Below is Georgia's report on their event.....
Monday, March 8, 2010
A Maine Conference?
Below is Georgia's report on their event.....
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Website Debute
Schedule for the Upcoming Week
Note that the sessions we are concerned with are on Tuesday and Thursday @ 1pm. It is so important for us to show up at everyone of these public sessions. I will be there as oten as I can.
Monday, October 12, 2009
Upcoming Bills effecting Maine RFSOs
Bills Being Requested as of yesterday.
LR: 2189: An act to Limit the Distance from a Day Care Facility within Which a Registered Sex Offender May Reside
LR: 2142: An Act to Increase the Maximum Distance from a School and a Day Care Center That May Be Set by Municipal Ordinance beyond Which a Sex Offender May Reside
LR: 2180: An Act To Provide to Certain Municipalities a Waiver of the Requirement To Adopt a Comprehensive Plan and Allow Those Municipalities To Enforce Their Ordinances
LR: 2383: An Act To Provide Full Accountability for Convicted Class D Sex Offenders
LR: 2105: An Act To Require Persons Who Commit Sex Offenses Against Dependent or Incapacitated Adults To Register under the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act of 1999
Po Box 611
Bridgton, ME 04009
Maine Citizens For Change
http://mecfc.blogspot.com
Thursday, September 10, 2009
CFC Maine mentioned in article
State law set to change city's sex offender ordinance
http://www.keepmecurrent.com/american_journal/news/article_e2946838-9e46-11de-8b21-001cc4c002e0.htmlPlease feel free to leave comments
Posted: Thursday, September 10, 2009 3:20 pm | Updated: 5:16 pm, Thu Sep 10, 2009.
Westbrook police Detective Dan Violette says there's a reason the number of sex offenders living and working in the city hasn't changed much in the past two years.
Since the City Council adopted one of the strictest ordinances in the state prohibiting registered sex offenders from living or working in most of the city, Violette has had to force people out of their new apartments and make them quit their jobs.
According to the detective, who said he spends about 25 percent of his work week keeping track of sex offenders in the city, about 37 registered sex offenders live in Westbrook and an additional 16 work there.
"The number hasn't fluctuated very much," Violette said.
But that could change when a new state law goes into effect Saturday, nullifying Westbrook's ordinance.
The City Council will vote Monday on whether to adopt the state's new maximum allowable restrictions on where sex offenders can live. If passed, the 2,500-foot buffer zones around all places children frequent will be replaced with 750-foot restricted areas just around schools. And that only covers residency. The state law says that towns and cities cannot restrict where sex offenders can work.
In a gesture showing their disapproval of the state law, Gorham town councilors last week refused to change the town's restrictive ordinance in order to comply. However, it's still in question what the town's police department will be able to enforce once the law goes into effect.
Though Violette said he'll still spend the same amount of time monitoring sex offenders in the city and notifying neighbors and employers of their whereabouts, the state law takes away some of his authority over sex offenders and a safeguard for Westbrook children.
"It's given me more tools to help make sure sex offenders were in compliance," he said about the old law.
DRAWN TO WESTBROOK
There are no demographics that encompass all sex offenders, Violette said, but because a lot of employers don't want to hire registered sex offenders, many, regardless of their backgrounds and skills, don't have steady sources of income.
"You're a convicted felon. That makes you ineligible to work in a lot of places," Violette said.
Because of that, he believes the amount of low-income housing in Westbrook draws more sex offenders. Though Portland is probably the most attractive city in the area for jobless sex offenders because of its shelters and support services, he said, "we're ripe for the picking as far as increasing our numbers."
However, some say that keeping people out of jobs and homes because of their sex offender status is unconstitutional.
Jane Cantral, who runs Maine Citizens for Change - a local affiliate of the national group Reform Sex Offender Laws - said she and her boyfriend Calvin Shelton, a registered sex offender, didn't have an easy time finding a home in this area of the state.
"We're trying to buy a house and we're looking at maps," said Cantral, a Bridgton resident who was herself the victim of a sex offender.
"It sounds good as a knee-jerk reaction, but if you really thought about it, how much sense does it make?" Cantral said.
She pointed to the fact that students are not in school at night, when most sex offenders are in their homes. She also noted that kids are better looked after in schools and day cares than they are the rest of the day.
"I don't think residency restrictions are needed at all," she said.
Cantral hopes that more efforts will be made on educating parents and children and treating sex offenders rather than on making local or state laws that she believes are ineffective.
IS LESS MORE?
But success is measured in different ways when it comes to sex offender laws.
Violette said he scans the state's sex offender registry about once a week to see if there are any new registered sex offenders living or working in Westbrook. During the past two years, he said, he's had to ask about a dozen people to leave their jobs, usually because of their proximity to day cares. Though he's gotten mixed reactions from employers - some thank Violette for making them aware of the charges, others would rather to keep the workers regardless of them - the sex offenders themselves tend to comply quickly.
"Almost every time, they quit right way," he said.
Other than the case of one registered sex offender Violette had to repeatedly chase out of a Spring Street apartment, he said the same willingness to obey the ordinance was true of sex offenders trying to move to the city. He said he's had to turn down about five or six sex offenders who tried to move into restricted areas of the city from out of town and another half-dozen who wanted to move within Westbrook.
Overall, Violette estimated that about 20 additional sex offenders would be living or working in the city today if it weren't for the ordinance.
"It was working," he said.
PEACE OF MIND
One woman who was an outspoken advocate of the Westbrook ordinance when it was adopted said she plans to speak up again at the council meeting Monday.
Jen Wescott, who has two family members that were sex crime victims, said even with the ordinance in place, as a mother and a day care owner, she's on constant alert, keeping an eye on who's around. The city's law offered extra protection.
"It gives you a little more sense of security," Wescott said.
But creating a false sense of security is one of the arguments opponents have against residency restrictions.
"They have a tendency to drive offenders underground," Sen. Anne Haskell, D-Portland, who sponsored the bill, said in June, when the law was passed. "Then you don't know where they are, which is a more dangerous situation."
Those who support less-stringent residency resrictions say the vast majority of sex crimes are committed by people known to the victims - which was the case with Wescott's family members and with Cantral, as well.
While Cantral argues that over-reaching restrictions violate the rights of former criminals who have paid their debts to society, Wescott and Violette both believe that additional protection against sex offenders can only help to keep kids safer.
"Any buffer you put between a sex offender and our vulnerable children, I think that's a good thing," Violette said.
Sunday, September 6, 2009
CFC Maine Meets
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Editorial- The Yellow Star
Editorial from The Guide
September 2006
The Yellow Star
By French Wall
Sixty-five years ago this September, German Nazis made it compulsory for Jews to wear a yellow Star of David. Holocaust survivor Victor Klemperer, writing in I Will Bear Witness 1933-1941: A Diary of the Nazi Years, recalls the introduction of the mandatory Star as the darkest moment of the entire Nazi regime.
Klemperer suffered countless indignities, saw and endured horrific abuse, and heard of unspeakable atrocities throughout the Nazis' rise to power and their subsequent subjugation of much of Europe. One of a handful of German Jews who escaped the round-ups and deportations to the death camps (his wife Eva was an "Aryan," thus deferring his fate), Klemperer miraculously survived the firestorms following the Allied incendiary bombing of Dresden and then months on-the-run as a destitute and starving displaced person. And yet he remembers the mandate requiring display of the "Jewish Star" with singular abhorrence.
What was it about a bit of "yellow cloth, at the center in Hebrew-like lettering [the word] 'Jew,' to be worn on the left breast, large as the palm of a hand" that seemed worse than beatings, worse than confiscation of all one's property, worse even than the fate awaiting those who disappeared after a visit from the Gestapo?
The Star was meant to mark its wearer as "other," a non-citizen. The Star signaled to hooligans and vigilantes that its wearer was a sanctioned target for torment. The Star made it impossible for its wearers to go about any civic life without constant fear of violence and death, for themselves and any of their companions. The Star meant abandonment by employers, neighbors, and friends-- all legitimately fearful of what their association with a known "enemy of the Reich" would mean to them and their families. The Star signaled that its wearer was a de facto "outlaw," fair game for anyone wanting to indulge their sadism or anti-Semitism.
In short, the Star was mean to denote that its wearers were sub-human, deserving no more consideration or legal protection than "the vermin" that they-- according to relentless state propaganda-- were.
It may be true that those ignorant of history are destined to repeat it, but current events confirm that knowledge of history is no guarantee of avoiding repetition of past tragedies.
Enter a post office, police station, registry of motor vehicles, or other civic office in today's United States and you will likely be confronted with posters of so-called "sex offenders," required to register, often for life, with the state. Faces, addresses, and employment locations are all prominently displayed. You will read signs telling you that even more information about these men (and women, mostly garden variety prostitutes) can be found on the internet, part of the new nationwide effort supposedly to protect the Homeland and its children from such "predators."
But of course, "protection from predators" is not the goal of sex-offender registries, any more than "protection from Bolshevism" (the stated excuse for promulgation of the 1941 Yellow Star regulation) was the Nazis' purpose. If public safety were truly the goal, why list those whose "crime" was offering a blowjob-for-hire to a willing adult? Or those who were caught masturbating in the woods near a highway rest stop? Or those who never violated another's consent nor did any physical harm? If "protection" were the real aim of tracking and publicizing offenders and their whereabouts, wouldn't it make more sense for registries to list arsonists rather than flashers? Why should society need protection from those who suck teenagers, but not from those who kill them?
No, the goal of sex-offender registries is not protection-- just the opposite. Sex-offender registries, like earlier Yellow Star regulations, are intended to create outlaws stripped of jobs, housing, family, and friends. Such state-created monsters can then be targeted for vigilantes' violence and self-serving politicians' self-righteous invective.
Today's sex-offender registries signal, as did the 1941 Yellow Star decree, a breakdown in the rule of law. For those fighting to rebuild a US Constitution and Bill of Rights so shattered in these past years, no greater sign of progress will be than the abolition of sex-offender registries and their odious effects.
Published: The Guide; www.guidemag.com
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Know who is looking you up on the Registry
but it creates work for the State. One of the big concerns lately is the budget, if we start costing the state money maybe they will be more willing to reconsider the registry as a whole. My contact is planning on sending this request out on a monthly basis. It's a small step but one everyone can take with just a few minutes time and a postage stamp.
Monday, July 25th, 2009
Maine Dept. of Public Safety
Anne H. Jordan, Commissioner
45 Commerce Drive
Suite 1, 104 State House Station
Augusta, Maine 04333-0104
Request for Information Pursuant to Maine Revised Statues, Title 1, Chapter 13, Subchapter 1: Freedom Of Access and under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S. C. subsection 552.
Dear Commissioner Jordan:
Pursuant to Maine Revised Statues, Title 1, Chapter 13, Subchapter 1: Freedom Of Access and under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S. C. subsection 552, I am requesting access to any and all files related to the State Sex Offender Registry for one xxxxxxxxx, myself.
I respectfully submit this request in consideration of events here in Maine and Nationally where individuals using State sponsored and supported Sex Offender Registry Information have used said information to locate and find Registered Former Offenders to then commit acts of violence, property damage and even the murder of Registered Former Sex Offenders and/or their family members. The State sponsored and supported Sex Offender Registry has put my family and I in danger and the release and disclosure of the requested information is paramount in taking steps to identify and protect myself, my family and my property from individuals who would use the State sponsored and supported information to harm myself and/or my family.
The information I am requesting includes any and all requests submitted to the State of Maine and/or State of Maine Sex Offender Registry for copies of and/or for requests for information on xxxxxxxx, myself, by anyone including, but not limited to, the general public, State Agencies, Agents of any State, Federal or any other Governmental Agency. Discovery should include any and all the names, position or title, addresses, phone numbers, ISP (Internet Service Provider) address if requests and/or viewing of xxxxxxxxxx's information was facilitated by electronic means such as, but not limited to, computers, Palm Pilot, cell phone, of other means not requiring interpersonal contact for requesting information and/or viewing xxxxxxxxxxx‘s State sponsored and supported Sex Offender Registry information.
If there are any fees for searching for or copying the records, please let me know before you work on my request. [Or, please supply the records without informing me of the cost if the fees do not exceed $20.00 (twenty dollars and no cents) which I agree to pay.] Any or All files, records and/or information may be provided electronically/digitally via email or DVD when and where possible and to pursue environmental goals to reduce waste.
If you deny all or any part of this request, please cite each specific exemption you think justifies your refusal to release the information and notify me of appeal procedures available under the law.
Optional: If you have any questions about handling this request, you may telephone me at xxxxxxx
Sincerely,
xxxxxx
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Newspaper Article on LD 385, We Need to Be Ready to Fight
New state law trumps local sex offender rules
By Ann Fisher
link to article
WATERBORO (June 24, 2009): A new state law that establishes boundaries for convicted sex offenders overturns stricter ordinances in Lyman and Waterboro, infuriating local officials.[0]
In the municipalities that choose to enact the new law, which will take effect in September, registered sex offenders will be prohibited from residing within 750 feet of a school or any municipally owned building generally used by children. Waterboro and Lyman both have local ordinances that prohibit registered sex offenders from living within 2,500 feet of a school.
The bill signed by Gov. John Baldacci this month gives towns and cities the option of enacting local ordinances to prohibit sex offenders from living within 750 feet of a school or other public property primarily used by children. The law is not mandatory and does not automatically apply to every municipality. However, it will supersede and town or city ordinances that are more restrictive, and municipalities will not be allowed to keep or enforce ordinances that are more restrictive.
Sen. Jon Courtney, R-Sanford, whose district includes Waterboro and Lyman, said he was “outraged that the state would pre-empt our local ordinances. The state has had multiple opportunities to address this issue before and hasn’t. In the face of the state’s failure to act, many towns and cities have enacted their own ordinances. Lyman and Waterboro are prime examples. Now, the state wants to step in and impose from on high a maximum safe zone of 750 feet? This is a matter for local people … to decide – and many of them have.”
The catalyst for the law was pressure from the federal government for uniform categories of sex offender laws at the state level, according to Rep. Joe Wagner, D-Lyman. Maine has a waiver that gives the state until July 2011 to hammer out those categories, and he fully expects the issue of restrictive boundaries to be revisited when the categories are debated by legislators during the next session. Wagner said he hopes legislators look at urban and rural areas separately and “they can be adjusted accordingly.”
As originally written, the bill, called An Act To Ensure a Uniform Comprehensive State Policy Regarding Residency Restrictions for Sex Offenders, sponsored by Sen. Anne Haskell, D-Portland, proposed no restrictions on where sex offenders could live. The bill that was eventually passed, Haskell said, was a compromise among the Maine Municipal Association, the Maine Coalition Against Sexual Assault and the Department of Corrections.
“We’re not really thrilled with the way it came out,” said Dennis Abbott, chairman of the Waterboro Board of Selectmen. “We’re looking at how we’re opting in to the new law.”
Former Waterboro Selectman Evan Grover, who was in the forefront of the effort to enact Waterboro's strict ordinance, said, "I'm very disappointed with any compromise or effort to reduce the boundaries we set and approved with Waterboro voters. Waterboro voters were very clear with their vote on this issue and 'home rule' should definitely apply with this ordinance. We need to be less concerned with the rights of sex offenders and more concerned with the rights of our children and other law-abiding residents."
Legislators in favor of the original law not to allow boundaries say statistics show that restricting where sex offenders live does not make children safer, but does the opposite.
“They have a tendency to drive offenders underground,” Haskell said about residency restrictions. “Then you don’t know where they are, which is a more dangerous situation.”
In addition to driving sex offenders off the radar, Haskell said, strict ordinances create a false sense of security.
Sen. Stan Gerzofsky, D-Brunswick, chairman of the Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee, said he’s attended forums around the country on the subject and heard experts give the same testimony over and over again about the ineffectiveness of residency restrictions on sex offenders.
“It doesn’t give you what you want,” he said. “The argument for having restrictions is purely emotional.”
Gerzofsky said no matter where sex offenders live, they always have the option of driving to another town and parking in front of a school where no one knows who they are. When residents and parents are aware of who they are and where they live, there’s more pressure for them to stay in line, he said.
“I’d put them all downtown across the street from the police station,” Gerzofsky said. “The more people you have staring at you, the more likely you are to behave.”
“Unfortunately, when researching, 2,500 feet was the trip wire for court challenges in Pennsylvania and New Jersey,” said Wagner, who was part of a working group formed to reach the compromise by the Legislature’s Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee.
Because the large distance means there would be so many overlapping concentric circles around offenders in urban areas like Portland, the fear, said Wagner, is that offenders would not register or move to rural areas.
“Twenty-five hundred feet is a little bit short of a half mile,” said Wagner. “The working group said 1,000 feet is better than three footballs fields away. At this point it’s a victory in terms of getting the state to achieve the municipalities’ ability to adopt" compared to the original bill.
Abbott also said there is a big difference when dealing with urban and rural communities when essentially cordoning off an area to make it off limits.
“Seven-hundred and fifty feet barely gets you to Old Alfred Road,” he said, referring to the road that is a short distance from both the Waterboro Elementary School and the Massabesic Middle School. Both schools sit on land flanked by Old Alfred Road on one side and Sokokis Trail (Route 5) on the other. Because of the land area on both schools' grounds, there are not many houses within a 750-foot area, but there are beyond that boundary.
Massabesic High School on West Road is surrounded by even fewer houses. The town’s stringent sex offender ordinance was sparked in 2006 by the unannounced presence on West Road of a registered sex offender, Joseph Tellier, who has since died. Residents were up in arms when they learned Tellier lived within 1,000 feet of the schools. His victim, whom Tellier had beaten, raped and left for dead in 1990, lived in the next town.
"With the new boundries in place, Joseph Tellier could have lived in the same house without issue," said Grover. "Unacceptable."
According to Wagner, the new parameters would only apply to felony offenders whose victims are under the age of 14.
In a letter released before the amendment passed, the Waterboro Board of Selectmen said, “Our community officials were not notified or consulted when placing a potentially dangerous offender next to our district school. The victim was never warned that the man who had committed such heinous crimes against her would be living just minutes from her home just one town away. We were concerned for the safety of our residents and implemented an emergency ordinance to prevent a similar situation in the future.”
In the letter, the Waterboro board said, “Residents of Waterboro enacted a sex offender ordinance with well over 90 percent of our voters approving the measure. Our residents were very aware of what they voted for and were concerned for the safety of our children when the Department of Corrections placed an offender within sight of a district school.”
Courtney didn’t mince words about the situation: “Once again, Augusta is flouting local control.”
Said Grover, "Our lawmakers should be working on reducing the tax burden and leave decisions such as constitutionality of an ordinance up to the court system."
Reporter Leslie Bridgers also contributed to this story.
Based in Westbrook, Reporter – The Reporter Ann Fisher can be reached at 207-854-2577 or by e-mail at afisher@keepmecurrent.com.
Friday, June 19, 2009
Officer Black Gets an Award for Stopping Gunman
Portland Officer Hailed A Hero
Stephen Black Honored Thursday Morning
POSTED: 3:42 pm EDT June 18, 2009
UPDATED: 6:34 pm EDT June 18, 2009
PORTLAND, Maine -- A Portland police officer, who prevented what could have been a tragedy, was honored by the state Thursday morning.Officer Stephen Black was a resource officer at Portland High School last month when he spotted a man with a rifle near the school.Thursday morning, state leaders, school officials and Portland police chief honored hailed Black as a hero and gave him an award.Black was praised for his actions. In May, he spotted Herbert Jones near the school loading a rifle."He reached down. It was a convertible car, he reached down into the car and loaded ammo, then I came out and engaged him and had him drop it. I asked him what he was here to do and what he replied and what I assumed at that point was he was going to kill people," said Black.Black said Jones was not targeting the school but was planning on confronting a woman he was stalking at a nearby church. |
Comment I posted to this article.
This man truly deserves recognition. Thank you Officer Black, God only knows how many lives you saved that day! I am glad you reported on his award. However the part that disturbed me is you got the target of the gunman wrong. He was actually going after an AA member who was on the Sex Offender Registry. See this story for confirmation...http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/story.php?id=257696&ac=PHnws. I know it's not as sympathetic story that the officer saved a Registered Former Sex Offender. But it's the truth. Many family members are living in fear of just this kind of thing happening. Would he stopped at shooting just the one person or would he have not shot anyone when he found out the man was not at the meeting? One of the unintended consequences of the Registry is the collateral damages it causes to family, friends and even innocent members of the public whose only crime was they attended the same meeting the Former Offender did. I generally love your station and admire it, I have been a faithful listener since the days when you were out at Poland Springs. But I find it unconscionable that you would either hide facts or not investigate the facts of all your stories. Even the ones that might create controversy. No one wants to admit that these laws are unconstitutional and that they encourage vigilantism and they have not been shown to protect a single child, while harming many children, those of the Former Offenders.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
LD 385 was Signed on June 10th
An Act To Ensure a Uniform Comprehensive State Policy Regarding Residency Restrictions for Sex Offenders
Be it enacted by the People of the State of Maine as follows:
Sec. 1. 30-A MRSA §3013 is enacted to read:
§ 3013. Ordinances regarding residency restrictions for sex offenders
1. Application and scope. The State intends to occupy and preempt the entire field of legislation concerning the regulation of persons convicted of a sex offense in this State or in another jurisdiction. Except as provided in this section, a municipality may not adopt or enforce any ordinance or bylaw addressing persons who have been convicted of a sex offense in this State or in another jurisdiction that would impose on them restrictions or requirements not imposed on other persons who have not been convicted of a sex offense in this State or in another jurisdiction. As used in this section, "convicted of a sex offense in this State or in another jurisdiction" means a conviction for any current or former Maine crime listed in former Title 17, sections 2922 to 2924 or Title 17-A, chapter 11 or 12 or Title 17-A, section 556; a conviction for an attempt or solicitation of those listed crimes; or any conviction for any former or current crime in any other jurisdiction in which the person engaged in substantially similar conduct to that of the earlier specified current or former Maine crimes.
2. Residency restriction ordinance. A municipality may adopt an ordinance regarding residency restrictions for persons convicted of Class A, B or C sex offenses committed against persons who had not attained 14 years of age at the time of the offense. Any such ordinance is limited as follows.
A. An ordinance may restrict only residence. It may not impose additional restrictions or requirements, including, but not limited to, registration and fees.
B. A municipality may prohibit residence by a sex offender up to a maximum distance of 750 feet surrounding the real property comprising a public or private elementary, middle or secondary school or up to a maximum distance of 750 feet surrounding the real property comprising a municipally owned property where children are the primary users.
C. An ordinance may not restrict the residence of a person who lived in an area restricted pursuant to paragraph B prior to the adoption or amendment of the ordinance.
D. An ordinance may not be premised on a person's obligation to register pursuant to Title 34-A, chapter 15.
Effective 90 days following adjournment of the 124th Legislature, First Regular Session, unless otherwise indicated.
Report to moderator 72.227.96.106
LD 1157 signed, Good News???
|
Monday, June 8, 2009
The Latest News on LD 1157 & LD 385
The report says he is "leaning" towards signing them. Small steps.... but steps in the right direction. A last minute amendment was defended that would have allowed some towns with existing Residency Restricts to be grandfathered.
Legislature Makes Changes to State's Sex Offender RegistryBack
June 8, 2009 Reported By: A.J. Higgins
Two bills that will change policies regarding convicted sex offenders have been enacted by the Legislature and are being supported by the governor. Under one measure, certain offenders would be able to have their names removed from Maine's online Sex Offender Registry if they can prove that they have not committed any crimes since their initial conviction. Another provides a uniform policy for municipalities seeking to impose residency restrictions for sex offenders living near schools.
From Gov. John Baldacci's perspective, LD 1157 balances public safety with the concerns of convicted sex offenders who were swept retroactively onto Maine's online Sex Offender Registry. Baldacci says the onus to get off the registry will fall squarely on the offenders. "Not to wipe their slate clean, but force them to come back and have the burden of proof on them," he says.
Problems with the Sex Offender Registry -- an online site maintained by the state that provides pictures and residency details on Maine's sex offenders -- arose after the Legislature voted four years ago to include registration requirements for offenders who committed their crimes between 1982 and 1992. Many of those offenders claimed they had led law-abiding lives for 20 years and shouldn't be subject to retroactive registration.
Baldacci says LD 1157 should address the concerns of the Maine Supreme Court, which is hearing appeals from offenders swept up in the retroactive inclusion on the basis that the registry amounts to an additional punishment. Baldacci says the new change should eliminate the potential for the court to throw out the entire retroactive provision of the law.
"We have agreed to make those people who were on the prior list and got caught in the change of law still have to petition the public safety department and the state and give us the credentialing that would give us the sense that they're meeting the points of law, so that they wouldn't have to be on the list," Baldacci says.
Under the bill, offenders that were placed on the registry as a result of the retroactive law can petition the commissioner of the Department of Public Safety to have their names removed if they have committed no crimes since finishing their sentences.
In addition to that revision, Baldacci is leaning toward signing another bill on its way to his desk that will establish a standard for municipalities that want to pass residency restrictions for convicted sex offenders. That standard, the Legislature has decided, would require that a convicted sex offender live at least 750 feet from a school. Some cities and towns have established sex offender buffer zones ranging from 500 to 1,000 feet, or more.
State Sen. Jonathan Courtney, a Republican from Springvale, asked the Senate to approve an amendment to give two of his communities an exemption. "What it would do, it would have preserved the local ordinance in two of my communities, Waterboro and Lyman -- they went through this process, and have a 2,500 foot setback requirement. The state has superceded it, to 750 feet, which is totally unacceptable to my communities."
State Sen. Debra Plowman supported Courtney's amendment, partially because she says the state needs to take a different approach to dealing with sex offenders. "If we had a civil committment in the state of Maine, we could civilly commit these people and make sure that our children don't need to have to kept 2,500 feet from a predator. They'd be put somewhere where a panel or a judge decides if they're safe enough to be on the street. In the meantime, when the young girl in the park, or the schoolyard, is within 750 feet of someone who just can't resist, I don't think 750 feet is enough."
"If you want to give your children protection, tell them where these people live, show them where these people live, tell them not to be around these people, but for God's sake, let's not send them under bridges to live and so that we lose track of them entirely," said Sen. Stan Gerzovsky, a Brunswick Democrat, who led the oppostion that defeated Courtney's amendment, arguing that differing community standards would send offenders underground. "Let's keep them on probation where they belong, let's keep an eye on them."
Both sex offender bills are now awaiting the governor's signature.
http://www.facebook.com/ext/share.php?sid=210952460331&h=rASgs&u=d6hnt&ref=nf
Monday, June 1, 2009
Why we must speak out!
Why do RSO's just sit there and do nothing but complain? Either do something or quit complaining!
I have heard from many people who have been reading and leaving comments on this blog, saying how nobody wants to listen to RSO's or their families, and they say "Why try?"
It's that kind of reasoning why nothing is being done. And that is what the public wants, for RSO's and their families to sit back, shut up, and do nothing. So you are letting them win.
Either stand up and fight for your rights, or continue to sit there, saying "poor me" and suffer the consequences.
I cannot stand people who sit there, bitch, moan and whine about how they are being punished, yet they do nothing about it. Either shut up, or do something about it!
Many say, I don't want to expose myself to harassment, etc. Well, you are probably on the registry, so it's already occurring. Many have thought the same way, they'd rather hide in the shadows and hope something changes. Well, you will be waiting a very long time. So that is why you must act now and speak out now, don't wait, do it now. Harassment comes with the territory, I cannot tell you how many emails and other threatening comments I have received here, in emails, on video sites. Now I just archive the comments for my own records, delete them, ignore them, and move on, continuing the fight.
AGAIN, YOU MUST FIGHT FOR YOUR FREEDOM!!!
Send legislature a fax, snail mail, email or the best bet, set up and appointment with them, and meet them in person. Prepare notes beforehand, so you are prepared, and let your voice be knows. Don't just sit back and hope some "SUPERMAN" comes to your rescue, it's not going to happen.
Join the other organizations like SOSEN, ROAR FOR FREEDOM, and the others forums, prepare letters, donate money to help the cause, FOR GOD'S SAKE DO SOMETHING!!!!
I cannot stress the above enough, again, do something about it, or sit back, suck it up, and enjoy the punishment! http://sexoffenderissues.blogspot.com/2009/05/why-do-you-view-this-blow.html
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Miami Residency Restrictions Force People to Live Under a Bridge

Today in Miami there exists a group of people living under the Julia Tuttle Causeway Bridge. Homelessness is not new so why is this group news worthy? These people, I say people because there are both men and women living there, are not homeless for the usual reasons. The local laws have made them homeless and they are told they have to live there by their parole/probation officers. Why is this? It's because Miami has passed some of the most restrictive residency laws in the country. And to compound the problem the other localities are passing the same restrictions. They are afraid that RFOs will come live in their towns and they don't want that to happen. So now other colonies are springing up under other bridges. Florida has made this group of people worth less then animals. As I watch these laws being passed around the country I wonder where it all will end? It is not politically expedient to come out against these type of laws, politicians don't want to look like they aren't as tough on Sex Offenders as their colleagues are. I fear that in time we will have encampments of RFSOs living in remote areas away from sight of the communities. Out of sight out of mind. Remember the encampments created during WWII? The only thing the people forced to live there did wrong is be oriental. Media hysteria during that day created the mindset that they would spy on us and want the Japanese we were fighting to over take the country. Today RFOs are in the center of a campaign of media hype that drives the public to fear a stranger will snatch their children. In spite of the facts that show over and over again that children are more then 95% of the time molested by members of their own family or trusted adults in their family circle. Another fact that is ignored is that over 90% of offenses are first time offenses, and that Former Sex Offenders have the lowest re-offense rate of any other group other then murders. Various Law Enforcement studies have placed the rate of new sex offenses committed at 3.5% .
Here in Maine the Justice committee has introduced and worked hard on a bill that is currently waiting to be voted on by the Legislature. This bill will make a state wide limit that towns can chose to adopt or not but they can not make their ordinances any harsher. The bill would place a limit of 750 feet around schools and public parks. A lot more reasonable then what some towns like Westbrook already have on the books. Even though there is no evidence that having residency restrictions in place do anything to make children safer, Maine Law makers seem to be trying to appease the public hysteria while at the same time allowing RFSOs to stay in their communities and not end up homeless like they are in Miami.
Monday, May 25, 2009
Another Case of Vigilantism in Maine
ME - Vandals target Scarborough home
View the article here
In this day and age, people need to get security cameras, to catch these people in the act, and prosecute them.
05/21/2009
By Al Edwards
SCARBOROUGH - When Ted Quinn woke up at his 213 Pleasant Hill Road home in Scarborough Tuesday morning, he noticed what he thought was frost on his kitchen window.
Quinn inspected the mark more closely and realized the spot on his window wasn’t from the cold. Someone had covered the outside of his home with white spray paint.
“I couldn’t believe it,” Quinn said Thursday. “I felt angry and violated.”
Either Monday night or early Tuesday morning, someone spray painted his home and garage with obscenities. His outdoor lighting, grill and patio were also sprayed, and his screen doors slashed, according to Scarborough police.
Quinn’s insurance company estimated the damage at about $25,000, he said.
It wasn’t the vandalism so much as the wording that bothers Quinn, who is a real estate agent for Ingalls Commercial Brokerage in South Portland.
“A big thing that really concerned me was the writing in three spots,” Quinn said. “I’ve lived here for a year and a half, my son’s 15, so I’ve coached baseball and basketball and a lot of my friends are Scarborough parents who know me. The problem is there are about 200 houses back here and this is prominently displayed. I had a conversation with one of my neighbors who said, ‘I bet a sex offender’s moved in and they are identifying him.’”
According to Scarborough’s sex offender registry, there is no person listed on the registry who lives on Pleasant Hill Road.
The family is still staying in the home, in which they have lived for a little more than a year.
Neighbors who know Quinn said they feel sorry for him and his family, but the wording has sparked curiosity, said Marjory Halacy of Flintlock Road just behind his house.
“That’s a hate crime, that’s the way I look at it,” she said. “It’s a terrible offense personally and also in the neighborhood. I’ve had 25, maybe 30 people who have stopped saying they were so concerned asking me, ‘who do we have living in the neighborhood?’ I just had to put my hands up and told them to please stop asking and not to go in that thought direction. It just reflects so badly on him as a person.”
Jan Strait, who lives up the road from Quinn on Tenney Road, said she was shocked at the level of hate.
“It looks like he was targeted specifically because they didn’t get anyone else,” she said. “I think it’s isolated. I think they thought they knew him and it was specifically for that person.”
That, Quinn said, is the most upsetting part of the vandalism.
“It is disturbing. I’m confident there is no one in my family that warranted this,” Quinn said. “To me, there’s so much, it looks like there is a lot of hate and a lot of anger in it. I’m confident that we didn’t create this much anger or create a situation for someone to do this. I really hope that whoever did it (will) accept responsibility for this. What was done is senseless.”
Scarborough police are investigating the vandalism. They do not have any leads at this time, but they said they believe the incident is isolated.
“My thought is it could be someone who knows him or his family, I don’t know," said Detective Sgt. Rick Rouse. "We don’t have any suspects at this time.”
Halacy said this is the first time in her 25 years of living in the neighborhood that she has seen this level of vandalism. However, she said, it’s not the first time problems have popped up in the area.
“I have had a lot of things stolen from my house here,” she said. “I had a 6-foot Nutcracker on my door, and that was ripped right off the door a couple of Christmases ago. I’ve had a flag and pole stolen off the side of the house, my Canadian Geese stolen and the hose on the side of my house had been cut at one time. I have dealt with a lot of problems.”
Sunday, May 24, 2009
We are Available to Speak
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Letter to the Portland Press Herald
Dear Mr. Maxwell and Mr. Hench,
First of all I would like to commend you on an excellent article based in truth and fact. I noticed that since this information as come to light that other media sources have become silent on the facts behind the case. Secondly, I am writing to you to bring attention to the very real fear that families of RFSOs (Registered Former Sex Offenders) live in. Herbert Jones is just another example of vigilante justice that exists in today's society. Anyone who wants to can access the online Registry to gather names to hunt them down. Remember the case of Steven Marshall who came here from Canada. He killed two men and intentioned to kill others. In other states vigilantes have killed not only RFSOs but innocent family members, as well. One sad example would be that of, Melissa Chandler who died in an arson fire set to kill her Sex Offender husband on Sept 4, 2007, in Helenwood, TN. Mr Chandler was not home at the time the fire was set and escaped. As of 2008, there have been 187 RFSO deaths attributed directly to the Registry being public. That figure does not include innocent family members. The news is quick to run stories about Sex Offenders and their crimes, making it seem like they are horrible monsters out stalking children, (Jessica Lunsford, Adam Walsh, Adam Wetterling to name a few). But not so quick to report when someone stalks them or their families. It is wrong for anyone to be hurt or killed! The original intent of the Registry under the Adam Wetterling Act was to maintain the Registry for use by Law Enforcement only. Even Ms. Patty Wetterling, whose son the Act was named after feels the Registry and other laws passed since then, have gone too far. (See: http://sexoffenderissues.blogspot.com/2009/04/interview-with-Patty-Wetterling-June-27.html, this interview was given to Richard Wright for his book Sex Offender Laws, Failed Policies, New Directions.) Another fact is the registry has become an over inclusive list, and even has many children on it. The Adam Walsh Act would force states to include children as young as 14. It lists crimes as varied as public indecency (flashing, mooning, even taking a pee behind a dumpster), statutory rape (often teens with a younger girlfriends) as well as the types of offenses you'd expect to see. While families are not proud of the Offenses that put their family members on the registry, we feel that we don't deserve to be publicly shamed, harassed or even killed. When a person is placed on the Registry his whole family is also impacted.
Again thanks for reporting the truth behind this attack. If you would like more information on this please contact me.
Jane M. Cantral
Coordinator for Maine Citizens For Change
207-615-8385
ladyfurebear@yahoo.com
Http://mecfc.blogspot.com
Another Maine Vigilante Uses the Registry to Find Intended Victim
http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/story.php?id=257696&ac=PHnws
PORTLAND — The man arrested Monday morning as he loaded a high-powered rifle near First Parish Church faces a charge of attempted murder, despite the fact that his alleged target was in jail at the time.
Herbert Jones, 46, was ordered held on $500,000 cash bail during a brief hearing Wednesday at Superior Court in Portland.
Judge Jeffrey Moskowitz granted a motion by the Cumberland County District Attorney's Office to seal the case documents. Prosecutors declined to answer questions about Jones on Wednesday afternoon.
As part of the bail conditions against Jones, however, Moskowitz ordered him not to have contact with three individuals, including 49-year-old Daniel Fraser of Portland.
Portland police confirmed that Fraser was the man Jones allegedly wanted to kill on Monday morning. The other two names on the no-contact list were those of a woman whom Jones was allegedly stalking, and another man he knew through Alcoholics Anonymous meetings.
Jones also apparently knew Fraser through AA meetings. In statements to police, and in a jailhouse interview with the Portland Press Herald after his arrest, Jones said he planned to take the loaded gun into the AA meeting in the basement of the First Parish Church and shoot a convicted pedophile.
According to Maine's Sex Offender Registry, Fraser was convicted in January 2008 for unlawful sexual contact with a minor under the age of 14. Court records say the crime occurred in Brunswick while Fraser was homeless.
He was sentenced to three years in prison, with all but one year suspended.
People familiar with the morning AA meeting at the church said Fraser had not disclosed his criminal history to members, and they were unaware of it. However, his criminal history would have been readily available on a state Web site that shows all people who are required to register as sex offenders, their picture and the crime they committed.
Jones said in an interview Monday that he had seen a documentary on pedophiles two months ago and wanted to stop them from hurting anyone again, and that he aspired to be a vigilante targeting pedophiles and rapists.
Jones was arrested at 8 a.m. Monday in the area between First Parish Church and Portland High School after School Resource Officer Stephen Black interrupted Jones as he was loading rounds into a 7 mm Remington.
Police arrested Jones and seized a 12-gauge shotgun, 40 rounds of ammunition and four knives from his BMW convertible, which was parked outside the church. They also arrested Walter Begaye, 43, who was in the passenger seat as Jones was loading the rifle.
Jones said he had been with Begaye since the night before, but so far Begaye has been charged only with having a concealed weapon. Police found a knife partly hidden under the passenger seat, where he was sitting.
Fraser was arrested in Portland on May 8 for violating the conditions of his probation – he tested positive for methamphetamine. Cumberland County Chief Deputy Kevin Joyce said Fraser is serving a 30-day sentence at the jail.
Because of a no-contact order between Jones and Fraser issued by Judge Moskowitz, the jail will have to keep them separated, Joyce said.
"There are certain steps that they can take to alleviate any possible conflict between two individuals," he said.
Begaye also appeared in court Wednesday and was ordered held on $1,000 cash bail.
Meg Elam and Kate Tierney, the prosecutors handling the case for the Cumberland County District Attorney's Office, declined to comment.
Initially, Jones had been charged with terrorizing, stalking, possession of a firearm in a school zone and possession of a firearm by a felon. Police determined that Jones did not have a prior felony conviction, so that last count was dropped.
The other charges also were not brought by the prosecutors on Wednesday. Rather, there was just a single count of attempted murder.
Under Maine law, a person is guilty of attempted murder if he or she takes a substantial step toward the commission of the crime, with the intent to complete the action.
"A substantial step is any conduct that goes beyond mere preparation and is strongly corroborative of the firmness of the actor's intent to complete the commission of the crime," the statute reads.
The fact that the alleged target in this case, Fraser, was in jail and not at the church building on the morning Jones was arrested does not make a difference under the law. What matters is Jones' intent, and the steps he allegedly took to carry out that intent.
Daniel Lilley, a Portland defense lawyer with no connection to this case, said the situation is similar to one in which a defendant is accused of attempted unlawful sexual contact when the victim is really an undercover agent. There is no actual opportunity to commit the crime, but the intent allows for the charge to be brought anyway.
Lilley said it appears that Jones took substantial steps toward the commission of the crime, but the fact that the target was not available will make it more difficult for prosecutors.
"As a practical matter, it would be a tough case to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt," Lilley said, "because of the reality of your inability to carry out the idea, even if the evil intent is there."
Monday's incident has not interfered with the morning AA meeting at the church, an open meeting that anyone can attend.
The Rev. Tim Jensen, pastor at First Parish Church, said that there has been some anxiety among the congregation, but that the church remains committed to serving people in the city and its hosting of the AA meetings.
Staff Writer Trevor Maxwell can be contacted at 791-6451 or at:
tmaxwell@pressherald.com
Staff Writer David Hench can be contacted at 791-6327 or at:
dhench@pressherald.com
Friday, May 15, 2009
Day One
http://mecfc.blogspot.com/
Day One
Today was the official launch of Maine Citizens For Change. As the State Coordinator I attended the Judicial committee's work session in Augusta. The bills were LD 385 regarding Residency Restrictions and LD 1157 had a provision allowing RSOs a way to get off the Registry ...
HP 292, LD 385 An Act To Ensure a Uniform Comprehensive State Policy Regarding Residency Restrictions for Sex Offenders May 15, 2009, 1000AM Room 436 State House
SP 429, LD 1157 An Act To Improve the Use of Information Regarding Sex Offenders May 15, 2009, 1000AM Room 436 State House
While there I spoke with several Legislators on the committee, people from other agencies and recruited two new members. One lady was a mom I meet the last time we went to Augusta who spoke up on her son's situation. The other woman was the wife of someone who is not yet on the registry but is facing the possibility. We had a great discussion and exchanged our stories and had many ideas on pursuing this fight. I feel it was a good day and that I was able to make some important contacts.
LD 385 was passed to be voted on with 3 amendments. The amendments were the result of a work session between Kate Dufour, Maine Municipality Association, Elizabeth Saxl from ME CASA, and Denise Lord ME DOC. Denise Lord presented their compromises. First that the residency restrictions would apply to only municipally owned properties were children gather such as schools and parks. Second that towns could not pass other restrictions other then residency. And thirdly that limits could be no greater then 1000 feet. Towns would not have to pass residency restrictions but could choose to if they wanted them, but they could be no tougher then the State limits. Also all RSOs currently living in restricted zones would be grandfathered in. There was debate over the wording and how large the zone would be. After lunch it was agreed to make the zone only 750 feet and that private schools would also be included. These restrictions would apply to people charged with a sex offense with a child under 14. There was one dissenting voice for reason. The Chair person of the Judiciary committee Senator Gerzofsky, he wanted the bill to stand as written with no amendments. He stated "There is no proof that residency restrictions do anything to enhance or improve public safety. That anyone could get in a car and drive anywhere. He felt the safest place for an RSO to live is right in the center of town across for the Police Station as well as a school. That way everyone would know and be watching. That the desire for these laws is driven by media hysteria." This quote is somewhat paraphrased but true to the spirit of his speech. The vote was passed with only two dissenting votes, Senator Gerzofsky and Senator Davis.
Lastly, amendments to LD 1157 were discussed. The sticking point was over whether someone when someone would be returned to the registry after getting off it. The wording was amended to say and class A,B or C crime would return a person to the list. The bill was passed.
Anyone wanting to join or get more information about Maine Citizens For Change can contact me at ladyfurebear@yahoo.com
