America is falling into the communist mind set more and more each month. This particular message deals with a book written by Cleon Skousen, a former member of the FBI, back in 1958 and shows the communist plan to overthrow the United States. Very sobering.
Sunday, August 4, 2013
By Sunil Baghel
Man accused of sexual abuse of his kids gets anticipatory bail as alleged offence was committed before the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act came into force in November 2012.
Refusing to give retrospective effect to the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012 (PDF), the Bombay High Court has granted anticipatory bail to a man accused by his wife of touching his kids inappropriately.
Granting the man pre-arrest bail, Justice Sadhana Jadhav observed that though the period of crime, as mentioned in the wife's complaint, was June 2010 to mid-December 2012, there was nothing in the complaint to show that the man committed any offence after November 14, 2012. It was on this date that PCSOA - the new law enacted by Parliament for sexual offences against individuals below 18 years of age - came into force.
"There is nothing on record to show that the father had any contact with the children after 14th November, 2012, as he had withdrawn himself from the company of the complainant and their children since mid-December, 2012 and during that intervening period, he hardly stayed at home and hence, he would be entitled to grant of pre-arrest bail," observed Justice Jadhav in her order.
Advocate Aabad Ponda, appearing for the father, had argued that "assuming that the father had committed the offences, the provisions of the Act do not have a retrospective effect."
The court has, however, restrained the man from getting in touch with his wife and children.
The wife had lodged an FIR at Byculla police station in April this year, referring to incidents between June 2010 and December last year. Her husband was booked under various sections of the PCSOA and section 354 of the Indian Penal Code for molestation.
According to her complaint, the couple got married in 2002 and has a nine-year-old-son and a six-year-old daughter from the wedlock. They started living in Mumbai from 2009. There used to be intermittent quarrels between the two, but since 2010, the man allegedly refused sexual contact with the wife. She filed a petition seeking divorce in March this year.
The wife then allegedly noticed obscene photographs in her husband's email, showing him in an "objectionable position" with certain male friends. "The images revealed that he was a gay," alleges her complaint. It also says that one day, in 2010, the wife woke up from sleep to see that her husband was "tickling their daughter and was touching her inappropriately," to which she objected.
Her son had also allegedly told her that his father "used to touch him inappropriately and had once bitten him on his butt." Her complaint also says the son had disclosed to his friend that he was fed up of life. When his teacher heard about this, she referred him to a school counsellor. By this time the father had already left home. The son had then observed to the counsellor that now that his father did not stay with him, he would not be touched inappropriately.
The mother's advocates Manoj Mohite and Shailesh Kantharia submitted before the court that it was on the basis of the disclosures made by the child to the counsellor that the compliant came to be filed.
The father's advocate argued that the children had been made a scapegoat to satisfy the personal vendetta of their mother. He said the mother must have misconstrued the intimacy between the father and children or had "influenced them against her husband to create evidence for seeking divorce and alimony."
He also produced photographs of a three-day family outing in October last year at a resort near Mumbai. These pictures, clicked by the mother herself, showed the children in a swimming pool with their father.
The advocate submitted that the pictures did not indicate that the children were scared of their father or that they avoided touching their father.
The court, however, refused to make observations on the facts of the case, and granted anticipatory bail to the father for Rs. 15,000 and one or two sureties of the same amount.
He has been directed not to tamper with evidence, to cooperate in the investigation and report to the police every Sunday till filing of the charge sheet.
GRAND JUNCTION - A Mesa County man who inspired a new law compensating the wrongly convicted is nearing a monetary settlement with the state.
The Daily Sentinel reports that Colorado seeks to pay [name withheld] about $1.2 million. The 52-year-old was convicted of a 1994 rape and murder but was cleared by DNA evidence 17 years later. After his release, [name withheld] was living in poverty.
[name withheld]'s case inspired a new law granting exonerated former prisoners or their survivors up to $70,000 for every year wrongly spent behind bars for a felony conviction. Former convicts have to be provably innocent, not cleared on legal technicalities or appeals.
A hearing on [name withheld]'s petition is scheduled later this month.
By Harry Bruinius
Six sex offenders got no damage awards from former New York Gov. George Pataki and other officials who had confined to mental institutions after they served their sentences. One official is liable for $1 to each, a federal jury decided in a case that tested attitudes toward social outcasts.
A federal jury this week found former New York Gov. George Pataki and two other former state officials “not liable” for illegally confining six sex offenders to state mental institutions after they had completed their sentences.
On one hand, Wednesday's decision was not surprising. American politics and society have long struggled with the demand to continue to keep locked up criminals who have committed the most vile crimes but who, according to law, are allowed to go free. Yet that tendency threatens the integrity of the judicial process, with few willing to stand up for people who have done such reprehensible things, some legal experts say.
Such cases are emotionally fraught and constitute a delicate legal balance between public safety and due process, and the jury's verdict in the New York sex offenders' civil suit points to the difficulty of striking that balance.
“It’s an ominous development,” says Robert Burt, a law professor at Yale University in New Haven, Conn. These kinds of legal efforts seek “to turn confinement [of sexual offenders] away from the ordinary criminal justice system, into a mental health issue, and then to offer treatment." But the offer is a "fraud" that's not followed up on, he says.
The case centered on a 2005 Pataki administration initiative that called for the psychiatric evaluation and continued confinement of potentially dangerous prisoners slated to be released. Twenty states, including California, Florida, and Illinois, have enacted laws permitting the civil commitment of sexual offenders as of 2010. The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 also authorizes the federal government to commit and treat federal sex offenders. But these include legal safeguards that have passed constitutional muster, including judicial review. The Pataki initiative was simply an administrative policy.
In 2006, a federal judge found the Pataki administration's Sexually Violent Predator Initiative to be unconstitutional, and those confined under civil commitments were released. The offenders in the civil suit, each convicted of horrendous sex crimes, sought $10 million in damages.
The jury found Mr. Pataki; Glenn Goord, former correctional services commissioner; and Eileen Consilvio, the former executive director of the Manhattan Psychiatric Center, the hospital where the plaintiffs were held, not liable. The jury did find the former commissioner of the State Office of Mental Health, Sharon Carpinello, liable for their involuntary confinement. It awarded the former prisoners $1 each in damages.
In his instructions to the jury, federal district Judge Jed Rakoff explained that it was “undisputed” that the procedures of the Sexually Violent Predator Initiative violated constitutional due process. So the issue was, he said, whether this "violation of a plaintiff's rights was done intentionally, recklessly, wantonly, maliciously or the like, or was done, by contrast, in good faith."
For all but Ms. Carpinello, the jury found that they acted in good faith.