 |
| Adoption Law | Child Custody | Child Support | Divorce Law | Family Law | Marriage Law |
Federal Case RegistryA national database of information on individuals in all IV-D cases, and all non-IV-D orders entered or modified on or after October 1, 1998. The FCR receives this case information on a daily basis from the State Case Registry (SCR) located in every State, and proactively matches it with previous submissions to the FCR and with employment information contained in the National Directory of New Hires (NDNH). Any successful matches are returned to the appropriate State(s) for processing. The FCR and the NDNH are both part of the expanded FPLS, which is maintained by OCSE. Question: Is DEATH the only way off a sex offender registry? I have been following this guy where ever he goes, (Troy Alan Cool) for him doing things to little girls. His official crime that he got registered in PA was "Indecent acts or Liberties" and was with a very young girl when he was in his 20's. Now I would have never known this until I had a female roommate who told me about how he was their neighbor and would bring her over to play "HOUSE" and would show her what a "MOMMY" is supposed to do when they play. I guess this went on for years.
Right around the time I came into the picture Is about the time when PA have just put up its Sex Offender site. Between what he did to her and some very graphic pictures he took of her little sister... I took it upon myself (and legally so) to notify his neighbors and places of work about what he was. This lead him to more quite often.
Now about a year ago he was registered up in a place called St. Mary's, PA then all a sudden... He was gone. I check around and even checked out the brand new Federal Registry that has everyone from every state including American territories in it... still nothing.
Now I know there is no way for someone who is convicted to get out of the system but it makes me wonder... Did he die, and would that explane him being out of the system, or is there states you can goto that if the crime was not deemed too bad you don't have to register online. If this is the case how can you find him in this place.
Thanks any help would be nice. Question: Do you agree: We need an Anti-Abortion Violence Registry? Why or why not? The Case for an Anti-Abortion Violence Registry:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jacob-m-ap…
Here's a part of the "case" from the article: "Over the past fifteen years, federal legislation has required state governments to track convicted sex offenders and -- for better or for worse -- many states have followed up with restrictions on the places where these offenders may live and work.
In light of the epidemic of anti-abortion violence that has targeted reproductive health care providers over the past three decades (including 41 bombings and 173 arson attacks since 1977), Congress should create a similar registry for individuals convicted of politically-motivated felonies that target abortion clinics or abortion providers. The narrow purpose of such legislation would be to prevent a small cadre of highly-dangerous individuals, all of whom have previously demonstrated a disregard for both public safely and civil discourse, from approaching either reproductive health clinics or their employees.
Much as we do not permit convicted pedophiles to teach kindergarten or convicted hijackers to board airplanes, common sense dictates that individuals who have been imprisoned for plotting violence against abortion clinics should never again be permitted anywhere near such facilities."
Case in point: " As was widely reported in the media, Operation Rescue's senior policy analyst, Cheryl Sullenger, kept Roeder apprised of Dr. Tiller's whereabouts -- an accusation she first denied and later admitted -- and her phone number was found on the dashboard of his car. Sullenger was quoted in the press as stating, "He would call and say, 'When does court start? When's the next hearing?' I was polite enough to give him the information. I had no reason not to. Who knew? Who knew, you know what I mean?" Yet far less attention was paid to the details of Cheryl Sullenger's previous conviction for conspiring to blow up a California abortion clinic and her prior three-year prison sentence for supplying the explosive powder for that bomb. At the time of her guilty plea, Sullenger, who federal prosecutors described as being in the "upper echelons of culpability," had the audacity to tell the judge that she was "trying to save lives." Such a woman has no business coming within shouting distance of an abortion clinic ever again."
Do we need an Anti-Abortion Violence Registry? Why or why not? Question: I need a fresh view on a case study!? I'm looking for a fresh look on ethical issues in the below paragraph, if you see any please comment below! :) thanks it will help a lot to see some other point of views's! :)
Before 1994, few states had laws that even defined ‘sex-offender’, much less laws that regulated convicted sex offenders' movements and required their registration with local law enforcement. This state of affairs changed with passage of the Federal Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, which required each state to implement a sex-offender registration program or risk forfeiture of federal grants for law enforcement. The 1994 Act was amended in 1996 to oblige states to establish community notification programs to make sex-offender registry information readily available to those who seek it. The Act was subsequently amended in 1998 and 2000 to broaden its scope and heighten some of its registration requirements.
More recently, over one-half of the U.S. states proactively passed legislation to restrict the locations where sex-offenders may reside. These laws commonly restrict sex-offenders from living, and sometimes from working, within a given distance (ranging from 500 to 2,000 feet) of places where children gather: parks, schools, school bus stops, day care facilities, community centers, and churches.
Sex-offender laws enjoy widespread support in many quarters. From the beginning, only civil libertarians seem to have challenged some of these laws, usually on constitutional grounds. For example, laws that require some sex-offenders to remain in prison after their sentences have been completed have been challenged on due process grounds. Also, from a constitutional perspective, draconian public notification requirements seem to place convicted sex-offenders who have paid their debt to society in double jeopardy.
On the other hand, sex-offender residency restrictions have lost support in recent years from constituencies that traditionally endorsed them. The most notable, perhaps, is the Iowa County Attorneys Association (ICAA), an organization of county prosecutors, which issued its Statement on Sex Offender Residency Restrictions in Iowa explaining that sex-offender residency restrictions do “not provide the protection that was originally intended and that the cost of [enforcement]…and the unintended effects on families of offenders warrant replacing the restriction[s] with more effective protective measure[s].” Among other things, the document contends that residency restrictions force offenders into homelessness and otherwise cause them to provide false or no information to state sex-offender registries. According to the Statement, the negative consequences of the lifetime residency restrictions also have caused a reduction in the number of confessions made by offenders in cases where defendants usually confess…."
State Attorney General Harriet Abca is currently running for Governor. As the Attorney General her role is to function as the “top cop” for the state. Currently the state laws are all in-line with the federal requirements. However, in her heart and mind she agrees that many of the post-release requirements placed on sex offenders are unfair to the offenders and hurt law enforcement’s ability to obtain confessions. Attorney General Abca would like to challenge the federal requirements by filing a lawsuit against the federal government on behalf of the state. The Attorney General’s office staff agrees with her and has advised her to proceed. However, the Attorney General’s campaign staff has advised her to wait until she is elected (hopefully) and to force the next Attorney General to file the lawsuit, so Mrs. Abca can avoid any negative political ramifications for being seen as weak on crime. Question: why let this country go down the tubes for a party? It un real, Obama has not even proved his citizenship FACT CHECK says"Obama campaign released a digitally scanned image of his birth certificate' NOT the original now they also claim to have seen and touched the original...how funny when he has a court order to show it and refuses too..heres the COURT ORDER to show "original" not scanned , what they are talking about is a "registry " of birth DID you know he was "registered at "two" different hospitals Queens & Kapiolani, so which is it? READ the Document in link to decide.
http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/dis…
you may not believe me BUT it's not party for me it Country.
just because we don't like a party we should not vote someone in who LIES and has very odd friends who are anti-American, shouldn't it be about USA not REPS or DEMS Question: Filipinoys, watch out! look who's coming to a neighborhood near you in hordes? http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/07/13/sex.…
(CNN) -- Thousands of registered sex offenders have received U.S. passports, including at least 30 federal employees, according to a Government Accountability Office report obtained by CNN.
The GAO report said the Department of State cannot legally deny passports to registered sex offenders, except those specifically convicted of sex tourism.
The report concluded that about 4,500 U.S. passports of the more than 16 million issued in fiscal year 2008 were issued to registered sex offenders.
"Federal statutes authorize the Secretary of State to deny issuance of a passport in certain circumstances, such as while an individual is imprisoned or on parole or supervised release for a conviction for international drug trafficking or sex tourism or is in arrearages for child support," the report states. "However, there is currently no comprehensive program to deny passports to applicants who are registered sex offenders."
The State Department called the report "very misleading" and adding it "conveys more 'shock value' than factual accuracy."
In a written response, the department pointed out that only a fraction of 1 percent of the 16 million passports issued in fiscal year 2008 went to registered sex offenders. In addition, the title of the report "fails to convey that GAO found no lawful reasons for the department to deny or revoke the passports of the case study sex offenders based on their status as sex offenders."
"The report appears to suggest, without any foundation, that the Department's issuance of passports to certain Americans facilitated their commission of sex crimes abroad," the department's response said. "There are no facts in the report which show that any of the thirty individuals included in the case studies used his passport to travel to a foreign country to commit a sex crime."
The original title of the report, "Passports Issued to Thousands of Registered Sex Offenders," was later changed to "Current Situation Results in Thousands of Passports Issued to Registered Sex Offenders."
The GAO report was requested by Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, and Sen. Max Baucus, D-Montana.
The GAO studied data from the National Sex Offender Registry (NSOR). However, the approximately 4,500 sex offenders who received passports in fiscal year 2008 "is likely understated because many of the records in the passport database and the NSOR lacked valid Social Security numbers ... In addition, the NSOR does not currently contain a comprehensive listing of all sex offenders from the states."
The GAO found cases that include a sex offender from Texas who received a passport while in prison, a Delaware man with multiple sex convictions who traveled to the Philippines, Germany and France since receiving his passport, and a Georgia man who has traveled to the Philippines, Ireland and Panama.
Among the federal employees who received passports was an aerospace engineer with NASA, an employee of the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, and a Postal Service carrier who traveled to Taiwan and Japan after receiving his passport.
About 50 of those who received passports either lived outside the United States or "their whereabouts were unknown," the report said.
A new law took effect in December 2008 that prohibits anyone convicted of sex tourism from receiving a U.S. passport. However, the report said, the Department of State was not even aware of the law until April of this year after the GAO "brought this statute to its attention."
"When Congress passes a law and the president signs it, then the Executive Branch needs to execute it," Grassley said in a statement. "I'm shocked that GAO had to inform the State Department that Congress made individuals convicted of sex tourism ineligible for passports back in December 2008. It's inexcusable that the State Department did nothing to enforce that provision for 14 months. Since someone who is late on child support payments cannot receive a passport, then surely these criminals should also be stopped from traveling internationally."
"It also is disturbing that the GAO found examples prior to that new law where the State Department issued passports to convicted sex offenders who fled law enforcement, received government housing subsidies, and work for the Post Office. This report raises a lot of serious questions about how effectively the government protects us from child predators," Grassley said.
The report also studied a group of registered sex offenders -- many who held positions of public trust, including a school teacher, religious layman, and health care provider.
"Other cases involve registered sex offenders who owe child support or are currently in prison or whose whereabouts ar Question: Is there a reasonable explanation for why Feminists...? Have not been deemed a hate group and their activities (whether internet or otherwise) have not been closely scrutinized by the FBI, DOJ (as is the case for White Supremacist Organisations, e.g. KKK, etc.)?
Additionally, if a member of a known terrorist or hate group is officially known to the Federal government, why do people think it's unconstitutional to have a publicly available registry of such individuals?
Child predators are registered in most jurisictions (and have been for many years) why is it different for Feminists? Is it necessary for a Feminist to commit an actual sex crime before society intercedes in an effort to protect young people or is it in keeping with our moral imperative to protect the fundamental civil rights of our citizens, with respect to clear and imminent threat from hate groups who advocate violence and paedophilia?
A parent should have the right to know if a child care facility employs known sex offenders, Feminists or those affiliated with hate groups, no?
http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cid/cac/registry.h… Question: What CANADIAN political party should I be a part of considering my beliefs? Alright so I'm 17 years old, turning 18 in a few months. As you know, I will be able to vote soon and I just wanted some opinions on which political party I should be following based on my beliefs: NDP, Liberal or Conservative (not interestec in the bloc). I am looking for some SERIOUS answers. If you don't know much about the Canadian politcal parties please do not bother answering. These are my PERSONAL beliefs and opinions: I am not attempting to spark a debate or offend anybody so if you do not agree with anything I say I am sorry but these are just my opinions. I know this is a really long post, but any help would be much appreciated.
Healthcare: I believe that the healthcare system should remain public and that the federal government should set standards for all provinces to follow. Everyone has a right to healthcare and deserves the same treatment regardless of their financial situation. It may limit the amount of money doctors are able to make, but they make enough of it as it is.
Guns/Gun Control: I believe that the government should enforce a mandatory gun registry. I personally don’t see why anyone would need a gun unless they use it for hunting (which I am strongly against), but in any case some people may legitimately need them for protection. There are people that misuse them and therefore the government should strictly enforce the gun registry. I also think people with a criminal record should most definitely not be allowed to bear arms even if it is for their own security/protection.
Immigration: I believe that the system should remain as it is (there should not be tougher standards put in place to restrict entry). Canada needs immigrants right now considering the huge, aging baby boom population.
Environment: I believe the environment is very important and the government should be doing more to protect it (look into alternative energy, public transit, going green etc.).
Homosexuality: I believe 100% that if people are homosexual and want to get married it is their choice and they should have to right to do so and receive spousal benefits. I am, however, on the fence with whether they should be allowed to adopt children. I understand that they could be more loving and caring than straight parents and I am definitely not doubting their ability to raise children, but I just don’t know if it would be best for a child to grow up in that type of environment. On the other hand, I don’t see how it could be much different from a single parent and it would most definitely be better than having a child live on the street or in a bad orphanage. So I guess I am okay with them adopting (a bit hesitant though, not really 100%).
Abortion: I am 100% pro-choice on abortion. I think more should be done to prevent unwanted pregnancies and I do agree with people who think it is wrong for someone to carelessly have unprotected sex and then get an abortion. On the other hand, there are many situations where women NEED to get abortions. Many times their lives could be at risk and they could die during childbirth, they could have been raped or they could just not be at a place in their lives where they are capable of raising children. I would rather people had abortions than children grew up in absolute poverty, without parents, without a father, in a home where they were unwanted to begin with, living a poor quality of life etc.
Education: I 100% do not believe that religious schools (including catholic schools) should be funded. All schools should be public HOWEVER the school could offer courses or evening/weekend programs in different languages/cultures/religions. I also think that Canada needs to have some sort of national board exam (SAT type of thing). It is ridiculous that university admissions are based on marks alone when teachers who teach the same course vary greatly in easiness/toughness of the course and exam and giving out marks etc.
Crime/Law: I am 100% against the death penalty and I also think that penalties for youth/children should not be THAT harsh unless the crime committed was especially horrendous/heinous.
I am 100% pro-science and support stem-cell research as well as research on cloning.
I think that marijuana should be legalized and taxed. And that there should be an age limit (just like alcohol). Although I DO NOT support its use, people do it anyway and legalizing it may reduce its appeal for teenagers. Also, I don’t understand why alcohol and smoking is legal while marijuana isn’t. What’s the difference? I am not really 100% on this though.
I am not very religious and I believe religion has NO PLACE whatsoever in government/anything public
I believe in freedom of press/media and no censorship whatsoever
I do not believe in welfare/food stamps/whatever else. I do not think that it is fair for people to rely on these systems while others have to work hard and pay taxes to support them. These people need to get jobs!
I do not know m Question: Are Hospitals secretly taking your kids blood for the govt? "When state health officials were sued last year for storing infant blood samples without parental consent, they said it was for medical research into birth defects, childhood cancer and environmental toxins. They never said they were turning over hundreds of dried blood samples to the federal government to help build a vast DNA database — a forensics tool designed to identify missing persons and crack cold cases.
A Texas Tribune review of nine years' worth of e-mails and internal documents on the Department of State Health Services’ newborn blood screening program reveals the transfer of hundreds of infant blood spots to an Armed Forces lab to build a national and, someday, international mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) registry. The records, released after the state agreed in December to destroy more than 5 million infant blood spots, also show an effort to limit the public’s knowledge of aspects of the newborn blood program, and to manage the debate around it. But the plaintiffs who filed the lawsuit never saw them, because the state settled the case so quickly that it never reached the discovery phase."
http://www.texastribune.org/stories/2010…
Welcome to America!
We own you, and your child!
Please wait in the next available line for your government benefits.
Psshhh....that's just "tinfoil".
Oh wait. Question: How many of you know...? How many of you know that if anyone posts your ISP address they are guilty of a Federal offense?
Poets of Mars did this to me & are now in the hands of the FBI.
Some of us don't know that we have recourse for various abuses. We do. The FTC is a wonderful,too, & follows our complaints regarding harassing phone calls from telemarketers (sign up for the Do Not Call Registry), as well as miscreant debt collectors who violate laws.
Violators are fined, & as in one case of mine, one was fined $2,500. of which I got $1,500. My hope is that you're aware of options & do not allow anyone to abuse you!
How many of you know about these things?
Thank you, Tony. My server told me that, however, it's been up for two days & damage may have already been done. The FBI fellow told me Poets of Mars would be liable if it has.
I didn't see a place to comment on your post, (as in the old days),so I hope this works,
Tom, I'm not sure what you mean? Question: Adam Walsh Law was signed by Bush, What do you think? On the 25 anniversary of his sons brutal sexual assault and dismemberment John Walsh got to have the Adam Walsh Law signed into Federal law. On Fox News John Walsh said, "This now means that their will now be a sex offender registry in every State, even the liberal States that don`t want to have sex offender registries. Mandatory collection of DNA of sex offenders in even the liberal states that are against collection of DNA. It will solve thousands of cold cases of rape and molestations and 500 new Marshals on the street and 55 new FBI agents." It has been a 3 year fight in Congress but now it is law. With in the first few The law has already caught one child sex offender who fled from CA. and was caught in LA. because States are sharing information. He was caught with Child porn and was up to his old ways. It is now a federal beef for sex offenders to flee across State lines instead of a just misdemeanor.
Registries are no good if they are not shared with the public and other law enforcement agencies. Some States refused to do exactly that and gave rights to the offenders over the victims. http://www.amw.com/features/feature_stor…
http://www.billoreilly.com/pg/jsp/genera…
Jay, Yes CA is very progressive in this field but still could not share with other States what they knew, now they can. If you lived in Vermont or Mass and certain other states you would have been unable to look up the information you wanted in SF with out having a name already, going to the sheriffs office, and proving cause to know that information on that individual. Question: What to do about annoying Chinese telemarketers? Over the past few months, we’ve been receiving an exceptional amount of annoying Chinese telemarketing calls from mainland China. They’ve been asking odd questions that change about every second day, ranging from where our favourite holiday destination is to what brand of eggs we like to buy. While telemarketers are annoying in general, we don’t mind picking up the occasional phone call by a telemarketer and to tell them, in the most polite way we can, that we’re not interested in what they have to offer. However, these Chinese telemarketers are completely crazy! They call us at least five times a day (I’m not kidding here) and everyone in our family groans when the phone goes off. No one’s comfortable to pick up the phone because a) we’re so fed up b) it costs us money (it’s called the ‘receiving fee’ or something, apparently) and c) it might not be a telemarketer and one of our friends/family members on the other end of the line instead.
At one point my mother picked up the phone, realised that it was the Chinese telemarketer AGAIN and immediately hung up. They called back and started cussing the hell out of us, which we certainly weren’t very satisfied about. They kept calling again and again, still.
Just then, about ten minutes ago, my grandfather got really annoyed with the telemarketer that called us for the millionth time and told her off. She called back again and again to cuss us out, and I believe it’s just getting out of hand. What’s the problem, is that it costs us money to take up calls from China and there’s no way we can tell if a call is from a telemarketer or from someone that we know. The telemarketers are infuriating us and they’re really hard-mouthed. They retaliate to everything we say to them twofold, and call us even more.
Is there anything that can be done? I overheard my parents and grandparents mentioning putting our number on the Do Not Call registry, but I can’t be a hundred percent sure if that’s been done yet. And, even if it has been, does the Do No Call registry cover international telemarketers such as the Chinese in our case?
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
~~ yaivi
P.S. I’m located in Canberra, Australia. I’m Australian by birth, but my entire family is of Chinese ethnicity. We have a few contacts, property and bank accounts in China, which may have leaked our information to the telemarketers because, as far as I know, there haven’t been Chinese telemarketers calling up non-Chinese people in Australia.
P.P.S. Apparently this has been happening in Sydney too as my aunt lives there, but not as much.
|
|||||||
