Sex Offender Map
Sex Offender List
WHAT IS A SEX OFFENDER LIST?
A SEX OFFENDER LIST, also more commonly known as the Sex Offender Registry, is a list of all sex offenders in a community. It is required in all States in the Union and is also in existence in Canada and The United Kingdom. In many States in the Union information about registered sex offenders in the community are made public and can be found in newspapers, public notices and through internet websites. Other States, however, do not permit public knowledge and complete SEX OFFENDERR LISTS are only available to law enforcement.
WHO HAS TO REGISTER?
The laws differ from State to State but generally someone who must register and be put on a SEX OFFENDER LIST is an individual that has been convicted of sex offense. This includes sexual assault, rape, molestation, kidnapping a child; and the production, proliferation or viewing of child pornography. There are lists of other sex offenses that will subject someone to being placed on a sex offender list. Check with the State Division of Criminal Justice in that specific jurisdiction to find out who must register.
THREE LEVELS OF SEX OFFENDER STATUS
Generally there are three (3) levels of sex offender status, only two (2) of which are available to the public. These levels are based on the risk of being a repeat offender. These range from low risk (level 1) to high risk (level 3). Level 1 sex offenders must register as a sex offender for 20 consecutive years. If a sex offender is designated level 2 or 3 then they must register for life.
WHAT INFORMATION IS PROVIDED?
As with all laws delegated to the States, the requirements do vary. At a minimum convicted sex offenders are required to include their name, address, school or place of employment and are often restricted from residing within a certain distance of a school, nursing home, etc.
HOW CAN I FIND REGISTERED SEX OFFENDERS IN MY COMMUNITY?
The federal government maintains a National Sex Offender Public Website which enables all U.S. citizens to access and discover registered sex offenders in their community. In addition to this many states and local communities maintain their own websites that divulge this information including names, addresses, photographs, descriptions, etc. The public policy is to insure that families and children are protected from registered sex offenders.
This policy is not without its critics. Many people assert that this form of registry only helps families of victims and those outraged by sexual crimes to plot revenge against sex offenders. For detailed information about where sex offenders may be located in your area you may visit the FBI's Dru Sjodin National Sex Offender Public Website (NSOPW) at www.nsopw.gov.
Every Person Deserves a Zealous Advocate, Says Texas Criminal Defense Attorney
San Antonio, TX—For Demetrio Duarte, defending people accused of crimes has been a career for over 25 years. Duarte told laws.com in a recent interview that his upbringing made him realize how badly criminal defenders are needed.
“Being a young Hispanic male in the 1960s and 1970s in South Texas, I witnessed a lack of legal representation in my community,” he recalls. “This led to a growing desire to defend people of all communities, but in particular, those in my community who were in severe need of help.”
(More on News at LAWS.com, Contact Alberto for interviews “support@laws.com”)
After going to the University of Texas Law School in Austin, Duarte took a job at the Bexar County District Attorney's Office, which he says “gave me the mentorship I needed” to get started in criminal law. He later struck out on his own, starting a solo practice.
Today, Demetrio Duarte, Jr. & Associates, P.C. represents clients in a wide variety of legal situations. Trying to decide which cases to take is a matter of careful consideration for Duarte. “I would say that 95 percent of the people who walk into a criminal defense attorney's office are guilty of something, and they all need help because of a mistake they have made,” he says. “Helping people who want to be helped and who admit that they have issues are always easier to assist than those who demand a guarantee of a favorable result from me.”
This last type of client is often worth avoiding, according to Duarte. “Typically, those who seek a guarantee of a favorable result and are demanding have to do with organized crime, and those are cases I try to avoid. I prefer to work with clients who have realistic expectations.”
Doing criminal defense work in 2013 may be harder than ever, according to Duarte. “Over the years, I have seen such an erosion of Miranda rights and civil liberties in favor of the government and the police, and less and less in favor of the protection of the individual. Standing up for individuals' rights has become extremely difficult for defense attorneys today because of this.”
New types of evidence can also lead to more convictions, Duarte says. “It's harder to try cases in court nowadays, because of the amount of technology that we have today that we didn't before. Now, we have DNA, videotapes, cell phone cameras, and street corners with video surveillance—this makes it more difficult to try cases.” As a result, plea bargains are up and trial numbers are down versus just a decade ago.
Duarte believes that new attorneys, regardless of where they went to law school or what practice area they want to specialize in, should find a mentor. “There are many attorneys who are willing to help a student out, if only they ask. There is no need to start trying cases without the assistance of an attorney with experience who can guide you in the beginning of your career,” he says, noting that he mentors several young attorneys today. “Leave your pride aside and ask for help when you first start practicing law.”
Demetrio Duarte, Jr. & Associates, P.C. operates as a team. Each player on the team focuses on moving all issues forward toward a goal in. The attorneys in the law firm are committed to treating client matters as if they were their own. To learn more about his practice click here.
Conduct Disorder
Gang Rape
All You Need to Know About Criminal Defense
Criminal Defense Defined
Within the setting of a lawsuit brought before a Criminal Court, the methodology undertaken in the arrival of a verdict is considered to be amongst the most primary concerns with regard to the construction of a Criminal Defense.
Criminal Defense is defined as one of the two existing parties that exist within the overarching legal process of ‘Criminal litigation’; with regard to the institution of Criminal litigation,the two parties undergoing dispute resolution before the presiding judge – these parties are classified as the plaintiff or accusing party, and the defendant, who is responsible for the provision of substantial Criminal Defense.
Structuring a Criminal Defense
The innate specifications within Criminal lawsuits requiring the implementation of Criminal Defenseare required to take place in a manner corollary to the process undertaken with regard to the arrival of a verdict. Individuals facilitating the methodology implicit with the structuring of a Criminal Defense – ranging from Criminal attorneys to individuals choosing to represent themselves – must do so while cognizant of the statutes implicit within hearings facilitated by Criminal statutory legislature:
Within the realm of Criminal Defense,statements delivered by any or all parties will be expected todisplay testimony considered to be sufficient with regard to the presentation of facts; Criminal Defense taking place with a criminal case will be required to provide factual recollection satisfying a standard of ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’
Criminal Defense structured with regard to both the liability, as well as the adherence required by a contractual agreement will be liable to present evidence conveying events considered to provide for valid reasoning with regard to a broken contract
A tort – derived from the French translation of the word ‘wrong’ – is legal term defined as a wrongdoing or injustice upon whose commitment resulted in harm, damage, or injury sustained by the accusing party; Criminal Defense constructed within a lawsuit involving Torts may involve negligent torts, intentional torts, and strict liability torts
Criminal Defense vs. Civil Defense
Upon the investigation of the structural ideology latent within both Criminal Defense and Civil Defense, inherent differences that serve to enable separate facets of judicial review to take place; however, despite any respective differences, both a criminal defense and a civil defense will vary in accordance to their respective locational jurisdiction – this can range from natural law to common law:
Death
Defense enacted within amurder charge will only be permitted through the facilitation of a criminal defense; a Wrongful Death claim will only be permitted to be brought before a civil court
Injury
Defense enacted within injuries sustained as a result of negligence or criminal actionwill only be permitted through the facilitation of a criminal defense – eventssolely resulting in the alleged wrongful death – regardless of the presence of negligence – may be brought before a civil court
Sentencing
Sentencing within a Civil Court can only result is financial restitution or monetary compensation; the facilitation of a Criminal Defense strategy may only be utilized with regard to punitive recourse contingent upon sentencing
Man Threatened to Kill Texas Police and their Families
On November 28, 2012, Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) under Immigration and Customers Enforcement (ICE) announced that a man was arrested for threatening to kill police officers and members of their families. He was arrested around 1:30 a.m. on Tuesday, November 27, outside of a Pecos truck stop.
The man’s name is Jacob Ramos Esparza, and ICE reports he is officially charged with “unlawfully, knowingly and intentionally using interstate communications to threaten to injure a person.” He faces up to 20 years in federal prison if convicted.
According to court documents, Esparza posted several death threats on the internet in chat forums. The threats specifically targeted Fort Stockton (Texas) Police Officers and their families, but officers at police departments in Pecos, Big Spring, and Midland were targeted as well. Some of the threats were sent through email. Some of the emails contained videos showing graphic violence, and specific threats included using chemical weapons, car bombs, and other weapons.
Dennis A Ulrich, special agent in charge of HSI in El Paso, stated: “HSI takes seriously all threats against law enforcement officers. Our special agents in west Texas worked cooperatively and vigorously with our local, state and federal law enforcement partners. This arrest exemplifies the efficiency and force-multiplying effect of law enforcement agencies working together.”
HSI special agents believe Esparza posted some of the threats under the username “El Diablo.” One of the statements by the username offered an award for the head of a local police officer. Other threats included using 15 pipe bombs in Pecos, Midland, and Odessa, and one of threats warned of “carnage unimaginable” on December 25 in public places.
The FBI, Fort Stockton Police Department, Pecos Police Department, Midland Police Department, and the Ector and Midland County Sheriff’s Offices helped with the investigation.
Source: Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Harassment in the workplace
Law Firm Partner Obstructed SEC Investigation
On November 13, 2012, the US Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California reported that David Tamman of Santa Monica was charged on 10 counts. These counts include one or more counts of conspiring to obstruct justice, altering documents, being an accessory in mail and securities fraud, and aiding and abetting. Tamman was a partner at Nixon Peabody LLP.
Court documents show that the SEC made an unexpected inspection of the business of the co-defendant, John Farahi. Tamman and Farahi immediately collaborated and starting falsifying documents to indicate Farahi sent proper notification that he was taking the majority of funds from investors. Tammon was able to create backdated promissory notes and additional disclosure documents as well as lie to his partners in order to make the documents appear true.
Tamman and Farahi were both originally indicted on December 7, 2011, and Farahi pled guilty to a Ponzi scheme, selling unregistered securities, bank fraud, and conspiring with Tamman during his plea hearing in June of 2012.
Tamman is scheduled for sentencing on February 11, 2013. He faces a maximum of 190 years in prison for all 10 counts, but he has entered into a plea agreement and the government has agreed to a sentence of 10 years or less.
Bill L. Lewis, the Assistant Director in Charge of the Los Angeles Field Office for the FBI, stated: “The defendant played a direct role in covering up criminal activity to deliberately mislead investigators, and in the process, abdicated his ethical obligations as an attorney. The FBI will continue to work with our investigative partners to help even the playing field in the financial marketplace.”
The Office of the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (SIGTARP) and the FBI led the investigation. The SEC and Nixon Peabody LLP provided valuable assistance during the investigation.
Michele Layne, the Director of the SEC Los Angeles Regional Office, stated: “This verdict demonstrates that there are severe consequences when an attorney crosses the line between vigorous representation of a client and obstruction of an SEC investigation.”
Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation