OH: Woman quits haunted house job in Columbia Station over registered sex offender co-workers

Source: news5cleveland.com 10/3/22

COLUMBIA STATION, Ohio — A registered sex offender may have been scaring your children for fun at a Northeast Ohio haunted house. It’s a tip received by News 5 Investigators, and in less than 24 hours, we learned two felons were fired.

Kim Neubauer says she worked at the Spooky Ranch in Columbia Station for one day this season before quitting.

“I did not want to go back this year but I thought I’d try it. I want to go have some fun and make some money. I wish I would have just stayed away,” said Neubauer.

Neubauer says when she found out sex offenders registered with Lorain County Sheriff’s Office were her co-workers, it was more than startling.

One is listed as a habitual child sex offender.

“I kept leaving my scene and coming in to check on him to make sure he was where he was supposed to be, because I was so uncomfortable knowing he was there,” said Neubauer.

Read the full article


Related posts

Notify of
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.  

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

that woman did not need a costume

What can I say?

If this man really is a, ” Habitual Child Offender”…do I want him working at a Haunted House? Can’t say that I do. I don’t want to put children at risk…of that, or anything. If this man truly is dangerous…and it’s possible he is. Not because, “The News” said he is…or the courts…and certainly not the Sheriffs! It was unwise of him to seek a job there, that I am sure of.

What about the other? Are they all, “Habitual Child Offenders”? Do any of the others pose any risk? Probably not…most are probably not. Others were probably, low risk, low level…or the “News” would have mentioned them.

This is just sadness, upon Sadness. The Bill limiting were PFRs can work will get renewed energy, and maybe pass. It will be vastly overreacting, restrictive, punitive, but won’t be called that. Anywhere where any child may, at any point, ever be. So, it will just restrict people to jobs on the moon…with certain restrictions.

Once again, the tiny percentage of people that may, possibly, pose some kind of danger, are going to make life worse for everyone else. I get so sick of that. It’s bad enough I may have to spend the rest of my life with every clown in town judging me, and maybe worse, for what I did years ago…I don’t need a clown like this adding to me woes! PFRs are always judged as a group. Always assumed that what one does, all will do..or try…or at least want to.

Heads up Ohio PFRs…you may have some new woes coming your way.

Why don’t these stories ever attempt to contact the registrants? They are the focal point of the story, aren’t they?

Specific to the supposed habitual offender – was he convicted for multiple victims and incidents at different times or a bunch of stacked charges on the same crime? That happens frequently in order to imply more crime than actually occurred.

What is wrong with “checking frequently to make sure he was still there”? Isn’t that how the registry was originally supposed to work? New laws are necessary now because it’s inconvenient to the local busybody gossip-mongers? Please…

Nothing remiss ever happened at this haunted house, no matter who worked there. If asked to show some kind of proof that it did, this lady would only come up with possibles, maybes, and juxtapositions. And this justifies new employment restrictions?

I hope it doesn’t happen, but it would be ironic if there were a sexual assault of some kind after the registrants were dismissed.

Another continuing example of how the public don’t know how to handle such sensitive information of a person’s past.

The problem with the Registry is that it tosses just barely enough information to make people paranoid but not enough to realize that they are not a danger anymore.

My question is how did she find out?
Did she investigate these co-workers herself, and if she did, why?
Not that it matters now, but people usually don’t go around checking the sex offender website on their co-workers, especially on the first day.
I know I was found out by a girl who was interested in me and decided to do a background check.
So, I learned the hard way not to give my full name to any girl or get too close to any girl who might be attracted to me, but I am not attracted to her-it’s too risky.
I rarely give my full name to anyone, so either this girl was inquisitive about one or more of these guys, or someone else told her.
Also, when the news broadcasts stories like this, then it causes other people to look up their co-workers and people with sex offenses lose their jobs that they may have worked at for years.
All because of the registry and someone’s big mouth!!

Hey Kim, do you plan to have your children hang out at the haunted house? If not, then why are you worried about a co-worker interested only in children? I can understand if he was a convicted serial rapist or something, but his thing is not with adults…especially ones that are not attractive.

Ms. Neubauer is like many people with weak constitutions. People who have weak constitutions can not stomach much conflict. That is to say, when a concern or conflict appears in the moment they panic and run. Where the person with weak constitution runs to in the face of conflict indicates something important about their internal thought processes. Ms. Neubauer could have eased her fantasy (of what might happen) by speaking to the individual sex offender about her fear and their presence. She could have asked each offender, “Are you acting in good faith?”* She didn’t do that, nor did she call the police. She went to the press. This evidences typical behavior of people who have weak constitutions. People who have weak constitutions in default always first seek outside aide for their own and often distorted cognitive concern. This of course is aided by sex offender propaganda and misinformation.

I do believe this woman really cares about children and was very concerned about the 2 sex offenders working directly with young children BUT the fact she googled all her male co-workers, shows she’s lonely and probably googling these men in hopes of possibly dating one of them.

Do American parents really expect their county fair carnies, haunted house zombies, and Renaissance Faire pickle sellers to be FBI-vetted unimpeachable saints? As a parent, I do not expect any of these places to be filled with the world’s most God-fearing Christian men, but I do expect my kids will be smart enough to handle themselves for the brief amount of time they might be around the rogue’s gallery of fellows who work at such establishments, and for 18 years I’ve been right. There’s a silly episode of the cartoon Bluey where the kids hear a story about a princess who tried to make the whole world soft for her feet, but realized inventing shoes was easier. Parents, give your kids shoes.

This is and was my practice, as a former RSO (I have been de-listed), I avoid all situations of being around children.

I lost track of the number of jobs lost after they found out my status. This included a job as a dishwasher at IHOP and two other jobs where my performance was so high that I got a promotion and fairly decent salary increase after just a month, followed shortly by dismissal when they learned of my status.

After a few years of this, I just gave up searching for jobs. I spent the next decade panhandling until my early S.S kicked in at age 62.