|
News & Noteworthy © ---
Special report 6-23-07 |
|
Cox the Almighty, the Michigan AG sensationalizing again!
|
|
6-22-2007 Michigan:
Attorney general: Hundreds of Michigan sex offenders have MySpace pages |
.Attorney General Mike Cox announced today he has obtained a list of 200 known sex offenders who are using the popular Internet site MySpace, and has turned over the names to law enforcement agencies. The list of MySpace users who are on the state's sex offender registry will be made available today to the general public so parents can determine whether their children may be trading information with the sex offenders.
"Today should serve as a reminder to parents to continue to monitor the activities of their children on the Internet, as some registered sex offenders will continue to violate the law," Cox said. [[[SNIP]]] The attorney general said his office has filed a motion against one person on the list, Edward Mitchell Mulak of Ferndale, asking a judge to find him in violation of his probation because he is using MySpace, a social networking site frequently used by children and teens.
Mulak was convicted of possessing child pornography in 2006 and he's barred from using a computer as a condition of his probation, Cox said. [[[snip]]] Of the 200 registered sex offenders using MySpace, 28 are under DOC supervision for probation or parole and four have terms of supervision that specifically ban them from using a computer or the Internet.
..more..
: by Mark Hornbeck
|
.Every year there are thousands of Michigan probationers and parolees who commit technical violations of their supervision (See Michigan Recidivism 1990-2000) and AG Cox never attaches his name to a single one of them. Why just those who MAY HAVE a MySpace account? Selective prosecution? Or, selective persecution? Or, just sensationalism?
In the article AG Cox points out "Mitchell Mulak" as being on the MySpace list, but no such name appears on the list. So whats up, why pick on someone who is not even on the list? Does the AG have another reason for selecting this particular person for public persecution?
However, on AG Cox's list is a "Eddie Mulak" who is not on the Michigan Sex Offender Registry. Is "Mitchell Mulak" really "Eddie Mulak," and if so why select him out of the 28 which are under DOC supervision for public scrutiny? Well, I wonder if that is the "Eddie Mulak" who was arrested in 2006, see "Child Porn Arrest In Michigan" CBS News 5-10-2006.
If Eddie is that person CBS mentions then he cut quite a deal to testify against his then roomate Ken Gourlay. Apparently he was given probation for his testimony, probation for having some 48,000 (the number is right) pictures of child porn on his computers.
Now the question becomes, is that deal, which Cox was aware of according to his CNN interview, now about to be rescinded (broken) because Eddie had a MySpace account? Did Michigan check for MySpace accounts they cut the deal in 2006?
Mulak's MySpace Account:
Questions loom! Did Mulak have a MySpace account when he was arrested in 2006 which would mean it was setup BEFORE he went on probation? Is the AG attempting to renege on the previous plea deal, now considering a bad deal? If so, given 48,000 pictures, will it result in a life sentence if the judge sends him to prison. A hard learned lesson for Mulak.
Further, assume Mulak had the MySpace account BEFORE his conviction, has he accessed it SINCE his conviction? Only then would it be a violation of probation. But notice, there is no mention of anyone looking into these issues. Such could destory the AG's theory. We don't know and the State of Michigan certainly isn't going to release such information; remember their public image.
Did MySpace turn over to the AG, records which could show, who, when, and which specific computer accessed the MySpace account? Then, from that, can Michigan prove it was Eddie? It could be that the account is accessed by more than one person. There is no MySpace rule or law that ONLY ONE PERSON may use a specific account. Consider a husband and wife, or a parent and a child. Proving who was at the keyboard is critical to guilt.
The 6th Cir, in the case of Steven Warshak, just ruled that "E-mail Account Holders Have Right to Privacy" meaning a warrant is needed to access their e-mail records. Did the AG get a warrant to get at Mulak's recent access e-mails?
The Other 27 Under DOC Supervision:
Notice how carefully it is explained that, only four of them, three if you exclude Mulak, are banned from using a computer or the Internet. So what have they done except to try to live a normal life. MySpace has yet to put in their Terms of Agreement (TOA) that RSOs cannot setup accounts, yes MySpace has verbalized that they do not want them, but the TOA controls proper and improper.
No matter what the public or the AG feels, these folks have done no wrong. But, they have been wronged by the AG and MySpace actions, which is also true of the other 170 or so. Federal privacy laws: 5 USC 552a, govern how the AG is supposed to handle this information. The AG has violated their privacy rights as has MySpace.
Other Erroneous Information on the AG's List:
Given no way to match some names, the list is suspect, could MySpace have made a mistake? Also shown are folks with just "first names" (one is Tommy) and some with just "last names." From MySpace's point of view is everyone on MySpace with the first name of "Tommy" a Michigan registered sex offender? And what about those with just last names like "Bailey," "Dare," or "McFadden," are all MySpace users with those names Michigan RSOs? There are several folks shown on AG Cox's list which may or may not be RSOs. If Cox is wrong will they have an action against the State of Michigan?
Since anyone could take information about a RSO from the state's registry and setup a MySpace account, will the AG make certain that the accused RSOs actually setup those MySpace accounts before filing for probation or parole violations?
I'll close with this, did Eddie Mulak win $570,000 at the Detroit Casino in 2002? Is that the same Eddie Mulak as the one above? Thats up to readers to decide.
So many questions unanswered, and so many accusations are implied, what is the truth, and will the public ever know it? More importantly, will legislators seek the truth before any more knee jerk laws?
|
|
|
