Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: KLP who wrote (181412)	10/4/2006 5:58:01 AM
From: Tom Clarke	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 793559

And that should be a crime. I think it IS a crime to have knowledge of a crime and not report it.

To: KLP who wrote (181412)	10/4/2006 7:30:02 AM
From: Andrew N. Cothran	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793559

The Dog Died Philip V. Brennan Wednesday, Oct. 4, 2006 IF anybody had asked me over the last few days what was new with Republicans, I would have said, recalling an old story, "The dog died." It seems like an appropriate response in these dark days for the Grand Old Party. A farmer who'd been visiting the city was met at the train station on his return by his hired hand, who replied to his question as to what was new at the old homestead by telling the farmer, "Nothin' much, except that the dog died." "The dog died?" the farmer said. "What killed him?" "Eating burnt horseflesh," the hired hand explained. Story Continues Below "Burnt horseflesh? Where did he get that?" "From the horses that died when the barn burned down." "The barn burned down? How did that happen?" "It caught fire from sparks from the house." "Sparks from the house? Are you telling me my house burned down? How did that happen?" "It started when one of the curtains caught fire from the candles around your wife's casket," the hired hand said. When you look at the events of the past few days, it's true. It wasn't a dog, however, but the GOP elephant that may have kicked off when the House leadership burst into flames from sparks ignited by an e-mail sent by then Rep. Mark Foley. This in turn set off a media firestorm and, as is usual in such conflagrations, the resulting smoke so blurred the facts that the public has been seriously misled about the truth of the matter. At the center of the controversy is Speaker Dennis Hastert, who, it is alleged, made a strenuous effort to cover up L'affaire Foley in an attempt to keep the lid on the scandal and prevent it from damaging GOP chances to hold onto Foley's seat. It is further alleged that Hastert and others of the GOP leadership were aware of a series of instant messages Foley is said to have sent to former pages that were rife with explicit sexual references. As a result of these specious charges, the mob is demanding Hastert's head on a platter. This is really a very simple story that has been so distorted by the media and the Democrats that it is now largely a work of fiction. Here are the facts. Foley sent an e-mail to a former page that contained not a single sexual reference. The page, however, was bothered by it – after all, it was unseemly for a 57-year-old member of Congress to be writing palsy-walsy e-mails to a 17-year-old boy, even asking for his picture. The ex-page complained to his parents, who notified the congressman who had sponsored their son, and asked that Foley be told to stop communicating with the youngster. (I refuse to call a 17-year-old a "child," as some have done. I was digging foxholes as a Marine when I was barely 17. I was no child, and neither is any other 17-year-old.) The parents demanded, however, that the matter not be pursued beyond telling Foley to cease and desist. Hastert told Foley to knock it off, in accordance with the parents' wishes, and, for all intents and purposes, went no further. Just imagine what would have happened had they publicly exposed Foley for sending an overly friendly e-mail to a former page. It was already widely rumored that Foley was a homosexual. Had Hastert and his fellow House leaders attacked Foley publicly on the grounds of suspicion that he was sexually harassing a former page, they would have been accused of gay-bashing. Can't you just hear what Barney Frank would have said? He'd have gone ballistic and the media would have eaten it up. Keep in mind the fact that the e-mail in question – the only one Hastert knew about – was completely devoid of any sexual innuendo. Yet the GOP leadership is being charged with ignoring those sexually explicit instant messages (IMs) they knew nothing about. But somebody knew about those 2003 IMs and failed to alert the House leadership, thereby in effect covering up for Foley until they could be used to damage the Republicans just before a key election where control of Congress hangs in the balance. If there were crimes committed here, Foley is not the only accused criminal. The Democrats or their allies who kept mum about the IMs are crooked as corkscrews. After all, they permitted Foley to go unexposed and unpunished for a long, long time. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have been screeching about a full investigation of the matter. They'd better beware – when all the facts are out, they'll learn that it was their dog that died. * * * * * * Phil Brennan is a veteran journalist who writes for NewsMax.com. He is editor & publisher of Wednesday on the Web (http://www.pvbr.com) and was Washington columnist for National Review magazine in the 1960s. He also served as a staff aide for the House Republican Policy Committee and helped handle the Washington public relations operation for the Alaska Statehood Committee which won statehood for Alaska. He is also a trustee of the Lincoln Heritage Institute and a member of the Association of Former Intelligence Officers.

To: KLP who wrote (181412)	10/4/2006 9:04:00 AM
From: Suma	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793559

The issue as I see it is not whether someones sexual proclivities are as some people can be closeted all their lives as was J.Edgar Hoover.... However, it is more how they use these tendencies. B.Frank is in a one on one relationship. He does not go after young boys. The difference here is that Foley abused his position and he did not seek professional help but acted out on his proclivity and with young men.. who would certainly respond to him as Foley is the person in power. You have to realize that there is a power thing here. When working year before you were born I was in a world where there was no such thing as sexual harassment and I was harassed. I had no alternative at that time. My bosses were powerful people... and I wanted my job. It was difficult to fend off the passes.... A Congressmen coming on to some young man is rather flattering don't you think... He should have exercised better judgment imo.

To: KLP who wrote (181412)	10/4/2006 12:09:24 PM
From: zeta1961	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793559

Mandatory Reporting of Child Abuse Karen and all, here's what I dug up..there's a link in here for individual state statutes..mandatory reporting is primarily for professionals who work with and for kids(pediatricians, nurses, social workers, etc..but also mental health care workers(ie..if Foley tells his therapist in rehab, that person is bound to reporting it)..since Foley's is the first case of this kind that I know of..I dunno..my fear is that once the elections are over, people may want to not deal with it and he'll get minimal if any criminal punishment..it's appalling how many offenders get such weak sentences even if they do get found guilty, which is a struggle in of itself(talk generally) Facts: smith-lawfirm.com All 50 states have passed some form of a mandatory child abuse and neglect reporting law in order to qualify for funding under the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA)(Jan. 1996 version), 42 U.S.C. 5101, et seq.. The Act was originally passed in 1974, has been amended several times and was most recently amended and reauthorized on October 3, 1996, by the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment and Adoption Act Amendments of 1996 (P.L. 104-235). CAPTA mandates "minimum definitions" for child abuse and sexual abuse. Child abuse or neglect is any recent act or failure to act: Resulting in imminent risk of serious harm, death, serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse, or exploitation Of a child (usually a person under the age of 18, but a younger age may be specified in cases not involving sexual abuse) By a parent or caretaker who is responsible for the child's welfare Sexual abuse is defined as Employment, use, persuasion, inducement, enticement, or coercion of any child to engage in, or assist any other person to engage in, any sexually explicit conduct or any simulation of such conduct for the purpose of producing any visual depiction of such conduct; or rape, and in cases of caretaker or inter-familial relationships, statutory rape, molestation, prostitution, or other form of sexual exploitation of children, or incest with children. Many states have modeled their laws after the Model Child Protection Act. Every state has a hotline for reporting abuse and neglect. All states require certain professionals and institutions to report suspected child abuse, including health care providers and facilities of all types, mental health care providers of all types, teachers and other school personnel, social workers, day care providers and law enforcement personnel. Many states require film developers to report. Many states have broad statutes requiring "any person" to report. The National Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and Neglect Information is legislatively mandated to maintain information on line about mandatory reporting statutes and child abuse prevention laws in all 50 states (your tax dollars at work). You can view all or selected child protection laws by state or in side-by-side compilations. The Clearinghouse keeps its statutory compilations up to date and puts them in concise plain-language format. The Clearinghouse has also posted articles relating to child abuse and guides for reporting. Actual statutory language (where easily viewed) and other state resources are listed in the table below. Extent of the knowledge triggering the duty to report varies. Some statutes call for reporting upon a mere "reasonable cause to believe" or a "reasonable suspicion." Other statutes require the reporter to "know or suspect," which is a higher degree of knowledge. Failure to report suspected child abuse can result in criminal liability, although the liability is typically a misdemeanor punishable by a fine. Failure to report can result in civil liability. Immunity. CAPTA requires states to enact legislation that provides for immunity from prosecution arising out of the reporting abuse or neglect. In most states, a person who reports suspected child abuse in "good faith" is absolutely immune from criminal and civil liability. For that reason, most healthcare attorneys will advise a client "that it is far better, in theory, to be faced with defending a civil action for reporting suspected abuse rather than the bleak alternative of defending a civil action . . . if a child is injured or killed as a result of failing to make a report of suspected child abuse." Mandatory Reporting: Hidden Dangers by Attys. Jennifer L. Cox and Jennifer A. Osowiecki. False Reporting. The 1993 CAPTA amendments require states to enact legislation providing for prosecution in false reporting cases (reports made without having a reasonable belief that the report is true.) The false reporting laws must be read together with the immunity statutes and case law, however; persons who report in "good faith" are immune from civil and criminal liability. As a matter of public policy, prosecutors should be extremely selective in initiating false reporting prosecutions so that reporting is not discouraged. Confidentiality and Privileges. Some statutes expressly provide that all confidential privileges are abrogated. Some states provide an exemption for clergyman who receive information in the context of a sacred communication or confession. The clergy/penitent exception, however, is strictly defined and will not apply if a clergyman is acting in another role, i.e. a health practitioner. This raises the issue of whether pastoral counselors in private practice can assert the privilege. Attorneys. An attorney is prohibited by ethical constraints from reporting if the information is obtained from a perpetrator or other responsible party exposed to criminal or civil liability via an attorney/client communication. In addition, no statute can abrogate the attorney/client privilege in the context of the defense of a person accused of a crime because such a prohibition would violate the accused person's Constitutional right to counsel. When attorneys represent children or adults in other settings however, there are competing considerations and reporting may be mandatory or permissible. American Bar Association Standards of Practice For Lawyers Representing a Child in Abuse and Neglect Cases. Clergy. In the wake of the Catholic church sex abuse scandal, many states have revised their mandatory reporting laws to include clergy as mandatory reporters. Link to an article on clergy reporting by the National Clearinghouse. All states require the report to be made to some type of law enforcement authority or child protection agency. Reporting to a parent or relative will not satisfy the reporter's legal duty under the statutes. States now have similar statutes requiring the reporting of elder abuse. Disclaimer. This web page does not constitute legal advice. This is a rapidly changing area of the law. You should consult a lawyer if you have any questions about your reporting duties. On-line statutes can become out of date and are subject to legal interpretation depending on particular facts and circumstances. Thank you to everyone who has written to let me know about broken links and amendments to legislation. Please help us keep this page up to date by reporting any problems, good sources, out of date references or bad links. Email to report problems. State Statutes & Resources Link to National Clearinghouse Site State Statutes mandatory reporting page for States that do not have on-line access to statutes. The state statutes page contains information in reporting issues for all 50 states.