Insight

Northeast Kansan Covers For Criminal

Christi Marie Hout is a bank teller in Lawrence, Kansas who was charged with embezzlement and will most likely have to face whatever music Kansas plays for that crime, but something of which enablers of all stripes should take note is that her boss, Karolyn J. Stattelman, is also charged in this crime.....not initially for stealing anything herself, but for covering for Hout.

Something the friends and relatives of crooks and criminals do not seem to clearly understand is that when a crook is violating the law and violating the rights of his or her victim, it is unlawful to stand by and watch, without saying anything. It becomes perjury, false statements, and sometimes contempt of court when a "loyal friend" not only enables the crook, but hides evidence and covers for the crook. This applies to small indiscretions, such as allowing someone who is on probation for drunk driving (ahem......Quail Road, Frankfort Kansas) to take the wheel despite active alcoholism, to the Catholic priest who covers for parishioners who commit hate crimes or sex crimes and counsels the victims to blame themselves! Yeah, hello Northeast Kansas, once again.



Here in the video is another case of aiding and abetting. This one involves a teenage girl named Danielle Locklear, who disappeared in March of this year, and was found in April, in the South River, in North Carolina. Her boyfriend murdered her and tossed her in the river, and his buddy knew about it and said nothing. Later, after she was found, the truth came out, and even though the "loyal friend" did not commit the actual murder, he is facing murder charges.

Karolyn J. Stattelman is planning to appear in court today, to change her plea. It's hard to say whether this strategy will actually help her case or not.

Love Never Fails

 

My Beloved Friend! I knew the Gods had not forgotten me! It is such a joy to have you at my side, once again!

 

Horny Sex Offenders Want Facebook

Is maintaining a Facebook profile a privilege, like driving a car or shopping at Walmart, or is it an inalienable right? It seems we have a bunch of sex offenders who have already been caught abusing their rights, and caught abusing children, who feel that we, as a population, owe them the right to a better range of opportunities to reoffend after hunting down more victims. They want to get on Facebook and try to make friends with your children and mine. These creeps feel that we have discriminated against them with all the restrictions we have placed on them, and they are going to court in a few states to try to win the right to "friend" children online.

We tell people who have been convicted of violent crimes, such as domestic violence, that they cannot carry guns, even though the Second Amendment gives us the right to bear arms, and it's perfectly legal to place that restriction on such individuals. We also tell people who repeatedly drink and drive that they can no longer drive. While driving is a privilege, rather than a right, the anology still stands. The abuse of a privilege or certain rights in such a manner that that the safety and welfare of others is put at stake can and should result in the cessation of the abused privilege to the offender. Sex offenders almost always reoffend. There is no known cure for being a sex offender. Why should they have internet privileges? Here's a post about one, named Robert Neil Boyd, who blew off court in Maryland in 2006 and was caught in Tennessee in 2010, and is now in jail in Maryland. His problem was internet crime, and his computer was loaded with kiddie porn when he was caught in Tennessee. He was charged in both Tennessee and Maryland. Should we just let him hop back on a computer? Here's a post about a sex offender whose sentence was commuted by a judge in New Mexico because he had found Jesus in prison. Immediately after getting out, the offender began texting one of his victims. They never stop. They don't need Facebook, or any other social media, and the internet is not an inalienable right. What's next? Releasing Charles Manson and putting him in charge of a group home for troubled teens? Possibly giving snail mail privileges to the Unabomber?     

Lets try to keep these people off of online social networking.