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.

Such a sheltered view. Or entitled? Hmmm.

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.

Not necessarily, not if the owners are shirking the regulations. Lots of rules and regulations around these things, and reasons behind them. Welcome to DC.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:He punted to December 18th. Remaining behind bars. Has a public defender.

Who can choose to punt and why?

What a loser. This guy is a fraud through and through on top of being a pervert.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He punted to December 18th. Remaining behind bars. Has a public defender.

Is that the trial date?

No.

Anonymous wrote:He punted to December 18th. Remaining behind bars. Has a public defender.

Is that the trial date?

Not surprising. Fed public defenders are busy.

He punted to December 18th. Remaining behind bars. Has a public defender.

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.

Can’t imagine he would stay in the area while he waits for trial. His family would have to leave town. Go into hiding.

The won’t release him. I can’t imagine that they do. But if they do - what happens next ? How soon would the trial take place?