Lawsuit: California breaks the law on sex offender website

This post is a continuation of "Registrants sue CA DOJ — Demand improvements to, or end of, Megan's Law Website"

11-10-15 California:

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) - California is breaking the law by failing to include updates about sex offenders on its Megan’s Law website, leading some offenders to be targeted by vigilantes, according to a lawsuit filed Tuesday.

The suit filed by two offenders says the California Department of Justice has not updated the sex offender registry to include the dates offenders were convicted and released from prison. That has been required under state law since 2010.

The information is important so citizens can better gauge if an offender is an immediate threat, said Janice Bellucci, president of the advocacy group California Reform Sex Offender Laws. The website includes a current photo and home address for offenders, no matter how old the crime.

“Most people jump to the conclusion that it must have happened recently,” she said. “We have people who have been on the registry for 50 years or more.”

The law says the department must have the date of conviction and the date of release before it can post either detail. It also must say if the offender was later imprisoned for any other felony, or say it doesn’t know of any subsequent incarcerations.

State Opts Out of Compliance With Adam Walsh Act

10-11-2011 New York:

The Cuomo administration has opted out of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act—a federal law designed to toughen and standardize sex offender registration practices—concluding that it would cost more than it is worth while undermining the state's traditional protections for teenage offenders.

In a recent letter to the U.S. Department of Justice, the state said it would not embrace a law it was supposed to adopt more than two years ago.

"[W]e are convinced that the statutory scheme set out by our legislature is in the best interests of New York State and the best way to protect our citizens," Risa S. Sugarman, deputy commissioner of the Division of Criminal Justice Services and director of the state's Office of Sex Offender Management, wrote in an Aug. 23 letter. "New York believes that our present laws and risk assessment method provide our citizens with effective protection against sexual predators."

Since the act, also known as the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, was signed by President George W. Bush in July 2006, three New York governors have debated whether to comply with a statute that would require the state to substantially alter the way it registers sex offenders.

Twice, New York requested and received more time. But after the federal government made clear in late July that it would not offer additional extensions, New York begged off.

The act creates a national sex offender registry and directs every state and territory to post information on all sex offenders on a public website. It also establishes a rating system defined by the nature of the offense, rather than the risk of re-offense.

Implementation has proven problematic throughout the country, and only 15 states have complied with a law, according to the Justice Department's Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering and Tracking (SMART).

Several states have cited conflicts between the act and their own laws and policies, and have been working with the federal government to achieve what the SMART office deems "substantial compliance." States that do not comply face the loss of 10 percent of the federal assistance received under the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG), a major source of funding for anti-crime initiatives.

The Cuomo administration acknowledges that New York will not comply with the Adam Walsh law because of a deep chasm between the federal standards and New York laws, and long-standing public policy determinations.

For instance, New York does not publicly post information on offenders who are deemed at low risk of recidivism, many of them convicted of an age-of-consent crime. And its three-level rating system classifies offenders by low-, medium- and high-risk based not only on the crime of conviction, but myriad other factors, such as the use of violence, whether the offender is a predator or predicate, and whether the crime involved sexual violence. That would have to change if New York adopted the Adam Walsh Act.

But the state's main objection was apparently the federal requirement to place juveniles on the public sex offender registry, a mandate "in direct conflict [with this state's] public policy," Ms. Sugarman said in her letter.

New York does not register youthful offenders (those between the ages of 16 and 18 whose conviction to a serious crime is vacated and replaced with a non-criminal adjudication) or juvenile delinquents (individuals between the ages of 7 and 16 whose case is adjudicated in Family Court). It does register juvenile offenders, who are between the ages of 13 and 15 and, in contrast to youthful offenders, were held criminally liable for a sexually motivated felony.

"While New York law provides that the most dangerous juvenile offenders may be prosecuted in adult courts and, if convicted, they would be placed on the Sex Offender Registry, our laws and public policy also acknowledges that other than those most dangerous offenders, children who commit crimes should avoid the ramifications of adult convictions," Ms. Sugarman said.

The state also expressed concern over the "fiscal impact of implementation…with no improvement in public safety."

Ms. Sugarman suggested that the cost of requiring in-person reporting of all levels of sex offenders (in New York, low- and medium- risk offenders verify their address in writing every year and report once every three years to have a new picture taken; high risk offenders must report annually), the need to establish separate reporting facilities for juveniles and the "likelihood of litigation to defend the implementation of the Act" would add up to more than the $1.6 million the state could lose in Byrne aid.

Janine Kava, deputy communications director at the Division of Criminal Justice Services, said the state will attempt to recover the federal aid.

Ms. Kava said the state has been notified that it can apply to get the funds back for specific projects, such as upgrading information technology infrastructure, improving data collection and information sharing, enhancing community notification procedures and other activities that further the overall mission of the Adam Walsh Act, and will "pursue this option."

In the meantime, Ms. Sugarman said in her letter, New York "will continue to cooperate with the federal government and all other states in the effort to protect all victims against sexual predators by preventing the attacks against child and adult victims and bringing sexual predators to justice."

There was no immediate reaction from the Justice Department. ..Source.. by John Caher, NY Law Journal

Petitions: Why some are premature, some good, and others useless!!

UPDATE 9-3-2011: It has just been reported that, someone had used a Group's name (now omitted) without the authority of the group. Accordingly, we have made changes and apologize to the Group, and made the change as soon as we were notified.

9-2-2011 National:

Over the past few days I have had several folks ask me to sign and pass on various Petitions with respect to the Second Chance Reauthorization Act. I have declined to do so because a Petition is not the proper way to effect the changes in the Second Chance Act, RIGHT NOW! Petitions are USELESS when a bill is ---IN PROGRESS--- meaning lawmakers are considering the bill RIGHT NOW! This is the case with the Second Chance Reauthorization Act.

In July when the Second Chance Reauthorization Act was introduced I posted it in my blog WITHOUT suggesting folks do anything, then it did not contain anything negative towards any former sex offender. Then when the Senate Committee made changes affecting former sex offenders, negatively, I posted an UPDATE in my blog and suggested folks contact their respective lawmakers in Congress and ask them to VOTE NO when this bill comes before them.

In addition I noted: "The bill has been placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 108." which means the FULL Senate HAS NOT YET voted on the bill, in other words the bill has not passed the Senate yet! That means there is still time to contact Senators and since it has not yet gotten to the U.S. House, all U.S. Reps as well. The bill is still ---IN PROGRESS--- and there is time for some lawmakers to put in an amendment.

So my objection to the specific Petition put forth by (Now Omitted Group) is, why have folks spend their time today --signing the petition-- when they should be contacting their respective lawmakers in Congress TODAY because the bill is still --IN PROGRESS-- and can be changed, and doing that, if successful, would avoid having to go to Washington DC and speak to lawmakers in the fall.

I am not one to PASS AN OPPORTUNITY when it presents itself, and today there is still time for lawmakers to make changes, that is my only objection! One final point, when I read the (Now Omitted Group Name) Petition I did not see any instructions for signers, as to what they should do TODAY other than sign the petition. That is a lost opportunity.

My message today is intended to be instructive, and not viewed otherwise. I will always support proper efforts of Advocates whatever their message or petition may be, as long as it helps registrants and or their families.

Note: All of the OTHER Second Chance Act Petitions I was asked to sign and pass on, those petitions are totally useless for some of the reasons I mention under "Reviewing Petitions" below.

For now have a great day and a better tomorrow.
eAdvocate

THE NEW WHITE HOUSE PETITIONING PROCESS: Without getting into a long discussion folks need to remember, that, those petitions can only affect FEDERAL law. The President has no jurisdiction to change state laws. In addition, the President CANNOT change the existing procedure which is used to enact laws. i.e., asking him to intervene in the Second Chance Reauthorization Act to include former sex offenders, is something he cannot do, he simply cannot change how Congress does what it does. Whatever he is asked to do, will likely be something done over a long period of time, if he decides it is an issue worth addressing.

---

REVIEWING PETITIONS: Folks Need to Review Petitions for Signs of the Following: Online Petition sites are a easy way for folks to make a statement, but statements do not change laws, they merely express the opinion of the Petition creator. Too often these online Petition sites are used to edify the creator, or get more folks to become members of the Petition creator's website without explaining to possible signers that is what they are doing.

It is very easy to make a statement that folks will agree with (ex: Petition to get the Adam Walsh Act Repealed), who if they are affected by such a hateful law would not want to get on board with such a petition. Folks need to look deeper at the petition, and ask, can the petition accomplish what it says? I am not speaking of the person who created the petition here, instead, is a petition the proper instrument to accomplish what it appears to want to do?

Today's laws are crafted and enacted into law, based on a constitutional procedure. Folks must follow that procedure, and not try to circumvent that procedure, if one circumvents it (on purpose or through ignorance of the proper way) then all efforts will be ignored by lawmakers. Worse yet, the signers, thinking they are helping, their efforts are nothing but a waste of their time.

In baseball, football or any other sport, they have rules, and if players ignore the rules or try to circumvent them, the ref will call foul and the player and his/her team pays the price. Here our movement will suffer because of these erroneous petitions, no matter how well spirited they may have been intended when created. Folks need to learn the process used by Congress and follow it religiously.

Morgan County Compliance Sweep: Sex Offenders Now Share Cost of Tracking

Note the comment "The new law took effect in July, and registrants may not know about it." It is common for states to not notify registrants and then some get caught up in some violation.

8-10-2011 Alabama:

MORGAN COUNTY, AL— Federal teams joined local officers and sheriff's deputies on Monday for a widespread sweep to track down sex offenders in Morgan County.

It was to make sure they are abiding by new stricter registration laws. The new laws now require offenders to share the cost of tracking them.

On Monday morning, 10 teams of agents, officers, and deputies armed themselves with detailed case files to track down 180 registered sex offenders, considered the highest risk to the public.

Morgan County Sheriff Ana Franklin describes what they were after.

"A very, very good baseline on where they are, what they're doing and they they're reporting as they're supposed to," she said.

Franklin says new registration laws took effect in July and some offenders may not be aware of them. So, law enforcement went out to inform offenders of the changes.

"Part of the changes in this new legislation puts a lot of the burden on the offender themselves to understand his responsibilities to the community himself to know this law and to stay within compliance," said Lt. Pouncey Robertson of Decatur Police.

Offenders are now required to register four times a year with their local authorities and each time, pay $10.00 toward the costs of tracking all offenders.

The teams didn't stop at just seeing an offender. They demanded to see evidence of offenders living where they claimed and gathered any extra information about the offender that they could.

And since there are more than 400 registered sex offenders living in Morgan County, this day's sweep was just the beginning of more aggressive compliance checks to come.

The new law also requires youthful offenders to be treated as adults in terms of registering and informing the public of their status. Offenders who make changes to their living arrangements have three business days to report those changes or risk being charged with a felony for failing to do so. ..Source.. by Beth Jett WHNT NEWS 19 Anchor/Reporter

Press Release: NEW STUDY DISPUTES CLAIMS OF 100,000 MISSING SEX OFFENDERS

7-17-2011 National:

100,000 Sex Offenders Missing . . . or Are They? Deconstruction of an Urban Legend

A new study has been released this week which raises questions about claims that 100,000 registered sex offenders in the U.S. are "missing". The study, published in the scientific journal Criminal Justice Policy Review, analyzed data downloaded directly from online sex offender registries in 2010. The authors also surveyed the state's registry managers.

The study utilized a sample of more than 445,000 registered sex offenders which included only those listed on public registries. About two-thirds of the sex offenders in the United States are publicly identified; the rest are assessed by states to be low risk and are not subject to public disclosure. The authors were able to identify sex offenders designated by states to be transient, homeless, absconded, non-compliant, or whose address or whereabouts were otherwise unknown. Nationwide, about 2.4% were officially listed as absconded, unable to be located, or having failed to comply with registration requirements. When including those designated as homeless or transient, the rate grew to slightly over 4%.

The authors also reported on data obtained in 2010 via email and telephone surveys of state registry managers. Rates of registration noncompliance among registrants living in the community varied greatly, ranging from about 1% in some states (e.g. Florida, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, North Dakota, Vermont, and West Virginia) to about 13% (California, Hawaii, and Oklahoma). Nationally, the median rate of noncompliance is about 2.7%. "The variation in how state systems defined and categorized offenders made it difficult to estimate exactly how many sex offenders have truly gone missing," said researcher Jill Levenson, a psychology professor at Lynn University in Boca Raton, Florida, who conducted the study with Criminologist Andrew Harris from University of Massachusetts Lowell.

In December 2010, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children reported that there are a total of 728,435 registered sex offenders in the U.S. Using the 4% figure to estimate how many offenders living in the community might have whereabouts that are not verified, Levenson calculated the number to be somewhere between 25,000 and 30,000. She emphasized that those numbers include technical noncompliance as well as true absconding. "We found no evidence to support the frequently repeated statistic that 100,000 (or about 14%) of the nation's sex offenders are missing or unaccounted for." Source: Press Release of Jill S. Levenson, Ph.D

---

For more information, contact Jill S. Levenson, Ph.D., Lynn University, Department of Psychology and Human Services, 3601 N. Military Trail, Boca Raton, FL 33431, 561-237-7925, jlevenson@lynn.edu, OR Andrew J. Harris, Ph.D., University of Massachusetts, Lowell, Department of Criminal Justice & Criminology, 870 Broadway Street, #225, Lowell, MA 01854, (978) 934-3978, Andrew_Harris@uml.edu.

Vista Residents Concerned After Sex Offender Moves Into Area

5-4-2011 California:

____ Feels Betrayed By Neighbor Who Took In Sex Offender

VISTA, Calif. -- Some North County residents are outraged after a convicted violent sex offender moved into their neighborhood.

Vista resident said her two little girls can no longer play in the front yard on Stiles Court after she found out that ___, a twice-convicted child molester, recently moved in nearby.

"Oh, it panics you. It panics you," she said.

___ said she feels betrayed by her neighbor. ___ and his wife took ___ in because his history as a child molester has made it impossible to find a place to live.

"Knowing him, I feel safe because he's been in treatment. He's been in support groups. He has not offended for a long time," said ___.

...... "But do you rehabilitate someone like that? I don't know," said a neighbor, who has lived in her home since 1977 and is next door to the house where ____ lives.

The issue has bitterly divided neighbors.

"The thing is, these people have to live someplace, but maybe some place there aren't many children" said neighbor ____.

As soon as residents found out, they went on the Megan's Law website, downloaded ____'s information, put it on a flier and then posted it on the community's mailbox.

On Wednesday, nearly three dozen local, county, state and federal law enforcement officers went to ___'s neighborhood and told every resident within a quarter mile of ____'s home that a convicted violent sex offender lived nearby.

Authorities also warned residents about the fliers.

"We were told they have to come down because if anything happened to this man, whoever put the fliers up would be held accountable," said ___. ...Source.. by 10News.com

Long Beach may settle sex offender's legal claim

5-3-2011 California:

COURTS: City Council will weigh $115,000 in damages for 2008 arrest of a RSO.

LONG BEACH - A registered sex offender is set to receive $115,000 from the city of Long Beach after a judge ruled that police violated his civil rights.

The ruling in November and the damages settlement, which the City Council is expected to approve today, appear to be the first of their kind in California as a result of what law enforcement and state officials say is a loophole in sex offender registration laws.

However, a bill working its way through the state Senate would give law enforcement agencies stronger powers when checking on sex offenders' residency status, making such legal challenges more difficult.

In the Long Beach case, police went to the residence of registered sex offender on June 23, 2008, to confirm that he lived at the address he had provided to law enforcement, as required under California Penal Code 290, according to Deputy City Attorney.

When he refused to provide proof of his residence, such as a utility bill, officers arrested him for obstruction of justice. He sued, alleging that his civil rights had been violated.

Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Judith Vander Lans ruled Nov. 15 that his civil rights had been violated because he wasn't on probation or parole. While Penal Code 290 requires local enforcement agencies to confirm sex offenders' residency status, it doesn't require offenders to provide proof of residency.

"No notice is given to registrants that they could be detained without reasonable suspicion or probable cause and be required to answer questions and/or provide proof of residency under threat of arrest during a random compliance check," Vander Lans says in her written ruling.

Zinger said that the city's interpretation is that state law does allow police to take action in such a case.

"I don't think it was a mistake on our part," Zinger said. "Our position was that we had the implied right (to arrest him) pursuant to the statute. The statute required us to go out there and make sure he's staying where he's supposed to be staying."

The city didn't appeal the ruling, however, and agreed to settle with him on damages rather than have the court decide how much money should be paid out.

Police spokesman Sgt. Rico Fernandez said police officials are still reviewing the case to determine what policy changes need to be made, but the officers who had arrested him have been told about the court ruling.

Fernandez noted that the arrest of a sex offender for not showing proof of residency is rare and that officers will continue to monitor offenders.

"Compliance checks are still going to continue," Fernandez said.

Soon, residency checks may no longer be a legal concern for law enforcement agencies throughout California.

State Sen. Curren Price, D-Inglewood, introduced legislation in February that would require registered sex offenders to provide proof of residency when asked by law enforcement personnel who are investigating compliance with sex offender registration laws.

Under the bill, SB 756, failure to provide proof of residence to police would be a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in a county jail. The bill is in the Senate's Public Safety Committee.

Fahizah Alim, communications director for Price, said that the senator hadn't been aware of Long Beach's civil rights case and didn't know of any similar lawsuits by sex offenders in California. ..Source.. by Paul Eakins, Staff Writer

Sex Offenders Focus of Santa Clara Sweep

4-22-2011 California:

SANTA CLARA, Calif. -- Law enforcement agents made checks on dozens of sex offenders on parole or probation in Santa Clara County Thursday night.
One stop was the Saint Francis Motel on The Alameda in Santa Clara where 14 offenders reside.

“People will leave them alone here,” a law enforcement officer told KTVU News. “This isn't a place where people really want to live.”

Officers arrested one man, for having pornography on his laptop computer, a parole violation because he'd already been convicted of a sex offense against a child.

“We're going to take the computer to the Sheriff's office to do a more thorough search to see if there's anything child related which may lead to something else,” parole agent Steve Van Bebber said.

It was the first arrest during the sweep by a special task force, which is comprised of members of the Santa Clara County Sheriff's Office, Santa Clara Police, U.S. Marshals, along with probation and parole agents.

Agents said tight funding makes operations of this size only possible a few times a year. Agents said it's critical to public safety even if most of the offenders they check aren't in violation.

“There's a lot of us that are not a threat to anybody,” one offender told KTVU News. “I totally understand, I respect what they're doing.”

Agents said they usually find about 20 percent of offenders in violation and get re-arrested. ..Source.. by KTVU.com

The Adam Walsh Act: Before Its Inception - Part-2

109th Congress, Hearing before the, House Judiciary, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security on June 9, 2005: PROTECTING OUR NATION’S CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL PREDATORS AND VIOLENT CRIMINALS: WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE?

Specific bills under consideration were not identified in this hearing

The purpose here is to continue documenting events leading up to the Adam Walsh Act. Selected portions of this particular hearing, chaired by Mr. Green (WI), follow:

Mr Greens: Opening Remarks

Mr Green's OPENING REMARKS (pg-1):

Mr. GREEN. [Presiding.] Good afternoon. I want to welcome everyone to the third in a series of important hearings held by this Subcommittee addressing the problem of sexual predators and violent criminals who attack our Nation’s children.
...
Some might say that we need to treat sex offenders and to rehabilitate them; that we must address the problem by throwing money at sex offenders to break their silence and perverse behavior, to stop them from attacking again and again, from molesting again and again.

My view is quite the opposite. One victim, one child harmed, one child raped, one child molested, is one crime too many. I’m not willing to cross my fingers and hope the problem does not occur again and again. To me, a sex offender who commits one of these heinous offenses has forfeited the right to live with the freedoms enjoyed by law-abiding citizens. The sex offender has forfeited the right to move without compliance with registration requirements; whether it be for a job, for school, or simply to live.
......
I, along with many others, will aggressively seek to enact legislation following such broad principles. We do so because we remember the suffering caused by crimes committed against Jessica Lunsford, Jetseta Gage, Sarah Lunde, and from my home State of Wisconsin, Amie Zyla, who courageously agreed to testify here today. I’m anxious to hear from our distinguished panel of witnesses.

The sad fact is, every one of the crimes mentioned by Mr. Green, the offender was either denied therapy, refused therapy or was kicked out of therapy, on his initial conviction and imprisonment, and the result was further sex crimes.
TRACKING is not PREVENTION
It is clear, Mr. Green wants "Further Punishment."
Mr. Green, knowing that Dr. Fred Berlin was going to testify in a few minutes, and knowing Berlin would speak about sex offender therapy, Green wanted to get his digs in before Berlin, to set the tone of the hearing. After all, Green was chairing the hearing!

And I now yield time to the Ranking Minority Member of this Subcommittee, the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Bobby Scott.

Mr Scott: Opening Remarks

Mr Scott's OPENING REMARKS (pg-3):

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you for holding this hearing on what we can do to protect children from sexual predators and other violent criminals. It’s good actually to hold the hearing. Usually, we pass the bills and then hold the hearing. In this case, we’re actually considering the bills. At such a time, we can actually consider the research to make sure we’re doing the right thing.

Child deaths as a result of sexual abuse or other violence is so tragic as to shock the conscience, and our reaction will be to strike back with all the punitive weight of government. As policymakers, it’s also incumbent upon us not to simply strike back after the events have happened, but to see what we can do to reduce the incidence to begin with.

We know that the vast majority of abusers are either relatives, friends or individuals known to the child and family—90 to 95 percent, according to ‘‘Be a Child’s Hero Network.’’ Most of the cases of abuse are never reported to authorities or ever dealt with in an official manner.

Furthermore, we know that some child offenders are predatory, and repeat their crimes. The vast majority do not, after conviction, create other similar crimes. Studies by the Department of Justice indicate that less than 5 percent after conviction are found guilty of other sexual crimes against children.

So any repeat offense against children is horrible, but we have to consider what we can do in the most cost-effective way, most cost-effective strategies, to reduce the chance that it might happen again.

Mr. Chairman, most of the bills we’re going to consider are the public notification bills. I want to make it clear that having police and supervision authorities aware of all location and identification information about child offenders is not subject to debate. They need to know this information and have this information available.

The question before us is whether or not this information ought to be available on the Internet, and whether that’s productive or counterproductive in reducing the incidence of child sexual abuse. We have limited amounts of money, and we ought to make sure that that money is used as strategically as possible to reduce the incidence of child sexual abuse. Some of these bills cost a lot of money to implement, and we have to consider whether or not it could have been used more effectively other ways to reduce child sexual abuse.

So Mr. Chairman, I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses on what we can do to actually address the problem. And I thank you for convening the hearing.

Mr. GREEN. I thank the Ranking Member for his opening statement.

Witnesses, it is the practice of the Subcommittee to swear in all witnesses appearing before it. If you would, please stand and raise your right hand. [Witnesses sworn.]

Testimony of Tracy Henke, Dep't of Justice

Next came the "TESTIMONY OF TRACY HENKE, DEPUTY ASSOCIATE ATTORNEY GENERAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE" (pg-4-5)(Her submitted testimony follows her presentation):

...[snip].... Specifically, I want to explain the implementation of the new National Sex Offender Public Registry. ...[snip]...

While citizens can already search existing public State offender registries, that search must be conducted on a State by State basis; a cumbersome and time-consuming process. Limited for-profit sites also offer information from various States by data mining their public registries, often without the States’ knowledge. However, no government system currently exists to link these public registries.

Note: "Data mining, without States' knowledge," that is the first time I have been able to document that the Federal Government is fully aware that State Sex Offender registries are being BROKEN INTO WITHOUT STATES' KNOWLEDGE. What is most important to note is, that registrant information is being CAPTURED by parties that are not authorized to have such information, and, in violation of federal privacy right of registrants. This is no small matter, states and the federal government are required to follow federal privacy laws, and here we see they are ignoring that violations are taking place.

In contrast, the National Public Registry creates a single focal point for citizens to search public sex offender information nationwide, providing timely and accurate information to the public. It is a partnership effort between the Department of Justice and the States to offer secure, reliable, and free-of-charge public sex offender information to citizens nationwide.

The National Sex Offender Public Registry will not collect or retain control over any State data, and there will be no cost to the State or territory to link to the national search site. States and territories need not change or alter the design or functionality of their existing sex offender registries in order to participate.

It is important to note that by allowing States to maintain control over their own data they can remain consistent with their own State laws regarding release of offender information. In addition, because data is maintained under State control, it can be more closely monitored and validated between the States and the local law enforcement agencies providing the information.

I stress that the public registry can be implemented quickly. The Attorney General has challenged us to have at least 20 States participating and a site available for public searches in just 60 days from May 20th, with additional States linked in the following months.

....[snip]...

In addition to the implementation of the public registry, the Bureau of Justice Statistics provides NCHIP funds to States that can be used to improve their own sex offender registries. Since 1998, States have used over $37 million in Federal funding for this purpose.

The Bureau of Justice Assistance manages the Comprehensive Approaches to Sex Offender Management Program, which provides funding to help jurisdictions implement sound approaches to managing
sex offenders in the community, while keeping citizens safe.

In fiscal year 2004, jurisdictions in 12 States received a total of more than $2.8 million for these projects. An additional $2.3 million should be awarded this fiscal year.

Note: NCHIP is the "National Criminal History Improvement Program" and a search of the Bureau of Justice Statistics, for NCHIP, reveals many grants, even today. One in particular is "The National Sex Offender Registry Assistance Program (NSOR-AP)," there is more to learn in that document. But, my first concern is, many states are charging registrants FEES to maintain state registries. Are they getting more through grants? Should fees be returned to registrants WITH INTEREST?

Testimony of Ernie Allen, NCMEC

Next comes the "TESTIMONY OF ERNIE ALLEN, PRESIDENT & CEO, NATIONAL CENTER FOR MISSING AND EXPLOITED CHILDREN" (pg-14)(His submitted testimony follows his presentation):

... Sex offenders pose an enormous challenge. Most of their victims are children. Most of those children are not members of their own family. Most of these offenders are not in prison. And those that are, tend to serve limited sentences.

A few points: "Most sex offenders victims are not members of the offender's family." The 2003 Department of Justice study seems to dispute what Mr. Allen says (CLICK), in fact, the DOJ reports 46% PLUS are from the immediate family, and another 47% from family and friends; 6% are strangers. I don't know why Mr. Allen uses DOJ studies (see below) but seems to overlook this one.

It is true the majority are not in prison because they have served their time and are, or have been, working themself back into society and becoming productive taxpayers. The same DOJ study shows a very low recidivism rate which, again, is contrary to Mr. Allen's claim of "High Recidivism."

In fact, that same DOJ study also shows that, non sex offenders released from prison commit SIX SEX CRIMES to every ONE SEX CRIME committed by a released sex offender, in the same time frame. Congress with this evidence (Study mentioned in this 2005 hearing and later hearings), and still in 2011 fails to enact any laws to reduce the offense rate of released non sex offenders. Should Congress be called to answer for every one of the victims? The DOJ reported these facts in 2003, and today 2011, they continue to ignore this issue! Is this proof that, prevention is not their goal?

If community notification and tracking is the answer to sex offender recidivism (even as low as it is), why is the same not warranted for non sex offenders who go on to commit FIVE TIMES the number of sex offenses?

While most sex offenders are in the community, historically their presence has largely been unknown to the citizens of that community. Sex offenders represent the highest risk of re-offense. And while community supervision and oversight is essential, the system for providing such supervision is overwhelmed.

There’s strong empirical data that address this issue. According to the Department of Justice, 67 percent of reported sexual assault victims in this country are children; one out of three under the age of 12.

Mr. Allen's is quoting from: Sexual Assault of Young Children as Reported to Law Enforcement: Victim, Incident, and Offender Characteristics (Published in 2000) (pg-5) (The remainder, over two-thirds (67%) of all victims of sexual assault reported to law enforcement agencies, were juveniles (under the age of 18 at the time of the crime). More than half of all juvenile victims were under age 12. That is, 33% of all victims of sexual assault reported to law enforcement were ages 12 through 17 and 34% were under age 12.1 (Footnote 1: 1This finding that a third of sexual assault victims reported to law
enforcement were under age 12 largely accounts for the discrepancy between the NCVS and the UCR estimates of the number of sexual assaults reported to law enforcement.)

At the very beginning of that report is this: "The only existing national data collection effort that explored the incidence of sexual assault ignored crimes against young victims. The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) estimated there were 197,000 incidents of forcible rape and 110,000 incidents of other sexual assault in the United States in 1996 involving victims ages 12 or above (Ringel, 1997). Victims reported that a third (31%) of these sexual assaults (or 94,000 victimizations) were reported to law enforcement agencies. However, for 1996, the Uniform Crime Reporting Program (UCR) estimated that there were 96,000 forcible rapes alone reported to law enforcement agencies (FBI, 1997). The UCR does not capture reported crime information on other sexual assaults such as forcible sodomy, sexual assault with an object, and forcible fondling. However, it can be assumed from their relative volume in the NCVS that tens of thousands of sexual assaults other than forcible rape came to the attention of law enforcement in 1996. The large difference between the NCVS and the UCR estimates may reflect differences in the two data collection methods; or, if both estimates are valid, they indicate that many victims of sexual assault are youth under age 12. .... The 1991 through 1996 NIBRS master files contain reports from law enforcement agencies in 12 States:"

First, the data used is from 1996 and earlier, a point in time when registries were NOT IN EXISTENCE in all states, nor had many of the laws cited by Mr. Allen later in his testimony been enacted. The effect of combining those 1996 statistics with laws not yet enacted, leads folks to an erroneous result in 2005 when these hearings took place. True, that doesn't prove the percentage wrong, but it is certainly questionable, and Congress should be made aware of that.

The report cited is from a transitional period, before most sex offender legislation and into the first era of legislation "1994: The Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent Predators Act."

In 1997, the Congress mandated the National Center to create a CyberTipline, a national resource for reporting child sexual exploitation. Since 1998, we’ve handled more than 325,000 reports, resulting in hundreds of arrests and prosecutions; 112,000 reports last year alone.

In 1994, Congress passed the ‘‘Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent Predators Act.’’ As a result, today all 50 States and the District of Columbia have sex offender registries. This was groundbreaking child protection legislation. However, 11 years later, there are problems in the State programs that we believe thwart the original congressional intent.

Mr. Chairman, you mentioned it in your opening remarks. Today, there are 550,000 registered sex offenders in the United States, but at least 100,000 of those offenders are non-compliant— literally, missing.

Mr. Allen notes two things: In 2005 there are 550,000 registered sex offenders; and, claims 100,000 are missing. First, if there were ZERO registered sex offenders (ignoring California for a minute) before 1994, and now in 2005 there are 550,000, then legislation is doing something and one must assume, states knew what they were doing when they had enacted their individual state laws (Courts will assume lawmakers -in their enactments- are correct and will not second guess lawmakers). Mr Allen's statement seems to take issue with state lawmakers. Second, I'e be hard pressed to believe Mr. Allen is not aware of how the 100,000 number came into being (A series of phone calls made by Parents for Megan's law in 2003), and then was nothing more than a guesstimate based on assumptions made by state telephone calls to people who had no idea how many registered offenders their state had. That story has been documented, see link. Since then (2003), law after law has been enacted based on that erroneous factoid, and is still in use today in 2011; an erroneous number misinforming those in authority!

A great deal of discretion is left to the States—appropriately—in how they implement their registration programs. But the result is that there is a significant lack of consistency and uniformity from State to State. There are loopholes that permit sex offenders to cross State lines and remain undetected. We know that registered sex offenders often forum shop in order to achieve anonymity.

Note: If we were to believe that offenders' forum shop, then there must be a reason for them to do so, that issue is ignored by Congress and State lawmakers and others; anonymity, maybe, but that is to allow them to continue life without further government oppression. Further, if every state has sex offender registration laws, then they also have provisions which show when someone is required to register. So moving from state to state is a non issue because each state's registration laws cover when someone is required to register. There is no reason for federal law to violate the 10th Amendment and to permit second guessing of state lawmakers. Issues with individual states should be taken up with those states, not in violation of the 10th Amendment.

Let me just cite a few examples of the discrepancies we believe exist. In eight States, the burden to notify authorities in the new State to which the offender is moving is solely attached to that offender. So only he has the obligation to tell the State to which he’s moving. In two States, neither the offender nor the State authorities are required to notify authorities in the new State. In another three States, this issue is not even addressed in the law.

There are only five States in which probation and parole must be revoked when an offender fails to comply with registration responsibilities. There are only eight States in which an offender’s probation or parole may be revoked for failure to comply with registration.

In 31 States, the penalty for failure to register is just a misdemeanor. In three States, offenders have more than 10 days to notify authorities when they change their address.

In Weems v US (1910) it was considered "cruel and unusual punishment" for the act committed (a ministerial act) and the case has stood for the premise of excessive punishment for the crime committed, for a long time.

As to the State punishment for failing to register which states have deemed a misdemeanor, it is cruel and unusual for the federal government to come along and demand that states make the punishment a felony across the board; an excessive punishment for a ministerial act. States, when left to their own thinking, may very well chose to punish differently than as forced by the federal law. Further, todate, Failure to Register has been interpreted from "I Refuse" to as simple as "I forgot to sign a form" a ministerial act which the state should have picked up during the registration period. And, in addition, the federal law has a hidden "jurisdictional hook" built in to require such prosecutions, when the issues is FTR across state lines, in federal court which ends with a federal sentence with the Bureau of Prisons, and ultimately a civil commitment hearing and possible lifelong civil commitment. There is nothing more cruel and unusual as this constructive civil commitment procedure, and should be deemed unconstitutional!

We suspect that those who represent the greatest threat to children are also the least likely to be compliant. There are at least 100,000 non-compliant offenders; people like the killer of Jessica Lunsford, who was not where he was supposed to be and whose presence was unknown to police or Jessica’s family, even though he lived 150 yards down the street from her and had worked construction at her elementary school.

Based on the claim, that unregistered former offenders are a greater threat than registered former offenders, in September of 2010 Dr. Jill Levenson, in her research "Evaluating the Effectiveness of Sex Offender Registration and Notification Policies for Reducing Sexual Violence against Women" found that such a claim is not correct.

As to the John Couey case, Mr. Couey had asked for therapy years before his 2005 horrendous killing of Jessica Lundsford (As he did after his 1978 arrest, Couey asked for psychiatric help. "Personally, I feel prison ain't gonna help me," he told the police. "I feel that I need help for myself . . . I don't want to go to prison, I want help for myself."), and was DENIED and released from jail, more than once ("He requested mental health assistance for nearly three decades. He told police in 1991 that he had a problem but had not received help to "control his sexual attraction for young children.". Florida and other officials fail to mention this fact, even into 2011. Further Congress and State Lawmakers FAIL to provide funding -for therapy- in any of the laws enacted since 2005!

We need to do a better job of identifying those who represent the greatest risk, and those whose criminal histories should forfeit any right to be on the streets and close to innocent children. But at a minimum, we must know where all of these convicted sex offenders are, and what they’re doing.

TRACKING is not PREVENTION!

Yet the challenge to do that is daunting. We recently surveyed the State registration agencies, and heard almost universally about a lack of funding, a lack of personnel, outdated technology, lack of centralized communication systems. In many instances, registration verification is by mail, and not in person.

Tracking the location of these offenders is only part of the challenge. Equally important is community notification. In 1996, Congress amended the Jacob Wetterling Act to include a Federal Megan’s Law, mandating State community notification programs. States are given broad discretion, but in practice, that notification is either passive, requiring the public to initiate contact to get information, or active, by which law enforcement officers initiate contact themselves through community meetings or posting fliers or visits to residences within a radius of the offender’s address. Today, in 17 States that notification is passive only. Thus, it’s up to the public to continually seek out this information on their own initiative.

COMMUNITY NOTIFICATION: Passive or active? Passive: Allowing the public to seek information when they feel a need to; -V- Active: Government and local officials FORCE FEEDING information whether the public feels it needs such or not. Congress and States have chosen FORCE FEEDING because that way they keep the HYSTERIA FACTOR high so that the public feels it needs the government to protect it.

We commend the Attorney General for his recent initiative in creating a nationwide sex offender database. Public access to this information is vital to preventing sexual crimes against children.

Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, the Wetterling Act and Megan’s Law represented a giant step forward a decade ago. We believe that Congress needs to preserve that foundation. But America has changed. Today, there are more offenders; there are new technologies; and there are more, and younger, victims.

We understand that resources are scarce and that there are many competing demands. However, it’s hard to imagine a greater or more pressing priority. Thank you.

In Mr. Allen's "Prepared Statement" contains more than he mentioned during the oral part of his testimony. Folks may want to read it. (Pg-19-bottom)

Testimony Amie Zyla, Student (Former Victim)

Next comes the "TESTIMONY OF AMIE ZYLA, STUDENT, WAUKESHA, WISCONSIN" (pg-18)(Her "Prepared Statement" follows her oral presentation):

The only portion of Ms Zyla's comments which I would like to address, are those which speak to the offender and his return to society, with that in mind.

Portions of her comments:
Ms. ZYLA. Thank you. My name is Amie Lee Zyla. I’m here to tell you my story, and ask you to change the law to prevent any future victims. I relived my nightmare because the law gave my abuser, Josh Wade, a free ticket to continue abusing children, and as a result so many more kids and their families have been hurt.
....
While it was a very difficult time, I came forward when it happened, to stop him from hurting anyone else ever again. I also expected to never have to deal with my abuser again. Then, one day about 9 years later, Josh Wade walked back into our lives. I saw him on TV, and was stunned to see that he was not only out in the community again, but that he had done it again.
....
How and why were there so many more victims? Why wasn’t he caught earlier? And how did the system break down?
....
It was wrong that my parents and I did not know he was out.
....
The simple truth is that juvenile sex offenders turn into adult predators. Kids all over the country need the same kind of protection as in Wisconsin.
....
When is enough going to be enough? Must we have even one more Jessica Lunsford, or one more Sarah Lunde, or even one more kid like me who must keep reliving the nightmare?

We need a national sex offender registry that includes juvenile sex offenders. Mr. Green has introduced a bill that will do just that; a bill that will ensure all offenders, regardless of their age, will be on the registry, and not able to work with children or hurt anyone else. I ask you to support Mr. Green’s bill and the many other proposals you have heard about today.

There is much which Ms. Zyla does not know about Josha Wade, which took place after his conviction of the crime against her. Ms. Zyla was abused at a very young age, and I doubt she knew anything about the criminal justice system. With that said, are parents required to inform children who have been so abused, of their rights when they come of age?

Is there anyone who -in a criminal justice proceeding- doesn't realize when the judge sentences someone to jail or prison or a juvenile facility, and says xx years to xx years, and the high number means that person will be released at some point? Did her parents forget to follow the case?

In most states when someone is being readied for release, the Prosecutor will notify the victim or the victim's family, and allow them to submit a "Victim Statement" for consideration. Was that available in Wisconsin, and if so, did the Prosecutor follow through?

The therapy background on Joshua Wade:
"A juvenile proceeding sent him to a treatment center for indecently touching a 9-year-old girl when he was 15. The records show that he made almost no progress in treatment and so was sent to Ethan Allen School (a school for boys which had no sex offender treatment programs) until he was 18 because he was dangerous. In a 8-2-2005 news article: Joshua M. Wade, who spurred lawmakers to broaden community notification procedures for sex offenders under the so-called Amie's Law, rebuffed treatment after an arrest on a sex offense charge when he was a juvenile, a prosecutor said. "He had an opportunity back in juvenile court to get treatment for this," Waukesha County Assistant District Attorney Brad Schimel said. "He didn't take advantage of it."

"Wade's public defender contended that the juvenile justice system was ill equipped to treat Wade after he disclosed that his makeup was shaped in part by being sexually assaulted by his grandfather. And, after he was released from a juvenile correctional facility, Wade, then 18, was left on his own, according to attorney Samuel Benedict. "There was virtually no planning for his discharge," Benedict told Circuit Judge Ralph Ramirez. "They took him to the Salvation Army shelter and left him at the door. "They essentially said, 'Go figure it out yourself.' " (Source)

In other words, the state gave up on him, the State allowed him to be released without any therapy! No one mentions this even to this day.

Testimony of Dr. Fred Berlin, M.D. (Sex Offender Therapy Expert)

Next comes the "TESTIMONY OF FRED BERLIN, M.D., ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY" (pg-21)(His "Prepared Statement" follows his oral presentation):

Dr. Berlin's comments are very important, and I will highlight portions.

Portions of his comments:

I want to make it clear that I do support fully the registration of sex offenders. That means having lists available to proper legal authorities, names that can be distributed to people that need to know, and so on. But I do want to talk about concerns about two things. One is community notification; and the second, I want to make a couple of comments about the role of punishment.

First of all, with respect to community notification, I want to make it clear that the verdict is not yet in on whether or not that is proving to be successful. The State that’s probably had it in effect for the longest is Washington State. I did a follow-up study, looking at what had happened in that State. There was no evidence that it reduced criminal recidivism.

Secondly, speaking out of my own personal clinical experience and research background, it is a sad fact that there are persons out there who want to offend. And if they are on a registry and listed in a community as being present, if they’re listed in community ‘‘A’’ as being present, those people are simply going to go to community ‘‘B,’’ where they’re a lot less known, and still commit an offense.

On the other hand, there are a lot of offenders out there who are trying to succeed. I can tell you that out of personal experience. We, for example, published a large study on over 600 men in treatment. Over 400 had a history of pedophilic behavior. The recidivism rate was less than 8 percent.

The reason I believe that many of those men succeeded in treatment is they were able to get a fresh start. They could get jobs. They weren’t feeling disenfranchised, angry at the community. They succeeded, I believe, in part because they were able to do those things. It begs the question whether, if we drive these people underground, are we actually making the community safer? Again, I think it’s something we simply have to take a look at.

No fresh start, disenfranchised in untold ways, the very fact that former sex offenders are subjected to this, and former drug offenders and other crime types are not, I think makes a great case for the courts. I do believe there is no greater proof of further punishment than this. The Second Chance Act, which specifically excludes former sex offenders, is also proof of this. The Bill in the last Congress which denies certain sex offenders from applying for small business loans. Pell grants. HUD Housing laws. And, the strongest proof of all, the failure of Congress to provide funding for sex offender therapy in any of its recent laws, in spite of US Supreme court holding in McKune, Warden, et al. -v- Lile (536 U.S. 24 (2002)):

"States thus have a vital interest in rehabilitating convicted sex offenders. Therapists and correctional officers widely agree that clinical rehabilitative programs can enable sex offenders to manage their impulses and in this way reduce recidivism. See U. S. Dept. of Justice, Nat. Institute of Corrections, A Practitioner's Guide to Treating the Incarcerated Male Sex Offender xiii(1988) ("[T]he rate of recidivism of treated sex offenders is fairly consistently estimated to be around 15%," whereas the rate of recidivism of untreated offenders has been estimated to be as high as 80%. "Even if both of these figures are exaggerated, there would still be a significant difference between treated and untreated individuals")."

And I am sure there are others which escape me right now. PROOF!

In terms of sex offender recidivism, just a couple of points that I think are important. The U.S. Department of Justice, through the Office of Justice Programs, took a look at sex offender recidivism. Surprised me. I worked in this area for many years. As a group, sex offenders have a lower rate—lower rate—of recidivism than people who commit other kinds of serious criminal acts.

Asking about the recidivism rate of sex offenders is like asking about the recidivism rate of drunk drivers. In other words, there is no one right answer. There’s a tremendous spectrum.
.....
if you get someone who comes in, who says, ‘‘Once an offender, always an offender’’—and you will hear that—that’s also an extreme statement. It’s simply not in keeping with the facts.
.....

In looking at community notification, we also have to ask whether it could be harmful. Keep in mind, when we identify the offender, we identify his address. Much of offending has to do with things, unfortunately, that go on within the family. There is the risk of inadvertently identifying victims. There is now concern that some victims of incest may be deterred from coming forward.
....
In terms of the role of punishment, pedophilia is a condition, to give an example, in which persons are sexually attracted to young children. If the only thing we do is punish these individuals, there’s nothing about being in prison that can either erase those attractions or enhance their capacity to successfully resist acting upon them.

Dr. Berlin defines "Pedophilia" and in doing so should make everyone realize, that, such a person does exist and some do break the law committing one or more sex offenses. This is a fact that far too many Advocates forget, these people are the reason why -some form of a registry must exist- or some other way of keeping tabs on these folks when they reenter the community. And we should never forget, the recent case in Cleveland, yes all adults, but that type of person -not a pedophile as Dr. Berlin defines one- also exists. Society needs to keep tabs on folks like this, because after their first offense, they will be returning to the community.

We need both the Attorney General and the Surgeon General involved in this, if we’re going to adequately protect community safety. Let me make it clear, I very firmly support the criminal justice stance. But what is often given very meager attention in all of these discussions is the public health side of this.
....
Number one, what I’ll call ‘‘truth in language.’’ We used to talk about truth in sentencing. The word ‘‘violent,’’ in terms of its everyday meaning, is clearly not what is being used in many of the legislative bills that are out there. Attempted touching can mean ‘‘violent.’’

The word ‘‘predator’’ often does not have its everyday meaning. Someone who’s exposed himself to a child who’s 13 can be labeled a predator in many of these statutes. Somebody who’s been involved statutorily—a 17-year-old who was involved with a 14-year-old—can be labeled a predator. Let’s have truth in language, so we know what we’re really dealing with.
...

As you all know, there’s not really much of a balance of advocacy when we come to these issues. We can ask two kinds of questions. We can ask, ‘‘How can society be made safe?’’ All of us want an answer to that question. And the point I would make here today is, if we’re asking how to make society safe, let’s make sure that what we’re proposing has evidence that it’s really going to do that. That’s the first point.

A second question we can ask is not exactly the same question. That is, ‘‘How, in the context of being safe, can we also be just and fair?’’ Now, when we’re in this area, there are people who are going to say, ‘‘Why the heck should we be just and fair?’’

Well, I’ll give you the answer to that. What makes this country—or one of the things that makes this country so great is, not only are we interested in being safe, but we are also interested in being just and fair. That’s what this country is all about.

Above are the significant portions of this hearing transcript with my comments.
eAdvocate

Sex Offender Research, All Rights Reserved! © 2011

Wisconsin Legislators Subject to Raucous Town Halls (Rep Sensenbrenner)

Folks may remember, this is the Wisconsin Lawmaker who recently got UPSET at a Congressional hearing in Washington DC (2-15-2011) when some folks in the audience commented about what was being said. Now look at the video below:

3-7-2011 Wisconsin:

I had several people in Madison tell me that they learned from the Tea Party, for what it’s worth – when the elected officials aren’t listening to the people, you take it to the streets. That’s what protesters have done for weeks across Wisconsin. And now, they’re taking it to town halls as well.

Protesters converged on a town hall in Wauwatosa for Leah Vukmir, a Republican state Senator, leading to US Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI), who happened to be at the meeting, adjourning it as if it were a committee hearing, which it, um, wasn’t.

Wisconsin Rep. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R) adjourned a joint town hall meeting on Monday after protesters interrupted a state senator who was speaking about the state GOP’s controversial budget plan.

The veteran congressman and state Sen. Leah Vukmir (R), who was speaking at the podium, sparred with a large crowd of protesters opposed to the budget plan, which would curtail some public employees’ collective bargaining rights, Milwaukee-based WTMJ-TV reported.

After protesters, many of whom were carrying signs, shouted objections to Vukmir’s comments, Sensenbrenner said, “Give her the respect to answer the question,” then continued, “This meeting will be adjourned.”

That caused the protesters, crowded in the room at the Wauwatosa library, to unleash a volley of jeers. The crowd broke into chants of “Shame, shame, shame!”

Honestly, if you look at the video, it basically sounds like a more polite version of a Tea Party-overrun town hall during the health care debate.

Sen. Vukmir parroted the same talking points as Scott Walker about the budget repair bill, and the protesters weren’t buying it and made themselves heard.

After a while and really only a few very small interruptions, Sensenbrenner just gaveled down the meeting. Which is pretty remarkable. Sensenbrenner, in a statement, expressed regret “that the same respect given at Congressman Sensenbrenner’s Town Hall Meeting in Brookfield Sunday evening wasn’t experienced last night, and individuals who were patiently waiting to ask a question, receive help with casework or share their concern were unable to do so at the meeting.” ..Source.. by David Dayen

The Costs of the Adam Walsh Act: Will this AWA Financial Iceberg sink the United States?

2-23-2011 Washington DC:

This is a look at a side of Congress which no one follows, and one which every taxpayer in the nation should be very concerned about. How Congress spends and accounts for the hard earned bucks of taxpayers. Does Congress give a hoot about the grants they appropriate within laws they make?

Some lawmaker gets an idea for a law, they present a bill with what they want the bill to accomplish, grants are inserted within the bill, then somewhere in the bowels of Congress are number crunching people who calculate what this bill will cost to implement. The number crunchers put dollars to the grants within the proposed bill, before the bill is returned for a vote and ultimately passed into law. I'm quite sure it is the Congressional Budget Office that does this work.

So this expose starts after a proposed bill becomes a law, and this one is about the Adam Walsh Act. Begin, lawmakers know those budgeted grant figures are not precise, they are subject to change no doubt, but is there any accounting for the proposed grant numbers? After all a proposed bill requesting $100,000 to change a Post Office name, may be OK, but after that bill becomes law, can that grant be extended and where should it stop, 1 million 2 million etc., what is the reasonable number and who puts the brakes on?

This expose is a ride you will not want to miss. Congress has been caught with their, err... lets say, redfaced, and I'm not sure they want this known. Stick with me there are several facts you must know to see what has happened.

Recently the House Judiciary Committee held an informational hearing to determine, why all States, have not, converted state sex offender registries to the Federal Adam Walsh Act (AWA) way?

The hearing focused on the testimony of four people invited by the Committee, none of which represented the interests of registrants, to at least explain the massive problems SORNA will, and in some cases, are causing. There were registrant representatives present, and some had previously requested to give testimony, but were denied.

The Chair of the Committee LIMITED each Judiciary Panel Members' testimony to five minutes, rudely cutting them off if they went over that time. However, the Chair did allow the four folks -invited to testify- to go well over any five minute limit, thereby making it clear who he wanted, or didn't want, to hear from.

The hearing barely touched on costs, merely mentioning that some states did request funding and others did not. No one dug into this aspect of AWA, not even Chairman Sensenbrenner, who apparently brushed this aside, but, one of those invited to testify submitted a document titled "Addendum to Baldwin Testimony" which is available on the subcommittees' website. That Addendum showed what each state has received in AWA Funding (Grant Money), but the Addendum failed to show Tribes or that they had received any funding. In fact, the Addendum didn't even mention Tribes!

That Addendum is the focus of this expose, accounting for AWA Grant money given to the States. Has Congress created a State money tree, to be picked at will, for whatever? Is there any accounting for this grant money? A whole list of questions arise. Remember, it would be nice to know, who is eating thick cut steaks while you struggle to stretch hamburg on your table, federal taxes fund AWA, never forget that!

Starting with facts from the Addendum and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children's map (12-17-2010) of Registered Sex Offenders in the nation, which shows the number of registrants per state or Territory, a spreadsheet was created to look at certain facts.

In Compliant States: Starting with just the states "In Compliance" and the AWA funding they had received ($2,495,243 and their number of registrants), it was determined that the average cost to convert was $30.63 per registrant. But, the four states (Delaware, Florida, Ohio and South Dakota) actually spent ($89.58 $30.80 $12.01 $65.19) differing amounts to individually convert their registrants. From $12.01 to a high of $89.58 why such a spread, and, how did these States account for their spending of AWA Start-up Funding?

Yes, I assumed that State Grants were based on what states thought they would need to convert. At least that seems a reasonable starting point. But the individual costs per registrant was an eye opener, raising many questions.

Why focus on start-up costs? Well, President Obama, in his just released 2011 budget had the following to say about the Adam Walsh Act:

Reduces Funding for Juvenile Justice and Child Safety Programs. The Budget proposes a reduction of $50 million from the 2010 enacted level for Juvenile Justice and Child Safety programs (net of reductions of $91 million to programs that were earmarked in 2010), refocusing many formula and other grants into a new $120 million Race to the Top style grant that rewards States for tangible improvements in juvenile justice systems. The Budget also provides $30 million for the Adam Walsh Act implementation and invests in new efforts such as the Attorney General’s Children Exposed to Violence Initiative ($25 million).

Note: I do recognize that Obama's Budget is for 2011, and it is very likely every budget since 2006 has appropriated something for SORNA start-up costs, or AWA, lord only knows where that money has gone. Also, in Obama's stimulus plan there was money appropriated for AWA but not sure if it was for SORNA start-up costs. And, the definition of Obama's "Implementation of AWA" may conflict with my interpretation "SORNA Start-Up Costs" but that remains to be seen. AWA has five titles, SORNA is but one of them.

I thought it prudent to see if AWA Funding (shown in the Addendum to Baldwin Testimony) was on target, with Obama's Budget thinking, or are we going to have to stop say, Pell Grants and whatever to everyone, to fund this iceberg? i.e., icebergs, where the real worry is hidden well below the surface, sounds like AWA.

OK, so I had to expand my spreadsheet to "Not in Compliant States" to make any sense of this.

Not In Compliant States: First, there are 11 States and Territories which have not requested any AWA Funding, and this was mentioned during the hearing, no one knew why and it was dropped there. Alaska, Arizona, DC, Idaho, Montana, Washington, West Virginia, Wyoming, America Soma, CNMI and Guam.

Using the $30.63 per registrant (Average cost spent by In Compliant States) these states -in total- need 19.8 million in AWA Funding, and they have already received 17.6 million. Now here is where things get very interesting, who didn't get what they need, and who got more than they need? 24 States still need 9.5 million and 27 states received 7.3 million too much.

Hope they are accounting for this money because a reckoning day may be coming. And, maybe Alaska can tap Arkansas, saying you got too much, how about sending some my way, I didn't get enough? That type of conversation may go round and round between, the 24 and 27 states, or Congress can ask for the overage back? Who knows what will happen?

Next, for not in Compliant States, comes the average cost to convert per registrant: $178.54 based on NCMEC number of registrants and AWA Funding already received (See Baldwin Addendum). For the individual states, from $2.21 in Virginia to a high of $6,092.50 in the US Virgin Islands. They have 76 registrants, they applied for and received $463,030; unbelievable that Congress would even require them to convert. A deck of index cards and a telephone number would suffice, but Congress must have its way, and they are not in compliant yet!

Conclusion:
This could become an encyclopedia but I must do other things, so here is the overall: 22.3 million is the projected figure if $30.63 is the allowed cost per registrant to convert. States have already received 20.1 million so that is within Obama's budget. 24 States still need 9.9 million because they have been shorted, and 27 States have received 7.6 million too much. The actual cost per registrant is going to be somewhere between $2.21 and $6,092.50. Thats the gist of this.

Ahhh, but I forgot about the claimed 100,00 missing folks (CLICK for the truth of how that number came to be), the created factoid that all appropriations and laws have been based on, why will that cost be? Well, lets just say, 1/7th of whats already been spent 3.2 million. Is all this still within Congressional Budget thinking? This year!

So, will the iceberg float to warmer waters and melt away, or will it grow and become an island under the sea, hidden from view where most of it is today? Yes, there is missing information which could change much, but one thing is for sure, the Hen-house is not protected and the Foxes are cunning, and they do not account for what they do.

Oh yes Congress, err.. SMART Office, what about the almost 200 Tribes and money needed for them?

In reality, the cry has been to protect the children, but, are the children being starved to death in the mean time, to satisfy a whim of a few in Congress? Where is the beef, errr.. accounting, and where is the brake pedal? Taxpayers want to know!

© Sex Offender Research 2011, All Rights Reserved!

Sex offender magazine goes on sale in Comanche Co.

1-23-2011 Oklahoma:

TEXOMA - If you live in southern Oklahoma and have been arrested for a sex crime, you can bet your mug shot is now going to be famous. That is because of "We Got Caught", a magazine that displays the mug shots of the men and women who have been arrested on sex crimes.

The magazine has been in circulation for about 3 years, but this is the first week it has been sold in Comanche County. All of the men and women featured in the magazine live in this part of the state.

We have seen magazines similar to this one, most recently in Stephens County called "OK Jailbirds". The difference here is this magazine only highlights criminals arrested for crimes. The magazine is also unique in that the owner founded it because of his personal experience.

He lives in Wichita Falls and says he created it because his own daughter and niece were sexually assaulted and then stabbed to death by a sex offender who lived just next door.

On the cover of "We Got Caught" are the faces of dozens of suspected or convicted sex offenders. All have been arrested and inside are the pictures of two little girls who died at the hands of a registered sex offender.

"I thought it was an older person that was just evil and a sexual deviant."

But the owner of the magazine, who just wants to be called "Joseph", found out differently. He found out the sex offender was his own neighbor.

"Reality set in that sexual predators come in all ages, sizes, and colors."

Joseph says he hopes this magazine will stop sex offenses altogether.

"No one wants to be plagued out and pointed out for the world to know what you've done and who you've done it too."

Lawton Police Detective Nancy Lombardo says the public does have a right to know who sex offenders are. But she says she does have concerns with the publication.

"It evokes strong emotion for people just to hear the term sex offender, most of the time they automatically assume that the offense was against the child, that is sometimes the case but not always the circumstance."

Joseph says he does not want the publication to bring harm to anyone. He just wants to prevent what happened to his family happening to anyone else.

"We know we can't stop sexual crimes, but we can slow it down just a bit."

The man who was convicted of murdering Joseph's niece and daughter went to prison. Three days later he was murdered by inmates after they found out what he had done.

The magazine has been around in north Texas for several years. It is just this week it has appeared in southwest Oklahoma. ..Source.. by 7News.com

Ga. man awarded $404,000 for libelous Internet postings

1-20-2011 Georgia:

It started with the murder of Cooley's fiancee by the woman's ex-husband. While still reeling from that loss, he became a target of Internet postings from someone he barely knew. The anonymous poster went on a community website for Blairsville, where Cooley lived at the time, and accused him of being a pedophile with a criminal record and a drug addict. None of it was true.

A Union County jury last week said the damage those postings did to Cooley was worth $404,000, the largest award ever handed down in this North Georgia county. The poster was identified through her computer's numeric IP address.

"She absolutely ax-murdered this boy's life," said Russell Stookey, Cooley's lawyer.

Cooley barely knew his web attacker, a woman who worked at a Blairsville store where he sometimes shopped. Had it not been for the willingness by the website, Topix.com, to out Sybil Denise Ballew, her identity may never have been known.

Stookey took an infrequently used route to find Ballew's identity. He used a subpoena to get the IP address, which is something unique to every computer, behind the libelous postings on Topix.com. The website, which acts as a news aggregator for local communities, readily complied.

"She [the poster] might have said these things in the past, but you write it down and it can be traced back to your computer," said Topix.com CEO Chris Tolles. "People are going to find it's hard to have complete anonymity."

Cooley's saga began with the murder of his fiancee, Paulette Harper, at the hands of her ex-husband in September of 2008. A few days later, the postings on the Blairsville page of Topix.com started showing up.

The poster wrote Cooley was a "pervert" and drug addict with a lengthy criminal record, a man who had been in prison and rehab. Harper’s daughter, who was 9 at the time, must be protected from Cooley, the poster wrote.

“I didn’t really even know the woman. I knew her in passing,” Cooley, 44, told the AJC. “She worked at two places [where] I was a customer.”

Cooley had a criminal background check run on himself showing that he had no such past, but people didn’t seem to care. Eventually he had to leave Blairsville, where his mother, sister and two sons lived, to find another job. He now lives in Augusta and works as a hairdresser.

Ballew is the woman who wrote the posts under the pseudonyms Mouth, Calvin, Bugs, Yuck, Rebel and Slim. She admitted in court that she also had conversations with herself, posting her concerns on the site under one name and then agreeing with the posts under another persona.

When asked in court why she wrote those things about Cooley, Ballew answered, “I watched him and I can tell a pervert. Every time a pretty girl walked by, he would look at them. I get a feeling.”

Even after the jury of five men and a woman ruled in Cooley's favor, he knows he's unlikely to collect much of the $404,000. Stookey, the lawyer, says he is now researching Ballew's assets in hopes of getting some of the money for Cooley.

Ballew could not be reached for this story. Calls to phone numbers that public records have connected to her name were unsuccessful.

Ballew never hired a lawyer, according to records, even though Stookey and the judge in the case, Union County Superior Court Judge David Barrett, urged her several times to hire one.

“This young man was getting his life ruined because this woman didn’t like him. She went out of her way,” Stookey said.

It began Sept. 11, 2008, when Harper and her ex-husband were found shot to death in her home on Marie Way in Union County. Police ruled that Steven Harper had first shot his ex-wife, firing a gun under her chin, and then himself.

Days later, Cooley took Paulette Harper's body to South Florida so she could be buried near her parents’ home.

The first night he was there, Cooley said, Harper’s father asked him about a drug addiction.

“I’ve never had a drug addiction. I’ve never been in rehab,” Cooley said. “Then he was wanting a [criminal] background check. So I … got a background check and it came back with a clean bill of health.”

Cooley said he has never owned a computer, so he was unaware of the Topix site. Then his sister called with news of the postings, and only then did he know why Harper’s parents were asking such questions.

They asked him to leave their house and to come to the funeral only at the end of the service. They also wanted him to sit in the back of the church.

Cooley said he slept in his rental car for two nights before returning to Georgia.

Once home, the owner of the hair salon where Cooley worked fired him because “all this stuff had come into the salon. A woman that fit the description of Denise Ballew came in and said if ‘Gene Cooley’s here, I’ll never come back in here again.’ "

He got a similar reception around town.

"I wasn’t able to find anywhere to work in Blairsville,” he said. “What little shred of anything I had left she [Ballew] took.”


A Sept. 18, 2008, exchange on Topix.com started with “Calvin” asking if anyone knew Gene’s last name because he wanted to warn Harper’s family of his past.

“Keep that creep away from the children,” wrote “Mouth,” who was Ballew.

Ballew responds as “Calvin,” -- Thank you very much!!! I cant thank you enough. I will notify the family as soon as possible. If you know or have any more information, please let me know… Mouth -- If you don't mind me asking, how do you know all this about Gene???”

Moments later, “Yuck,” also Ballew, writes, “keep gene away from that little girl!! hes not even qualified to have the children hes got. yes, he is a boozer and a pot user, and a nutcase. he has gotten fired from every salon hes worked at...he is so gross!!”

Others tried to defend Cooley but then another Ballew persona, “Slim,” posted, “sometimes the truth hurts. … I am not one to sugar coat anything. If people get mad at me [for] what I think , then they certainly have that right. .. Everyone on this earth has a decision how they're going to live their life. If it 's not right then they will pay for what they done as we all will when we stand at judgement.”

And the posters who defended Cooley were insulted.

“you stupid a$$...you are a few bricks shy of load… GROW UP YOU LITTLE TWIT,” Mouth wrote.

Cooley said after last week's verdict, he got calls from others who feel they have been targeted. “She has trash-talked them,” he said.

Stookey, the lawyer, said he and the local district attorney and a legislator were drafting a bill to make this kind of libel a crime and not just a civil matter. In the meantime, he will look for others who anonymously post false allegations.

“We’ll find them, we’ll get them,” Stookey said. “Mean and dumb is a bad combination. I will catch them and I will put them into bankruptcy.” ..Source.. by Rhonda Cook, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution