allegations against the deputy.
"Every time we heard this might be going on, we investigated," McGinness said. "When we were able to get hard evidence, we moved swiftly to rectify the problem."
Call The Bee's Denny Walsh, (916) 321-1189.
Sunday, July 6, 2008
View the article here
View the article here
Strip club manager is accused of fatally shooting man, 18
Davie - Three years ago, Richard Rojas, 18, was shot dead at his ex-girlfriend's front door. Now, she and others who once said they were defending themselves from Rojas are facing murder charges.
In July 2005, a man called police to say he'd killed a burglar in the gated Chelsea at Ivanhoe community. Investigators quickly learned the alleged burglar was the former boyfriend of Christin Bilotti, then 17, who lived in the house.
Bilotti told her family that Rojas raped her, and family members later told police that Rojas had broken into the house on several occasions and threatened to kill the girl and her brother.
Christin Bilotti's father asked three employees from the strip club he owned to help protect the family. Police said one of those employees, John W. Pacchiana, shot Rojas.
No arrests were made in the case.
Until this year.
Christin Bilotti's boyfriend at the time of the killing, Julio "Eddie" Arce , now 22, met with police in January and told them the Bilottis conspired to murder Rojas.
In February, authorities arrested Christin Bilotti, now 20; her father, Michael Bilotti, 60; Pacchiana, 36; Wayne Palazzola, 40; and Richard Corbin, 32. They were charged with murder and conspiracy to commit first-degree murder, and their cases are now winding through the courts.
Defense lawyers said Arce is not a reliable witness because he told police several different stories in interviews after the killing.
"The testimony of the witness they're going to use is beyond incredible," said Fred Haddad, Michael Bilotti's defense attorney. "The whole thing is ridiculous."
Rojas' family said the arrests signal they are closer to getting the justice they have prayed for since the slaying.
"They [detectives] told us from the start that this did not look the way it seemed to be initially, that this would take time," said Rojas' father, Henry Rojas, of Miami. "To hear all these people were involved in an 18-year-old's murder is mind-boggling. He was just starting his life."
Detectives found no evidence a rape took place. Instead, investigators said, Rojas and Christin were friends who called each other often in the days before the killing.
Lead investigator Detective Jeffery S. Yaeger, said interviews, phone records and video surveillance show what really happened. According to his report:
On the afternoon of July 12, 2005, Christin Bilotti told then-boyfriend Arce that Rojas had raped her. Arce insisted she tell her parents. Michael Bilotti became angry, made a phone call and told someone to bring a weapon. Pacchiana, Palazzola and Corbin — all managers at Bilotti's Secrets nightclub in Miami — came to the house.
Palazzola drove Christin Bilotti, her brother, and Arce to Pacchiana and Corbin's apartment in Pembroke Pines.
Detectives do not say why Rojas might have left his south Miami home for the Bilotti house later that night. But on the way there, he called Christin Bilotti's cell phone. She was in the car with Palazzola and Arce, and put Rojas on speaker. Rojas and Arce argued.
"'Egg him on, you know, tell him you want to fight, tell him this and that, we'll grab him," Palazzola reportedly said.
Rojas thought Christin Bilotti was at her house, and drove there.
In the entryway, Pacchiana shot at Rojas, striking him in the face and neck, police said. Pacchiana then called police, saying he shot a burglar.
Later that morning, Arce overheard Corbin telling Palazzola that Rojas fought them.
As the defendants approach trial, Henry Rojas said the family's wounds are reopening.
"Nothing is going to bring my son back," Henry Rojas said. "I just want justice."
Macollvie Jean-François can be reached at email@example.com or 954-385-7922.
View the article here
LISBON - The assistant prosecutor who handles all the sex-related cases for Columbiana County said he's never been a fan of sex offender registration legislation.
"I don't think it provides any additional protection to the public in the vast majority of these cases," county Assistant Prosecutor Tim McNicol said.
In the past 16 years that he's been prosecuting sex-related cases, he said an overwhelming number of the offenses occur in the home or in another place where the offender has access to the victim, such as a relative's house. In most cases, the victim knows the attacker.
Sex offenders in Columbiana
County have included parents, step-parents, grandparents, babysitters, school teachers, coaches and others familiar to the victim where there's an establishment of trust.
"I can count on one hand where there's some type of stranger attack," he said.
In McNicol's opinion, the fact that sex offenders must register gives the public a false sense of security. He also criticized the national media for what he called "irresponsible journalism" for sensationalizing some of these types of cases involving random attacks, giving the impression that more are happening.
He admitted that some sex offenders do need monitored, but in the vast majority of cases, he said registration would have had no bearing on the crimes occurring.
McNicol also said the situation can cause tension in a neighborhood, pointing to a situation in East Liverpool where someone put up a sign which said "my neighbor is a sex offender." In some communities where local laws have been passed prohibiting sex offenders from living in certain areas, he said it's causing them to cluster together.
In the case of the classifications, he said judges should have some discretion. He used the example of the 18-year-old boy who may be charged with having consensual sex with his 15-year-old girlfriend. He could end up having to register for 15 years under the new law.
He referred to the sex offender registration laws as "feel good legislation."
When it comes to protecting children from sex offenders, he said parents and guardians "need to be more vigilant and make themselves more educated about the signs of abuse" and they need to talk to their children and explain the difference between good touch and bad touch.
"As difficult as it may be on a personal level, they need to listen to their children and follow up, seek third-party intervention," he said.
If something happened, a child will need counseling. If the child made up the situation, he said they'll still need counseling. One of the most difficult parts of his job is deciding charges. Nobody wins on either side, especially when the victim and defendant belong to the same family.
Mary Ann Greier can be reached at mgreiersalemnews.net
This story is a couple weeks old now, but I have not posted this video here yet, so here it is. You can leave your comments at the video link, here. Click the Louisiana label at the end of this item to see all the articles for this state.
View the article here
Don't believe this can happen? Check here. And more children ruined for life here.
Johnny falls while running during recess and scrapes his knee. He is found crying by his teacher, Mary. Mary hugs him to comfort him.
1958: In a short time, Johnny feels better and goes on playing.
2008: Mary is accused of being a sexual predator and loses her job. She faces three years in state prison. Johnny undergoes five years of therapy.
Courtesy of TruthSeeker Radio | Listen Here
Check them out for yourself! These are just a few, of the many!
Elliot Spitzer (Governor)
Larry Flynt (Hustler Magazine)
Arnold Schwarzenegger (Governor)
Jim Gibbons (Governor)
Mark Lunsford (Advocate - Had Child Porn)
Mark Foley (Senator)
You can also find more here, here, here, here and here.
View the article here
DOVER (AP) — The state is defending Dover's sex-offender ordinance against a legal challenge, arguing that it is not only legal but a legitimate safety measure.
The New Hampshire Civil Liberties Union, on behalf of convicted sex offender Richard Jennings, has asked a judge to drop charges against Jennings and declare the ordinance unconstitutional.
The ordinance prohibits registered sex offenders from living with 2,500 feet of a school or day care center. Jennings, 41, was charged with violating the ordinance in November after moving close to a Dover kindergarten.
The civil liberties group claims the city had no right to enact such an ordinance because the Legislature doesn't authoritize cities to regulate where various people or classes of people can live.
But in a motion filed last week, the state said there have multiple instances where the state has allowed towns to enact ordiances related to health, safety and welfare.
"The state authorizes a city to enact ordinances for the well-being of the city and its residents, providing 'the ordinance is not repugnant to the laws of the state'," the motion states.
The state also points out that extensive research was conducted before the ordinance was drafted, including researching other states' laws, case law and other sex offender registry rules.
"Based upon the findings from this research, the city determined restricting sex offenders against children from residing only within the 2,500 foot radius of schools and day cares was in the best interests and well being of the children and community," the state wrote.
Since Dover enacted its ordinance in 2005, the towns of Tilton, Franklin, Northfield and Boscawen have followed suit with similar regulations.
Jennings is scheduled to go on trial July 21 on the ordinance violation charge. He is serving a six-month jail sentence for not registering with police when he moved from Portsmouth to Dover.
View the article here
See this GREAT article from eAdvocate
Sounds like corruption to me. Some counties HIDE THE TRUTH while others tell the truth. They are basically admitting to making some sex offenders stay a way from places, when there is not a law stating they must do so, so THIS IS NOTHING BUT PURE DECEIT!!! We have some police telling the truth, while others hide the truth and make people obey laws they are not obligated to obey in the first place.
Four years after Missouri passed a law restricting where sex offenders can live, more than 90 percent of offenders in the state don’t have to obey the law.
There are two reasons fewer than 10 percent are restricted by buffer zones around schools and day cares: the original law didn’t affect out-of-state offenders who moved to Missouri, and the state Supreme Court ruled that the law could not be enforced retroactively.
Legislators took care of the first part this year. Gov. Matt Blunt last week signed a bill changing the law’s wording. But the other issue won’t be changed unless Missouri voters alter the constitution.
- That is a very scary thought... When they start changing the constitution to suit their needs, we might as well do a way with the document and just become a communist country..
The reality frustrates law enforcement, those supposed to be enforcing the buffer zones. It also misleads residents who assumed Missouri kept all offenders from living within 1,000 feet of where children learn and play.
“People think we have buffer zones, but we really don’t,” said Sgt. Gary Kilgore of the Jackson County Sheriff’s Department. “It almost makes me feel like Missouri is becoming a safe haven for sex offenders. … But what are you going to do?”
- Stop freaking everyone out using bogus facts and statistics! That might be a good start. It is a proven fact that sex offender recidivism is LOWER THAN ANY OTHER CRIMINAL, except murderers. You are just helping with the MASS HYSTERIA and MORAL PANIC which is unfounded and based on fear instead of facts.
Figures from the Missouri Highway Patrol showed that as of mid-June just 662 of the state’s 7,020 registered offenders were required to comply with the state’s residency restrictions, about 9 percent. In Jackson County, about 60 registered offenders out of about 1,000 have to obey them, or 6 percent.
Prosecutors and law enforcement officials said they’ve seen “case-by-case” examples of offenders who didn’t have to obey the buffer zones. But most had no clue that, statewide, thousands of offenders were free to live anywhere they want.
“Those numbers are certainly surprising to me,” said Platte County Prosecutor Eric Zahnd, a proponent of residency restrictions. “It’s certainly good to keep that 9 percent away from these areas, but gives us no protection from the other 91 percent.”
- So, now that you mentioned all this, how many of these offenders have committed another sex crime? Why don't you mention that? Because it would prove my point.
The wording of the original law states offenders convicted of certain Missouri sex offenses couldn’t live within 1,000 feet of a school or day care. It didn’t mention anything about offenders convicted in other states.
More than one-third of offenders living in Missouri were convicted of their crimes in another state. The bill Blunt signed last week fixes that wording, but it won’t take effect until late August.
Other offenders are exempt because the state Supreme Court ruled in February that applying the residency restriction retroactively is unconstitutional. That means only offenders who committed their crimes after June 5, 2006 — that’s when the law was last amended — have to abide by the buffer zones.
More than 3,600 of the state’s 7,020 offenders committed their crimes before that date and don’t have to obey the residency restrictions.
- So that leaves 3,420 offenders who have to obey the laws. So how many of those have committed another sex crime? Sounds like FEAR-MONGERING to me.
“Make no mistake about it,” said Sen. Jason Crowell (Contact), who sponsored a resolution that failed in the House this year that would have allowed citizens to vote on a change in the constitution, “the Missouri Supreme Court completely gutted our efforts as legislators.”
- And it's good they did... When you start changing the constitution, it's going to become easier and easier to do so, THEN EVERYONE IS IN DANGER OF LOSING THEIR RIGHTS!!!
Now, officers across the state “almost need a cheat sheet” to know which offender can’t live within the 1,000-feet perimeter, said Capt. Tim McGrail of the Missouri Highway Patrol, which oversees the state sex offender registry.
“We get calls from sheriff’s departments asking, ‘Does this meet it?’ ” McGrail said. “Or, ‘Hey, we got this, does it apply?’ … We tell them to verify it with their legal counsel.”
For several years, banning where sex offenders live has been the popular thing for states and cities to do. Missouri, one of at least 21 states with buffer zones, passed its original law in 2004.
Kansas legislators opted not to go with the zones, saying they had learned the nightmarish lessons from states like Iowa. There, officials lost track of hundreds of offenders because they stopped registering and became homeless.
- Because forcing people into FORCED EXILE doesn't solve the problem, it's a false sense of security. 90% or more of all sex crimes occur in the victims own family, so how would forcing where someone lives fix the problem? It won't, period...
Opponents say the zones are nothing but a false sense of security and do little to protect children because they only prohibit where an offender sleeps at night. Besides, they say, the zones can be so restrictive offenders can’t find anywhere to live and then are driven underground.
But proponents say they’re crucial in keeping offenders away from children, and they give parents some sense of peace.
- So these proponents are idiots who are not using their brains, and have been force fed lies. See the true facts I put above, and the many recidivism studies here or here. And some facts and myths here.
“I believe if the buffer zones are applied properly, they have some value in protecting children from sex offenders,” Zahnd said.
He wasn’t aware, though, that the law’s wording didn’t include out-of-state offenders. Neither was the Platte County Sheriff’s Department.
“Most of our sex offenders don’t know that they are exempt,” Capt. Frank Hunter said. “Most of them believe, as we have believed, that they can’t live in the buffer zone.”
Even though the new law will soon include out-of-state offenders, the more than 2,700 current offenders who committed their crimes outside Missouri won’t be affected. Not unless they move from where they live once the law goes into effect Aug. 28.
“One of the good things about the law is it did specify the offenses that would qualify someone to be included in the buffer zone,” Zahnd said. “Unfortunately, until Senate Bill 714 (was) signed, the specificity of the laws is also a detriment.”
Until the law does change, agencies across the state will operate the way they’ve been operating.
In Greene County, in the southwest part of the state, the Sheriff’s Department has been well aware of the loophole. But it isn’t something the department advertised.
When offenders go to the department to register, they fill out a form that states they can’t live within 1,000 feet of a school.
- So if the law doesn't apply retroactively, then this is false information, you are forcing them into living outside the 1000 zone, when they do not have to be. And you clarify this statement, from the comments below.
“I don’t volunteer the information,” said Lisa Simmons, the department’s sex offender registrar. “They just assume when they sign that paper it applies to them.”
But in Jackson County, Sgt. Kilgore said he’s upfront. If asked, he tells offenders whether they are required to live outside the buffer zone.
- So does he tell them yes or no, or just tells everyone yes you must live outside this buffer zone?
A female sex offender recently wanted to know what the property boundaries were because she wanted to buy a house.
“I was compelled to tell her that the law at this point in time didn’t affect her,” Kilgore said. “She was surprised, but I did caution her that could change in the future.”
What isn’t expected to change anytime soon is the fact the law can’t be retroactive.
Law enforcement officials say they were counting on that issue going on the November ballot so citizens could decide.
“We’ve got to follow the law,” said McGrail. “If the Supreme Court tells us we can’t, we can’t."