Friday, March 28, 2014

Why Rape Is Sincerely Hilarious

TN - Former alderman (Richard L. Smith) on probation for solicitation charges against a minor

Richard L. Smith
Richard L. Smith
Original Article

This just goes to show you that the laws are only for specific people. If you are a politician, well known, or rich, then the laws don't apply to you!


By Bailey Darrow

PUTNAM COUNTY - Former Monterey alderman Richard L. Smith appeared in criminal court Thursday, entering a plea of guilty to one count of solicitation of a minor and must now serve two years on the sex offender registry.

In October, Smith was arrested on a three-count grand jury indictment charging him with one count of solicitation of a minor and two counts of extortion after he reportedly made contact with a young girl on social media and by sending text messages to a cell phone he purchased for her.

By entering a best interest plea of guilty to only the one count of solicitation, a Class E felony, Smith will have to serve two years on probation and must register on the sex offender registry.

He will be allowed to continue living at his home on Volunteer Way in Monterey, even though it is less than 1,000 feet from a school or park, despite that registration status. He will also be allowed to continue living with his girlfriend and her minor child, court documents state.

Upon successful completion of the sentence, Smith will be removed from the sex offender registry and the offense will be fully expunged, according to court documents.

The indictments issued against Smith alleged that between Dec. 1, 2012, and Jan. 9, 2013, Smith “did unlawfully by means of electronic communication intentionally request, persuade, invite or attempt to induce a person who (he) knows or should know is less than 18 years of age” to engage in conduct that, if completed, would constitute a violation of the state’s statutory rape law.

The extortion indictments alleged that Smith told the girl that “he would expose information concerning their personal relationship to various parties to embarrass her unless she fulfilled promises that he said she made concerning their romantic, sexual, and personal relationship.”

According to the indictments, he also told the girl “that he would expose information concerning their personal relationship to various parties to embarrass her unless she returned certain personal property,” to him.

The items Smith insisted the girl return include a ring, a necklace and a phone, according to the indictment.

Smith served on the Monterey board of mayor and aldermen for eight years. In 2010, he ran for mayor of Monterey, losing to then vice-mayor Jeff Hicks by only two votes. He also qualified in the race for mayor of the city in 2008, but ultimately withdrew his name from the ballot. In January 2012, he resigned from the city’s Planning Commission.

Most recently, Smith gained media attention as he campaigned for what he calls “Boomer’s Law” that would increase the possible punishment for aggravated assault in the state, following the death of his son in 2012.

ID - Former jailer (Julie McCormick) sentenced for sex with teen boy

Julie McCormick
Julie McCormick
Original Article



BOISE (AP) - The former safety and security supervisor at the Idaho Department of Juvenile Corrections facility in Nampa could spend only a year behind bars after admitting to sexually abusing a teenage inmate.

Julie McCormick, 31, of Nampa was sentenced Friday to 20 years in prison, with a minimum of five years required before she would be eligible for parole.

But the judge retained jurisdiction in the case, meaning McCormick could be free as early as 2015 if she successfully completes a prison program. She was also ordered to register as a sex offender and pay $5,000 to the victim, a 15-year-old boy she began having sex with in 2012 while he was incarcerated at the facility.

McCormick told law enforcement that she had sex with the teen three times and that she had fallen in love with the boy. But the teenager's mother, who spoke at Friday's sentencing, said the jailer had robbed the victim of his dignity.

"You brainwashed him about his past and used that to gain his trust," the woman told McCormick.

Judge Bradly Ford also blasted the former supervisor for abusing her position.

"She held a position of authority and trust; not only to the victim but also a position of trust to the people of Idaho," the judge said. "The victim was not free to leave facility, and he was under her control."

McCormick pleaded guilty to lewd conduct with a minor under 16 in 2012, and she could have faced up to 25 years in prison. But she cut a plea deal with prosecutors, who asked the judge to sentence McCormick to no prison time at all — only probation.

"That was the agreement, so we stood up in good faith today and argued probation," Canyon County Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Erica Kallin said. "Judge Ford determined that a rider was appropriate."

Under that plea deal, McCormick agreed to testify in the murder trial of Nicole Lee Kirtley, 35. Kirtley is charged with shooting George Richardson Jr., 59, multiple times at his Nampa home, then dumping the dead man's Jeep in the Snake River.

Kirtley confided her role in the slaying to McCormick when they were housed in the Canyon County Jail at the same time, Kallin said.

McCormick agreed to testify against her fellow inmate, but Kallin says now she won't have to because Kirtley pleaded guilty to second-degree murder in January.

"The trial against Nicole Kirtley was resolved in part as a result of the information from Julie McCormick, so she's not going to have to testify," Kallin said.

Kirtley's sentencing is set for next week, although Kallin expects to see it pushed back to a later date.

The teen abused by McCormick has filed a claim against the state, as has another former juvenile inmate who said he was beaten, sexually abused and threatened by female staffers at the facility.

A whistleblower lawsuit brought by a group of current and former Idaho Department of Juvenile Corrections is also moving forward after a federal judge agreed last month to send it before a jury. The lawsuit alleges agency leaders knew staffers were sexually abusing youths, but they did nothing to stop it. The group also contends the department is rife with cronyism, wastes taxpayer money and that managers failed to take action when one youth was caught inappropriately touching another.

The employees say they were retaliated against with when they spoke out about the abuse and other issues at the facility.

Department director Sharon Harrigfeld has said she is confident the state's detention facilities are safe and that allegations of misconduct are dealt with appropriately.

But a lawyer for the group of employees says there is evidence that regular sexual abuse of juvenile inmates by employees at the center stretches back 15 years.

WI - State Rep. Bill Kramer charged with 2 counts of sexual assault

Rep. Bill Kramer
Rep. Bill Kramer
Original Article



The Waukesha County District Attorney's Office on Friday charged state Rep. Bill Kramer with two criminal counts for allegedly sexually assaulting a Senate aide three years ago after a Republican gathering, according to a criminal complaint.

Kramer, R-Waukesha, earlier this month was stripped of his post as majority leader of the state Assembly by fellow Republicans after he was accused of sexually harassing one woman and inappropriately touching another during a trip in late February to Washington, D.C. One woman is a lobbyist; the other is a legislative staffer.

The felony charges of second-degree sexual assault issued Friday by Deputy District Attorney Debra Blasius stem from an alleged incident that occurred in Muskego on April 8, 2011.

The alleged victim, who was an aide to an unnamed senator, reported the incident to Muskego Police on March 5, just days after the allegations surfaced that Kramer had sexually harassed two women during the out-of-town trip.

It was unclear from the criminal complaint which senator the woman worked for and whether it was a state or U.S. senator.

Kramer's attorney, Jim Gatzke of New Berlin, said his client expects to be cleared.

"The process will provide Mr. Kramer with an opportunity to defend himself from the allegations and he will do so in the appropriate forum," Gatzke wrote in an email. "Once all of the information has been brought forward, Mr. Kramer is confident that he will be exonerated."

Waukesha County District Attorney Brad Schimel is a Republican who is running for attorney general. He said he was not involved in the charging decision.

According to the criminal complaint:

The woman, identified only by her initials, reported that an intoxicated Kramer approached her after a Republican gathering called "Pints and Politics" at the High Tide Pub and Grill in Muskego asking for a ride.

She told Muskego Police detective Stephen Westphal that while talking with Kramer, he pushed her against her vehicle hard enough to bruise her back while groping her breasts. Later, while sitting in the passenger seat of the woman's vehicle, Kramer groped her breasts and groin and forcibly kissed her, the alleged victim told Westphal.

"(She) states that she felt dirty, scared and was afraid that the defendant was going to rape her," the criminal complaint said. "After the defendant leaned into the back seat to pick something up she was able to send a quick text message asking friends to return to the parking lot."

Although the woman did not report the alleged incident to police, the criminal complaint said she and an attorney drafted a letter warning Kramer to stay away from her. The detective said the letter, sent to Kramer on May 18, 2011, warned him to have no contact with the woman because of the "physical and sexual assault you perpetrated on (the victim) at the recent Pints and Politics event in Muskego."

The woman's account was bolstered by another woman, who said she found the alleged victim crying and "in a panic" when she met her in the parking lot that evening, and by Keith Best, first vice chairman of the Waukesha County Republican Party, who also was at the political event that evening.

Best told Westphal that he doesn't recall details but that the woman told her Kramer "got physical with her and put his hands where they did not belong."

Westphal also said the GOP official told him that the alleged victim "was extremely upset and distraught following the incident and this is why the incident stuck with him."

The detective wrote that the woman said she didn't report the incident to police earlier for fear of embarrassing herself, her family and the Republican Party. She told Westphal that she had suffered "night terrors" and other negative effects stemming from the alleged incident.

Westphal reported contacting Kramer, 49, on March 19 and asked the state representative to come in for an interview but that Kramer said he would not be able to come in until April because he was in "therapy for these issues."

According to Westphal's report, in a phone call, Kramer initially said he didn't recall the incident but alleged that the victim had "stuck her tongue down my throat" at an event in 2008.

Later, Westphal wrote, Kramer told him that "I am sure I kissed her good night" and may have made a pass at her but gave various answers when asked if he had touched her breasts.

"I am sure she said something about it not going any further, that is why I went home," the detective quoted Kramer as saying. "I am sure that happened but I don't remember it. I have been turned down a lot."

Each of the two charges is a felony punishable by up to 40 years of prison and extended supervision and a $100,000 fine. Kramer is scheduled to make his initial court appearance in the case at 8:15 a.m. April 14 in Waukesha County Circuit Court in Waukesha.

Kramer has filed papers with the state saying he will not run for re-election this year. Owner of a financial services company, Kramer has served in the Assembly since 2006.

DOJ Pushes to Expand Hacking Abilities Against Cyber-Criminals

DOJ Hacker
Original Article



The U.S. Department of Justice is pushing to make it easier for law enforcement to get warrants to hack into the computers of criminal suspects across the country.

The move, which would alter federal court rules governing search warrants, comes amid increases in cases related to computer crimes.

Investigators say they need more flexibility to get warrants to allow hacking in such cases, especially when multiple computers are involved or the government doesn’t know where the suspect’s computer is physically located.

The Justice Department effort is raising questions among some technology advocates, who say the government should focus on fixing the holes in computer software that allow such hacking instead of exploiting them. Privacy advocates also warn government spyware could end up on innocent people’s computers if remote attacks are authorized against equipment whose ownership isn’t clear.

The Justice Department declined to provide further comment beyond the original documents.

The government’s push for rule changes sheds light on law enforcement’s use of remote hacking techniques, which are being deployed more frequently but have been protected behind a veil of secrecy for years.

In documents submitted by the government to the judicial system’s rule-making body this year, the government discussed using software to find suspected child pornographers who visited a U.S. site and concealed their identity using a strong anonymization tool called Tor.

The government’s hacking tools—such as sending an email embedded with code that installs spying software — resemble those used by criminal hackers. The government doesn’t describe these methods as hacking, preferring instead to use terms like “remote access” and “network investigative techniques.”

Right now, investigators who want to search property, including computers, generally need to get a warrant from a judge in the district where the property is located, according to federal court rules.

In a computer investigation, that might not be possible, because criminals can hide behind anonymizing technologies. In cases involving botnets—groups of hijacked computers—investigators might also want to search many machines at once without getting that many warrants.

Some judges have already granted warrants in cases when authorities don’t know where the machine is. But at least one judge has denied an application in part because of the current rules. The department also wants warrants to be allowed for multiple computers at the same time, as well as for searches of many related storage, email and social media accounts at once, as long as those accounts are accessed by the computer being searched.

Remote searches of computers are often essential to the successful investigation” of computer crimes, Acting Assistant Attorney General Mythili Raman wrote in a letter to the judicial system’s rulemaking authority requesting the change in September. The government tries to obtain these “remote access warrants” mainly to “combat Internet anonymizing techniques,” the department said in a memo to the authority in March.

Some groups have raised questions about law enforcement’s use of hacking technologies, arguing that such tools mean the government is failing to help fix software problems exploited by criminals.

It is crucial that we have a robust public debate about how the Fourth Amendment and federal law should limit the government’s use of malware and spyware within the U.S.,” said Nathan Wessler, a staff attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union who focuses on technology issues.

A Texas judge who denied a warrant application last year cited privacy concerns associated with sending malware when the location of the computer wasn’t known. He pointed out that a suspect opening an email infected with spyware could be doing so on a public computer, creating risk of information being collected from innocent people.

A former computer crimes prosecutor serving on an advisory committee of the U.S. Judicial Conference, which is reviewing the request, said he was concerned that allowing the search of multiple computers under a single warrant would violate the Fourth Amendment’s protections against overly broad searches.

The proposed rule is set to be debated by the Judicial Conference’s Advisory Committee on Criminal Rules in early April, after which it would be opened to public comment.

MA - Limiting where sex offenders live in Mansfield

Ronald Sellon
Ronald Sellon
Original Article


By Susan Parkou Weinstein

Police Chief Ronald Sellon has submitted a Town Meeting article that would restrict where the more serious sex offenders could live in Mansfield.
- We are willing to bet he will be running for congress or similar office soon.

Sellon said the sex offender registration and residential safety zone would bar Level 2 and 3 sex offenders from living within a 1,000-foot buffer of places such as schools, daycare centers and playgrounds and better protect children, developmentally disabled adults and other vulnerable members of the local population.

"This is an effort to further safeguard people in the community," he told selectmen Wednesday night.

There are three Level 3 and 25 Level 2 sex offenders living or working in town who have registered with police as required by law. They must register every year and the information is public. But there are no restrictions barring them from living close to a school and similar locations unless there is a provision in their probation or parole, Sellon said.

Police have been checking the compliance status of the local registered Level 2 and 3 offenders and found one Level 2 not in compliance this week. That number may change in the coming weeks, Sellon said.

According to the state sex offender registry board, Level 1 sex offenders are the least likely to reoffend and do not pose enough danger to be named publicly.

Level 2 and Level 3 offenders are considered at moderate risk and high risk to reoffend, respectively.

A dozen cities and towns in the state have adopted the stricter laws.

Sellon said he was also looking into joining a regional team to locate sex offenders and take more aggressive steps to document their whereabouts.

Selectmen said they would support the article.

"This sounds like a great idea to me," Selectman Doug Annino said.

OH - Franklin County Deputy (Justin Iddings) Charged With Possessing Child Porn

Justin Iddings
Justin Iddings
Original Article


By Andy Long

WESTERVILLE - A Franklin County deputy is in jail, accused of possessing child pornography.

According to the Franklin County Sheriff’s Office, Justin D. Iddings, 30, of Westerville was being investigated based on information that he may have been sharing child pornography.

Court records indicate that Iddings was in possession of video files that depicted juveniles engaging in sexual conduct with each other.

Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force members executed a search warrant at Iddings’ Allview Road home in Westerville and seized several computers, computer equipment and several firearms.

Iddings was arrested Thursday, charged with one F-2 count of pandering obscenity involving a minor and one F-4 count of pandering obscenity involving a minor.

The Sheriff’s office says that Iddings is a deputy that works in the Franklin County Jail. He has been placed on unpaid administrative leave while the investigation continues.

In one case, court records said that one of the children involved was between seven and ten years old.

Iddings is expected to appear in court Friday morning.

CT - Correction officer (Kelvin Grisales) accused of sexual assault in Hartford

Kelvin Grisales
Kelvin Grisales
Original Article


By Jill Konopka

HARTFORD (WFSB) - A Hartford correctional officer was arrested after police said he was involved in a violent rape Thursday morning behind a local high school.

Kelvin Grisales was placed on administrative leave Thursday after being charged with multiple crimes including aggravated rape and threatening, officials with Connecticut Department of Corrections confirmed.

Grisales, who is a father and former Marine, is accused of sexually assaulting a woman in a back parking lot behind the Sport and Medical Sciences Academy on Huyshope Street overnight.

The victim, who is being called Jane Doe in court documents, told police the sexual assault occurred in a blue SUV, which was later pulled over by police.

"Grisales told Doe to get in the back seat, and he followed. Grisales then pulled out a gun, and told Doe to do as he says. Doe asked Grisales to let her go, and that she didn't want to die," according to court documents.

"The claim is that she was sexually assaulted at gunpoint and a badge was shown," said Hartford Deputy Chief Brian Foley. "As far as his employment status we're not commenting. Certainly you can contact the DOC."

Police said the victim later told them she went willingly at first and the two discussed sex for money. But when she alleges she was threatened and feared for her life.

According to arrest papers, Grisales paints a very different picture. He told officers, she threatened him "they had consensual sex."

Police wouldn't discuss details, but say their investigation isn't over and isn't confined just to Hartford.

The New Britain Police Department said they are investigating two similar sexual assaults.

"There is an additional incident of a similar nature being investigated by the Hartford Police Department," said New Britain Police Captain Thomas Steck in an email to Eyewitness News.

Grisales, who has worked for DOC since 2008, is believed to be the suspect in these additional sexual assaults as well.

"We're examining all similar incidents," Foley said. "We're in contact with the New Britain Police Department."

New Britain Police Department said its investigation is "ongoing" and no more information was released.

Grisales later told authorities his son's BB gun was in the car. Arrest papers show he said he grabbed it and put in his lap because he was fearful.

Grisales was arraigned at Hartford Superior Court on Thursday. Following his court appearance, he is being held on a $500,000 bond.

Family members at court on Thursday did not have a comment for Eyewitness News.

CA - Federal lawsuit calls for repeal of Pomona’s sex offender ordinance

Original Article


By Monica Rodriguez

POMONA - A Santa Maria lawyer filed a federal lawsuit against Pomona this week calling for the repeal of a 2008 ordinance regulating the presence of sex offenders in the city.

According to the lawsuit, the city’s ordinance goes beyond what is contained in the ordinances of other cities by prohibiting sex offenders from being on private property, such as arcades or movie theaters.

Pomona’s ordinance is “one of the worst ordinances in our state,” said Janice Bellucci, who filed the lawsuit on behalf of _____ of Grover Beach in San Luis Obispo County.

Bellucci said her client has not lived in Pomona but could be interested in visiting the city at some point.

Pomona’s ordinance is such that “we believe it violates the federal and state constitutions,” Bellucci said.

Deputy City Manager Mark Gluba said the City Council will be briefed on the lawsuit during the closed portion of a future meeting, and council members will give city staff direction on how to proceed.

The 2008 ordinance made it difficult for registered sex offenders to move into the city.

The ordinance was modeled after one adopted the same year in Long Beach and took advantage of wording in the voter-approved Proposition 83 (PDF), referred to as Jessica’s Law, which allowed cities to adopt ordinances containing residency restrictions that went beyond those set in state regulations.

Jessica’s Law prohibits sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of schools and parks where children gather. Pomona’s ordinance barred registered sex offenders from living within 2,640 feet from sensitive uses such as child-care centers, community centers, museums, sports centers, tutoring and learning centers, youth centers, along with rail stations or bus stops.

Also included in the list of sensitive uses are arcades, children’s retail stores, cyber cafes and movie theaters.

Most ordinances don’t include privately owned property,” said Bellucci, who is also president of California Reform Sex Offender Laws.

The organization’s website says sexual abuse is never acceptable and that sex offense laws and policies should be based on “sound research and common sense, not fear, panic or paranoia.”

Public sex offender registry and laws setting residency restrictions “do not protect children but instead ostracize and dehumanize individuals and their families,” the website said.

Pomona’s restrictions are such that every part of the city is within a residential exclusion zone, according to the lawsuit.

The sex offender ordinance adopted by the City of Pomona violates both the federal and state constitutions,” said Bellucci in a statement.

Pomona’s ordinance is based on what Bellucci said are two myths.

One is that registrants have high rates for committing offences again, yet state and federal government reports indicate 1.8 percent of those on parole and 5.3 percent of registered sex offenders overall re-offend, the statement said.

The other myth is that strangers commit sexual assaults. In reality more than 90 percent of sexual assaults involving children are committed by family members and other people who the victims are familiar with such as teachers, coaches and clergy members, the statement said.

More than 70 cities across the state have restrictive ordinances and in January California Reform Sex Offender Laws notified them of a recent California Court of Appeal decision invalidating two ordinances, one of those being Irvine’s.

Costa Mesa and El Centro repealed their ordinances and other cities including Anaheim, Grand Terrace and South Pasadena have agreed in writing not to enforce their ordinances while they wait for the state Supreme Court to decide if it will review the Court of Appeal decision, Bellucci said in the statement.

Pomona is the first city to be sued but plans call for filing a lawsuit against another city as early as Monday, she said.

Assistant City Attorney Andrew Jared said the city does not comment on litigation.

Jared said for a period of about a year the ordinance was successful in keeping new registered sex offenders from moving into the city but after that time it was not enforced.

The ordinance has not been actively enforced due to staffing issues,” Jared said.

The city registers those that are required to do so, he added.

When the ordinance was being enforced the city took several people who had violated the local law to court, Jared said.

A combination of factors including court rulings “caused us to evaluate the enforcement and at that time budget constraints that caused it to be de-prioritized,” he said.

Currently, conditions in the city and the state are different from what they were in the years prior to the ordinance’s approval including the state’s prison population realignment.

Realignment has resulted in different approaches in how the state Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation handles registered sex offenders, he said.

Changes in state policies have meant state authorities are “not stockpiling recently” paroled individuals the way they had been in Pomona at one time, Jared said. “That practice has subsided.”

Bellucci said her client is seeking “the repeal of the ordinance and attorney fees (but) no monetary damages.”

The restrictive ordinances have a direct impact on more than 105,000 people around the state and indirectly affect about 400,000 which includes the family members of registered sex offenders, Bellucci said.