Monday, April 7, 2014

Chloroform Kidnapping Prank - Kidnapping People in Public

Hypocrites are everywhere. They scream and shout about protecting kids from abuse, but when they see it happening they ignore it?


AZ - Former Mesa cop (Walter Knox) turned art dealer arrested for sexual assault

Walter Knox
Walter Knox
Original Article

04/02/2014

By Jason Volentine

SCOTTSDALE - A former Mesa cop and Scottsdale ancient art dealer is in trouble, accused of sexual assault in a case with bizarre details emerging from a police report.

Walter Knox, 42, is the owner of Knox Artifacts in downtown Scottsdale. Police served a search warrant and arrested Knox at his business last week.

Two women in their late 20s are listed as victims in the police report with one of the women claiming sexual assault. Knox is also charged with assault with a deadly weapon.

A Scottsdale police report said officers found cocaine and guns when they searched Knox Artifacts.

In the report, officers said during the arrest that Knox claimed he was the victim of a theft and assault at a strip club the night before.

One of the cops present at the arrest noted in his report that Knox looked high. Another officer said Knox talked at length about his experience as a Mesa police officer, shootings in which he had been involved and his current medical issues.

Knox was released after his arrest and the next day, according to the report, called Scottsdale police back to his gallery, claiming the victims listed in the sexual assault case had stolen $2,800 in cash and used his credit card to book first class airplane tickets to Texas.

The report said Knox also gave officers two baggies of drugs he claimed cops had left at the gallery during their search the day before. Police seized the two baggies of meth and another drug.

Knox is out of jail pending further investigation on this case.


Let's talk about (sex offenders)

Zoning map
Original Article

Nazi Germany had registries as well!

04/05/2014

By Marc Allen

First, let’s put some things on the table. There is wide consensus that sexual assault is under reported. There is some disagreement about just how under reported sexual assault among adults is (and some controversy about how it is defined and measured), but there are good estimates that only about a tenth of sexual abuse against children is ever reported. Abuse against children is especially heinous because of the lifelong harm it can inflict on the survivors and the subsequent costs it imposes on society.

Now, let’s talk about one hugely counterproductive way to deal with sexual assault: public sex offender registries.*

Public registries started appearing in the early 1990s and became ubiquitous, with the help of federal legislation, by the early 2000s. Since then, both the feds and the states themselves have slowly been expanding their registries and adding restrictions to registrants.

There have been a number of good pieces in the last few years critical of public registries. Here. Here. And here. But public registries remain popular. Some states have expanded their registries in the last decade and/or added additional restrictions to registrants.

You can imagine why this ratcheting upwards keeps happening. Being pro sex offender isn't a terribly popular political stance. Take geographic bans for example. Once registrants are banned from living or loitering within 500 feet of a school, it’s easy and good politics to to expand 500 feet to 1000 feet (or even 2500 feet). After that, it’s easy to add daycare's, parks, churches, and Chuck E Cheese’s to the list of protected places.

The end result of these geographic bans is that large portions of cities become off-limits. Densely populated areas are especially bad. Here’s a map of the city of Grand Rapids, blue areas are within 1000 feet of a school, red areas are within 1000 feet of a day care:


OH - Law would mandate sex-offender alerts at nursing homes

Nursing home
Original Article

04/06/2014

By Encarnacion Pyle

State lawmakers want to close a loophole that requires neighbors to be notified when a registered sex offender moves into a nursing home but not the people who live there or their families.

As it stands now, if I live next to a nursing home, I’m going to be notified if a sex offender moves in. But if I’m in the room with a sex offender, I probably won’t know it,” said Beverley Laubert, the state’s long-term-care ombudsman with the Ohio Department of Aging.

Current law requires notification of anyone living within 1,000 feet of a sex offender. However, it does not require nursing-home administrators to notify residents, family members or guardians.

Legislation in Gov. John Kasich’s mid-biennium budget review would require administrators of nursing homes and assisted-living centers to check the names of all prospective residents against the state’s electronic sex-offender registry.

They also would be required to assess the potential risks of admitting that person and to create a plan if they do that includes information about how they would provide a safe environment for everyone, including the offender.

The administrators would then have to tell the other residents and their family members or guardians that a sex offender had moved in and describe the plan to protect them. They also would be required to help sex offenders change their addresses with the local sheriff’s office if they haven’t done so themselves.

We’re simply trying to correct an unintended consequence of the original law. It’s that simple,” said Bonnie Burman, director of the Department of Aging.

The new requirements are part of a larger bill that could go to the House for a vote this week. Ohio lawmakers have tried several times to change state law so that nursing-home residents are notified when a registered sex offender moves in, but those efforts have failed.

Nationwide, 14 states have enacted laws related to sex offenders in long-term-care facilities, but only five of them require that other residents be notified.

I think it would be a good first step,” state Sen. Capri Cafaro said. “Anything that promotes better protection of the frail and vulnerable older adults in our state is worth pursuing.”

In 2010, Cafaro, a Democrat from Hubbard in northeastern Ohio, introduced a provision aimed at identifying when the most-serious offenders intended to move into a facility. That bill included a measure to fine facilities $100 a day per violation if they didn’t comply.

A Dispatch investigation at the time found that 110 nursing-home residents and six employees statewide were registered sex offenders. Fifty-one were concentrated in four nursing homes, including 26 at Carlton Manor in Washington Court House. That one closed this year after the Ohio Department of Health revoked its license because of failed inspections and a history of problems.

While admirable in concept, the law might prove to be a difficult balancing act, said Jane Straker, a senior researcher at the Scripps Gerontology Center at Miami University.

Who doesn’t want to take care of frail, older adults if we perceive that they might be in danger? But sex offenders can also be frail, older adults in need of help,” she said. “It’s a huge dilemma, and I don’t know the answer.”

Straker said research hasn't been able to show a link between resident abuse and registered sex offenders in long-term care. And predicting which residents are likely to abuse others has been problematic.

Some people worry that notification would create unnecessary fear among the other residents and their families.

If you ship out a notice that you've just admitted a sex offender, a mass exodus will probably ensue, and no one wants that,” said Peter Van Runkle, the executive director of the Ohio Health Care Association, a nursing-home industry group.

To prevent that from happening, he predicts that most nursing homes would simply say they don’t have the staff and other resources to meet a sex offender’s needs.

And if a nursing home did accept a registered sex offender, “would it become a scarlet letter?” asked Steve Wermuth, interim president and CEO of LeadingAge, which represents nonprofit nursing homes.

But state officials said those fears are unfounded.

When it has been previously revealed that a sex offender has lived at a nursing home, “nothing awful has happened,” said Laubert, the state’s ombudsman.


CT - Bill would require state to notify mayors about sex offender placements

Just another pointless law
Original Article

Hmm, the state has an option to email people when a "sex offender" is placed into the community, or moves, this is yet another pointless law. And given the fact that "sex offenders" move so much, how quick will it become a pain in the butt to get an email every time one moves?

04/05/2014

By Adam Benson

If a measure before Connecticut legislators becomes law, when registered sex offenders leave prison and are placed into a Connecticut community, the chief executive officer of the town or city would be notified by the state.

On Wednesday, the General Assembly's Judiciary Committee voted 40-0 in favor of Senate Bill 432, which, if approved, would charge the state Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection with alerting mayors or first selectmen via email when a registered sex offender is provided with local housing. The measure is co-sponsored by state Sen. Cathy Osten, D-Sprague.

If legislators in both chambers approve the bill, it's up to Gov. Dannel P. Malloy to sign it into law, which could take effect July 1.

Lawmakers said a controversy that flared up last year in Norwich was the impetus for the provision.

Former Mayor Peter Nystrom led a vocal group of city officials who assailed the state for placing offenders into city apartments upon their release from a treatment facility known as The January Center, on the grounds of Montville's Corrigan-Radgowski Correctional Center.

In early February, the influential lobbying group Connecticut Conference of Municipalities included the proposal in its list of legislative priorities.

This bill is a direct reflection of the problem we ran into in Norwich. We're doing this for chief elected officials of cities and towns to get more information,” Osten said. “They need to know who is living in their community. When residents come to them with questions, they need to know what's going on.”

Norwich Mayor Deb Hinchey said she supports the legislation if it brings peace of mind to residents.

It's about being responsive to the citizens, and if they feel it gives them an extra measure of comfort or protection to have the mayor notified, I think that's fine,” Hinchey said. “If the law passes, I would certainly sit down with (Police) Chief (Louis J.) Fusaro and the city manager and figure out the process that we would implement to make sure the information was put out where it needed to be.”

In a statement, spokeswoman Brenda Bergeron said the state department already sends information about the whereabouts of sex offenders to local law enforcement, and it will fully cooperate with any new provisions.

The Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection is committed to the continuing improvement of all facets of public safety and stands ready to comply with the notification process outlined in the bill. It may be noted that this information is already provided to municipalities through their local police departments or resident state troopers,” she said.

Eastern Connecticut officials aren't the only ones backing S.B. 432.

In March 12 testimony before the judiciary committee, state Sen. Joseph Crisco Jr., D-Woodbridge, said the prompt flow of information to local leaders regarding sex offenders living in their towns is “important.”

I believe it is important for parents to be given the tools and information that would allow them to ensure the safety of their children. For this reasons, I urge support of this bill,” he said.
- This bill is NOT about parents having the info, that is already available, it's about notifying mayors, but they can also get notifications as well.  It just goes to show you that those in charge of passing unconstitutional laws have no clue what they are doing!

Norwich Alderman Mark Bettencourt, a former correctional officer and chairman of the City Council's Public Safety Committee, said S.B. 432 is good law.

For us, it's just a matter of following it. If it's coming in to a chief elected official, they're going to have to make the push to follow through and make sure the job gets done,” he said.


MS - Long Beach police officer (Patrick Klis) arrested, charged with sexual battery of a 15-year-old juvenile

Patrick Klis
Patrick Klis
Original Article

04/05/2014

By Gareth Clary

LONG BEACH - Patrick Anthony Klis, a police officer with the Long Beach Police Department, has been arrested and charged with three counts of sexual battery of a juvenile, according to a news release Saturday from Harrison County Sheriff Melvin Brisolara.

Brisolara said investigators received information on Thursday that Klis was having sexual relations with a 15-year-old juvenile.

Investigators were able to recover evidence and conduct interviews, which led to an arrest warrant being issued for Klis.

He was taken into custody at the Long Beach Police Department and booked into the Harrison County Adult Detention Facility.

Bond was set at $300,000 by Circuit Court Judge John Garguilo.

The Department of Human Resources was called and took custody of the 15-year-old victim.


AZ - Court hammers operator of Internet intimidation sites

ExtortionOriginal Article

04/05/2014

By Robert Anglen

A Valley man accused of running an Internet extortion racket was dealt a blow last month when a judge found he posted information on websites suggesting a decorated combat veteran with no criminal record was a child molester.

Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Katherine Cooper imposed several sanctions against Charles "Chuck" Rodrick, saying evidence showed he controlled websites where operators demanded money from sex offenders and harassed those who complained.

In a seven-page ruling March 26, Cooper found Rodrick controlled the websites, owned the domain names and violated court orders to remove posts involving three people he sued for defamation after they publicly decried the websites, including his ex-wife and her boyfriend and a convicted sex offender from Washington.

"He is the administrator for these websites and, in that capacity, is the only person capable of adding or removing information from these websites," Cooper wrote.

Cooper also sanctioned Rodrick's girlfriend, Traci Heisig, a court reporter and owner of Desert Hills Reporting in Phoenix. In a separate ruling, Cooper said Heisig, who joined Rodrick in defamation lawsuits, willfully refused to comply with court orders by repeatedly failing to show up for depositions.

Rodrick responded last week with a motion seeking to have Cooper removed from the case. He accused her of having a conflict of interest because of her past relationship with lawyers in the case, and he said the judge is biased against people who represent themselves in court.

"Rodrick has initiated an independent query into Judge Cooper's record in matters involving pro per litigants," he wrote. "It is believed the results show an extreme prejudice against him and pro per litigants in general."

For more than a year, Rodrick, 52, of Cave Creek, has denied ownership or control of the websites.

A Call 12 for Action investigation in 2013 found Rodrick's sites mined data compiled by law-enforcement agencies across the country and used it to collect money. Operators of the sites did not always take down profiles after payments were made and launched online harassment campaigns against those who complained.

The investigation found the websites listed individuals as sex offenders who no longer were required to register or whose names had been removed from sex-offender databases. The sites also included names and personal information of people who had never been arrested or convicted of a sex crime.

The websites, including Offendex.com, SORArchives.com and Sexoffenderrecord.com, stopped seeking payments from people in exchange for removing profiles in November after crackdowns on so-called take-down sites by credit-card and Web-based payment-processing companies.

Rodrick, who was convicted on fraud-related charges in the early 1990s, is at the center of several state and two federal lawsuits accusing him of running an online extortion racket. Lawsuits also have been filed against Rodrick's former business associate Brent Oesterblad, who has testified that he set up companies to disguise Rodrick's ownership interest and operated the websites as Rodrick's contract employee.

In May, Cooper ordered everyone involved in the defamation lawsuits to stop posting information on websites about the cases and each other. But Cooper said, in September, Rodrick posted claims suggesting his ex-wife's boyfriend, _____, was a child molester.

_____, a retired U.S. Marine Corps major and president of a real-estate holding company in Phoenix, never has been charged with a crime, records show.

Information Rodrick posted about _____ suggests he "is a child molester; states that he communicates with, aids and abets sex offenders and child molesters; alleges _____ committed sexual harassment and other misconduct in the workplace; and lists _____' employment addresses and professional affiliations," Cooper wrote in her ruling.

_____ called the allegations scurrilous, malicious and untrue.

Cooper said Rodrick violated two court orders, and she imposed several sanctions against him. She said a jury will be instructed that he posted the information about _____ and others and that his violation of court orders "may be relevant to the determination of _____' damages." She also ordered Rodrick to pay some fees for lawyers and a computer specialist hired by _____' legal team.

Cooper sanctioned Rodrick for failing to provide discovery to defendant _____, a convicted sex offender in Washington whose name was removed from official sex-offender registries but remained on the sites controlled by Rodrick. Rodrick sued _____ for defamation after he launched a website accusing Rodrick of extortion.

In her ruling against Heisig, Cooper criticized the court reporter's excuses for failing to show up at scheduled depositions. Heisig told the court she was in danger of losing a client over publicity generated by the case and feared what would happen if she missed an appointment with the client in order to attend her own deposition.

"When the Court denied her request ... she elected not to obey the Court's orders anyway," Cooper wrote.

Cooper ordered Heisig to pay attorney's fees and costs related to the missed deposition and tossed out her claims against defendants in the lawsuits.