Attorneys for Wayside Cross child sex offenders, Kane state’s attorney hold ‘productive’ meeting
Wayside Cross Ministries may not have won its latest battle with the city of Aurora, but at least it came away with a small victory Tuesday after a sit-down by attorneys for a group of child sex offenders living at the mission and Kane County State’s Attorney Joe McMahon.
McMahon’s office, which has remained tight-lipped about what the future holds for the men at Wayside Cross who a judge ruled are in violation of a child sex offender residency law, would only describe the meeting as “productive.”
Adele Nicholas, one of the attorneys representing Wayside residents, called the meeting “hopeful.”
It was Wayside Executive Director James Lukose who offered the most detail. Although he was not at the late morning gathering – nor was a city representative – he told me after talking to the men’s attorneys “it was very encouraging,” even heaping praise on McMahon for showing “compassion and kindness” for the 12 men involved who have yet to find homes.
Why does the press insist on overlooking that registrants have lived there for years without issue and the whole matter cropped up because a high profile convicted MURDERER moved there? Why do they also continue to overlook that high profile MURDERER whose residence there that started the controversy in the first place? Is that guy still there?
And sorry, I’m not persuaded by th County Attorney’s supposed compassion. This same guy lost this very issue in federal court so he took it to one of his blaack robed buddies on the court he virtually controls. Doesn’t strike me as compassion.
I must disagree. The press has NOT overlooked that people have been there for years. There was a great article in the same paper on February 5. The paper overlooks that other person who is there because he can legally be there. He is still there and has every legal right to be there. From what I know he is doing great and thriving in the program at Wayside.
The SA did not lose in the federal court. The SA was not even a party to that lawsuit. Only the city was. It was the city that made the motion that would have been approved to have it moved from federal to state court as the state law issues had to be decided first I guess.
There is some compassion. The SA can legally right now come into Wayside and force all of those men out immediately, and possibly even charge them with living within 500 feet of a “playground”, since they are all right now knowingly doing so. Not sure if he would win the criminal case in the long run but he had that option. As it stands right now he is giving Wayside time to find a place for all of these men to go to.
“Murder”??? No.
Why do people post this sort of sh*t. That sort of talk will eventually bring down FAC and all it’s trying to accomplish.
Go take that sort of talk somewhere else man.
Jacob – thanks for pointing that out and the comment has been removed. I’m sorry for letting that through. It should have been caught and moderated out. We will warn the person who made the post.
All this is double jeopardy. The registry isn’t just a registry it’s lifetime punishment far worse than standard conditions of probation not to mention the humiliation.
A sex offender expert with the Wisconsin Department of Corrections, Robert Fugate, on Monday discouraged the Harmony Town Board from passing an ordinance restricting where registrants could live in the town. The town board is listening, at least for now.
Some parts of this article might be bothersome, but some valid research is being shared in some communities of this nation — just not in many of the counties/municipalities of Florida, yet, and definitely not in Clay County, FL.
https://www.gazettextra.com/news/government/harmony-town-board-tables-sex-offender-ordinance-again/article_7bcc045f-5e58-5bc1-b3e8-b349e8116bb1.html
It’s always helpful for us to see how local boards view these issues nationwide, and how these views are evolving. I am grateful that we have a Media Chair who can identify such articles so that we don’t have to.
The very last line of this article is particularly striking, because it reminds us of the number one reason why residency restrictions remain popular. That reason, as we see here, is NOT public safety, and it is only a factor to the extent we have public (rather than police) registries.