ACSOL’s Conference Calls

Conference Call Recordings Online
Dial-in number: 1-712-770-8055, Conference Code: 983459

Monthly Meetings | Recordings (7/10 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings

Click here to sign up now for ACSOL’s Online EPIC Conference: Empowered People Inspiring Change Sept 17-18
Download a PDF of the schedule

General NewsNational

Convicted Sex Offender Wins Court Ruling

A North Georgia judge says there is no reason for probation officers to stop a convicted sex offender from attending Girl Scout meetings. Youtube Video

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
    1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
    2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
    3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t
    4. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
    5. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
    6. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
    7. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
    8. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
    9. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
    10. Please do not post in all Caps.
    11. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links.
    12. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
    13. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
    14. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people
    15. Please do not solicit funds
    16. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), or any others, the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
    17. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
    18. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Interesting newscast; great lack of detail and the man that gave his opinion? “A predator is still a predator, you can’t change ’em…well and idiot is still and idiot too, can they be changed? Just saying.

I love those Man on the Street interviews where they get the opinion of some random character whose only qualification on a given issue is that they agree to give their opinion on camera. What made me laugh in this case was that this armchair behavioral scientist, an apparent expect on predators, looks exactly like the creepy type of character I would not my own kids go near.

Well, you do find that when someone has an extreme opinion on some topic that they champion it often turns out that they are actually the thing they are actively against.

Republicans come to mind and those who openly oppose gay marriage…interesting that they are usually the ones caught in airport men’s rooms or with a male escort cheating on their wife! I am just saying…

There is plenty of hypocrisy on both sides – Republicans don’t have a lock on it.
My most recent fave was all the actors who joined in the anti-gun video following Sandy Hill, yet each one of them had appeared in a movie which glorified gun violence.

There is support and resistance on both sides – even a little hostility. Generally speaking, Republicans are a little more difficult to talk to most of the time. Two of our volunteers and their families were once far-right Republicans who have since changed their views due to past party-affiliates being self-righteous and judgmental after persons in their family ended up on the registry for relatively minor offenses. One is now a Libertarian and the other is considering registering as a Democrat.

On the 16th and 17th, we shuddered at the thought of visiting a few Republican offices and was surprised by one whose legislative aid was very favorable and seemed to indicate that her assembly member was likely to vote for it. Shocked the daylights out of us. Our other team went to a meeting with a Democratic party member and they were practically thrown out of the office. So there are definitely exceptions to the rule.

All that being said, this is really a non-partisan issue (for the time being) and so let’s keep the partisan discussions to a minimum. 🙂

My thoughts on this particular ruling is that the only reason the judge ruled in this mans favor is that his probation officer screwed-up and was not specific when the conditions were amended so he could participate in his kids activities. Pardon me… but there is no way in hell this man should be allowed to attend any Girl Scout functions. According to the newscast his offense in 2009 was for statutory rape with a 15yo in this same troop. I don’t blame any parents for being concerned.
What it boils down to is the probation department is going to be in hot water over this and I can pretty much guarantee that they won’t allow any future allowance of this type and that will affect many family’s of registrants in the future who want to attend their kids activities. I don’t view this as a win.

I totally agree with the part of your comment that assumes that heads will roll at the local probation department, or at least there will be consequences to this quagmire.

The second part of your post I felt the need to chew on for a day or two so as to not reply in haste.

You feel this man has no business (in hell) being around this GS Troop. All based on a newspaper article which offers really no details. Is that not exactly the prevailing public attitude this organization (CA RSOL) is trying to overcome? You saying that this guy should not be around girl scouts – is it not the same as saying that ANYONE with a ANY sex related offense must never be in contact with minors, i.e. presence restrictions a la Orange County? If the judge does not feel a wholesale ban is warranted, is that not enough?

Personally, I am puzzled by this whole turn of events in this story – I would assume that the daughters would be sufficiently mortified by their convict father being around the very GS troop, but apparently not, so perhaps there is more to the story?

You posting on this web site leads me to believe you have a stake in this. Based on your comment, how can you then fault the people, the concerned parents, that say anyone with any 290 conviction must be contained and punished indefinitely – regardless of individual circumstances?

Please believe me I am not trying to pick a fight, but I am bewildered by the whole “some people should be on this list and be regulated, but not me – never me” attitude.

I believe that freedom is one of the few black and white areas in life. You either got it or you don’t. Anyone serving their time for a transgression, sex, drugs, whatever, should get their freedom back. Period.

Joe Wrote
“so perhaps there is more to the story?”

No. A06A1229.
— November 29, 2006

It looks like he was originally sentenced (in 2004?) to thirty years after being found guilty by a jury. Thirty years, basically a life sentence seems very harsh for the crime he was being sentenced for. But, this is why many will not risk a trial when a prosecutor offers an incredibly lower sentence as a plea. A plea that you must abide by, but the state doesn’t have to, as we’ve recently learned.
His sentence was overturned in 2006 after his appeal of prosecutorial misconduct. It looks as though he might have been re-tried on the same charges and probably took a plea in 2009 to a term of probation and registration requirements instead
of risking a long prison sentence.

Mike Wrote:
“Pardon me… but there is no way in hell this man should be allowed to attend any Girl Scout functions. ”

I am on parole for a sex offense. I have an extensive list of conditions that have nothing to do with my original offense. Places I can’t go and thing’s I can’t do and it pisses me off. But, if those conditions exempted me from a certain element that may be seen as a trigger for relapse, than I would understand the condition and concern. Personally, I think this man is a psychopath.

@mike – so let me get this straight….

You, a person on PAROLE for a sex offense, call this man a *psychopath* and state that “no way in hell” should he be allowed to do something with his children his terms of PROBATION expressly permits – based on a newspaper article and one court brief.

Now, is this just for his time on probation, or would you feel the same way after his probation ends in a few weeks, months, years? 10 years? The rest of his life?

With opinions like that it would be no surprise if the people and the State of California were to view anyone with a conviction of a sex offense to be a imminent threat to society. Oh wait – they do!


My parole rules change every time my Parole Officer changes. I’ve been told there is nothing I can do about this. I don’t go out of my way to challenge them. My philosophy is “when your up to your neck in sewage, don’t make waves.” I don’t want to piss off my parole officer and have them violate me for something petty.
I’m specifically talking about this guy staying away for the duration of his probation period. You have taken my statement and completely blown it out of proportion. Chill out dude.
As for my personal feelings about this man; He took this case to court with overwhelming evidence against him, plenty to get a jury to convict him(read the brief).
He somehow managed to talk the probation officer into making an allowance that he can attend his kids programs; The first I’d heard of, but it may be a professional courtesy amongst law enforcement to make special allowances. And then when he’s asked to make an exception for the very thing that got him in trouble; He sues?
I think this man is incapable of remorse for what happened.
I would no longer welcome this man as a police officer when his probation is over any more then would I feel it’s appropriate for a person convicted of child molestation running a nursery school after their sentence is served. So, if you feel that I’m your enemy in this battle against the registry than so be it.
If someone steals from me, it will take awhile to regain my trust. But they would have to show me that they are doing something differently in their life or making amends. Making amends is not schlepping into the Girl Scout Explorer program that got you into trouble in the first place. That’s just downright tasteless and arrogant. (And probably psychopathic to boot, I gave him extra psycho points for having been a police officer.)

My belief of the registry? Police have a database with access to a persons criminal history making the registry redundant.
Megan’s law website is a virtual hit list and creates fear and animosity to the nosy neighbor-haters that use it.
If a person commits a crime, they should do their time. There should be a cooling off period of parole where a person shall prove that they are making an effort to re-adapt to society and make amends. Registrants with registry restrictions, ankle bracelets, and extreme parole conditions have an ever increasing risk of failure, but despite this, most don’t fail, which is something to be truly admired.

Well said, and I agree. If this guy was a police officer and committed such a crime, he should never be a police officer again any more than a teacher should ever teach again after such a crime. Secondly, if he used the girl scout troop to commit the crime, he should let the girl’s mother attend this function with their daughter, not him. He should just be thankful he isn’t in California, there’s no way he would have won this case.

To clear up some confusion, I attended the trial. He was a police officer who molested a child he met through the same girl scout program. There were other victims – some testified and some declined. The girl was 15 when the trial happened – I think she was 12 when they met. Still want to send your little ones to these meetings?


this man broke the laws of the State of Georgia. He has been convicted, has served the main portion of his sentence and is currently adhering to the terms of his probation. End of story.

There are many people I do not want my children to be around. In those cases I exercise my parental rights – no, obligation – and modify their activities accordingly.

This is called ‘being a parent’. You may want to try it. But it is, of course, so much more fun to be judgmental and morally superior until the end of days, and even better, have the government do that for you.

I am sure there are other GS Troops in the area and it being a free country, you can certainly find one that is acceptable. I wonder if you would feel the same about any parents with records of, say drug offenses or drunk driving. Domestic violence, perhaps, or theft and burglary. But since those people are not listed on the internet or the subject of news leading media reports, you would not care?

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x