« "At 90, what does 17 years in prison mean?" | Main | The potential echoes of California's pot proposition in Mexico »

September 9, 2010

Sex offenders fleeing to Puerto Rico ... and feds bringing them back

This new AP story, which is headlined "US sex offenders see sanctuary in Caribbean sun," suggests that Puerto Rico may be starting to become something of a penal colony for sex offenders trying to avoid onerous restrictions in other jurisdictions. Here are the interesting details from an article that should prompt us to question and reflect upon just what our society hopes to achieve from strict post-release restrictions on sex offenders:

Jeffrey Allen Weathers moved from Alaska to an oceanfront apartment in the Caribbean, but his new neighbors soon suspected the heavyset American hadn’t come for the sun.  The FBI now says they were right.

Weathers, with convictions for sexual assault and possession of child pornography in his past, had moved to a small Puerto Rican town in the belief he could avoid registering as a sex offender and live without that stigma, an FBI agent wrote in an affidavit.

Weathers was arrested — thanks in part to his landlord — but law enforcement officials say other sex offenders share the perception that tropical Puerto Rico, where restrictions are less strict than in many U.S. jurisdictions, is an ideal place to hide.

Federal agents have arrested at least five other sex offenders over the last year for failure to register in Puerto Rico and sent them back to the U.S. to face prosecution on other charges, said Deputy U.S. Marshal Rafael Escobar.  He said the marshals are investigating 10 cases of unregistered offenders suspected to be on the island....

Each month, about half a dozen sex offenders come to the island from the U.S. mainland and do register with local authorities, according to Puerto Rico police Capt. Margarita George, who oversees the island’s sex offender registry.  Nobody knows how many others fail to report in.

She said some are drawn by the lack of laws barring them from living near parks or schools — the sort of rules that have forced sex offenders to camp under bridges or in woods in parts of the United States.  And failing to register is a misdemeanor in Puerto Rico — not a felony as it is in most parts of the U.S.  Some, like Weathers, find themselves colliding with federal rather than local authorities.

Offenders have told police they can do things in Puerto Rico that are nearly impossible elsewhere, such as buy property, George said.  “It is a fact that the guys who come down here know they’re not that strict,” Escobar said, though he said he did not know of any offenders from the mainland who committed new sexual offenses in Puerto Rico....

American sex offenders have sometimes been drawn to other nations in the Caribbean and Central America, but U.S. citizens need no passport to come to U.S. territories such as Puerto Rico or the U.S. Virgin Islands.  In densely populated Puerto Rico, an island of 4 million people, police are distracted by violent crime....

Weathers, a balding, 53-year-old Oregon native came to Puerto Rico in March, moving into $300-a-month room in Quebradillas on the island’s northwest coast, where he collected Social Security benefits, according to the FBI.

William Young, his landlord, said Weathers struck him as strange, often getting into disputes with other neighbors. Young began checking into the background of his new tenant and learned that Weathers had been convicted in Alaska of sexual abuse of a minor in 1999 and possession of child pornography in 2006.  Young said Weathers didn’t deny his history and told him repeatedly that he picked Puerto Rico because its laws are more relaxed toward sex offenders....

Prosecutors say there is no evidence that Weathers abused anybody in Puerto Rico.  He was arrested after he moved out of the apartment and made a brief stay at a psychiatric hospital. The FBI affidavit said he is a paranoid schizophrenic.

Defense attorneys say federal law is overly harsh on those who fail to register.  They say some offenders are too poor, sick or simply disorganized to keep up with the requirements.

I find this story both telling and annoying.  It is telling because it reports that the local police in Puerto Rico are, in the words of this article, too "distracted by violent crime" to focus on the registration status of sex offenders.  In other words, local authorities in Puerto Rico have made the seemingly sensible decision to devote their finite time and energy and resources to trying to stop and prosecute those persons committing current violent crimes rather than worry about keeping a constant eye on ex-offenders like Weathers (who apparently has not committed a contact sex offense in over a decade).

The story is annoying because it suggests that federal tax dollars are being used to track unregistered sex offenders, fly them back from Puerto Rico to the US, and then prosecute and punish them (with taxpayers paying for the lawyers on both sides) essentially for the crime of trying to live without the stigma and severe restrictions that other jurisdictions have placed on them.  Especially given that there is apparently no evidence that Weathers or any offenders from the mainland have committed new sexual offenses in Puerto Rico, wouldn't federal tax dollar just be better spent making sure the offenders who head to Puerto Rico are getting registered and are otherwise behaving themselves?

Perhaps others disagree, but I suspect that the average American would not especially mind if the average sex offender decided to move from down the block to the Caribbean as long as their tax dollars were not used to help this transition. Moreover, as I suggest above, I am not too keen that my federal tax dollars are now instead being used to bring these folks back to the mainland just to have them prosecuted for failing to register.

September 9, 2010 at 11:17 AM | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Sex offenders fleeing to Puerto Rico ... and feds bringing them back:


The Puerto Rican laws governing registration of sex offenders can be found at http://www.ndaa.org/pdf/

Posted by: brunello | Sep 9, 2010 12:22:20 PM

“If someone is flying under the radar [and refuses to get on the train to concentration camps], you have to wonder why they are doing that,” said Assistant U.S. Attorney Marshal Morgan, who is handling the Weathers case.

Posted by: Anon | Sep 9, 2010 12:28:25 PM

As I've said before--if people are so worried about sex offenders, wouldn't they be thrilled that sex offenders are leaving their neighborhoods?

What a waste of money.

Posted by: Res ipsa | Sep 9, 2010 12:49:38 PM

I think this things are can be avoided if they're properly educated like instead of doing something that is prohibited by law why not use a substitute like adult toys.

Posted by: penis extensions | Sep 9, 2010 1:14:17 PM

Anon --

I didn't know that living on the beach in Puerto Rico was like being sent to a concentration camp, but you learn something new on this site every day.

And certainly Mr. Weathers has been a real contributor to society. Two felony sex offenses, yet still living in the Carribean, at age 53, off Social Security.

Liberals do pick the oddest folks as the objects of their oozing sympathy.

Posted by: Bill Otis | Sep 9, 2010 1:54:31 PM

It would certainly seem that Puerto Rico takes a much more sensible approach to this issue.

Let the police and authorities focus on the crimes being committed rather than devote the time and resources to keeping a past offender downtrodden.

I don't have much sympathy for Mr. Weathers. Certainly if you don't learn from your mistakes and commit a second sex crime, then any sympathy should evaporate.

The point being made by 'Anon' is perhaps a little extreme, but generally true in its spirit. Mainland authorities would prefer for people convicted of a crime to be rounded up and removed from society. Seeing as they can't do that though (yet), it is policy to keep them as miserable as possible and stack the odds against them in terms of trying to be part of society.

Posted by: Questions Authority | Sep 9, 2010 2:34:23 PM

The concentration camp being referred to, Bill, is not where he is currently living but rather what he escaped from -- overbearing, overly-inclusive, and obtuse registration/living restiriction laws.

Posted by: another Anon | Sep 9, 2010 2:45:40 PM

What a backward and mean spirited time we are living in! Without any doubt whatsoever, future generations shall view the current members of the United States legal profession as what we truly are - an oppressive and overbearing group of arrogant fools who care a great deal more about profits than justice. Our tainted "profession" is rightly viewed by the public as the modern equivalent of ancient sea pirates. Common sense and decency dictates that all criminal convictions should be expunged from all databases and all files of every type pertaining to any and all convictions, be they misdemeanors or felonies, be destroyed no later than five years after the offender has successfully complied with and completed his/her sentence. Every right and privilege of the offender must be fully restored without exception or restriction. Continuing to financially and socially punish an offender until the day he/she passes away after said offender has paid in full for his/her infraction(s) constitutes an absolutely ridiculous and archaic legal theory which is unconscionable and it also constitutes a direct harm to society in general. Most everyone is aware that many legislators of the various states haven't the common sense to cross a street without assistance. The fear of legislators failing to be reelected to office due to altering archaic "status quo" legislation prevents the modernization of "criminal justice" procedures. In nearly every jurisdiction, the term "criminal justice" has now been subverted to mean "very profitable business". The term "law enforcement officer" has come to mean "direct sales representative for the judiciary". The vast majority of career judges, prosecutors, and politicians have become arrogant and useless profiteers, instead of "public servants", therefore each and every one should be publicly shunned and scorned by every member of society! No prosecutor or judge should be allowed to serve more than one term in any judicial capacity in his/her entire lifetime, appointment or election to such positions should not be allowed or encouraged to become a lifetime career, the positions should only constitute a temporary public obligation. The time for massive reform has arrived. Thank you.

Posted by: Esq. | Sep 9, 2010 3:45:21 PM

"And certainly Mr. Weathers has been a real contributor to society. Two felony sex offenses, yet still living in the Carribean, at age 53, off Social Security."

According to the internets, the cost of living in Puerto Rico is roughly 20% less than Alaska. Assuming there's any sort of locality/cost-of-living adjustments in the entitlement programs in which Mr. Weathers participates, he is contributing to society by living in the Caribbean.

I wonder what the "other charges" are that necessitate they be flown back to the US for prosecution. Surely they could be prosecuted for failure to register in Puerto Rico. It's a state (territorial) charge, no? It seems a strange coincidence that every sex offender they've caught that failed to register had some other warrant on them that they had to go back to the mainland.

Posted by: T.O. | Sep 9, 2010 4:23:20 PM

another Anon --

"The concentration camp being referred to, Bill, is not where he is currently living but rather what he escaped from -- overbearing, overly-inclusive, and obtuse registration/living restiriction laws."

To refer to the requirements imposed by sex offender laws and registration mandates as a "concentration camp" is a mind-boggling insult to anyone who had relatives in a real concentration camp. Either that or it's just appallingly ignorant.

Posted by: Bill Otis | Sep 9, 2010 4:48:48 PM

T.O. --

It's a measure of how far things have gone that, when a 53 year-old man moves from gorging himself on one other-people-pay-the-bill entitlement regimen to gorging himself on a slightly less expensive other-people-pay-the-bill entitlement regimen, this is regarded as "contributing to society."

Posted by: Bill Otis | Sep 9, 2010 4:57:00 PM

Let's take a look at Mr. Bill's irrational basis.

It is a mind-boggling insult and appallingly ignorant to anyone who had relatives in a real concentration camps to discount those who were put on the trains under Nazi sex crime laws, including homosexuality.

Mr. Bill suggests the government built a train track over the ocean to Puerto Rico, which would be funny if Mr. Bill wasn't serious. Or mayby he cannot really tell the difference between moving away from something and being detained and transferred back to the states.

Mr. Bill also suggests there is no rational basis, politically speaking, for a paranoid schizophrenic to receive benefits. Evidently prison is all the safety net we need. Unfortunately, that requires a new victim, but a new contact offense victim would be better because the safety net of prison would work longer.

The real rational basis is that the American Legislative Exchange Counsel (ALEC) sells seats to corporations and conglomerates - including database, GPS, private prison and other security companies - and those companies draft laws that ALEC gets passed throughout the states, state by state. It is extremely successful. So to know the real rational basis, it is only necessary to follow the money.

Posted by: George | Sep 9, 2010 5:40:18 PM

Bill, this may be tangential, but do you really regard Social Security disability benefits as an "other-people-pay-the-bill entitlement regimen" on which recipients "gorge themselves?" Aside from the fact that SSI/SSD benefit recipients must gorge themselves very cheaply, what would be your alternative for those unfortunate enough to become disabled without private employer-provided insurance?

Posted by: azazel | Sep 9, 2010 6:00:47 PM

My point, Bill, was not to defend the analogy, which I did not make, but rather to explain that you were mistaken. I wanted to make sure and disabuse you of the "something new" you learned today. The first Anon commenter was not referencing "living on the beach in Puerto Rico" in his post. The first Anon, as I read it, was discussing the absurd manner in which some prior offenders are treated in America. Don't tell me you just learned that today?

Posted by: another Anon | Sep 9, 2010 6:43:19 PM

azazel --

1. I think 53 year-old, able-bodied men should work for a living. Guilty as charged on that one.

2. I regard Social Security as an entitlement, yes. Is there anyone who doesn't?

3. My alternative is that adults should be responsible for their own lives. I know this is seen as an heretical thought in the Excuse Factory.

4. A fellow who's with it enough to commit two felonies and then ensconse himself in the Carribean is a long way from helpless.

5. Do you share T.O.'s view that Mr. Weathers is "contributing to society?"

Posted by: Bill Otis | Sep 9, 2010 6:50:39 PM

Don't get too excited about PR's more "sensible approach to the issue":

"Puerto Rican officials are working with the U.S. Justice Department on legislation to meet the federal requirements."

They can't just leave well enough alone, can they? They have to poke their nose in everyone else' business, and force them to "change their ways." Just shows you how arrogant "we" are as a nation. And by "we," I mean the proverbial "they."

Also, his Landlord decided to evict him once he found out he was an RSO? Classy. On what basis? No anti-discrimination laws in PR? Sure, the US will butt in on RSO laws in other governments/countries (ok, I know PR is a "Commonwealth of the US," blah blah blah), but I'm sure they can't be bothered with something more pressing, like ADLs in other countries. Figures.

And to Esq.- I couldn't have said it better myself! That was perhaps one of the most thoughtful, detailed, angry tirades I have ever read. And I mean that in a good way!

Posted by: Another Anon | Sep 9, 2010 8:22:49 PM

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention....

I wonder if the Paranoid Schizophrenia started before or after he became an RSO, if you get my drift.

Posted by: Another Anon | Sep 9, 2010 8:25:18 PM

Bill, what makes you think he's able-bodied? The only way to get Social Security if you're under 62 is to be disabled. I guess if that happens to someone who hasn't planned his life well enough to have a Cadillac pension, then he can just go starve?

And no, I don't think that Mr. Weathers is contributing to society. But if he's done his time and is living peaceably in Puerto Rico without committing any further crimes, I don't see the point in continuing to hunt him down.

Posted by: azazel | Sep 9, 2010 11:29:40 PM

The lawyer managing the abuse of children is a dumbass. It needs to be fired. Exclude the dumbass from all policy positions.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Sep 9, 2010 11:50:00 PM

If we're going to designate large numbers of citizens as social lepers, shouldn't we at least let them migrate to leper colonies?

Oh and please, would someone tell me again about how we don't have enough FBI guys to fight terrorism?

Congratulations, Bill. You might be the most sanctimonious, self-righteous individual I've ever encountered.

Posted by: John K | Sep 10, 2010 8:41:34 AM

Why I Hate CCA

(Click on titles of posts for links to articles)

Monday, June 21, 2010
Why I Hate ALEC (The American Legislative Exchange Council) Today

I strongly recommend everyone stop what you're doing and go read the article linked to in the title. It concerns the American Legislative Exchange Council, pretty much the pre-eminent conservative legislative think tank in the country, boasting nearly 1/3 of state legislators as members. Though registered as a non-profit, ALEC reaps millions of dollars from some of the country's biggest corporations, who literally pay to have a stake in ALEC's direction on one of 10 task forces. ALEC drafts models of, and lobbies for, corporate-friendly legislation (often to the detriment of the American people); in fact, it was behind much of the "tough-on-crime" and truth in sentencing laws that were passed in states and at the federal level over the past few decades, which have directly benefitted one of ALEC's biggest contributors, CCA by sending ever-increasing numbers of citizens to prison for ever-increasing periods of time. In fact, the prison rate grew so exponentially as a result of these types of laws, many of which are the direct result of ALEC's influence on various legislators/legislatures that many states and the federal government were practically forced into expanding privatized prison services because they literally coudln't expand their own prison systems' capacity rapidly enough to keep up with the surge. ALEC functions as almost a shadow organization, and has been behind much of the legislation across the country that has directly benefited corporations at the expense of many Americans. While this article looks mostly into ALEC's connections with the recent Arizona Immigration bill specifically, it has some great background information on what this author considers to be one of the most sadistically influential organizations in our nation's history.

UPDATE: The second part of this great story can be found here ("Corporate Con Game
How the private prison industry helped shape Arizona’s anti-immigrant law.").

Posted by: George | Sep 10, 2010 10:56:23 AM

John K --

"Congratulations, Bill. You might be the most sanctimonious, self-righteous individual I've ever encountered."

Thanks for the bouquet, but I need to be modest in accepting it. I know the next time you run across someone who thinks that adults are responsible for their own lives and behavior, and that strongarms and swindlers should meet up with accountability rather than gooey, swooning excuses, THAT person will get bestowed with the title of "the most sanctimonious, self-righteous individual" you've ever encountered.

I thus take my current ownership of the title with all the gratitude it's worth, but despair of holding on to it for all that long.


Posted by: Bill Otis | Sep 10, 2010 3:48:24 PM

sorry bill but considering the amount of money removed from american's checks each week for social security taxes it's hardly an entitlement. we paid for it! who knows maybe if the govt hadnt' spent 30-40 years stealing the excess it had created to fund their takeover of the world and creation of our NANNY STATE it would be healty even now.

as for your other options ..i've kinda with the others. the witch hunt and illegal after the fact persecution of ex sex offenders has long since ceased to be funny and is in fact TREASON agaisnt our constitution.

Posted by: rodsmith | Sep 10, 2010 3:51:25 PM

Bill, who are the "strongarms and swindlers" in this fact pattern? Do you have any information to suggest that Walters was not actually disabled and was obtaining Social Security benefits fraudulently? If not, then he is certainly an ex-con, but he is neither a strongarm nor a swindler.

I notice you still haven't stated whether your view of "adults taking responsibility for their own lives" means that you believe society shouldn't help the disabled.

Posted by: azazel | Sep 10, 2010 5:42:33 PM

azazel --

"Bill, who are the 'strongarms and swindlers' in this fact pattern? Do you have any information to suggest that Walters was not actually disabled and was obtaining Social Security benefits fraudulently? If not, then he is certainly an ex-con, but he is neither a strongarm nor a swindler."

That's correct. He's a child molestor. Happy with that?

But I digress. You're coming to the conversation late. John K and I have a long-running dispute about responsibility vs. excuse-making that, over months, has included a variety of strongarms and swindlers. Indeed his favorite crook seems to have been a mortgage broker who intentionally and repeatedly omitted key information about applicants' income, assets and debt. For this swindle he got three months' home confinement -- a "sentence," if you want to call it that, that John has roasted in acid terms as being a product, not of the broker's dishonesty, but of the Devils Island grind-em-up federal prosecutorial machine.

When I post to John K, I am writing against that background.

As to your other point, in governmentese, to be "disabled" is not to be unable to actually care for yourself or hold any kind of job. Sixty Minutes once did a piece on a New York City school janitor who was drawing his "paycheck," as it were, from disability. His "disability," however, was not so severe as to prevent him from doing the hard, physical work of patching up his yacht -- which patching up Sixty Minutes had caught on tape.

So no, I am not impressed with government designations of "disability." Nor, apparently unlike you, am I committed to preferring the interests of people who don't work to those of people who do. Why is it you bleed for those with their insatiable snouts in the government trough but sneer at those who fill it with food?

"I notice you still haven't stated whether your view of 'adults taking responsibility for their own lives' means that you believe society shouldn't help the disabled."

I believe both the concept and practice of the welfare state have gotten completely out of hand. Conceptually, the country has come to view a large and increasing chunk of the population as helpless infants who can't be expected to pull their weight. Instead, the new slave class -- people who actually work -- are expected to pull it for them.

As a practical matter, and as the electorate has recently come to notice, this is driving us to national bankruptcy. It can't be paid for, as even Obama has recently had to admit.

If any of this bothers you, or even occurs to you, there is no evidence of it. There is only evidence that you have a soft spot for the poor, put-upon, sex-assaulting and tax-gobbling Mr. Weathers, but not such a soft spot for me.

And in that, you are entitled to your opinion.

Posted by: Bill Otis | Sep 10, 2010 6:34:40 PM

oh i agree with you here bill!

""I notice you still haven't stated whether your view of 'adults taking responsibility for their own lives' means that you believe society shouldn't help the disabled."

Those who can work! Should work! Even if it's nothing but picking up trash on the streets or cleaning buildings for that unemployment check. dividing their time between work, job searches and any needed retraining.

But for those who can't work for whatever reason i have no problem helping them with having enough to survive.

and yes that even includes someone like this guy EVEN IF he's not physicall disabled. Since WE have put him out of work. With the ever increasing ILLEGAL laws controlling his life the GOVT and the PUBLIC DON'T WANT HIM WORKING ok so be it. THAT measn THEY PAY TO KEEP HIM!

Posted by: rodsmith | Sep 11, 2010 3:55:30 AM

azazel, nobody but Bill has accused "my favorite criminal" of omitting key information about applicants' income, assets and debt. Not the DOJ. Not even the "victim" lending company. Just Bill...based, as near as I can figure, on what he was primed to believe about mortgage brokers in the DOJ's intense demonization campaign as part of its nationwide mortgage fraud crusade.

The exchanges in the dispute Bill referred to are readibly available in the archives in the unlikely event anyone might care to view them. Bill's reflexive biases apparently made him impervious to the facts in the case.

What's amazing to me is that Bill, and the DOJ, for that matter, continue to blame lowly, commission-earning mortgage brokers for the collapse of the economy...even as much of the rest of the world has come to understand others far higher up the food chain were far more culpable:

-- bankers who created "liar's loans" and other exotic/risky loan instruments, gave brokers powerful incentives to sell the loans, then bundled and securitized mortgages they knew hadn't been properly underwritten.

-- rating agencies that didn't examine securitized mortgages before rating them AAA

-- government and quasi-government agencies that encouraged poor people to buy homes they couldn't afford

-- Fed interest rate policies that continued to stoke the hottest housing market in recent history

-- Bush Administration's "ownership society" incentives and so forth.

Fact is, the DOJ spent the better part of six years persecuting loan originators while the big crooks continued to destroy the economy with, as it turns out, absolutely nothing to fear from Bill's DOJ.

Posted by: John K | Sep 11, 2010 11:30:58 AM

John K --

I stand by every word.

I haven't gone back in the archives and don't plan to.

You have never given the name of the case, the docket number, or any specifics that would enable me or anyone else here to check your biased presentation of it. I have nonetheless accepted your presentation as stated.

The way you put it was that the mortgage applications had a box which your broker was to check if the applicant had other loans, debts or liabilities that were not evident in the application. Your broker friend knew that there were such things, but nonetheless intentionally did not check the box. This went on for months, maybe longer. The broker was sufficiently aware of the trouble his dishonesty could buy him that, according to you, he went to a lawyer to review it. Also according to you, the lawyer told him it was a "gray area," (this was baloney, but I'll let it pass) and the broker took this exactly the way he wanted to, i.e., as a green light to keep on -- for practical purposes -- lying.

"What's amazing to me is that Bill, and the DOJ, for that matter, continue to blame lowly, commission-earning mortgage brokers for the collapse of the economy...even as much of the rest of the world has come to understand others far higher up the food chain were far MORE CULPABLE:..." (emphasis added)

Actually, my last post to you agreed that others were also culpable, perhaps more so, but that's not the point. What is the point is that you have finally acknowledged that your broker friend was CULPABLE TO AT LEAST SOME EXTENT.

His mostly non-existent sentence recognized that low level of culpability: No jail, no fine, no community service. Three months' home confinement and a period (I forget how long) of probation.

Yet it was this tepid sentence that you have repeatedly branded as heavy-handed (and that's the mildest criticism you've used).

The banking crisis was the work of a whole bunch of dishonest people, as you correctly state. Your broker friend was one of many. He wasn't at the top of the chain, but he was in the chain.

When the lawyer said "gray area," the antennae would have gone up on an honest person, who then would have said to himself: "Time to walk away." But not your guy. What he said was : "Time to make even more money!"

When, later, the house of cards came tumbling down, he still had his hand in the cookie jar and got caught. Maybe you should just admit it.

Posted by: Bill Otis | Sep 11, 2010 3:54:03 PM

Your misreading of the story isn't even close, Bill. I've tried twice before to set the record straight. I won't try a third time.

Posted by: John K | Sep 11, 2010 11:43:29 PM

have to give you this one bill!

"When the lawyer said "gray area," the antennae would have gone up on an honest person, who then would have said to himself: "Time to walk away." But not your guy. What he said was : "Time to make even more money!"

If you have to ask yourself if it's legal! odds are it's PROBABLY NOT! Of course if you go see a lawyer and he tells you it's legal and it turns out that's it not...then it's more of a gray area. BOTH individuals should be held liable. The lawyer for telling people to comit a crime and them for comitting it.

Of course this could all be avoid if we took our legal system back to basics.....and made the law understandable to the average citizen! Which of course is the ONE THING THEY CANNOT DO! Would mean the end of their TRILLION DOLLAR A YEAR PRISON INDUSTRY and the collapse of their main power over us.

Posted by: rodsmith | Sep 12, 2010 1:59:15 AM

John K --

"Your misreading of the story isn't even close, Bill. I've tried twice before to set the record straight. I won't try a third time."

Fine by me. I stand by every word and am happy to let people decide for themselves. For those who want to make up their own minds from original sources, perhaps you could do what you have thus far refused to do -- give the defendant's name (which is of course a matter of public record), the court, the docket number, a copy of the indictment, a copy of the PSR and a copy of the Rule 11 transcript (or at least provide a link where we can find these things).

I also note that you continue to take a pass on questions you seem to find difficult -- such as what alternative form of government you would recommend when democracy (being crammed with only one out of a hunderd people capable of independent thought, as you have previously explicitly insisted) won't do. So what do we use to replace democracy?

Ahhhhhhh, the unwashed masses! Do you realize this country was so dense that it elected Reagan TWICE??? And wanted Timmy McVeigh executed??? What's an elitist to do?

Do tell.

Posted by: Bill Otis | Sep 12, 2010 1:07:22 PM

rodsmith --

"If you have to ask yourself if it's legal! odds are it's PROBABLY NOT!"

Nailed it.

Posted by: Bill Otis | Sep 12, 2010 5:57:26 PM

CSO's are forced in this country,if they can,to leave. A family member, convicted of a sex crime,first time,admitted what he did,served his time in prison and did all that was required upon release. That was 4 years ago. In those 4 years,every where he has lived, his neighbors have been notified of his offense and have harassed and threaten him.He has not offened or broken any laws since. My point is, he will be a convicted felon for the rest of his life,he did his time in prison,how much more is he to be punished? I was not notified that a convicted murder was living two streets over from my house. Why are we not notified of EVERY felon that is released and lives in our neighborhood?

Posted by: J.C.H. | Oct 1, 2011 1:48:12 PM

Overall , as fun as the argument is , I think the major point is being missed largely here.
Is the person in question a great person? Heavens no! Should we shake his hand and invite him to partys , god no.
But if he moved to PR didn't commit any more crimes and was just living to live, then I say the Americans should let him be, and if PR wants to pick him up for violating one of thier laws then that's on them.
The talk should not be what our laws do wrong but more why we have the inability to let PR deal with their own issues.

Posted by: cody | Oct 24, 2015 1:09:43 AM

Post a comment

In the body of your email, please indicate if you are a professor, student, prosecutor, defense attorney, etc. so I can gain a sense of who is reading my blog. Thank you, DAB