LOS ANGELES – Studio City’s neighborhood council has imploded after members found out that they may have voted in a convicted sex offender – even after they alerted Los Angeles city leaders, KTLA has learned.
Ian Mitchell King, a self-described a “non-practicing lawyer” and business consultant, joined the council in mid-August.
At the time, he told councilmembers that he had served in the U.S. Marine Corps and U.S. Navy.
What council members did not yet know, however, is that there is an individual who is listed on California’s sex offender registry with an identical name and address as the new council member.
Another council member first made the connection after finding an online article about Ian Mitchell King who served 13 years in prison for sexually assaulting a young woman while on duty as a school resource officer and was listed on California’s sex offender registry.
KTLA reviewed government documents and the sex offender registry and contacted the Los Angeles School Police Department and the state Department of Corrections to confirm King’s alleged background. We learned the person convicted of sexually assaulting a woman as a school resource officer was paroled in 2021 after serving a full sentence for sexual battery and sexual penetration of a victim with a foreign object.
Just hours before their Aug. 16 meeting, two members of the council learned about King’s alleged criminal record and escalated it to the board president.
“[I] found a very alarming article,” Councilmember Kim Clements, who first made the discovery, told KTLA. “I didn’t know if it was the same person. I was just stunned.”
The board president immediately reached out to higher-level Los Angeles city officials and the City Attorney’s Office.
The responses obtained by KTLA were filled with legalese and warnings against harassment and defamation.
Clements says she was hoping for a simpler response.
Wow! You mean the punishment the registry isn’t designed to do to PFRs actually can and appears to have done, as noted by RBG, Judge Matsch, the 6th CCOA, PASC, et al, is true?! Say it ain’t so!! You should be welcoming of those who are formerly incarcerated and not hold against them that time of their life, but be a part that moves them and you forward for the better. However, that is not our society today unless it suits their narrative where they look better in the end…Self-gratifying pukes.
“As it currently stands, they welcome the formerly incarcerated,” she said. “However, that doesn’t really work out in the real world.”
This quote says everything
“… after the vote, 11 of the 14 members resigned.”. …. resulting in Mr. King now serving as Chair and holding the majority vote on all matters coming before the Committee!*
🤣🤣🤣
*satire
Ha ha, I’m so happy to see Registries causing people pain and suffering. That is exactly what is deserved. I hope they worry about it forever.
So what these dummies are telling everyone is that they apparently don’t have enough sense to run even basic background checks on people. Heck, they could have “accepted” a career criminal even, a Gun Offender, domestic abuser, and who knows what else. Worse, they could be “accepting” “people” who think Registries are acceptable. Talk about dangerous terrorists.
Good for Mr. King. It took courage. Scary, American puritanism never stops.
Sounds like there are some opportunities to fill more seats at the table. Anyone up to the challenge?
When the public judges you with willful prejudice as a result of being listed on the Internet, guess what? That’s PUNISHMENT!!!
I say let this fools continue with their hate and ignorance, they’re doing our hard work for us to prove it’s punishment.
Is it illegal to have a registrant representative on a neighborhood council? In fact, wouldn’t it the demographics be more factually correct to have a registrant on the council? Or are registrants not people, not equal citizens?
Also, the registry/Megan’s List was designed for awareness only. The use, misuse, and abuse of said dissemination to harass and denigrate a person goes beyond the intents of the registry and ML, which is a violation as the act by the council is public shaming.
The man paid his dues to society with 13 years in prison and out on parole in 2021. The council is acting like the registrant did the offense within the past year.
Holy shit. That’s my neighborhood.
Oh, so he was a great guy, they al liked, and he passed the interview, and he was someone they felt would really benefit the board…so what changed in this man since he passed all the interviews?
Ima union member for local 11, A couple years back I was approach by organizer and was asked if I would run for the spot of Apprenticeship Coordinator, he said everyone likes you, you’d probably win.
my opponents were two old classmates from my apprenticeship, one of them I really didn’t get along with, So I decided not to run, I don’t need any more unwanted attention towards me, I was kool with just laying low.
In my opinion running for any political position or sitting on any type of console is probably not good idea if your on the registry.
4:00 – |||”The Members of the committee were free to vote ‘NO’. They could have asked him, ‘Are you a registered sex offender?’…”|||
From my understanding, Alison Triessl has her facts correct up to a certain level.
People in California cannot make decisions of employment (e. g. denying job offer, cancelling/denying promotion, firing, etc.) based on one’s sex offender status.
If the council voted against inviting Mr. King a seat despite his qualifications, that is a violation of the law; the whole council will be in jeopardy of a major civil litigation.
(He is hardly a danger to “at-risk” people for the decisions and verdicts that he would make as a councilman, since his isn’t the only one on the panel. And then, that job alone doesn’t even put him in direct unaccompanied contact with children. In companion to that, they have options like zoom-meetings and other web-camera discussions, where he and the council doesn’t necessarily have to be physically present.)
4:16 – |||”As it currently stands, [the council] welcomes the formerly incarcerated,…”||||
Gall-dong right they do; as they should be doing.
|||”…but that doesn’t really work in the real world.”|||
Excuse you?
Why doesn’t it work out like it should in the real world? As an ex-employee of the fine-dining business, the kitchen hires formerly incarcerated manslaughterers and past-domestically violent individuals for food prep, line cook and even chef(!!!) positions all the time. Take a look at Gwen restaurant, who is owned by celebrity chef Curtis Stone. All his food preps, line cooks and chefs there have criminal records; some were contact-violent. These folks handle knives, cleavers and other dangerous kitchenware every single day. Isn’t that putting clients and fellow staff members at risk? Well?
4:28 – |||”Ian Mitchell King never admitted to being a registered sex offender or as a police officer… he never answered any of our multiple request for comment.”|||
Well. Maybe, Chris Wolfe, he chose to have opted out of doing these ^^ because people as yourself would likely mis-quote and rudely sensationalize his every word into something darker and more sinister than what it probably really is.
He’s not legally or socially required to disclosed his past criminal history. People as he have already served their sentences and paid their dues to society. Quit pestering and vexing him over the issue, simply because his legally-stamped name is Sex Offender.
~~~~~
As for Mr. King, I say, good for you! I’m very proud and supportive that you ambitiously took on such a position; and confidently dared to make such a bold, brave stand to do so.