Fighting the Destruction of Families!
  • Home
  • old News and comments

old News

  • 28 Dec 2013 10:28 PM | Deleted user

    Lawmakers in Vermont are working to implement policy reforms they say will help stop wrongful arrests and convictions within the state.

    Sen. Dick Sears (D-Bennington) is co-sponsoring two bills in the 2013-2014 Legislative Session, S.184 and S.297, which seek to standardize statewide practices of dealing with alleged offenders.

    If passed, the first would require all law enforcement agencies to adopt a model eyewitness identification policy on how to administer live or photo-lineups; the second would require the recording of interrogations in homicide and sexual assault cases.

    "Taping interviews -- that's pretty much supported by most people in law enforcement, including the states' attorneys and the federal attorneys," said Sears. "They feel like anything they have that makes it easier and better to hear testimony, helps. The major hold-up on that one is the idea of how do you pay for it for the smaller departments."

    While many of the larger departments already have equipment in place to record interviews, Sears said the bill is written in a way that would specifically provide ways of looking at how to help the underfunded law enforcement agencies in the state.

    "Obviously it's to everyone's benefit to [record interviews] on all [crimes], but given the cost and given the difficulty sometimes, we thought we'd at least start with some of the more serious crimes," said Sears, of the decision to promote the recording of interrogations in violent crime cases only.

    "What these reforms would really accomplish, especially from the eyewitness front, is ensuring that all law enforcement agencies are operating on the same page and carrying out procedures consistently," said Rebecca Brown, nationwide director of state policy reform for The Innocence Project.

    "We're very hopeful that there will be uniformity across the state," said Brown, of New York, who works on the state level in collaboration with lawmakers around the country on behalf of the nonprofit, which seeks to exonerate those wrongfully convicted and sentenced for crimes they did not commit through DNA testing.

    Law enforcement officials at the local level are already receiving training to eliminate human error from taking place as much as possible when dealing with both victims of crimes and potential suspects.

    They learn communication tools necessary to interact with witnesses of crimes without asking leading questions, as well as how to properly handle cases of eyewitness identification and misidentification.

    "The feedback we've gotten from some of the officers is very positive -- they see it as having value in terms of how well they do their job," said Rick Gauthier, executive director of the Vermont Criminal Justice Training Council, and who largely supports the proposed legislation.

     

    Continue Reading: http://www.benningtonbanner.com/localnews/ci_24805944/bills-aim-stop-wrongful-convictions

  • 26 Dec 2013 9:54 AM | Deleted user

    WASHINGTON For decades, the task of counting the total number of federal criminal laws has bedeviled lawyers, academics and government officials.

    "You will have died and resurrected three times," and still be trying to figure out the answer, said Ronald Gainer, a retired Justice Department official.

         

    In 1982, while at the Justice Department, Mr. Gainer oversaw what still stands as the most comprehensive attempt to tote up a number. The effort came as part of a long and ultimately failed campaign to persuade Congress to revise the criminal code, which by the 1980s was scattered among 50 titles and 23,000 pages of federal law.

    Justice Department lawyers undertook "the laborious counting" of the scattered statutes "for the express purpose of exposing the idiocy" of the system, said Mr. Gainer, now 76 years old.

    It can often be very difficult to make a call whether or not something counts as a single crime or many. That task fell to one lawyer, Mr. Gainer says, who read the statutes and ultimately used her judgment to decide: If a particular act fell under multiple crime categories undefined such as forms of fraud that could also be counted as theft undefined she had to determine whether it could be prosecuted under each. If an offense could be counted in either of two sections, she counted them separately, Mr. Gainer said.

    The project stretched two years. In the end, it produced only an educated estimate: about 3,000 criminal offenses. Since then, no one has tried anything nearly as extensive.

    The Drug Abuse Prevention and Control section of the code undefined Title 21 undefined provides a window into the difficulties of counting. More than 130 pages in length, it essentially pivots around two basic crimes, trafficking and possession. But it also delves into the specifics of hundreds of drugs and chemicals.

    Scholars debate whether the section comprises two offenses or hundreds. Reading it requires toggling between the historical footnotes, judicial opinions and other sections in the same title. It has also been amended 17 times.

    In 1998, the American Bar Association performed a computer search of the federal codes looking for the words "fine" and "imprison," as well as variations. The ABA study concluded the number of crimes was by then likely much higher than 3,000, but didn't give a specific estimate.

    "We concluded that the hunt to say, 'Here is an exact number of federal crimes,' is likely to prove futile and inaccurate," says James Strazzella, who drafted the ABA report. The ABA felt "it was enough to picture the vast increase in federal crimes and identify certain important areas of overlap with state crimes," he said.

    None of these studies broached the separate undefined and equally complex undefined question of crimes that stem from federal regulations, such as, for example, the rules written by a federal agency to enforce a given act of Congress. These rules can carry the force of federal criminal law. Estimates of the number of regulations range from 10,000 to 300,000. None of the legal groups who have studied the code have a firm number.

    "There is no one in the United States over the age of 18 who cannot be indicted for some federal crime," said John Baker, a retired Louisiana State University law professor who has also tried counting the number of new federal crimes created in recent years. "That is not an exaggeration."

    Write to Gary Fields at gary.fields@wsj.com and John R. Emshwiller at john.emshwiller@wsj.com

    "" frameborder="0" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" style="border: 0px currentColor; vertical-align: bottom; display: none; visibility: hidden; border-image: none;">
     
  • 16 Dec 2013 8:42 PM | Deleted user
    By MARK SCOLFORO Associated Press
    HARRISBURG, PA.
     
    The Pennsylvania Supreme Court threw out portions of the state's sex-offender registration law on Monday, telling lawmakers they violated the constitution's requirement that bills that become law must be confined to a single subject.

    The justices ruled that a set of changes made to Megan's Law in 2004 was not constitutional, noting that the legislation also included such measures as a two-year statute of limitations on asbestos actions, the jurisdictional parameters of park police, and revisions to real estate law.

    The court then put its decision on hold for three months to allow the Legislature to find a remedy.

    "We will stay our decision, as we have done under similar circumstances, in order to provide a reasonable amount of time for the General Assembly to consider appropriate remedial remedies, and to allow for a smooth transition period," wrote Justice Debra Todd for the five-justice majority.

    As revised in 2004, Megan's law created a searchable online database of offenders, set new punishments for offenders who did not register, and added luring and institutional sexual assault to the list of offenses that require 10-year registration.

    It also set notification rules for out-of-state offenders who move to Pennsylvania, altered duties of the Sexual Offenders Assessment Board, and established community notification about sexually violent offenders.

    Todd said the single-subject rule, which dates to 1864 and has recently been a factor in several high-profile cases, gives people confidence they can weigh in before a bill is passed, and helps lawmakers know what they are voting on ahead of time.

    "When an act of the Legislature violates the single-subject rule, all of its provisions are equally repugnant to the constitution, and, thus, equally void," Todd said.

    Chief Justice Ronald Castille filed a lone dissent, saying it was a close question but that he would have upheld the law.

    "Any law passing through the enactment process is the result of salutary legislative compromise and the single-subject rule is not intended to completely discourage such compromise," Castille wrote.

    Continue reading: http://www.eveningsun.com/local/ci_24735480/pa-supreme-court-throws-out-parts-megans-law?source=rss
  • 10 Dec 2013 10:29 PM | Deleted user

    Lakeland Republican Senator Kelli Stargel petitioned her colleagues in the Senate Criminal Justice Committee to broaden an existing ban on pornography. The law already prohibits sex-offenders from viewing or possessing pornography related to their conviction. Florida Action Committee President Gail Colletta agreed reforms to sex offender statutes are needed but questioned the senator’s approach.

    “Why is that if we’re trying to change the behaviors and we want these individuals to act more mainstream and more normal and have more normal sexual interests, are we going to prohibit them from having access to materials that are considered mainstream and normal?” Colletta said in a phone interview Monday.

    Colletta became involved with sex offender issues after her son was convicted on child pornography charges in 2010. She said lawmakers should be focused on treatment, not penalties. But, Florida State University Political Scientist Lance Dehaven-Smith pointed out that even if Stargel’s method isn’t proven to be effective, it’s popular nonetheless.

    “I mean I think there’s a clearly constitutional issue at stake and this may be overreaching. But, by the same token, unless somebody comes forward to defend a very unpopular category of individuals it’s likely to move forward,” Dehaven-Smith explained.

    And move forward it did, passing the Senate Criminal Justice Committee unanimously. The bill’s next review will be in the Children, Families and Elder Affairs Committee. Stargel filed the ban shortly after a recently released sex offender murdered an 8-year old girl in Jacksonville.

    Link: http://news.wfsu.org/post/sex-offender-porn-ban-passes-first-legislative-hurdle

  • 10 Dec 2013 6:00 AM | Deleted user

    Appeals court decision involving an Orange County case could impact thousands seeking to have their names removed from the ‘Megan’s Law’ list.

     

    By SCOTT SCHWEBKE / ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER

     

    SANTA ANA – A court ruling involving an Orange County case could result in hearings for thousands of California sex offenders seeking to have their names removed from the “Megan’s Law” registry, says an attorney who represents a sex offender.

    California’s 4th District Court of Appeal found unconstitutional a state law that allows some sex offenders to have hearings for certificates of rehabilitation while denying that right to others.

     

    Link to the Article: http://www.ocregister.com/articles/sex-539130-court-offender.html?page=1

  • 27 Nov 2013 12:23 PM | Deleted user

    HUNTSVILLE, Ala. (WHNT) – You may think of child pornography as something that could never hit close to home, or some uncommon perversion. Now a new study is shedding light on the prevalence of child pornography in the United States.

    The findings are unsettling.

    The study focused on just one file-sharing program, Gnutella, over the course of one year. They found that just under 250,000 computers in the US were sharing and receiving images of child pornography.

    “What it tells me is there are people you would not suspect involved in this,” said Chris Newlin, Executive Director of the National Children’s Advocacy Center.

    For more perspective, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children has collected more than 60 million images of child pornography from the internet. They have identified less than one percent of the victims.

    Newlin points to a lack of resources available to national and local law enforcement agencies to address, and track down people disseminating images depicting sexual abuse of children.

    He stresses the need is great and urgent. For every person who would claim to just ‘look’ at the images, Newlin suggests a much graver reality.

    “If someone has this stuff on their computer, there’s a very high likelihood they have abused children. Not just a child. Children.”

    This is why Newlin urges people who know someone who is looking at images of child pornography to turn them in.

    Source: http://whnt.com/2013/11/22/new-study-sheds-light-on-prevalence-of-child-pornography/

  • 23 Nov 2013 6:04 PM | Deleted user

    When Amanda Moore concluded that her daughter's killer was a drug addict wrongly paroled and wrongly allowed to remain free, she did like many parents before her: she proposed legislation to spare others the same fate. She named it for her child: Amelia's Law.

    For the past two decades, parents who've lost children in horrible ways have tried to memorialize them in law, and Americans usually have honored their wishes.

    Dozens of state and federal statutes are named for children who died too soon: Megan's Law and Jessica's Law, the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act, the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act. There's Kendra's Law, Leandra's Law and Lauren's Law, three Jacob's Laws and at least three Laura's Laws.

    But, as Amanda Moore has discovered, support for many of these child victim memorials, or "apostrophe laws," is waning.

    Few such bills now before lawmakers promise to have anything like the impact of a Megan's Law, which gives the public access to information about sex offenders.And some probably won't become law at all:

    In Tennessee, a tight state budget has blocked Amelia's Law, which would make parole tougher for serious offenders, and Dustin's Law, which would honor a son killed in a collision with an intoxicated driver by imposing stiffer DUI penalties.

    In South Carolina, Emma's Law and Jaidon's Law both are stalled. The first, which would require ignition locks for some first-time DUI offenders, faces objections that it's too harsh; the second, to weaken child custody rights of drug-addicted parents, runs against a state policy favoring family reunification.

    In Indiana, Sheena's Law — named for a daughter killed by a neighbor in an apartment complex and designed to allow renters who've been crime victims to break their leases — has been thwarted by landlords who say it could be abused by tenants to get out of leases.

    For grieving parents seeking to redeem their loss, such rejection is agonizing. "I just wanted to do something positive," says Deborah Kiska, who backed Sheena's Law. "People needed to know that my daughter stood on this earth."

     

    To Continue Reading: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/06/12/apostrophe-laws-on-the-wane-/2415963/

  • 01 Oct 2013 10:16 AM | Deleted user

    The Wrongfully Convicted Sex Offender

    RSO

    (Editorial Note:  In no way do I want to minimize the issue of violence against women or children.  Rape is clearly a crime of violence, and must be dealt with appropriately.  Pedophile predation is abhorrant, and must also be dealt with sternly and appropriately.  But I think the issue has become – what actually is appropriate for dealing with the range of sex offenses, and in some cases, have we gone too far; and what does this mean for the wrongfully convicted?  It begs the age old question – does the punishment fit the crime?)

    Woe be to the wrongfully convicted sex offender, because you’re not just a wrongfully convicted ‘felon.’  You’re a wrongfully convicted ‘sex offender,’ and the state makes sure you get some extra special attention.  Note that I’m careful to use the qualifier “wrongfully convicted” here, because in the case of sex offenders, when the justice system “gets it wrong,” the injustice gets amplified.  I’m not saying we should let actually guilty sex offenders off the hook, but the punitive measures have become so severe, that when someone is wrongfully convicted of a sex offense, the consequences they are forced to endure magnify the injustice.

    To understand why a wrongful conviction in a sex offender case is such a travesty, you need to know a little about the sex offender laws and the mandatory, so-called “rehabilitation” methods.  (This will be a little bit lengthy.)

    Over the last few decades, states have been steadily rewriting their sex offense laws to become more and more draconian.  I judge that this has been caused by something akin the to wave of hysteria that swept the US in the 80′s over preschool child sex abuse.  The primary driver for this was the McMartin preschool case in which accusations were made in 1983.  All charges were dropped in 1990, after the lives of all defendants involved were completely ruined.  Because sex crimes, particularly those involving children, scrape a particularly sensitive region in the human psyche, it makes a great issue for politicians to campaign on.  My opinion is that much of today’s sex offender legislation has had little, if any, basis in research, and is an all-too-typical legislative knee jerk to high profile cases that have created something of a bully pulpit for affected victims and families.  You can’t blame the victims and families.  Your heart has to go out to the them.  They have suffered unspeakable tragedy.  They want “justice,” but in the case of a wrongful conviction, that justice is visited upon the wrong person.  Sadly, the legislative responses have proven to be the classically inefficient and expediency-driven political solutions that treat the symptom and not the disease.  The key here is lack of research and the absence of statistically valid data.  A classic example of this is “Megan’s Law,” which established the original sex offender registry.  This law was enacted by the New Jersey General Assembly in 1994 in response to the rape and murder of seven year old Megan Kanka.  Since then, the law has been enacted in some form by every state, and has also resulted in a federal FBI sex offender registry.  However, a 2008 federally funded study conducted in New Jersey, where Megan’s Law was first enacted, found that it failed to reduce sex crimes or repeat offenders.  Read that story here.  If you’re interested in plodding through a 50 state survey of sex offender legislation, you can read the one done by the National Institute of Corrections and the Washington College of Law here.

    Sentencing is just one area in which the sex offender laws have become more harsh.  Here’s one recent example – the case of former NY Yankees outfielder, Chad Curtis, who has just been convicted of “inappropriately touching” three teenage girls in Michigan at a high school where he served as a volunteer weight room coach.  He’s facing 15 years in prison.  I do not know the details of the reported “inappropriate touching,” … but 15 years?  For touching?  Does that punishment fit that crime?  Let me emphasize again that I do not want to be dismissive of the issues involving sexual aggressors and violence against women,  but it just seems to this old brain that an act that a generation or so ago would have effectively been dealt with by some other means can now turn you into a convicted (and registered) sex offender.  My observation has been that “zero tolerance” policies, while well meaning,  always run afoul of the complexities of reality.

    There are as many different versions of the sex offender laws as there are states, but one thing that has become a common denominator is the sex offender registry.  Once released from confinement, a convicted sex offender must register with the state’s sex offender registry.  The requirements for frequency of registration and duration of the registration period are tied to sex offender classification levels, which are intended to reflect the measure of risk to the public.  The level for any individual offender is determined by the court in some states, and by an administrative board in others.  Here are examples of the sex offender classifications from New York and Ohio:

    NY Sex Offender Levels

    Ohio Sex Offender Levels

    You may wonder, “How can someone be wrongfully convicted of a sex offense?”  It’s actually easier than you might think.  The National Registry of Exonerations has reported on it’s data for the period 1989-2012, which includes data for 305 wrongful sex offender convictions, and please keep in mind this represents only a small fraction of the wrongful convictions that actually occur.  The table below has the data for sex crimes highlighted, and it shows the contributing factors to the wrongful convictions.  Note the percentages shown for each of the categories of crime add to greater than 100%, because any wrongful conviction can have more than one contributing factor.

    Wrongful Sex Convictions

    The major contributing cause to wrongful convictions for sexual assault ismistaken eye witness identification.  It’s been well documented that eye witness identification is very unreliable.  But how could an assault victim mistakenly identify her attacker?  It happens frequently, and if you don’t believe it, I strongly recommend you read the book “Picking Cotton” by Ronald Cotton and Jennifer Thompson Canino.  The major contributing factor for child sex abuse isperjury or false accusation.  One scenario here, although clearly not the only one, would be when a vindictive ex-spouse coaches her children into making false accusations against their father.  Another way wrongful sex offender convictions can happen is when a vindictive ex-partner makes false claims about sexual assault.  This is an offense which is, among adults, almost exclusively male-on-female in nature.  Cases of female perpetrated forcible rape are rare indeed. Consequently, this is an area where it’s so often an issue of “He said.  She said.”  The wrongful conviction of Brian Banks, extensively reported on this blog, is a perfect example.

    So what does happen when a sex offender is released from confinement, either through completion of sentence or parole?  Just as with sex offender laws, the requirements vary by state, but it is universally required that the sex offender undergo a mandatory “rehabilitation” program, the details of which also vary by state.  An example would be Rules for Sex Offenders in the Community from the state of Washington Department of Corrections.  There are, however, some common threads that tend to run through these programs, and typical requirements would include:

    1)  You must register as a convicted sex offender.  Your name and address will appear in a searchable online database of registered sex offenders.  In most states, if the offense is anything more than minor, you can be required to register as a sex offender for 15 years, 25 years, or life.

    2)  Restrictions on where you can live.  It is common for localities to pass ordinances that prohibit a convicted sex offender from living in certain areas; for example, within some specified distance from schools and parks.

    3)  Your place of residence may be marked by a public sign.  Please refer to the graphic at the beginning of this article.

    4)  Mandatory therapy sessions.  A key component of rehabilitation is considered to be therapy and counseling.  It’s taken as a given, that for therapy to be successful, the subject must admit guilt and express remorse.   In fact, the US Appellate Court Third Circuit, in a 2010 decision that has been classified as “precedential,” ruled that it is legitimate to require admission of guilt from sex offenders before being placed in rehabilitation programs, which is a requirement of their parole.  If a defendant fails to admit guilt, he can be denied parole, or if he is in “rehabilitation,” he can be sent back to confinement.

    5)  Polygraph evaluation.  There has been much written on this blog about the questionability of the polygraph.  Mary D. Devoy is an activist in Virginia who has been pressing for data driven reform to the Virginia sex offender registry.  She maintains a blog titled, It’s Time to Reduce, Reconstruct, Reclassify, Rethink and Reform the Virginia Sex Offender Registry.  She also has much to say about the use of the polygraph in sex offender rehabilitation.  After reading the article on this blog The ‘Catch 22′ of Parole for the Wrongfully Convicted, she sent me a “letter,” which she has consented that I share.  Please read it here:  Devoy Letter.

    6)  Plethysmograph evaluation.  What’s that?  The plethysmograph is a cousin to the polygraph.  A mercury filled rubber ring or metal band with a strain gauge (or sometimes an air filled cuff) is placed around the shaft of the subject’s penis, and measures “penile tumescence.”

    Plethysmograph

    The subject is then exposed to photographs, audio, and video of sexually charged situations, and his erectile response is measured.  This is supposed to be a gauge of how well he can control his urges.  The state of Colorado was an early adopter of this practice (Colorado Sex Offender Manual).  However, there is no statistically valid data that shows correlation with any ability of this practice to predict future behavior, with the possible exception of the use of images of children with pedophiles, which has a marginal (32%) accuracy as determined by studies.  The most definitive statement I have found concerning this practice comes from Robert M. Stein, Ph.D. from the Center for Neurobehavioral Health, Ltd., Lancaster, PA, who, from 1982-1988, was the Director of the Psychophysiological lab at the Sexual Behavior Clinic in New York City.  He personally (not through a technician) assessed and treated over 700 adolescent and adult sex offenders. His comments (abbreviated):

    .          a.  Plethysmograph data is totally useless for determining guilt or innocence regarding deviant sexual acts. It would be like using a personality test to convict someone of burglary.

    .          b.  Plethysmographic data have no diagnostic value of any kind.

    .          c.  About one-third of offenders show no arousal in the lab.

    7)  You may be required to wear a GPS tracking ankle bracelet, as was the case with Brian Banks.

    SO, WHAT’S MY POINT HERE?  WELL  ….  IMAGINE THIS:

    A rape victim has mistakenly identified you as her attacker.  She testifies in court, and points you out to the jury.  You are wrongfully convicted of sexual assault.  After serving many years in prison, you’ll do anything to get out, and are willing to admit guilt and express remorse – even though you didn’t do it, and after several attempts, you are granted parole.  Upon release, you have to register as a sex offender, and continue doing so for the rest of your life.  You have to enter a rehabilitation program run by the department of corrections.  Local ordinances force you to live in a rural area.  The only job you can get is flipping burgers.  You have to wear a GPS tracking ankle bracelet.  The Sheriff puts a sign outside your residence stating that you are a convicted sex offender, and this is where you live.  You have to attend therapy sessions in which youhave to talk about the rape (you didn’t do).  You are periodically subjected to arbitrary polygraph examinations.  You are periodically subjected to degrading plethysmograph evaluations.  And  ….  you didn’t do it.

    WOE BE TO THE WRONGFULLY CONVICTED SEX OFFENDER.

  • 20 Sep 2013 1:55 PM | Deleted user
    What NOT TO SAY TO POLICE
    By Norm Pattis (blog 4/20/10)

    I'm a battle-hardened criminal defense lawyer, so it always surprises me how weak in the knees I get when a policeman pulls me over. The urge to confess runs rampant, even if I haven't done anything. I assume the authorities must have a reason for wanting to talk to me. What have I done?

    Police prey upon our tendency to trust them. Yet confusing the sort of soul-cleansing confession one might give to a priest with the Earth-bound variety police officers ask for is playing with Hell fire. Many a man and woman sits now in a prison cell, convicted by their own words.

    I pass along some general observations about cooperating with the police in the hope that it may spare you the sorrow that comes of an improvident confession to a lawman. Mind you, nothing I am writing here is meant to encourage folks to commit a crime. I am simply reminding you that however much confession may benefit the soul in some spiritual sense, the corporeal consequences of a confession could well land you in prison. And prison is not good for the soul.

    So here are some common myths and misconceptions about what you must do when the police come calling.

    1. The police can order me down to the station to give a statement, correct?

    Wrong. The police cannot order you to come down and see them. The Fourth Amendment gives them the power to arrest if they develop probable cause to believe you have committed a crime, and they might have the authority to engage you in a brief investigatory detention. But no case stands for the proposition that you are required to come to the station for a chat. Period.

    But fear undermines many folk's sense of self-interest. So does a misplaced sense of hope.

    An officer may call and say he needs you to come to the station to tell your side of the story. (He may not tell you just what story that is. My favorite investigative technique? Officers show up at your door and ask: "Why do you think we want to talk to you?") The officer may say that if you don't come to the station he will seek an arrest warrant for you.

    News flash: The officer is almost certainly going to seek the warrant anyhow once things have gotten to that point. What he is looking for here is a confession, to bolster the warrant and make a conviction all but a foregone conclusion.

    The law does not require police officers to get your side of the story before arresting you. In rare cases only does discussing your case with the police benefit you. The only way to make an intelligent assessment of whether you should cooperate is by consulting a lawyer before you talk to the police. There are no exceptions to this rule. Don't accept the invitation for coffee and donuts at the station.

    2. When the police show up at my house, I have to talk to them right?

    Wrong again. The normal conventions of polite society do not apply here. The police have not come to your home to trade notes on how your respective fantasy sports teams are doing. They are investigating a crime, and you may well be a suspect. It takes perishingly little to convict of certain crimes. Minor details you give them may be used as a means of corroborating a far-fetched story told about you by others.

    This is common in child sex-abuse cases. Suppose your niece or nephew now claims you abused them a decade ago. You are rattled. Shocked. The police want to ask you about the relationship. Where you saw the child. What sorts of things you did together. Why you think the child is saying these things. All of these investigative leads can be turned against you to corroborate the fact that you did, indeed, have contact with the child at certain family events. Your assessment of the child's motives will be transformed into claims that you were deceptive. 
    Evidence that might truly assist you, e.g., the fact that the child has made similar false or exaggerated claims, background on family conflicts that provide the child with powerful motives to lie to assure that mommy and daddy remain together, united in crisis, and other such information can be provided to the police by your lawyer.

    3. If the police don't read me my rights, they can't use anything I say, right?

    Wrong, unless you are in custody. The so-called Miranda warnings have become part of American folklore. Unfortunately, many people get it wrong, thanks in no small measure to television. Police are only required to advise you of your right to remain silent if you are in custody. If you appear at the station voluntarily and they tell you that you are free to leave, you almost certainly are not in custody. In these cases, courts will regard your statement as voluntary, and, Mirandized or not, you will eat your own words at trial.

    If you are unsure whether you are in custody or not, and believe me, figuring that out is no easy task, simply refuse to speak to the police. Once again, don't resort to normal, polite conversational gambits. "Maybe I should talk to a lawyer" is not clear enough to satisfy a court that you were serious about wanting a lawyer present. State the following: "I DO NOT WANT TO SPEAK TO YOU WITHOUT A LAWYER PRESENT." Print it out on a three-by-five card. If you really want to short the officer's circuits, ask him to sign the card, signifying that he gets it. (He won't sign.)

    This may sound cynical, but it is a conclusion I've reached after many years of head-banging: the courts are increasingly reluctant to meaningfully enforce the rights of the accused. Ask any criminal lawyer about the serious crime exception to the Bill of Rights. Don't become a victim. Call a lawyer.

    Police officers are trained in the art of deception. They know how to prey on fear and uncertainty. Whether you have committed a crime or not, odds are you will be putty in their hands. There are ways to get the information important to your defense into the hands of the police, but you are not equipped to do it without a lawyer. 
    I have said this to folks hundreds of times. Sadly, each week I get another call from someone who has given away some significant portion of their future by talking about things they would have been better served keeping to themselves.
  • 05 Sep 2013 11:28 AM | Deleted user
    [​IMG]
    By Janice Bellucci

    Sorry for the all caps, but this is how it was typed and we do not have time to go through and fix everything.

    I AM HAPPY TO JOIN YOU TONIGHT IN AN EVENING OF CONSEQUENCE. AN EVENING THAT MAY GO DOWN IN HISTORY AS A TURNING POINT IN A CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT DEDICATED TO RESTORING JUSTICE FOR ALL.

    IN 1787, THE FOUNDERS OF OUR COUNTRY CREATED AND ADOPTED A CONSTITUTION WHICH ESTABLISHED THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. FOUR YEARS LATER, THE FOUNDERS AMENDED THE CONSTITUTION BY ADDING PROTECTIONS FOR INDIVIDUALS’ RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES. 10 AMENDMENTS KNOWN AS THE BILL OF RIGHTS.

    BUT MORE THAN TWO HUNDRED YEARS LATER, THE PROMISES OF THE CONSTITUTION AND OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS ARE BEING DENIED TO A GROUP OF CITIZENS WHO LANGUISH IN THE CORNERS OF SOCIETY AND FINDS THEMSELVES EXILED IN THEIR OWN LAND.

    THAT GROUP OF INDIVIDUALS HAS BEEN LABELED BY SOME AS "SEX OFFENDERS". I SHALL HENCEFORTH REFER TO THEM AS "REGISTERED CITIZENS".

    REGISTERED CITIZENS HAVE MADE A MISTAKE. THEY HAVE BROKEN A LAW. AND THEY HAVE PAID THEIR DEBT TO SOCIETY BY GOING TO PRISON OR SERVING TIME ON PROBATION.

    DESPITE THE PAYMENT OF THEIR DEBTS TO SOCIETY, REGISTERED CITIZENS CONTINUE TO BEPUNISHED BY BEING DENIED JOBS, A HOME IN WHICH TO LIVE, CREDIT, ACCESS TO PARKS, BEACHES, AND LIBRARIES AS WELL EXILED FROM SOME OR ALL MEMBERS OF THEIR FAMILIES.

    SOME REGISTERED CITIZENS ARE UNEMPLOYED. SOME ARE HOMELESS. AND SOME ARE MURDERED BY VIGILANTES FOR NO OTHER REASON THAN THEIR LABEL. THIS IS PUNISHMENT!! DESPITE WHAT THE U.S. SUPREME COURT HAS RULED. THE REQUIREMENT TO REGISTER IS NOT THE SAME AS -- OR EVEN SIMILAR TO -- BECOMING A MEMBER OF COSTCO!

    IN A SENSE WE HAVE COME TO THIS CONFERENCE IN L.A. TO CASH A CHECK. A PROMISSORY NOTE SIGNED BY THE FOUNDERS OF THIS NATION.

    IT IS OBVIOUS TODAY THAT AMERICA HAS DEFAULTED ON THIS PROMISSORY NOTE INSOFAR AS REGISTERED CITIZENS ARE CONCERNED. INSTEAD OF HONORING THE SACRED OBLIGATIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION, AMERICA HAS GIVEN REGISTERED CITIZENS A BAD CHECK. A CHECK WHICH HAS BEEN RETURNED AND MARKED "INSUFFICIENT FUNDS".

    BUT WE REFUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE BANK OF JUSTICE IN AMERICA IS BANKRUPT. WE REFUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THERE ARE INSUFFICIENT FUNDS IN THE GREAT VAULTS OF OPPORTUNITY OF THIS NATION. SO WE HAVE COME TO L.A.. THE CITY WHICH CREATED THE NATION’S FIRST REGISTRY IN 1947. TO CASH THIS CHECK. A CHECK THAT WILL GIVE US THE RICHES AND SECURITY OF JUSTICE. WE HAVE ALSO COME TO REMIND AMERICA OF THE NEED TO ACT NOW.

    IT WOULD BE UNCONSCIONABLE FOR THE NATION TO OVERLOOK THE URGENCY OF THE MOMENT WHEN CIVIL RIGHTS ARE DENIED AND CITIZENS SUCH AS CHARLES AND GRETCHEN PARKER ARE MURDERED BY VIGILANTES IN SOUTH CAROLINA LAST MONTH. THIS SWELTERING SUMMER OF THE REGISTERED CITIZEN’S LEGITIMATE DISCONTENT WILL NOT PASS UNTIL THERE IS AN INVIGORATING AUTUMN OF FREEDOM FOR REGISTERED CITIZENS. 2013 IS NOT AN END, BUT A BEGINNING.

    TODAY THERE ARE MORE THAN 750,000 AMERICAN CITIZENS WHO ARE BEING DENIED THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS EVERY DAY. 24 HOURS A DAY, 7 DAYS A WEEK, 365 DAYS A YEAR. THIS MUST STOP! NOW IS THE TIME TO LIFT OUR NATION FROM THE QUICK SANDS OF INJUSTICE TO THE SOLID ROCK OF JUSTICE. NOW IS THE TIME TO MAKE JUSTICE A REALITY FOR ALL CITIZENS. BUT WE CANNOT MOVE FORWARD ALONE.

    INSTEAD, WE MUST INCLUDE OUR LOVED ONES. OUR PARENTS. OUR CHILDREN. OUR NIECES, NEPHEWS, AUNTS, UNCLES, NEIGHBORS AND FRIENDS. WHO WILL BE SERVE AS OBJECTIVE WITNESSES TO THE PLIGHT OF REGISTERED CITIZENS.

    I AM MINDFUL THAT SOME OF YOU HAVE COME HERE FROM FARAWAY STATES. MARYLAND, MASSASCHUSETTS, FLORIDA. I AM ALSO MINDFUL THAT SOME OF YOU HAVE RECENTLY BEEN RELEASED FROM PRISON AND SOME OF YOU REMAIN ON PROBATION OR PAROLE.

    GO BACK TO MARYLAND. GO BACK TO MASSACHUSETTS. GO BACK TO FLORIDA. GO BACK TO THE SLUMS WHERE SOME HOMELESS REGISTERED CITIZENS LIVE. KNOWING THAT SOMEHOW THIS SITUATION CAN AND WILL BE CHANGED.

    I SAY TO YOU TONIGHT, FRIENDS, EVEN THOUGH WE FACE THE DIFFICULTIES OF TODAY AND TOMORROW, I HAVE A DREAM. IT IS A DREAM DEEPLY ROOTED IN THE AMERICAN DREAM.

    I HAVE A DREAM THAT ONE DAY THIS NATION WILL RISE UP AND LIVE OUT FOR ALL CITIZENS THE TRUE MEANING OF ITS CREED, "WE HOLD THESE TRUTHS TO BE SELF-EVIDENT, THAT ALL PEOPLE ARE CREATED EQUAL."

    I HAVE A DREAM THAT ONE DAY IN THE PARKS OF MARYLAND REGISTERED CITIZENS CAN HAVE A FAMILY PICNIC.

    I HAVE A DREAM THAT ONE DAY IN THE LIBRARIES OF NEW MEXICO REGISTERED CITIZENS CAN READ A BOOK.

    I HAVE A DREAM.

    I HAVE A DREAM THAT ONE DAY IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA REGISTERED CITIZENS WILL BE ALLOWED TO ENTER EMERGENCY SHELTERS WHEN A HURRICANE ARRIVES.

    I HAVE A DREAM THAT ONE DAY IN THE STATE OF TENNESSEE REGISTERED CITIZENS WILL BE ABLE TO LIVE WITH ALL THE MEMBERS OF THEIR FAMILIES.

    I HAVE A DREAM.

    I HAVE A DREAM THAT ONE DAY IN THE STATE OF OHIO REGISTERED CITIZENS CAN CELEBRATE HALLOWEEN IN THEIR OWN HOMES WITHOUT FEAR OF ARREST.

    I HAVE A DREAM THAT ONE DAY IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA REGISTERED CITIZENS CAN LIVE IN ANY CITY OR COUNTY THEY WISH TO LIVE IN.

    I HAVE A DREAM.

    I HAVE A DREAM THAT ONE DAY IN AMERICA REGISTERED CITIZENS WILL NO LONGER BE REQUIRED TO WEAR GPS MONITORS.

    I HAVE A DREAM THAT ONE DAY IN AMERICA ARMED POLICE OFFICERS WILL NO LONGER SHOW UP ON THE DOORSTEPS OF REGISTERED CITIZENS.

    I HAVE A DREAM.

    I HAVE A DREAM THAT ONE DAY THE NAMES, PHOTOS AND HOME ADDRESSES OF REGISTERED CITIZENS WILL NO LONGER BE PUBLISHED ON THE INTERNET.

    I HAVE A DREAM THAT ONE DAY IN AMERICA ELECTED OFFICIALS WILL NO LONGER PASS LAWS THAT DENY THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF REGISTERED CITIZENS IN ORDER TO INCREASE THEIR CHANCE OF RE-ELECTION.

    I HAVE A DREAM.

    I HAVE A DREAM THAT ONE DAY REGISTERED CITIZENS WILL NOT BE TREATED LIKE LEPERS AND WILL NOT BE PUBLICLY DISGRACED, HUMILIATED AND SHAMED.

    I HAVE A DREAM THAT ONE DAY IN AMERICA REGISTERED CITIZENS WILL NOT BE HUNTED DOWN AND MURDERED BY VIGILANTES.

    I HAVE A DREAM

    I HAVE A DREAM THAT ONE DAY IN AMERICA THE U.S. SUPREME COURT WILL RECOGNIZE THAT REGISTRATION IS A FORM OF PUNISHMENT.

    I HAVE A DREAM THAT ONE DAY IN AMERICA REGISTERED CITIZENS WILL LIVE IN A NATION WHERE THEY WILL NOT BE JUDGED BY A MISTAKE THEY MADE DECADES AGO BUT BY THE CONTENT OF THEIR CURRENT CHARACTER AND ACTIONS.

    THIS IS OUR HOPE. THIS IS THE FAITH WITH WHICH I WILL CONTINUE MY WORK TO RESTORE JUSTICE FOR REGISTERED CITIZENS. WITH THIS FAITH WE WILL BE ABLE TO HEW OUT OF THE MOUNTAIN OF DESPAIR A STONE OF HOPE.

    THAT WILL BE THE DAY WHEN WE ALL WILL BE ABLE TO SING WITH A NEW MEANING, "MY COUNTRY ‘TIS OF THEE, SWEET LAND OF LIBERTY". AND IF AMERICA IS TO REMAIN A GREAT NATION THIS MUST BE TRUE.

    SO LET JUSTICE RING FROM MOUNT RAINIER IN WASHINGTON STATE. LET JUSTICE RING FROM THE MISSIPPI RIVER IN LOUISIANA. LET JUSTICE RING FROM THE ROCKY MOUNTAINS IN COLORADO. LET JUSTICE RING FROM THE BEACHES OF CALIFORNIA.

    LET JUSTICE RING.

    AND WHEN THESE THINGS HAPPEN, JUSTICE WILL RING. FROM EVERY VILLAGE AND HAMLET. FROM EVERY STATE AND CITY. AND THAT WILL IN TURN SPEED UP THE DAY WHEN ALL CITIZENS. REGISTERED AND UNREGISTERED. JOIN HANDS AND REPEAT TOGETHER THE ULTIMATE GOAL OF THIS MOVEMENT TO LIVE AS CITIZENS. AS EXPRESSED CLEARLY IN THE LAST SIX WORDS OF OUR NATION’S PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. "WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL."

    HOW DO WE GET THERE? BY SHOWING UP – STANDING UP – AND SPEAKING UP.

    THANK YOU.

8 The Green Suite #8219, Dover, DE 19901 | Support Hotline 800-311-3764 | Women Against Registry © 2011-2023

Powered by Wild Apricot Membership Software