Dallas Bond, the Brown County, Kansas dispatcher who once trolled Northeast Kansas for underage sex crimes victims, has received a life sentence for the same.
Prior to getting caught by police, Mr. Bond had stolen handcuffs, leg irons, a radio, and some official looking shirts with logos from the Brown County, Kansas sheriff department, where he worked as a dispatcher. These items were recovered, but not until they were used while he kidnapped and sexually assaulted a child. There is a pervasive belief on the part of Kansans that this type of crime does not occur in Kansas because so much of Kansas is rural. This is error, and it is overlooking the obvious: there are few surveillance cameras, few eyewitnesses, and unreliable cell phone service in much of the "country"...or commercial farmland in Kansas. In combination with school administrations who violate the federal laws concerning child safety, "the country" in Kansas is actually very dangerous for children.
This is where another child, in Frankfort, Kansas, was abandoned by a guidance counselor. Was it done in the expectation of an encounter with someone pretending to be a police officer? Everyone involved has been advised not to talk by a local attorney.
Here's a comment that I got from a disgusting hypocrite last night: I don't know who you are, or where you live (assume Frankfort) but where are your so called morals. You should really get all of the facts about a persons life before you go posting such horrible things about any person, their family and especially their children. You have done nothing more in reading all of this other than use this blog to use your fingers do damage to a woman and her family with out knowing the whole story. You have named her children which I am sure have been through enough and exposed them to your trash, damaged her husband if he chose to read your trash all to express your dissatisfaction of something the seemed to have happened to you. And this all from someone who doesn't seem to even know the family nor knows the whole story. You have a right to your opinion if that is what you want to call it, but you at least should know the facts and not leave it up to a majority of hearsay and false information and not use a sight like this to vent your own problems And here's my response:
I read your silly-assed comment last night, but was too busy and preoccupied, with matters more meaningful, to respond. I see you jumped on here this morning, waiting to see if I had published it. Okay, here's your fifteen minutes. Let me respond to the key points here, that may or many not make a difference to anyone else, out there, in internetland. Yes, I live close enough to Frankfurter Village to read and otherwise be apprised of the news and general happenings there. Not that it makes a difference; newspapers in all parts of Kansas sung the praises of Monica Smart. She does, indeed, have a reputation, but blaming me is silly. My audience is not anywhere near as big as that of WIBW, The Topeka Capitol Journal, or the FBI's press release. While Marshall County does, indeed, make nominally successful efforts to keep most of its crime out of the news, the rest of the media and the FBI have no problem publicizing the identities of crooks, along with naming their special crimes. And Monica Smart's crime was pretty special, for a frankfurter. Most frankfurters muddle along with misdemeanors, such as vandalism or drunk driving, when they celebrate their various rites of passage, but Smartypants outdid them all. This is where the rest of the world comes in: she committed fraud and stole half a million dollars. The FBI took notice, and truly does not care about the fact that Monica Smart is a pink and fluffy Caucasion blonde who lives in Frankfort and loves Jesus. She was charged in federal court, and the rest of America has the right to the information. It IS everyone's business if Monica Gale Smart is a thief! I know that you were probably very surprised when the judge sentenced her, and she went to Carswell, but being a pink and white frankfurter does not exclude her from consequences. One of those consequences is, appropriately, people such as yours truly maintaining a publicly expressed opinion about that no matter who wants to protect a pink and fluffy criminal. Crime is still crime, and pink and fluffy blondes who get caught embarking upon lives of crime should not be spared any of the consequences experienced by their more swarthy, slim, and graceful fellow Americans, who become victims of selective justice altogether too often. If Smarty couldn't do the time, she should not have done the crime. And by the way, when Monica's delusional mother attempted to buy an ankle bracelet and home detention, instead of prison time, I was happy to see the judge ignore her. The judge has a moral responsibility to consider fair sentencing for all who come before the bench, not just special favors for those whose parents are rich enough to buy more lenient sentences. When I read that Monica Smart's mother (ahem) tried to do that, I was very offended. How dare someone try to pervert or corrupt justice?
My real point in writing that post was really not to insult Monica Smart. The post was actually about the frankenfurter community, the school, especially, and the approval of Smart's unlawful behaviors. I know that I am quite old fashioned and conservative, compared to the average Kansan, but allowing a convicted felon continuous access to a public school sets a bad example. I am not talking about the occasional parent with a criminal record, who attends a parent/teacher conference; Smartypants had lunch in the cafeteria with her husband, a teacher, on a regular basis. In fact, since he was named in at least one civil proceeding, I think it would have been better for the students at the school if his position had been terminated. Crime is not widely accepted in real communities, with real schools, whose students have real parents. Most of us do not want convicted felons near our children. I wrote the post because Dean Dalinghaus, the principal at Frankfort Experiment, told yours truly that he was pressuring children to attend christian churches because he has a responsibility to "teach morals". In my world, teaching morals does not include sending a message of approval of federal theft or wire fraud, so I was curious to hear his excuse. I was also deeply concerned that in the event that Smartypants's status changed while waiting for a bed in prison, and she was supposed to be somewhere else, the SWAT team would converge upon the school, raining bullets left and right. Stranger things have happened. Your loved one is not only a criminal, but a convicted felon. Get used to these precautions. Jesus doesn't care about your feelings, either.
I actually did not name anyone in her family. A couple of other, more widely read publications did, though. But why is that so important? Are you suggesting that Monica Smart's family deserves more consideration than others get? That's very interesting: is it because she is pink, fluffy, and of course, white? Or is it because you think she has a personal right to steal from people?
Oh, by the way, I do not need to get all the facts about Monica Smart's so-called life before I determine that the FBI's findings and subsequent court conviction were correct. All her life really contained was a series of non-events in Kansas and some criminal activity that was serious enough to send her to prison. Nothing else. And if you want to protect her family, or her children, please remember that those very people not only silently allowed her to steal from her employers and customers, but have enabled crime in other places, too. I have never seen any of them stand up for justice and for the truth.
Luckily for all of us, Senators Al Franken, (D-MN) and Chuck Grassley (R-IA) have introduced introduced legislation to narrow the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, or the CFAA, which was enacted primarily to prosecute malicious hacking, such as identity theft and bank larceny done via computers. Lately, there has been discussion by lawmakers about all sorts of things that are done online every day by innocent computer users, such as using an online moniker that is not one's actual name on a social networking website or checking one's email at work on an employer's computer. Even more shocking is the idea that using a nickname on Facebook can even be construed as a felony! A couple of cases wherein defendants have been charged and prosecuted have involved violations of the Terms Of Service agreements for various networks......but while it is understandable that a network can reserve the right to delete the account of an errant user, how is this defined, by law, as a crime, particularly a felony? The other widely committed act that is done by many, many people is the act of using a workplace computer for unauthorized purposes, such as checking one's email or surfing social media sites. It seems like a boss should have the option to reserve the right to terminate an employee who sits on Facebook or Google Plus all day, but should the employee go to jail, after being prosecuted under CFAA, and have a felony record over using an online moniker other than a legal name?
I have known for quite some time that Kansas has a serious problem with lunatics making serious decisions, but now, authorities in Topeka are no longer using due process for misdemeanors. Only felonies, which must, at the direction of federal authorities, be prosecuted. No kidding. Chad Taylor, District Attorney of Shawnee County announced, "Under current constraints, we do not have the necessary resources to prosecute misdemeanors that occur in Topeka and simultaneously fulfill our statutory obligations. This decision will have no effect on felony crimes or crimes occurring outside of Topeka. We will continue to vigorously prosecute all felonies that occur in Shawnee County as well as misdemeanors that occur beyond the boundaries of Topeka"........ksnt
So what does this mean? Lots of sex offenses are misdemeanors. Does this mean that offenders can do whatever they want to any victim they choose, and just stop short of committing a felony? What about domestic violence? Is wife beating okay, now? Drunk driving is usually a misdemeanor, so is vandelism. What about child abuse? Can I key my neighbor's car when he parks in my spot? Can shoplifters loot the stores, as long as they only take so much at one time? I think I see insurance rates for running a business rising already.............
This is really a stupid idea. I think it would have been smarter if Chad Taylor had informed Topeka that he was going to ignore violations of prohibition laws, instead. Then, only victimless crimes would be ignored, and Shawnee County's judicial sytem would find it's productivity at an alltime high.....no pun intended! Oh wait........that can't happen. Victimless violations of prohibition laws are usually felonies, these days, while sexual assualts of children and domestic violence, even with fatal results, are usually misdemeanors.
Hahaha! That's a GOOD one! I've always been a big believer in pranks...........any of you familiar with the Red Horse Inn, in Frederick, Maryland, with a big red horse on the top of the building? The red horse in the corral actually ended up on top of Damascus High one year! Good times!
The thing is, all the police did, when the red horse ended up on top of Damascus High, was visit the school, demand to know exactly who the pranksters were, and further demand that the horse be put back where it belonged, and that no one bother the horse again.......blah, blah, blah. The horse was taken back, no one was arrested, even though the guilty parties were identified in the process, and life went on.
So why is this young man facing criminal charges? And why are they trying to charge him with a FELONY? Isn't that overkill? It sounds to me, as if the police in Indiana are vying for the Barney Fife Award.
