Head of School at National Child Research Center (NCRC) - Arrest warrant issued

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It will not go to trial if they have the goods on him. There is no point. He will get sentenced. He is falling under the eo13818. Forwarding imagery of naked minors is a Federal offense. He needs to plea and do what he can to avoid harming his family. Asset seizure is something on the table. Draining family resources to pay a lawyer to fight this is not helping his situation.

Sounds like there may not be many assets there since they were being kicked out of a rental and he's using a public defender.

Read the thread, low info poster.

The landlord wants to re-possess and occupy the property. The action is NOT for non-payment.

Public defenders are common in these cases, see Eleanor Hoppe thread. They are also very experienced.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It will not go to trial if they have the goods on him. There is no point. He will get sentenced. He is falling under the eo13818. Forwarding imagery of naked minors is a Federal offense. He needs to plea and do what he can to avoid harming his family. Asset seizure is something on the table. Draining family resources to pay a lawyer to fight this is not helping his situation.

Sounds like there may not be many assets there since they were being kicked out of a rental and he's using a public defender.

They weren’t being kicked out because they weren’t paying the rent, the owner wanted to take back the property, claiming they wanted to live there again, but it’s suspected that they just wanted to sell it. Nothing to do with lack of payments from their end.

It's pretty entitled of renters to stay in a house that they don't own when they know the owners want them out. Regardless of the reason.

I don’t think you’re the sharpest crayon in the box. There is what is called a “lease” where you rent a property. You can’t be kicked out without the owner breaking the lease generally. It’s not being “entitled”.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It will not go to trial if they have the goods on him. There is no point. He will get sentenced. He is falling under the eo13818. Forwarding imagery of naked minors is a Federal offense. He needs to plea and do what he can to avoid harming his family. Asset seizure is something on the table. Draining family resources to pay a lawyer to fight this is not helping his situation.

Sounds like there may not be many assets there since they were being kicked out of a rental and he's using a public defender.

They weren’t being kicked out because they weren’t paying the rent, the owner wanted to take back the property, claiming they wanted to live there again, but it’s suspected that they just wanted to sell it. Nothing to do with lack of payments from their end.

It's pretty entitled of renters to stay in a house that they don't own when they know the owners want them out. Regardless of the reason.

Tenants have a lot of rights in DC. There is nothing unusual about Carroll family actions in this instance. Perv yes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It will not go to trial if they have the goods on him. There is no point. He will get sentenced. He is falling under the eo13818. Forwarding imagery of naked minors is a Federal offense. He needs to plea and do what he can to avoid harming his family. Asset seizure is something on the table. Draining family resources to pay a lawyer to fight this is not helping his situation.

Sounds like there may not be many assets there since they were being kicked out of a rental and he's using a public defender.

They weren’t being kicked out because they weren’t paying the rent, the owner wanted to take back the property, claiming they wanted to live there again, but it’s suspected that they just wanted to sell it. Nothing to do with lack of payments from their end.

It's pretty entitled of renters to stay in a house that they don't own when they know the owners want them out. Regardless of the reason.

Tenants have a lot of rights in DC. There is nothing unusual about Carroll family actions in this instance. Perv yes.

he has a family???? I assumed he was a single gay man. does he have children???

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It will not go to trial if they have the goods on him. There is no point. He will get sentenced. He is falling under the eo13818. Forwarding imagery of naked minors is a Federal offense. He needs to plea and do what he can to avoid harming his family. Asset seizure is something on the table. Draining family resources to pay a lawyer to fight this is not helping his situation.

Sounds like there may not be many assets there since they were being kicked out of a rental and he's using a public defender.

Read the thread, low info poster.

The landlord wants to re-possess and occupy the property. The action is NOT for non-payment.

Public defenders are common in these cases, see Eleanor Hoppe thread. They are also very experienced.

Still seems he didn't have much assets. He did not live in a fancy townhouse. He rented. But seems to live within means of his salary.

[Anonymous]

Yes, he has two children. A wife. On the surface, looking in from the outside, looked like a “happy, normal” life. One never knows. I feel terribly for this kids. What a horrid reality to learn about a parent…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, he has two children. A wife. On the surface, looking in from the outside, looked like a “happy, normal” life. One never knows. I feel terribly for this kids. What a horrid reality to learn about a parent…

wow. no words.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I believe that ALL schools should require comprehensive background checks for every staff member AGAIN urgently, with frequent regular updates in future to ensure the information is current. This process would also help prevent individuals with problematic histories from applying for these positions in the future. Problem solved.

Background checks are necessary, but not sufficient. Everyone, parents, volunteers, teachers, admin, facilities staff, security, etc., need training like youth sports organizations and Catholic schools do, so the whole community knows what to look for and is watching all the time. Kids too. When my (now adult) kids were little they had age appropriate training about boundaries and safe behaviors every year. The Catholic Church has a K-8 program called Circle of Grace, a curriculum that teaches children how to identify and maintain safe boundaries, and how to respond when those boundaries are violated, it covers everything from keeping your hands to yourself in preschool, to bullying in elementary school, to sex trafficking in upper middle school. Secular training models are likely out there too.

Citing the Catholic Church training on how to prevent sexual exploitation is…something.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I believe that ALL schools should require comprehensive background checks for every staff member AGAIN urgently, with frequent regular updates in future to ensure the information is current. This process would also help prevent individuals with problematic histories from applying for these positions in the future. Problem solved.

Background checks are necessary, but not sufficient. Everyone, parents, volunteers, teachers, admin, facilities staff, security, etc., need training like youth sports organizations and Catholic schools do, so the whole community knows what to look for and is watching all the time. Kids too. When my (now adult) kids were little they had age appropriate training about boundaries and safe behaviors every year. The Catholic Church has a K-8 program called Circle of Grace, a curriculum that teaches children how to identify and maintain safe boundaries, and how to respond when those boundaries are violated, it covers everything from keeping your hands to yourself in preschool, to bullying in elementary school, to sex trafficking in upper middle school. Secular training models are likely out there too.

Citing the Catholic Church training on how to prevent sexual exploitation is…something.

Yet here we are taking about NCRC, not a Catholic school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It will not go to trial if they have the goods on him. There is no point. He will get sentenced. He is falling under the eo13818. Forwarding imagery of naked minors is a Federal offense. He needs to plea and do what he can to avoid harming his family. Asset seizure is something on the table. Draining family resources to pay a lawyer to fight this is not helping his situation.

Sounds like there may not be many assets there since they were being kicked out of a rental and he's using a public defender.

They weren’t being kicked out because they weren’t paying the rent, the owner wanted to take back the property, claiming they wanted to live there again, but it’s suspected that they just wanted to sell it. Nothing to do with lack of payments from their end.

It's pretty entitled of renters to stay in a house that they don't own when they know the owners want them out. Regardless of the reason.

I don’t think you’re the sharpest crayon in the box. There is what is called a “lease” where you rent a property. You can’t be kicked out without the owner breaking the lease generally. It’s not being “entitled”.

You don't need to be an ass. I am familiar with leases. It is now month-to-month and the owners have had to sue the family to evict them because they will not leave. I find that entitled and obnoxious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It will not go to trial if they have the goods on him. There is no point. He will get sentenced. He is falling under the eo13818. Forwarding imagery of naked minors is a Federal offense. He needs to plea and do what he can to avoid harming his family. Asset seizure is something on the table. Draining family resources to pay a lawyer to fight this is not helping his situation.

Sounds like there may not be many assets there since they were being kicked out of a rental and he's using a public defender.

They weren’t being kicked out because they weren’t paying the rent, the owner wanted to take back the property, claiming they wanted to live there again, but it’s suspected that they just wanted to sell it. Nothing to do with lack of payments from their end.

It's pretty entitled of renters to stay in a house that they don't own when they know the owners want them out. Regardless of the reason.

I don’t think you’re the sharpest crayon in the box. There is what is called a “lease” where you rent a property. You can’t be kicked out without the owner breaking the lease generally. It’s not being “entitled”.

You don't need to be an ass. I am familiar with leases. It is now month-to-month and the owners have had to sue the family to evict them because they will not leave. I find that entitled and obnoxious.

Then don’t be a landlord in DC. These rules are more than a year old and that landlord was or should have been aware of the law and not tried to push the courts into enforcing it against them. It’s not entitled or obnoxious for a renter to follow the law. It’s the law.

Surely you can find other reasons to dislike Carroll.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It will not go to trial if they have the goods on him. There is no point. He will get sentenced. He is falling under the eo13818. Forwarding imagery of naked minors is a Federal offense. He needs to plea and do what he can to avoid harming his family. Asset seizure is something on the table. Draining family resources to pay a lawyer to fight this is not helping his situation.

Sounds like there may not be many assets there since they were being kicked out of a rental and he's using a public defender.

Read the thread, low info poster.

The landlord wants to re-possess and occupy the property. The action is NOT for non-payment.

Public defenders are common in these cases, see Eleanor Hoppe thread. They are also very experienced.

Public defenders are not common for these cases unless the defendant is living in poverty which JC is obviously not. There’s an entire cottage industry of attorneys in the DC area that represent accused pedophiles with little notice on far lighter charges than these.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I believe that ALL schools should require comprehensive background checks for every staff member AGAIN urgently, with frequent regular updates in future to ensure the information is current. This process would also help prevent individuals with problematic histories from applying for these positions in the future. Problem solved.

Background checks are necessary, but not sufficient. Everyone, parents, volunteers, teachers, admin, facilities staff, security, etc., need training like youth sports organizations and Catholic schools do, so the whole community knows what to look for and is watching all the time. Kids too. When my (now adult) kids were little they had age appropriate training about boundaries and safe behaviors every year. The Catholic Church has a K-8 program called Circle of Grace, a curriculum that teaches children how to identify and maintain safe boundaries, and how to respond when those boundaries are violated, it covers everything from keeping your hands to yourself in preschool, to bullying in elementary school, to sex trafficking in upper middle school. Secular training models are likely out there too.

Citing the Catholic Church training on how to prevent sexual exploitation is…something.

The Catholic Church has been legally required to develop effective mandatory reporting training due to the many lawsuits they have settled. It’s very similar and in some ways even better than what public school employees and staff are required to do. I’ve done both and highly recommend one or both.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Curious if tuition refund insurance would cover a situation like this for a family who did not feel comfortable returning.

Look at your policy. You can leave for “personal reasons” on most of these policies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It will not go to trial if they have the goods on him. There is no point. He will get sentenced. He is falling under the eo13818. Forwarding imagery of naked minors is a Federal offense. He needs to plea and do what he can to avoid harming his family. Asset seizure is something on the table. Draining family resources to pay a lawyer to fight this is not helping his situation.

Sounds like there may not be many assets there since they were being kicked out of a rental and he's using a public defender.

Read the thread, low info poster.

The landlord wants to re-possess and occupy the property. The action is NOT for non-payment.

Public defenders are common in these cases, see Eleanor Hoppe thread. They are also very experienced.

Public defenders are not common for these cases unless the defendant is living in poverty which JC is obviously not. There’s an entire cottage industry of attorneys in the DC area that represent accused pedophiles with little notice on far lighter charges than these.

What was his NCRC salary?