[Original post: 05/28/2010 09:50am ]
Recently, I was downtown in San Mateo, and recorded a video.
(by the way, court date for next criminal hearing was checked yesterday. No change so far.)
WARNING: This video shows the old office of william hamilton ayres in San Mateo. Do not watch it if you can not handle it. I thought I was ready, but was not, but did OK.
There is an 8 second bailout warning message at the front of the video.
This is a video taken starting out walking from the sidewalk in front of 215 N San Mateo Drive, in San Mateo County, up the stairs in the FRONT of the building and coming around the corner to look at #5. The video halts with #5 in full view, and holds for about 10 seconds and then ends.
Note that youtube did not let me select the "warning" screen as the thumbnail for this video, it automatically picked a view of the first office on the top floor (not #5.) I selected a different thumbnail, but it may be a few hours before it changes. If you don't even want to see the office building DON'T scroll down below this text.
ayres' name does not appear anywhere on any of the placards anymore, and the video does NOT include going up or down the stairs in the back, to the parking lot. If you feel the need to see video of the back stairs and are ready for it, let me know. I can't promise anything, but I'll consider trying to get back there and take that video. When I took this video, I didn't think to do the back steps, because I always went up the front steps. I did occur to me once I got to the top, but there were people hanging around, and so I just left.
The video also does NOT include any of the inside of the office or attempt to peek through the window. It does look like the inside door was open, as light was streaming through. An unusual sight, to say the least.
For those who don't know: #5 was the office of william hamilton ayres, a "child psychiatrist" who molested his patients in the guise of giving medical exams.
Please don't watch unless you're pretty sure you're ready for it:
Friday, May 28, 2010
Monday, May 24, 2010
The Uncommon Tangent (Vol. 1 Issue 2)
[Original post: 05/24/10 10:45am ]
More bad luck for Jonathan McDougall, the attorney who former "child psychiatrist" william hamilton ayres has hired to represent him in his criminal trial on multiple charges of child molestation. (Other lawyers represent him in the five separate civil cases against him for the same kinds of charges.) :
I've reported before that McDougall has had lots of trouble finding competent high profile defendants to defend in court... its seems that McDougall is constantly taking the moral high ground, and instead of just pushing through and taking money from high profile (and obviously guilty) clients, he is being honest and responsible, in that as soon as he gets the slightest indication that his clients might not be intellectually up-to-snuff and incapable of assisting in their own defense, he reports his suspicions to the court immediately prior to the latest possible time he could report these conditions.
Well, I've been following the Alexander Robert Youshock case because it parallels the competency evaluations in the ayres case, but is further along in the delay process, and so far, we seem to be on the same general schedule. The doctors in the Youshock case needed more time, then couldn't agree, and a tiebreaker doc was brought in. Essentially the same thing has happened in the ayres case, because they couldn't find non-biased doctors to evaluate him.
Anyhow, in the Youshock case, the third doctor was supposed to have his report by last Friday, but according to the San Mateo Daily Journal, he needed more time to finish it. So now he has until June 3, 2010.
I'm shocked at this delay. Shocked, I tell you - just shocked.
More bad luck for Jonathan McDougall, the attorney who former "child psychiatrist" william hamilton ayres has hired to represent him in his criminal trial on multiple charges of child molestation. (Other lawyers represent him in the five separate civil cases against him for the same kinds of charges.) :
I've reported before that McDougall has had lots of trouble finding competent high profile defendants to defend in court... its seems that McDougall is constantly taking the moral high ground, and instead of just pushing through and taking money from high profile (and obviously guilty) clients, he is being honest and responsible, in that as soon as he gets the slightest indication that his clients might not be intellectually up-to-snuff and incapable of assisting in their own defense, he reports his suspicions to the court immediately prior to the latest possible time he could report these conditions.
Well, I've been following the Alexander Robert Youshock case because it parallels the competency evaluations in the ayres case, but is further along in the delay process, and so far, we seem to be on the same general schedule. The doctors in the Youshock case needed more time, then couldn't agree, and a tiebreaker doc was brought in. Essentially the same thing has happened in the ayres case, because they couldn't find non-biased doctors to evaluate him.
Anyhow, in the Youshock case, the third doctor was supposed to have his report by last Friday, but according to the San Mateo Daily Journal, he needed more time to finish it. So now he has until June 3, 2010.
I'm shocked at this delay. Shocked, I tell you - just shocked.
Monday, May 17, 2010
The Uncommon Tangent (Vol. 1 Issue 1)
[Original post: 05/17/10 12:45pm ]
High Court Upholds Sex Offender Law:
Well, this one is an interesting development. In a 7-2 ruling, the Supreme court has upheld a federal law which allows sex offenders to be confined beyond the term of their prison sentences if they are deemed to be dangerous to the community. (The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act)
In general, I'm always happy to see sex offenders locked up for as long as possible. There's a twist though:
The two hold outs are Thomas and Scalia. What??
Well, here's the thing of it:
According to Fox News, my two favorite conservative justices "contend the law goes beyond the powers given the federal government by the Constitution" Personally I think that earlier appeals panels may have been more clear in their explanations when they discussed concern about the government locking up people simply because they had the potential to commit crimes in the future. This is a more conservative line of thinking, and one which I wholeheartedly support. (Perhaps the AP didn't pick the best quote from Thomas and Scalia, or maybe they're were having an uncharacteristically befuddled day...)
At the risk of alienating victim's rights advocates out there, let me say that while I am personally happy that this will lead to more lock-up time for sex offenders, I have to say that these kinds of laws are too dangerous for my taste. I think they will ultimately be detrimental to the cause, as the waters become ever more muddy when people begin to use the law for "political reasons" more than for the "protection of society." We need clear and concise laws making this reprehensible behavior punishable by frighteningly long prison terms.
For example, I can easily see authorities relying on the law during election years to extend the lock-up of sex offenders who were already seen as the dregs of society. Conversely, even during election years, I could never see them using this kind of law to hold a politically well connected sex offender like william hamilton ayres, because it would simply draw attention to mistakes that have been made by authorities in the past.
Personally, I think that victims advocate groups (and upstanding lawmakers) should be having frank discussions with the public about the reality of the damage that is caused by these kinds of crimes, and that the current levels of imprisonment and fines are not strong enough; are not commensurate with the damage done.
The law should directly address this, neither by extension of terms via add-on laws, nor by "civil commitment," but rather by extending the punitive durations and fines of the very crimes themselves, to bring them in line with the actual damage done. Let's lock these creeps up for a long time because we have duly convicted them of bad crimes, let's not leave long convictions to the whim of some committee later, as an afterthought. By the way, we need to do this NOW, not after we remove these constitutionally questionable laws.
All the same, as long as everyone's sliding down slippery slopes, this is one that I suppose I'll hop on.
Church Sex Abuse Defense Detailed:
According to Fox News, The Vatican has laid out their defense plans for us: In order to have pesky lawsuits dismissed, (and to prevent the Pope from getting subpoenaed and deposed), the Holy See will be arguing (among other things) that the US bishops who didn't report crimes are not their employees, and therefore the 1962 Vatican document barring bishops from reporting the crimes didn't apply to THOSE bishops.
Right.
Anyone at the "Holy" See look up the definition of Repent lately?
Probably not. Too busy trying to figure out how to skirt responsibility for hiding molesters.
Jesus ain't there to be used and then chucked back into the Community Chest pile like a "get out of jail free" card. Ya gotta at least pause for long enough to actually have faith.
Two interesting news stories today:
High Court Upholds Sex Offender Law:
Well, this one is an interesting development. In a 7-2 ruling, the Supreme court has upheld a federal law which allows sex offenders to be confined beyond the term of their prison sentences if they are deemed to be dangerous to the community. (The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act)
In general, I'm always happy to see sex offenders locked up for as long as possible. There's a twist though:
The two hold outs are Thomas and Scalia. What??
Well, here's the thing of it:
According to Fox News, my two favorite conservative justices "contend the law goes beyond the powers given the federal government by the Constitution" Personally I think that earlier appeals panels may have been more clear in their explanations when they discussed concern about the government locking up people simply because they had the potential to commit crimes in the future. This is a more conservative line of thinking, and one which I wholeheartedly support. (Perhaps the AP didn't pick the best quote from Thomas and Scalia, or maybe they're were having an uncharacteristically befuddled day...)
At the risk of alienating victim's rights advocates out there, let me say that while I am personally happy that this will lead to more lock-up time for sex offenders, I have to say that these kinds of laws are too dangerous for my taste. I think they will ultimately be detrimental to the cause, as the waters become ever more muddy when people begin to use the law for "political reasons" more than for the "protection of society." We need clear and concise laws making this reprehensible behavior punishable by frighteningly long prison terms.
For example, I can easily see authorities relying on the law during election years to extend the lock-up of sex offenders who were already seen as the dregs of society. Conversely, even during election years, I could never see them using this kind of law to hold a politically well connected sex offender like william hamilton ayres, because it would simply draw attention to mistakes that have been made by authorities in the past.
Personally, I think that victims advocate groups (and upstanding lawmakers) should be having frank discussions with the public about the reality of the damage that is caused by these kinds of crimes, and that the current levels of imprisonment and fines are not strong enough; are not commensurate with the damage done.
The law should directly address this, neither by extension of terms via add-on laws, nor by "civil commitment," but rather by extending the punitive durations and fines of the very crimes themselves, to bring them in line with the actual damage done. Let's lock these creeps up for a long time because we have duly convicted them of bad crimes, let's not leave long convictions to the whim of some committee later, as an afterthought. By the way, we need to do this NOW, not after we remove these constitutionally questionable laws.
All the same, as long as everyone's sliding down slippery slopes, this is one that I suppose I'll hop on.
Church Sex Abuse Defense Detailed:
According to Fox News, The Vatican has laid out their defense plans for us: In order to have pesky lawsuits dismissed, (and to prevent the Pope from getting subpoenaed and deposed), the Holy See will be arguing (among other things) that the US bishops who didn't report crimes are not their employees, and therefore the 1962 Vatican document barring bishops from reporting the crimes didn't apply to THOSE bishops.
Right.
A Prayer For Sincere Repentance from Catholic.org
Oh Most humane and adorable Jesus, Your endless grace and mercy flows forth. Before granting the gift of absolution To earnest repenters of sinful ways, You demanded a sacrificial compensation. For a wrongful act cannot be rectified Until punishment has been accepted! Yes, for the salvation of my soul, Jesus, You accepted the price of the Cross! Grant me the grace to remain free of debts, My heart remaining flawless before You, Making Your absolution truly worthwhile!
Anyone at the "Holy" See look up the definition of Repent lately?
Probably not. Too busy trying to figure out how to skirt responsibility for hiding molesters.
Jesus ain't there to be used and then chucked back into the Community Chest pile like a "get out of jail free" card. Ya gotta at least pause for long enough to actually have faith.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Catholic Molesters: Come on down!
Today, foxnews.com reports that pope Benedict XVI said:
[...]the clerical abuse scandal represents "the greatest persecution of the church," but said it was born from sins inside the church, not outside.
And he "called for profound purification and penance within the church as well as pardon and justice."
A. I'd like to know exactly what the "pardon and justice" part of this statement means. (Seems to me like he could have replaced that phrase with "business as usual.")
B. Why does this seem to me to be very reminiscent of alleged "psychiatrist" william hamilton ayres molesting lots of little boys, and then getting involved in writing “Practice Parameters for the Forensic Evaluation of Children and Adolescents Who May Have Been Physically or Sexually Abused” for the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. Hmmm... seems like a pattern of common behavior of molesters if you ask me...
Saturday, May 8, 2010
This Page Left Blank Intentionally
Melancholy, in abundance.
Cheers!
I love mankind - it's people I can't stand.
-Charles M. Schulz
Of the demonstrably wise there are but two: those who commit suicide, and those who keep their reasoning faculties atrophied by drink.
-Samuel Clemens
The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it.
-George Bernard Shaw
Nothing is more miserable than man,
Of all upon the earth that breathes and creeps.
-Homer
The Bible tells us to love our neighbors, and also to love our enemies; probably because they are generally the same people.
-G.K. Chesterton
I see it all perfectly: there are two possibilities, one can either do this or do that. My honest opinion and friendly advice is this: do it or do not do it, you will regret both.
-Kierkegaard
Idealism is what precedes experience; cynicism is what follows.
-David T. Wolf
Cheers!
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
This Evening's News
[Original post: 05/04/10 07:00pm ]
According to Mercyneal over at the websleuths.com blog, one of the in-statute victims will not be testifying in the re-trial, assuming it ever takes place. Mercyneal is a known and reliable source, so this is certainly accurate information. According to Mercyneal the victim lost an important job when he was out to testify in the last trial, and he can not afford to take this risk again.
We wish him and his family the all the best while he focuses on moving forward with his life. This has been tough for all, and I'm sure a million times tougher for those who had the tenacity to stand and testify against the animal in the first place, and they all certainly deserve to be able to focus and heal.
Micheal Stogner - Candidate for San Mateo County Supervisor Speaks Out
[Original post: 05/04/10 08:22am ]
Michael Stogner suggests rescinding the "Lifetime Achievement Award" issued by San Mateo County to william hamilton ayres in 2002:
On April 28th, at the Moss Beach Candidate's Forum for San Mateo County Supervisor District 3, Micheal Stogner, one of the five candidates for County Supervisor in the June 8, 2010 election, was asked what his first order of business would be when elected to office. Micheal Stogner's response was that he would make a motion to "Rescind the Life Time Achievement Award issued by San Mateo County to Dr. William Ayres."
There is no incumbent supervisor running for this particular seat, as it is being vacated by Rich Gordon who is moving on to other things. Ironically, it was Supervisor Rich Gordon who nominated ayres for the award in the first place. What a perfect way to close the door on Gordon's term!
Michael has been a stalwart supporter of the victims of william ayres for quite a long time, frequently attending hearings and last year's trial, and keeping citizens updated on the progress by posting on news boards. Indeed, Michael has a strong focus and interest in the San Mateo County workings, pushing for transparency and accountability.
When you're looking at your ballot, and you see Michael Stogner's name, check that box! He's been a compassionate and outspoken supporter of "the common man" and will work to make San Mateo County address its accountability issues!
Michael Stogner suggests rescinding the "Lifetime Achievement Award" issued by San Mateo County to william hamilton ayres in 2002:
On April 28th, at the Moss Beach Candidate's Forum for San Mateo County Supervisor District 3, Micheal Stogner, one of the five candidates for County Supervisor in the June 8, 2010 election, was asked what his first order of business would be when elected to office. Micheal Stogner's response was that he would make a motion to "Rescind the Life Time Achievement Award issued by San Mateo County to Dr. William Ayres."
There is no incumbent supervisor running for this particular seat, as it is being vacated by Rich Gordon who is moving on to other things. Ironically, it was Supervisor Rich Gordon who nominated ayres for the award in the first place. What a perfect way to close the door on Gordon's term!
Michael has been a stalwart supporter of the victims of william ayres for quite a long time, frequently attending hearings and last year's trial, and keeping citizens updated on the progress by posting on news boards. Indeed, Michael has a strong focus and interest in the San Mateo County workings, pushing for transparency and accountability.
When you're looking at your ballot, and you see Michael Stogner's name, check that box! He's been a compassionate and outspoken supporter of "the common man" and will work to make San Mateo County address its accountability issues!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)