rape
Page: 7
U.S. Senator Martha McSally (R-AZ) speaks during a Senate Armed Subcommittee hearing on preventing sexual assault where she spoke about her experience of being sexually assaulted in the military on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S., March 6, 2019. REUTERS/Joshua Roberts
March 8, 2019
By Eric Beech
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. Senator Martha McSally, the first female combat pilot in the U.S. Air Force, said on Wednesday she had been raped by a superior officer but did not report it because she blamed herself and did not trust the system.
“The perpetrators abuse their position of power in profound ways, and in one case I was preyed upon and then raped by a superior officer,” McSally, an Arizona Republican, said during a Senate hearing on sexual assault in the military.
“But unlike so many brave survivors, I didn’t report being sexually assaulted,” she added. “Like so many women and men, I didn’t trust the system. I blamed myself. I was ashamed and confused. I thought I was strong but felt powerless.”
McSally did not identify her attacker.
Another member of the subcommittee, Democratic Senator Tammy Duckworth who is a retired Army lieutenant colonel and lost both legs in combat in the Iraq war, said the military “has utterly failed at handling sexual assault.”
Sexual assault and harassment in the U.S. military is largely under-reported and came under renewed scrutiny two years ago after a scandal involving Marines sharing nude photos of women online came to light.
In fiscal 2017, the most recent period for which statistics are available, the U.S. Department of Defense received 6,769 reports of sexual assault involving service members as victims or subjects of criminal investigation. That represented a nearly 10 percent increase in reported cases from the previous year, according to a Pentagon report last year.
‘STAYED SILENT FOR MANY YEARS’
McSally, speaking at the Senate Armed Services subcommittee hearing, said: “I stayed silent for many years, but later in my career as the military grappled with scandals and their wholly inadequate responses, I felt the need to let some people know: I too was a survivor.
“I was horrified at how my attempt to share generally my experiences were handled,” she said, adding that she came close to leaving the Air Force after 18 years.
“Like many victims, I felt the system was raping me all over again.”
Air Force spokeswoman Captain Carrie Volpe said in a statement: “We are appalled and deeply sorry for what Senator McSally experienced and we stand behind her and all victims of sexual assault. We are steadfast in our commitment to eliminate this reprehensible behavior and breach of trust in our ranks.”
In a separate incident, authorities in Georgia said on Wednesday they had arrested three members of the U.S. Navy on charges of rape and aggravated sodomy.
The men were taken into custody following a report of a sexual assault on Sunday at a party in a private residence, the Richmond County Sheriff’s Office said in a statement.
McSally’s disclosure came less than two months after Senator Joni Ernst, an Army veteran, said publicly that she had been raped in college by someone she knew and that her ex-husband had physically abused her. An attorney for her former husband declined to comment at the time.
Ernst, a Republican, has in the past worked with Democratic Senator Kirsten Gillibrand to combat sexual assault in the military.
McSally, 52, who served two terms in the U.S. House of Representatives, was appointed in December by Arizona’s governor to take over the Senate seat once held by the late John McCain. A special election will be held in 2020 to fill the remaining two years of McCain’s six-year term.
In November’s congressional elections, McSally lost to Democrat Kyrsten Sinema in the contest for Arizona’s other U.S. Senate seat, formerly held by Republican Jeff Flake.
(Reporting by Eric Beech, Mohammad Zargham and Patricia Zengerle, Additional reporting by Alex Dobuzinskis in Los Angeles; Writing by Tim Ahmann; Editing by Peter Cooney)
Source: OANN
Snopes (democrat led opposition media) created their own Fake News by giving us a ‘Mostly False’ Rating on an article in a pathetic attempt to defend pedophiles, (ironic enough, the article was about Democrats defending pedophiles).
Their reason was “Children can consent to sex with an adult” and we were “misleading the reader” by “claiming children cannot consent to sex with an adult”.
You can read the full article from Snopes below. They give their reasoning and accurately quoted our email interaction with them so you can also read our stance on this issue.
Claim
California Senate Bill 145 would shield pedophiles who rape children from having to register as sex offenders.
Rating
What’s True
Existing California law permits individuals convicted of having non-forcible vaginal intercourse with a minor (within certain age parameters) to seek discretionary relief in court from automatically having to register as sex offenders. SB-145 extends that exception to people convicted of having non-forcible oral or anal sex with a minor.
What’s False
The bill would not shield anyone from the requirement to register as a sex offender. Rather, it would leave that decision, in eligible cases, to the discretion of the presiding judge.
Origin
In January 2019, California state senator Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) introduced a bill (SB-145) that would modify the state penal code to allow certain individuals convicted of sex offenses involving minors to apply for discretionary relief from having to register as sex offenders.
Under current California law, all persons found guilty of having non-forcible oral or anal intercourse with a minor are automatically required to register after serving time. The revised statute would leave that requirement to a judge’s discretion “if, at the time of the offense, the person is not more than 10 years older than the minor, as measured from the minor’s date of birth to the person’s date of birth.”
A 21 February 2019 article on The Washington Pundit website put a decidedly different spin on the proposal. That article, entitled “CA Democrats Introduce LGBTQ Bill that would Protect Pedophiles who Rape Children,” claimed:
SB-145 would allow a sex offender who lures a minor with the intent to commit a felony (i.e. a sex act) the ability to escape registering as a sex offender as long as the offender is within 10 years of age of the minor.
SB-145 would add a section to the state’s penal code (Section 290.55) stipulating that as long as the offender is “not more than 10 years older than the minor,” they are not automatically mandated to register as a sex offender. There is no age limit or range specified, except for existing law which already excludes lewd acts with children under 14.
SB-145 appears to allow adults to victimize minors by luring them with the intent to have sex, and then shields the predator from being automatically registered as a sex offender, as in the case of a 25 year old luring a 15 year old for sex, or a 22 year old luring a 12 year old.
SB-145, as currently written, appears to allow certain sexual predators to live among the population without anyone being aware.
These claims are at best misleading and at worst false, beginning with the headline. The bill does not, under any reasonable interpretation, “protect pedophiles who rape children.” Although the crimes addressed in SB-145 fall under the heading of statutory rape (given that the victims are under 18, the statutory age of consent), they do not include forcible sex crimes of any kind, as a spokesperson for Sen. Wiener, Victor Ruiz-Cornejo, elaborated in an email:
Currently, there are several non-forcible, “consensual” sexual offenses involving minors which require lifetime sex offender registration. These cases involve minors who are having a sexual relationship with someone over the age of 18. Although minors cannot legally consent to sexual activity, the cases are viewed as “consensual” because the sexual activity is not forced and the minor is a willing participant. SB 145 does not apply for anyone 14 years or younger.
Moreover, it is not the case that the new law would, per the article’s claim, “allow a sex offender who lures a minor with the intent to commit a felony (i.e., a sex act) the ability to escape registering as a sex offender as long as the offender is within 10 years of age of the minor.”
The proposed law doesn’t allow anyone to “escape” registering. Rather, it allows people found guilty of unforced oral or anal intercourse with a minor 14 or older, if there is no more than 10 years’ age difference between them, to apply to the court for the same discretionary relief from mandated sex-offender registration that is already afforded to those found guilty of vaginal intercourse with a minor. That is to say, a court would decide whether the offender must register, based on the facts of the case.
In addition, according to Ruiz-Cornejo, “luring a minor” for purposes of sex is not one of the crimes covered in the bill. “Senate Bill 145 does not protect anyone from luring children (under 14 years old) or teenagers (above 15 years old) with the intent to commit sexual assault,” he told us. “Luring a minor is treated differently and does not fall under the consensual relationships this bill is addressing.” We asked Ruiz-Cornejo for further clarification on this, given that the text of the bill does state that it applies to Section 288.3 of the Penal Code, which addresses contacting a minor with intent to commit a felony (including certain sex offenses), but he did not respond to our request.
The actual aim of the bill, according to a press release from Wiener’s office, is to redress the disparity between how heterosexual and LGBT offenders are treated under the existing law:
Currently, for consensual yet illegal sexual relations between a teenager age 15 and over and a partner within 10 years of age, “sexual intercourse” (i.e., vaginal intercourse) does not require the offender to go onto the sex offender registry; rather, the judge decides based on the facts of the case whether sex offender registration is warranted or unwarranted. By contrast, for other forms of intercourse — specifically, oral and anal intercourse — sex offender registration is mandated under all situations, with no judicial discretion.
This distinction in the law — which is irrational, at best — disproportionately targets LGBT young people for mandatory sex offender registration, since LGBT people usually cannot engage in vaginal intercourse. For example, if an 18 year old straight man has vaginal intercourse with his 17 year old girlfriend, he is guilty of a crime, but he is not automatically required to register as a sex offender; instead, the judge will decide based on the facts of the case whether registration is warranted. By contrast, if an 18 year old gay man has sex with his 17 year old boyfriend, the judge *must* place him on the sex offender registry, no matter what the circumstances.
The next paragraph in the Washington Pundit article is accurate as far as it goes, though it could be clearer. The sentence, “There is no age limit or range specified, except for existing law which already excludes lewd acts with children under 14,” means the revised law would leave in place the stipulation that in all cases where the minor is under 14, sex offender registration is required.
Given that, the third quoted paragraph contains a blatant falsehood. It cites the example of “a 22-year-old luring a 12-year-old” to show how the proposed legislation supposedly “shields” predators. “The bill does not apply to anyone under 14 years old,” Ruiz-Cornejo confirmed. “Nor does the bill shield anyone, it simply grants the judge discretion.” (The Washington Pundit deleted the example and noted the correction after we contacted them to point out its inaccuracy.)
The article then states that “SB-145, as currently written, appears to allow certain sexual predators to live among the population without anyone being aware.” Once again, however, the passage neglected to acknowledge that the law already allows certain offenders to apply for discretionary relief from automatic registration as a sex offender. Moreover, “discretionary relief” doesn’t necessarily mean an offender won’t be required to register, Ruiz-Cornejo told us:
We’re simply affording the same process to apply when the same young adult is found guilty of having consensual anal, oral, or sex with a foreign object (such as a finger), with a teenager aged 15, 16, or 17 years old. A judge will still have discretion and can place someone on the sex offender registry if they believe the individual in question is in fact a sexual predator.
We sought comment on the discrepancies in the article from The Washington Pundit’s publisher, who defended its overall characterization of the bill. “By eliminating the different treatments for vaginal vs oral and anal assaults, it doesn’t change the nature of the bill,” he said in an email. “It actually expands on it and applies more protection to the pedophile. (Our definition of pedophile is an adult who sexually preys on children).”
He also stood by the claim that the bill would “protect pedophiles who rape children,” citing California’s age-of-consent law as a reason to ignore the distinction between forcible rape and “consensual” sex acts such as those that fall under the heading of statutory rape:
When an adult takes advantage of the innocence of a child, they are raping them. That’s why we don’t believe in having consensual sex with a drunk, adult woman. She may have consented but she wasn’t in the right state of mind to give actual consent. When a guy knowingly has sex with a drunk woman, he knows she isn’t in her normal state of mind. We believe any pursuit to engage in sexual acts that isn’t respectful and misleading the woman’s or child’s state of mind is immoral and equal to rape. Now, your definition of rape may be different. According to our definition, and the definition of our audience, it fits the description of rape. The title is not misleading. The title may be interpreted differently depending on who is reading it.
As of late February 2019, the bill was in the hands of the California Senate Committee on Public Safety for review and had not yet been taken up for consideration by the full Senate.
Sources
- Clark, Kendra. “Specters of California’s Homophobic Past: A Look at California’s Sex Offender Registration Requirements for Perpetrators of Statutory Rape.”
UC Davis Law Review. February 2019. - Ogles, Jacob. “Why Is Gay Underaged Sex Criminalized When Straight Sex Is Not?”
The Advocate. 23 January 2019. - O’Reilly, Andrew. “California Bill to End Alleged LGBT Discrimination on Sex Offender List Stirs Controversy.”
Fox News. 27 February 2019. - California Legislature. “SB-145 Sex Offenders: Relief From Registration.”
18 January 2019. - California Senate: Senator Scott Wiener. “Senator Wiener Introduces Legislation to End Discrimination Against LGBT People Regarding Sex Offender Registration.”
22 January 2019. - The Washington Pundit. “CA Democrats Introduce LGBTQ Bill That Would Protect Pedophiles Who Rape Children.”
21 February 2019.
Snopes.com has long been engaged in the battle against misinformation, an effort we could not sustain without support from our audience. Producing reliable fact-checking and thorough investigative reporting requires significant resources. We pay writers, editors, web developers, and other staff who work tirelessly to provide you with an invaluable service: evidence-based, contextualized analysis of facts. Help us keep Snopes.com strong. Make a direct contribution today.
A Playboy model who uncovered evidence of an international elite pedophile ring has been found dead just weeks after publicly stating that she was fearing for her life and would “never commit suicide.”
Model and actress Natacha Jaitt, 41, said that if she was found dead in suspicious circumstances it would be due to her attempts to expose the pedophile ring.
Ms Jaitt shot to fame in Europe after travelling to Spain from Argentina to find her fortune with just ten dollars in her pocket. Soon she was socializing with some of the wealthiest and most powerful people on the planet — and learning their secrets.
In 2018 the mother of two young children accused high-level politicians, sports stars, and entertainers of being involved in an international “evil beyond your worst nightmares” pedophile ring that systematically kidnaps children before plunging them into a life of depravity and ritual rape and torture.
On Twitter she warned she would be ‘killed’ for sharing her discoveries with the world. Stating that if she died in the near future it would not be a suicide bid but related to her attempts to expose the high-ranking pedophiles, the famous model attempted to warn the world about the danger of exposing the elite pedophile ring.
In Spanish she wrote in April last year: ‘WARNING: I am not going to commit suicide, I am not going to take too much cocaine and drown in a bath, or shoot myself. So if this happens, IT WASN’T ME. Save this Tweet.’
However, after being found dead in Argentina on Saturday, the coroner quickly declared that Natacha Jaitt had suffered a drug overdose before closing the case.
According to her brother she did not take drugs because because they would have reacted badly with medication she had been prescribed and she felt a responsibility to set a good example to her two children.
Her lawyer and her brother are both alleging that Ms Jaitt’s death was murder.
Police are investigating the circumstances of the death as well the five people who were in the house just before she was discovered, according to local reports.
Jaitt was survived by two children and a brother.
A bill that would ban most Tennessee women from obtaining abortions once a fetus' heartbeat is detected cleared a key hurdle Tuesday, advancing for a full House vote in the GOP-dominated Legislature.
The move comes amid a national movement from anti-abortion legislators and activists who hope that President Donald Trump's appointments to the Supreme Court will increase their chances of undermining abortion rights.
Tennessee is among several states with pending bills to ban most abortions once a fetal heartbeat is detected, about six weeks into pregnancy. The goal is to trigger a legal challenge to the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that established a nationwide right to abortion and possibly upend the ruling that established a woman's right to an abortion, as well as other rulings that have determined states cannot place undue burdens on a woman's constitutional right to abortion before a fetus is viable — typically between 24 and 28 weeks.
"This is an issue that has been on my heart my whole life," said Rep. Micah Van Huss, a Republican sponsoring the bill, during Tuesday's hearing. "I aim to save babies lives."
Republicans on the House Health Committee voted 15-4 to send the legislation to the House floor for a full vote, sparking heavy applause from supporters. Only Democratic members voted in opposition. While the bill still has to clear the House floor and the Senate, the bill is expected to win support from Republicans. Furthermore, first-term Gov. Bill Lee has promised his support if the bill reaches his desk.
Advocates on both sides of the issue packed the room to watch lawmakers spar over possible legal challenges and discuss hypothetical situations of women being forced to carry a baby to term even in cases of rape or incest.
By the meeting's close, many were breaking out in cheers and jeers in response to lawmakers' comments.
"I have three girls. I've raised them to be independent so no boy tells them what to do. Well, except for me," said Democratic Rep. Darren Jernigan. "But I've also said they're in control of their bodies and it bothers me the government would tell them what to do and it bothers me the bill is likely unconstitutional."
When asked if it would be acceptable for a 15-year-old student who was raped by her coach to be barred from having an abortion if she was past the six-week viability marker because a fetus's heartbeat was detected, Van Huss simply said 'yes.'
He responded similarly when asked if he agreed that the same ban should be in place in cases of incest.
"It is not up to me to determine someone else's life," Van Huss said.
Critics of the bill predict enactment of the fetal heartbeat measure would trigger an immediate legal challenge, warning that an Iowa judge struck down a similar law last month. In Mississippi, a federal judge declared banning abortion after 15 weeks was unconstitutional.
"On the one hand, sensibly speaking, this is unconstitutional and it's going to cost taxpayers dollars. While on the other hand, litigation would most surely help to uphold Roe v. Wade as the continued law of the land for women's health and privacy protections," said Francie Hunt, executive director of Tennessee Advocates for Planned Parenthood.
Even the state's top anti-abortion group, Tennessee Right to Life, has opposed the bill due to the surrounding legal concerns. In 2017, the group testified before lawmakers that its opposition stemmed from Supreme Court rulings banning criminalizing abortion prior to viability. Right to Life has been more subdued in airing concerns surrounding this year's bill, arguing Tennessee should let other states fight the legal battle.
"A woman should be able to make decisions about what is best for her health and her family in consultation with her doctor and her loved ones, without politicians interfering or trying to force her hand," said Hedy Weinberg, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee.
Added Weinberg in a statement: "If this bill passes, the ACLU of Tennessee stands ready to file a lawsuit immediately."
Source: NewsMax Politics
FILE PHOTO: Director Luc Besson arrives for the screening of the movie Eva at the 68th Berlin International Film Festival Berlinale in Berlin,Germany, February 17, 2018. REUTERS/Axel Schmidt
February 25, 2019
PARIS (Reuters) – French prosecutors have dropped a preliminary investigation into rape allegations against film director Luc Besson, the public prosecutor’s office said on Monday.
Prosecutors in Paris opened an investigation in May last year, which according to police sources followed allegations by a 27-year-old actress that she had been raped by Besson after meeting him at a hotel in the French capital. Besson had denied the allegations.
The case was dropped after “numerous investigations” which did not lead judicial police to fully stand up the claim, the prosecutor’s office said in a statement.
The “Nikita” and “Taken” director welcomed prosecutors’ announcement, his lawyer Thierry Marembert said.
“This decision follows a very thorough investigation carried out by judicial police, which (Besson) fully cooperated with,” he said.
Shares in his production company EuropaCorp rose more than 15 percent on the news.
(Reporting by Emmanuel Jarry, Writing by Sarah White, Editing by Angus MacSwan)
Source: OANN
Washington state Attorney General Bob Ferguson said Monday he will sue to challenge President Donald Trump's policy setting up new obstacles for women seeking abortions, calling it "a transparent attack on Planned Parenthood" that would severely impair access to many types of medical care, especially for low-income women in rural areas.
It's the first of several legal challenges expected to be announced by Democratic-led states. A national organization representing publicly funded family planning providers said Monday it would file a separate lawsuit over the policy.
The new rules announced last Friday by the Department of Health and Human Services would bar taxpayer-funded family planning clinics from making abortion referrals. They would also prohibit clinics that receive federal money from sharing office space with abortion providers — a rule that Ferguson said would force many to find new locations, undergo expensive remodels or shut down.
Clinics that receive money under Title X, the 1970 law designed to improve access to reproductive health care for communities around the nation, provide a wide array of services, including birth control and screening for diabetes, depression and cancer. Beyond interfering in a patient's relationship with her doctor, Ferguson said, the rules could leave vast areas without such care for low-income residents.
"Rural communities currently have a shortage of health care providers," Ferguson told reporters. "This rule will make the shortage even more acute."
Abortion is a legal medical procedure, but federal laws prohibit the use of taxpayer funds to pay for abortions except in cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the woman. Religious conservatives and abortion opponents have long complained that Title X has been used to indirectly subsidize abortion providers.
Ferguson said he would file the lawsuit in federal court in Spokane, in eastern Washington, after the policy is made official with its publication in the federal register and that he would seek a court order blocking it from taking effect. Eastern Washington has 20 counties, 11 of which would be left without Title X providers, he said.
Across Washington state, 14,000 patients received federally funded services at 85 of the clinics in 2017.
Ferguson said Trump's policy violates the Affordable Care Act, which protects providers and patients from government interference in the health care relationship, and a federal law that requires doctors to provide information about abortion and prenatal care to patients in an unbiased manner.
It also violates the Administrative Procedures Act by contradicting Title X regulations without sufficient justification, and it violates doctors' right to free speech and women's right to an abortion under Roe v. Wade, he alleged.
Erin Berry, Washington state medical director of Planned Parenthood of the Great Northwest and the Hawaiian Islands, was one of many advocates who joined Ferguson at his news conference.
"I cannot imagine withholding information from my patients. It's unethical," she said. "Politicians have no business telling me what I can talk to my patients about."
Source: NewsMax Politics
Omar Wone, 8, from Futa, a Koran student, called a talibe, sits on the floor of the daara (Koranic school) where he lives and learns Koran in Saint-Louis, Senegal, February 8, 2019. Omar was complaining about chest pain. REUTERS/Zohra Bensemra
February 22, 2019
By Zohra Bensemra and Juliette Jabkhiro
SAINT-LOUIS, Senegal (Reuters) – An eight-year-old boy fled his Koranic school in Saint-Louis, Senegal this month after he said a teacher threatened to beat him for not earning enough money begging on the street.
Hours later, alone in the corner of a low-lit bus station, he was raped by a teenager.
The child, whose name is not disclosed for privacy reasons, was rescued mid-assault by a local non-profit called Maison de la Gare that patrols Saint-Louis at night battling what has become a deep-rooted problem in Senegalese cities: thousands of young boys sent to religious schools end up begging on the streets, or worse.
“These things are still shocking, even when it is the tenth or fifteenth time you see them,” said Maison de la Gare’s founder, Issa Kouyate, referring to the boy’s case.
A Reuters witness also saw the rape before it was stopped.
Teachers from the school the boy fled declined repeated requests for comment. His parents were not reachable.
Kouyate said that he was making inquiries about the background of the teenager who committed the rape, and will then report him to the police.
On Thursday, Saint-Louis police said in response to a phone call from Reuters seeking comment that the appropriate officer for such a case was not available to speak. On Friday, Reuters calls to the police station went unanswered.
Families across Senegal have long enrolled their children in schools called daaras to learn Islamic scripture and build character. Historically, part of that teaching included begging for food to instill humility.
Many daaras are free from problems of abuse. Success in a daara and strong knowledge of the Koran can lead to a prestigious position as an Imam or a Koranic teacher, known as a marabout. Many parents, often far away back home, are unaware of the risks some children face in the process, said Mamadou Gueye, 57, who works with abused children in Saint-Louis.
In recent decades, some rights groups say the school children, called talibes, have at times been kept by marabouts in dire conditions, forced to beg for money and beaten if they do not come back with enough. There are no safeguards for children who escape and find themselves alone on the streets, they say.
LEARNING KARATE
The ill-treatment of talibes was a largely taboo subject in Senegal, but awareness campaigns have slowly provoked debate.
President Macky Sall, who touts himself as a modernizing president with a series of large infrastructure projects to his name, in 2016 launched a plan ordering the removal of children from the streets and said those who force them to beg would be jailed.
About 300 hundred were helped by the program in 2018, government figures show.
“These are our children, and we are trying to involve everyone in protecting them,” said Alioune Sarr, head of Child Protection in the Senegalese government. The government has set up a free hotline to report cases of child abuse, he said.
The issue has come into focus ahead of Sunday’s presidential election. Two of the five candidates, Ousmane Sonko and Issa Sall, said their programs include measures to regulate the daaras system and end child begging.
Human Rights Watch says over 100,000 children are still sent out to beg.
In Saint-Louis, as in the capital Dakar, groups of children weave through traffic asking for money, wearing shorts and ragged football shirts bearing the names of their millionaire heroes.
At Maison de la Gare, talibes can eat a sandwich, shower, wash their clothes and receive first aid assistance. There are opportunities to learn English and play sport.
“I’m learning karate so I can defend myself,” said eight-year-old Demba, who said he was once forced by a teacher to stay out all night and beg for money, only to be robbed by a drunk man at 6 a.m.
He did not give the name of the marabout, or the school.
After being away from home, Demba expressed mixed feelings about the family that sent him to the school in the first place.
“I no longer feel anything towards my parents,” Demba said. “I don’t even know if I’m angry at them or not.”
Click on https://reut.rs/2tyIpVb to see a related photo essay
(Editing by Edward McAllister, William Maclean)
Source: OANN
Illegal alien Jesse Jacinto, a 20-year-old from Mexico, is accused of raping a 14-year-old girl on October 8, 2018, according to the Iredell County Sheriff’s Department.
After a police report was filed about the alleged incident, police learned that Jacinto had likely fled to Mexico.
Last month, the U.S. Border Patrol arrested Jacinto after he allegedly tried to illegally cross into the country through the Laredo, Texas, sector. Following the arrest, federal immigration agents extradited Jacinto back to Iredell County where he was charged with the rape.
The border crosser is now being held on a $250,000 bond.
Similarly, this week, an illegal alien in Kentucky has been charged with repeatedly raping a 15-year-old girl, as Breitbart News reported. That illegal alien is being held on a $100,000 bond.
Investors study a poster about the Rakhine State Investment Fair at Ngapali beach in Thandwe, Rakhine, Myanmar February 21, 2019. REUTERS/Ann Wang
February 22, 2019
By Simon Lewis
NGAPALI BEACH, Myanmar (Reuters) – Myanmar leader Aung San Suu Kyi called for investment in the crisis-hit western state of Rakhine on Friday, saying the world had “focused narrowly on negative aspects” in the state from which some 730,000 Rohingya Muslims have fled since 2017.
On a rare visit to Rakhine, Suu Kyi emphasized responsible business practices as she addressed an investment fair sponsored by Japan in the coastal state’s tourist hotspot of Ngapali beach.
But she made only a brief reference to the conflicts that have roiled areas several hundred kilometers to the north and did not mention the Rohingya. As well as those stuck in Bangladesh, hundreds of thousands of Rohingya and other Muslims remain trapped in camps and villages in Rakhine, where their movements and access to services are restricted.
“For too long the international community’s attention has been focused narrowly on negative aspects related to problems in north Rakhine rather than on the larger picture that shows the immense potential of this state for peace and development,” Suu Kyi said.
Her government recognized the “grave challenges” it faced in Rakhine and was doing its utmost to address them, she said.
The Nobel laureate has pledged to make Myanmar more investment-friendly as her government attempts to reverse a drop in foreign investment and tourism from the West since the Rohingya exodus sparked global outrage.
A U.N. fact-finding mission last year said the 2017 military campaign that pushed out the Rohingya was orchestrated with “genocidal intent”. Myanmar denies allegations of mass killings and rape, and says its offensive was a legitimate response to an insurgent threat and that it is welcoming the refugees back.
The investment fair was attended by Myanmar officials, U.N. staff and investors and diplomats mostly from Japan, South Korea and elsewhere in Asia.
Domestic and foreign investment could play a crucial role in the state, Suu Kyi said, but warned against irresponsible investments like “unchecked expansion of commercial fishery projects” that could damage Rakhine’s coastal mangrove forests.
Some experts warn a focus on economic solutions to Rakhine’s problems could cement the marginalization of the mostly stateless Rohingya.
A Reuters special report in December revealed that officials had built new homes for Buddhists where the Rohingya once lived, making the return of many refugees to their original homes impossible. (Link: https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/myanmar-rohingya-return)
Myanmar says it has been ready to accept returning refugees since January and denies discriminating against Muslims who remain in Rakhine.
(Reporting by Simon Lewis; Editing by Nick Macfie)
Source: OANN
State Senator Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) and Assemblywoman Susan Eggman (D-Stockton) introduced recent legislation “to end blatant discrimination against LGBT young people regarding California’s sex offender registry.”
However, under their bill, SB 145, the offenders would not have to automatically register as sex offenders if the offenders are within 10 years of age of the minor.
Wiener claims the current law “disproportionately targets LGBT young people for mandatory sex offender registration, since LGBT people usually cannot engage in vaginal intercourse.”
Existing law, the Sex Offender Registration Act, amended by Proposition 35 by voters in 2012 (Ban on Human Trafficking and Sex Slavery), requires a person convicted of a certain sex crime to register with law enforcement as a sex offender while residing in California or while attending school or working in California.
Wiener says, “Currently, for consensual yet illegal sexual relations between a teenager age 15 and over and a partner within 10 years of age, ‘sexual intercourse’ (i.e., vaginal intercourse) does not require the offender to go onto the sex offender registry; rather, the judge decides based on the facts of the case whether sex offender registration is warranted or unwarranted. By contrast, for other forms of intercourse — specifically, oral and anal intercourse — sex offender registration is mandated under all situations, with no judicial discretion.”
“This bill would authorize a person convicted of certain offenses involving minors to seek discretionary relief from the duty to register if the person is not more than 10 years older than the minor,” SB 145 states.
Proposition 35 was created and passed to protect children from sexual exploitation and sex trafficking. Victims of sex trafficking are often vulnerable children, “afraid for their lives and abused—sexually, physically, and mentally,” the Proposition said.
What Does SB 145 Also Do?
Legislators Wiener and Eggman say they are trying to shield LGBT young people from having to automatically register as sex offenders for specified sex crimes. But their bill does much more.
SB 145 would allow a sex offender who lures a minor with the intent to commit a felony (i.e. a sex act) the ability to escape registering as a sex offender as long as the offender is within 10 years of age of the minor. No specification is made as to whether the sexual offender is straight or LGBT.
SB 145 would add a section to the state’s penal code (Section 290.55) stipulating that as long as the offender is “not more than 10 years older than the minor,” they are not automatically mandated to register as a sex offender. There is no age limit or range specified, except for existing law which already excludes lewd acts with children under 14.
SB 145 appears to allow adults to victimize minors by luring them with the intent to have sex, and then shields the predator from being automatically registered as a sex offender, as in the case of a 25 year old luring a 15 year old for sex, or a 22 year old luring a 12 year old.
SB 145, as currently written, appears to allow certain sexual predators to live among the population without anyone being aware.
Why is this bill needed?
Here is the text from SB 145:
This bill would authorize a person convicted of certain offenses involving minors to seek discretionary relief from the duty to register if the person is not more than 10 years older than the minor.
Digest Key – Vote: MAJORITY Appropriation: NO Fiscal Committee: YES Local Program: NO
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Section 290.55 is added to the Penal Code, immediately following Section 290.5, to read:
290.55. (a) A person convicted of an offense specified in subdivision (b) may, by writ of mandate, seek discretionary relief from the duty, imposed as a result of that conviction, to register pursuant to the act if, at the time of the offense, the person is not more than 10 years older than the minor, as measured from the minor’s date of birth to the person’s date of birth.
Here is the current California Penal Code § 288.3 (2017)
(a) Every person who contacts or communicates with a minor, or attempts to contact or communicate with a minor, who knows or reasonably should know that the person is a minor, with intent to commit an offense specified in Section 207, 209, 261, 264.1, 273a, 286, 287, 288, 288.2, 289, 311.1, 311.2, 311.4 or 311.11, or former Section 288a, involving the minor shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for the term prescribed for an attempt to commit the intended offense.
(b) As used in this section, “contacts or communicates with” shall include direct and indirect contact or communication that may be achieved personally or by use of an agent or agency, any print medium, any postal service, a common carrier or communication common carrier, any electronic communications system, or any telecommunications, wire, computer, or radio communications device or system.
(c) A person convicted of a violation of subdivision (a) who has previously been convicted of a violation of subdivision (a) shall be punished by an additional and consecutive term of imprisonment in the state prison for five years.
Last week, California Globe reported on another sex crime bill introduced by California Democrats: “legislation to shield a person from the consequences of crimes they commit in California, even violent ones, as long as the person reports the crimes to authorities.The language of the proposed statute appears to immunize a person from ANY crime so long as they are reporting a violation of a sex crime law.” Sen. Scott Wiener is the author of California Senate Bill 233.
MAGA One Radio