ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings: September 21 – Phone meeting details

Emotional Support Group Meetings (Los Angeles, Sacramento, Phone)

General News

You Just Discovered You Hired a Sex Offender. Now What?

A reader sent me the following question.

I worked for a grocery store. Can a child molester be employed by the grocery store? I reported it to the manager, and showed proof and nothing was done about it.

There’s a lot going on here. What does the law require an employer to do (if anything) under these circumstances? And what should an employer do when it discovers it is employing a sex offender?  Legal Advice Column

Join the discussion

  1. SR

    I’m glad to see that so far 100% of the comments on the article are tearing this author/lawyer a new one. His final statement was absurd.

  2. Harry

    A classic fear mongering article, to say the least. This guy’s basic human advice “do not hire a RC.

  3. NY won’t let go

    And hiring a murderer, thief, or drug addict is any better? Fun times.

    More likely that people will get their feelings hurt than a re-offense. This lawyer’s response is some hogwash trying to appeal to the masses of ignorance.

  4. G4Change

    This lawyer is pathetic. I hope he gets disbarred.

  5. TS

    This is very interesting blog post. The atty is a wimp and the comments bear that out.

    To say a person is an OSHA hazard waiting to happen and that clause could be applied to someone is a stretch because it could be then applied to so many coworkers and mgmt.

  6. Anonymous

    Bwahahahahah haha. I’m laughing so hard I’m crying LOL.

  7. Chris f

    Ummm…I have been on here for years trying to end the registry and never had more of an opposite opinion to everyone else.

    What this lawyer posted was dead on accurate. Just because we don’t like what he says doesnt mean the truth of his statements need to be quashed.

    He says an employer is liable if he hires a registered person and they commit another crime, yet if you hire a non registrant and he murders someone you are fine. That is completely true. It doesnt matter how low recidivism is. Most employers are also protected from liability from hiring felons if the crime was committed more than 7 years ago. However, the registry negates that as it keeps the crime fresh and in many cases, forever.

    What this lawyer posted is perfect evidence to use in showing how Unconstitional the registry is and why. He lays it all out perfectly. I don’t understand why you are all attacking the messenger of accurate info we can use to take down the registry in court.

    Sorry, I wont jump on the bandwagon that opinions need to be quashed just because they hurt me if they are accurate. He isn’t perpetuating lies and fear mongering. He is giving us the simple reality of our crappy situation and doing his job of advising his clients how to avoid liabilty. It isnt his job to lie to his clients and put them at risk of liability just to make society a better place by helping one of us get a job and decrease our chance of recidivism.

    I think you all are attacking the wrong guy and I am awaiting your wrath from my saying so.

    • Normal Bean

      I disagree and fee he is indeed perpetuating fear mongering and I’m surprised you agree with his position.
      When you aren’t hired or lose your job do you say “That’s ok. I wouldn’t hire me either. You never know what I might do and you could be held liable.” Do you also tell your neighbors, “I wouldn’t live next door to me either. I’m a potential time bomb?”

      • Chris f

        Truthfully, in regards to all of the jobs where I met all qualifications and was offerred the job and then had it yanked away due to being on the registry, yes. I told them thank you for considering me and I am disapointed that they consider me a threat. I’ve been a manager and understand you have to limit liability no matter how slim the chance of it coming back to bite you. In today’s world of companies being destroyed by just one lawsuit, that is reality.

        In regards to my neighbors, no. I hope to hell they don’t find out. Those that do, I try to explain my situation and hope they will not be afraid once they know more details. Of course, they aren’t going to get sued into poverty for associating with me either so they have less to lose by tolerating my existance.

        • RegistrantNotAnOffender

          Theres something wrong if the issue is the perception of a sex offender over the risk of a sex offender. In that case why hire blacks or Mexicans? Because they could give off a negative perception of a business.

    • Tim

      Chris
      I agree with your comment on the above replies, Registrants may scoff about this attorneys advice, but do so in error.
      I’M ADVISING MY CLIENTS NOT TO HIRE sex offenders. He also advises if a firm has already hired a sex offender strongly consider firing them to avoid POTENTIAL liability.
      Many of the liabilities, although imagined hypothetical outcomes, are embedded within the motives that drove the construction of the electronic registries in the first place. The concerns were raised in SCOTUS when lead by Rehnquist in Alaska case. The unemployable aspect is on full display and since ALL 51 embraced it ALL 51 will suffer loss of tax revenue.Wisconsin’s version of SOR did not require a ” registration fee” but does today precisely because of costs to maintain the regime AND the loss of revenue from promulgation itself. SOR is a money pit as many regulatory regimes are. There is always a price to pay for electronic convenience.

    • Lovecraft

      Chris f, completely agree. I was about to post the same thing. This guy basically is helping us prove how unconsitutional (and why) the registry is and not that its just “bad.” I generally look at this article through the same lens I look at new laws being created across the country to effectively remove us from society. There is a tipping point and the more they pile on the easier it will be to show the courts how and why the registry is unconsitutional.

    • norman

      @Chris f..I fully agree with your statement, “Just because we don’t like what he says doesnt mean the truth of his statements need to be quashed.”

      In other words dont shoot the messenger..

      You want change, threaten a politicians power and/or money and you will get change..

    • Notorious D.I.K.

      How many comments about this poor lawyer does this make, Chris? It’s way out of proportion to its importance. Let’s give it a rest.

      • Chris f (@ D.I.K)

        Let me see…

        That’ 3 posts, and 5 replies so far. 6 if you count this one.

        So, while you are here….Would you be so kind as to explain what I did or said about a year ago that’s lead to your being critical of my posts while ignoring others that do the same thing? It’s pretty obvious you stay clear of stating opinions in discussions I am involved in or expressing opionions unless you find something negative to pick on me for unrelated to the topic.

        So what exactly is the beef here David? I have obviously offended you in some way and can’t exactly appologize for it without knowing what it was.

        • Notorious D.I.K. / Kennerly

          No, Chris, you’re wrong about me having a personal animus towards you. I frequently agree with you and admire your contributions so you’re reading into my comments an antagonism which I really don’t have. I’m sorry if you’ve gotten that impression but it is completely erroneous.

          I’ve thought about this some more since I wrote the above post. What I do disagree with you about as well as others here is this notion that individuals here are not representing the best of this community when they don’t adhere to standardized positions or do not limit their statements to a prescribed range of acceptable opinions and that, as a consequence, they jeopardize our movement. I say this because you made such a remark in one of your posts about the lawyer. Others have done this, too e.g. Roger, from memory, although I’m really not keeping track of the individuals so much as the truth-claims frequently made here about “making us look bad.” I believe that you may have done so previously but, really, I’m not keeping track of the people making these statements so much as the statements, themselves.

          I think that this point of view both seriously overestimates the value of imposing an ideological lockstep upon a diverse crowd such as ours and its potential for blowback as well as undervalues the contributions of a free-ranging and unfettered debate. I don’t think that any of our positions deserve the right to be free from challenge or confrontation, no matter how controversial. Indeed, it is precisely at this moment in the stage of our development when we most need to welcome different perspectives and to take on board the more serious, if provocative, of those to evaluate their merit. For this reason, I disagree energetically with many of the ideas expressed on this forum without taking the additional step in urging that they not be said. That is the red line which, if crossed, is inimical to a free society and, if we find ourselves inhabiting an unfree society, as many of us have come to regard our own, then our best contributions to freeing it will be in our tolerance of individual expression. As for my criticism of your several (I had thought, many) posts on the lawyer issue, I thought that I had identified the animating principle behind your objection to be that we, collectively, must not give the impression of unfairly castigating his perfectly respectable position. It may be respectable, although in taking a broader view of the context and consequences in which he stated it, I find it only thinly so. But you made a reasonable point. That’s not my problem with your posts. My problem with your posts is that you assume that he can take a logical position without stated concern for the ramifications of his clients taking his advice and to do so without an expectation of criticism from us. Further, you reveal that your concern hinges, at least in part, in how these criticisms make us look. Not only is this a losing battle which can only end in your deep frustration since there are always going to be “sex offenders” who make us look bad but it is not a reasonable expectation that can be imposed upon a disparate bunch such as us. The more important issue is that we have a society that does, indeed, lump all of us together in a way in which it does not for almost any other member of society. That’s our challenge in getting enough of them to recognize this, not “shooshing” people here for not adhering to some party line. I say this as someone who does, in many ways, disagree with what has emerged as an activist RSO party line – there are many points of disagreement that I have with what I see as an overly simplistic and frequently servile (to society) posture which has certainly been adopted by the reformers. I hope that helps.

        • Chris f (@ D.I.K)

          Thanks David, I really appreciate the details behind your thoughts and I may have just over-reacted to a series of criticisms that were just coincidentally in a short period of time (in my mind anyway). Most criticism I brush off but not when it comes from the valuable contributors like yourself, so I guess I was extra sensative.

          To your points, I do agree that our individual messages and concerns need to be voiced and not quashed. My concern with what happened to this lawyer was how it turned into the misdirected and uneducated mob mentality that we dont like happening to us.

          In sum, an article is posted here or on other related sites as a call to arms, and instead of reading and understanding the lawyer’s actual position, he is personally attacked and has accusations made and then repeated by others that may have done so just because they saw other comrades doing it but without themselves taking the time to read and understand the article.

          Now, if an outsider goes to that forum, they don’t see our valid points. All they see is a group of people making unjustified personal attacks spewing reasons irrelevant to the actual article and position of the lawyer.

          99% of the time, our convergence in mass on a bad news article is deserved and executed pretty well. This time it wasn’t. I am hoping that after understanding what went wrong here that some of our most vocal supporters will slow down and understand the situation before jumping in with guns blazing.

          Anyway…I know I’ve probably gotten that across so I’ll jump down off this rickety soap box. 🙂

        • Notorious D.I.K. / Kennerly

          Thanks, Chris. I’ll try to be a little less abrasive in my responses, if that’s possible. I’m sorry for hurting you. As I say, I pay very little attention to who’s speaking and just engage with their message. That probably comes out as impersonal and cold. I can’t even remember criticizing you previously although I’m sure that I did since you noticed. In addition to that, I’m clearly having some memory issues with recently formed memories (not old, established ones) scampering off within days. Plus we’re all traumatized and been through the ringer, haven’t we? 🙂 It’s a wonder we can function as well as we do. We need to be nicer to one another, don’t we? Take care!

    • Joe

      Could not disagree more.

      To be clear, there are no laws that prohibit a registrant from most employment situations – like the one in question. While the advice in the article may reflect the current climate, it is this very lawyer and his cohorts who created and perpetuate this climate (in the employment arena) in the first place. Through his advice to clients (as evidenced by this public column / advice under the “Legal” column, using his full credentials) and certainly and more importantly through absurdly high settlements in these very rare cases, using the climate as fuel.

      To say this lawyer is merely reflecting reality when he was and is instrumental in shaping the reality is a circular argument.

      The comments were relatively civil (given his advice based on no facts other than large verdicts he would salivate to realize and others have – the one case he references) until he engaged in a childish dialogue with commenters, touting his moral superiority. Imagine that – a lawyer! (cue the lawyer jokes).

      To what extent the attitudes and actions of private citizens and enterprises render any laws unconstitutional, I am not sure. But this column is out in the public domain and in print. His point is made, it can be used for the purposes you suggest – if that is possible. That does not mean he should not be told that he is a colossal a$$hat.

  8. Chris f

    I really can’t believe how nieve you all are and all those that commented on his post. After 5 years on here I have never been more disapointed in everyone’s knee jerk reaction.

    You know who else doesn’t like that lawyer’s post and wants it taken down? The US governement. That’s right. Congrats. That lawyer is publicly saying what every business lawyer is privately telling their clients and what ALL hr departments already do.

    The US government’s position is that the registry and IML are just lists of accurate information and that everyone on it should be looked at individually. The reality is, as this lawyer truthfully laid out, is that behind the scenes the list is a ban list. It’s that simple. The government is also well aware.

    This lawyer should be hired by Janice to testify and not slammed for stating what happens behind the scenes anyway.

    • Eric Knight

      Comments have been removed from the main article. Instead of engaging in conversation, this lawyer would rather pull the rug out of fundamental communication and discourse. Boo!

      • Chris f

        I don’t blame him for pulling all comments.

        It was just a bash fest against him by our masses of those negatively affected by registries without any thought put into it. Even Shelley Stow was taking shots at him and she is usually pretty civil and understands the issues.

        Frankly, our masses were called to arms and attacked this guy without trying to be logical and understanding the truth. We did to him just what we hate being done to us when people blindly think a residency restriction or restriction from school grounds helps society. He wasn’t fear mongering. He was stating exactly what every lawyer tells their client to avoid liability. I am sorry that truth hurts us but hiding it won’t help it go away and stiffling it only supports the government’s position that registries dont directly keep us from being employed, when they do.

    • Will Allen

      I agree with you to a large degree. Although I can’t say that I’ve put in hours of good, deep, contemplated thought on it. So who knows?!

      I do think he needs to objectively tell his clients the exact situation. And that could be something as bad as (not saying it is), “If you hire a Registered Person, you WILL be sued and lose possibly your entire business.” If that were the case, he should say it.

      Having said that, it would be NICE if he could comment just a tiny bit about the immorality of it all. But he did the opposite with his “I’m all for rehabilitation …” statement.

      I did post a number of comments there. I was fairly “knee jerk” in my response but I was not offensive, I don’t think. But he possibly deserved to be treated very poorly. He did repeatedly call people “$EX offenders”. That is nothing but calling people names and people who do that deserve the same in response. I get that many people may not have really put much thought into that so I probably ought to cut “new people” some slack and just teach them that they are actually calling people hateful names.

      But in one of his comments he said something to the effect of “I’d put my morals up against a $EX offender’s any day,” and that is just simply not acceptable. That likely means that he’s a self-righteous t*at. And those people certainly deserve to be attacked. Morals can be quite fluid and changing. This guy very likely doesn’t have the morals that I have. But who knows?

      Anyway, perhaps “we” should’ve been nicer to the guy and just pointed out some facts. I do think we have to attack the “do not hire” mentality. I do that directly by using the Registries as a guide for which companies I want to do business with. If I need a vendor, I look there. I am making sure that company hiring decisions have a real effect in actual reality. I will hire a company that hires Registered People and some company that did not will not get the business. And I am working very hard to apply as many millions of dollars to that concept as possible. Because what really talks and works in America is $$$$$$.

      Another thing is that it is good/great/best that an attorney tells clients the exact situation. However, perhaps he/she should abstain from making moral judgements and saying what he/she would do (e.g. “I’d never hire a …”)? That is where this guy went off the rails. People should follow principles and not ALWAYS make decisions on what is less risky and makes the most money. Doing THAT is immoral.

      As Eric Knight noted, the author or someone has disabled comments on the article now. That is just lame unless people are being hateful or giving death threats or something! I would hate to think they did it just because they are crybabies.

      • Will Allen

        The comments appear to be back.

        • TS

          @Will Allen

          Yes, the comments have returned with great dialogue, but you, Will, are easy to spot for us who read you diligently. Keep up the great fight!

          @Eric Knight

          Disregard the call out moments ago I did. I think they heard you. 😉

          Interesting Mr. Hyman thinks the EEOC can possibly cover a person impacted by the registry.

    • TS

      @Chris f

      No wrath. I see your point (there’s more than one way to read and interpret an article) and think what you say is valid for a path to taking on the registry as nothing more than fear baiting.

      I also agree that the employer is possibly liable but the atty uses fear, IMO, as the justification, nothing more, e.g. no assessment, which is what riles the masses in their replies. That’s understandable. Yes, it’s a crappy situation and he described it well in an advising tone though the not on my watch line is weak if he’s really about giving second chances.

      IMO, using the OSHA clause could go either way, e.g. protect the people from the person or the person from the people, because the law could go both ways depending on the situation. I think that’s a slippery slope though and would be interested in reading case law on an outcome that said it’s appropriate to use that clause in such a manner.

      Keep bringin’ it… We need the dialogue and discussions here.

      @Eric Knight – no, the website isn’t his but the workforce people who run it. He merely provided content which appears to’ve gathered replies and comments they didn’t like. The website is an HR website so his post is inline with their overall theme. If you or anyone don’t like the move, ask the website owners why they were removed and to please reinstate them. I’d imagine though they don’t want the attention it was getting.

  9. kat

    The author might well be the reason for so many “bad lawyer” jokes.

  10. someone

    Chris is right. I don’t like the news from the lawyer, but he sheds light on an area that many of us have no visibility on. If there is a legal reason to not hire a RSO and this is common practice by HR and hiring managers, then I think that it constitutes punishment to be on the registry. In my personal experience, I have applied to many jobs (some of which I was clearly overqualified for) and gotten a first interview and then nothing. Not even a rejection. I think it is because they looked me up, but I am not sure….and I have no idea about their hiring policies. Many places don’t have a policy so when it is found out, the only option is to do what the lawyer says…not hire or fire.

    Going one step further, does it matter if the registry is punitive? Does that makes it unconstitutional? I assume that for ex-post facto it does, but for those convicted after there was a registry, I don’t think it would change anything. Open to any comments on this.

    • Chris f

      Yes, it being punitive absolutely triggers many more constitional violations than just ex post facto.

      Legislature cannot dictate punitive penalties on someone convicted of a crime. That violates equal protection, due process, and separation of powers. It is the job of the judiciary to decide the type and duration of what is needed to punish, rehabilitate, and protect the public when convicted of a crime.

      The most legislature can do is provide tools to the judiciary to use at their discretion and help guide them to making uniform decisions.

  11. Eric

    His ignorance is astounding. The greatest fallacy is he starts his argument with categorizing and entire class of nearly a million people together. This guy is very similar to a perpetually reoffending sex offender. He gives the majority a bad name. He says he is all for rehabilitation and second chances. Oh, really! Your kind of compassion the world doesn’t need. He is probably one of those trophy hunters who kills big game in order to preserve the species. He should take some time to hear the success stories from real people of compassion who hired people from the registry and to learn how grateful they are to be given a second chance, how dedicated they are, and what great workers they are. He is the type that perpetuates the problem. He seems to have the misconception that all people on the registry are violent predators. Does he even know that the majority are one time offenders, many had non-contact offenses, and most have been years and decades without another offense? Maybe he should attend the up coming conference by ACSOL so he could learn a little. I feel sorry for anyone that accidentally chooses this fear mongering, misinformed person to counsel them.

    • Chris f

      Eric, with all due respect I must disagree.

      He is not the one grouping a million people together and calling us predatory sex offenders. Our government did that. He is just a lawyer taking the reality of this situation and advising his business clients the truth that they will be held liable if they hire a sex offender and he commits a crime on the job site.

      He has no agenda to shame us or agree with any need for a registry. On the contrary, as his job would be much easier if the registries didnt exist and our crimes fell off the radar after 7 years like all other crimes in most states and as suggested by eeoc.

      As long as our names are unconstitionally included by our government on an arbitrary list for an arbitrary duration, lawyers like him have NO choice but protect their clients from liability. Doing otherwise may be good for mankind, but we can’t expect others to sacrifice their livelyhood for something that needs to be fixed by our courts and government.

      It would have been better for our cause to use what he said as ammunition in our fight and turn him into an allie instead of bashing him and trying to shame him into harming his own livelihood to save ours.

      • SR

        @Chris F, I could see your point of view of him merely being a lawyer were it not for his final statement. That very much came off as personal and fear-mongering.

  12. Chris f

    I am glad to see some of the long time posters on here re-evaluating their initial opinion of this lawyer and his piece.

    I was getting so fed up with the initial knee-jerk bashing of him by respected people on here that I was about to take a long break from this site.

    Hopefully Janice Bellucci will have time to comment in this or even reference it in her blog post to give us a logical and well thought out opinion on how this other lawyer’s post can hurt or help us.

    I just hope in the future that some of us might refrain from the mass flood of bashing until making sure we thought it through. 99 percent of the time it is deserved, but it would be a shame to miss an opportunity to get someone on our side.

  13. Anonymous

    HAHAHA! He disabled comments after a bunch of people chimed in. Good works ladies and germs, you did good!

    He was called out and he didn’t like it. 🙂

    • Chris f

      I am not sure how it would be a good thing to have our dialog disapear and just be left with his original unchallenged piece.

      Luckily, the comments are back.

      Unfortunately, most of us just bashed him without understanding his article and his stance in the registry…so maybe it would help our cause more to get rid off all of our hasty comments that make us and our cause look bad.

      His issues have NOTHING to do with recidivism rates and how unlikely we are to re offend or how much we need jobs to re integrate with society.

      His issues are all about how he has to advise his clients not to hire a sex offender because it leaves them liable if anything does happen. Hiring anyone else, even if they have a higher chance of committing a sex crime, does not leave the business liable. That is just a fact and bashing him wont change it.

      • Civil Rights first

        I see your point. And when I read his article I was one to get upset first. And I was on the bash path as well.

        After taking some time to think about it though. I guess the part bugs me the most is the gentleman was basically advising the original person and all other HR reps too not hire RSO’s at all. I just wish he would point out that there is a risk when hiring any ex con. And maybe point out a little info about true recidivism rates for RSO’s.
        I know wishful thinking.

        • TS

          @Civil rights

          There can be a risk hiring anyone regardless of conviction or not.

  14. Anon

    I’m not sure how to get the info to anyone becuase I’m not posting it publically. But. I was fired (in ca) for being an so and was fortunate to find a lawyer willing to settle it pro bono. I was grateful to be partially compensated, someone supporting so’s was compensated for his work and a company was punished for their breakage of laws. Of course it was only 1/100th of what they should have been liable for but hey, it was something.

  15. JM of Wi.

    Lawyer never directly answered actual question. “I worked for a grocery store. Can a child molester be employed by the grocery store? I reported it to the manager, and showed proof and nothing was done about it.”
    I expect to the nosy employee who posed the question Jon’s response would be ” I’ll take this case. Lets dream up some damages with which we can sue the pants off your employer.”
    I’ve had mixed results hiring felons. I’ve also had mixed results hiring the squeaky clean. (if that exists). Overall not much difference. The baggage that comes with the felons is difficult at times. Working in federal buildings, schools, airports etc. makes it hard to employee them. I can’t go to 20 to 30% of my own projects. And I would suppose my offence would be considered worse than most of theirs.

    • Tim IN Beloit

      @JM,
      Tell you what, AFTER I address this upcoming personal mission in FTR case in Rock County, I may approach you about employment. I’ve a UWM degree in Communication (BA) & Org. Admin (Masters). Perhaps an interview could ensue AFTER I confront a jury of 12 with 301.451g, a( …Dec25,93) & b( ex post). You may want to personally watch his face contort when I have the court show the jury 1992stat of limits on class B felonies 20yrs, 1k forfeiture MAX.
      HE will undoubtedly object, likely on surprise BUT he may not pay claim to surprise on the “law itself”. Above all ….the final judgment 92CR74 case makes my original plea readily apparent as it is clearly marked w\ Plea box checked NOT GUILTY. You know the kind of ” substantive material deprivation ” mentioned ( BUT NOT WEIGHED)By SCOTUS in the Connecticut DPS, FOOTNOTE.
      That so few can extrapolate their (SCOTUS’S) purposeful INTENT behind such an unusual, unprompted & unrealized disclosure, is expressive of the levels of both intellectual dishonesty among AMERICAN jurists and constitutional caprice within our two party system.

      • JM of Wi.

        @tim in beloit
        Good luck with case.
        I’m hiring Excavator operators who have talent and experience in demolition. A college degree is nearly unheard of in the trades.

    • Normal Bean

      I feel your pain. My business is thriving, but my biggest obstacle to growth is not new business but concern over someone who will out me to my clients. My entire clientele is referral-based (i.e. they all know each other) so just one disgruntled a-hole staffer and the whole thing could collapse. Now I only take on clients that are not referrals, the complete opposite of how we’re supposed to grow. How to insulate myself is my biggest challenge. We need a Vistage-like group for RCs!

  16. mike r

    Yeah, I am actually going to keep this article in my arsenal as the guy is stating facts that need to be addressed by a court. This is one of the most straight forward articles and examples of the truth that I have seen. Chris F and Will etc are right about this guy and this article. That last part about my morals against theirs is about the only fallacy I see in this guys logic. I am really surprised that he answered so many personal attacks against him like that. Just as Chris stated, we could have used this guy and I think I will still try and contact him This could be a great angle, get an employment attorney to testify these statements and the truth, this is actually demonstrable solid evidence that the effects of the website is not just a consequence of a conviction but is directly related to the site.

    • eric

      So citing you as an Occupational Safety Hazard (OSHA violation) as dangerous as having exposed electrical wiring or bricks falling from scaffolds, and that to be near you in the work place is like unto needing a hart hat and steel toe boots to be safe from the probable injury and death to come by the risk your presence, and you feel he isn’t overreacting? He is just giving sound advice to clients? I have an entirely different self image. I have no doubt that I am safe and trust worthy, an outstanding and devoted employee under any circumstance, and that a single act in my past does not define me or my future.

  17. The Vampire

    Sex offenders labeled just like jews!!! Let the killing being! The Nazis of America are in full battle gear to blame all sex on anyone just to make money it all about money

  18. mike r

    That is okay what views you have Eric, this guy is just stating facts. Has nothing to do with your self image, sorry but in most cases it simply does not matter. Companies are liable if you re-offend on their job sites. Bottom line. No matter how he went about saying it, it is a fact that employers use in making determinations for and employee. I know first hand experience, I got fired immediately upon arrest from a company that I could have done anything else and they would never had got rid of me. Reality man…. It does absolutely help to have that attitude though. It does make a difference how you see yourself as to how you present yourself.

  19. Eric Knight

    Based on the comments that we’ve sent, the original article writer responds with a new column. Hilarity ensues.

    https://www.workforce.com/2019/05/23/defining-and-defending-my-role-as-an-attorney-more-on-the-employment-of-registered-sex-offenders/

    • TS

      I read his reply yesterday there after seeing it on another online venue which he commented on the comments with other attys. Very interesting. I still think open discussion with him could be helpful.

      I still say I’m not an OSHA violation. Period. That’s a crock to infer people are.

  20. mike r

    This has been a beautiful debate people. Hopefully USA is reading this as he is always stating people cannot disagree without personally attacking one another. Well, here is a great debate pointing out that falsehood, and it is demonstrable evidence that all of us can have different opinions and still be civilized.
    Anyways, I really like this statement,
    “using the OSHA clause could go either way, e.g. protect the people from the person or the person from the people, because the law could go both ways depending on the situation.”
    This is so true and just gives an employer another reason not to hire. This could also give us protection except for the fact that if it was us in front of a jury for damages or whatever, we would probably not get the same compensation as a non-offender would.

  21. mike r

    This is about the only statement that I have seen that has any counter relevance to the attorney,
    “The original question was “Can a child molester be employed by the grocery store? I reported it to the manager, and showed proof and nothing was done about it.” I would think the answer would be “Yes he can. No law precludes him from working there unless on parole or probation and his PO forbids it,” or “No he cannot. Code Section XXXXX specifically precludes him from working there. Contact the police.””

    But even this does not hold water as it is his legal obligation to advise his clients what the negative consequences of their actions may be if he is retained by them in just about anyway.. It would bean ethical violation if he did not advise this to his clients, bottom line. He could face reprimand or even disbarment if he did not, he could probably be held civilly liable for any event that happened if he did not advise, he could be disbarred even if he did not advise. I really like his response in that post article as well. He understands the ramifications of the registries and their fallacies, and the personal attacks, whether anyone see it or not, just make all of us appear to be uneducated imbeciles attacking in a misshapen and intolerably way like the masses that attack us. This does not help our cause one bit. I am not attacking anyone personally here either. I am just stating facts of how many educated individuals who read his articles are going top react to the comments sections. I could even very well be wrong, but I do not think so on this. He talks about criminal reform or something, none of us knows who this guy really is, maybe he has done great things for criminal reform or even sex offenders for all we know. Or he could just be another scumbag lawyer, we just do not know and the uninformed attacks are exactly what we face everyday.

Leave a Reply

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  • Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  • Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  • Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  • We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  • 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.
  • Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  • Please do not post in all Caps.
  • 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.
  • We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  • We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  • Please choose a user name that does not contain links to other web sites
  • Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues 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.  
 

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Please answer this question to prove that you are not a robot *

.