Tag Archives: Child Predator

children, Free Article, Law Enforcement, Media, Opinions, predatory, Uncategorized

Did an accused child predator walk free?

Recently, we covered a case from Berwick, PA. in which Nathain Hisey, at the accusation of a 6yo child, was facing serious charges. Since that time, a lot has apparently happened. For instance, he was initially evicted from his home, as a result of the accusation. However, because he refused to stay away from the home, which his family still resided in, they too have met the same fate. However, the stream of bad luck, didn’t seem to end there.

During the case, he was not only evicted, but he also lost his job, lost friends, and the list of losses just seems to go on. Was this right? To be honest, the eviction should had waited for a final verdict. At this point, he has no conviction, and for our platform, that is all that matters. Of course, as you may already be aware, the court of public opinion can be a vicious one. On the flip side to this coin, the accusation was from a very young child, and that matters.

According to the court documents, and those who know him, the assault was conducted orally. Unfortunately for the family, as well as the victim, this sort of assault can be very difficult to prove. But there are other elements to this. According to sources involved with the case, the child was able to give detail description of the assailant’s genital region, including a mole that he allegedly has in the area. So how did this man simply walk? The simple answer: the case may not actually be over.

According to the docket, which we’ve included at the bottom of this article, the case status says closed. However, the disposition of the case states, “Held for Court.” This sounds a bit contradictory. But don’t worry, we’re going to explain what it very well could mean in this case. At that point, this docket will make a lot more sense.

Initially, there is a police investigation, that should be a bit obvious. However, this investigation may still be ongoing even while the initial court proceedings occur. Within the docket there are four key areas that one would want to observe to fully understand what’s happening. Bear in mind, however, it can still be confusing. These areas are as follows: Disposition, Disposition date, Processing status, and Case status. It is important to understand, before we proceed, that the below information is only pertaining to this docket. Other states may have different methods, terms, and so on, that are used. It is also important to note that this information is based on the terms as we know them, though none of the WoC team live in this specific state.

Disposition

The disposition is the easiest part to comprehend. To put it in simple terms, this shows the current ruling made by the court. It can say innocent, dismissed, guilty, held for court, or it could have something else written in there. If the individual is innocent, guilty, or dismissed, the case is over. However, with a dismissed status, it could potentially be reopened in the future. But that’s not what this docket says. Instead, it reads “held for court.” At this point, you want to observe the disposition date. This tells you when that decision was made, this is critical information if you’re wanting to follow a case and know what’s going on at that time.

Processing Status

This status is important as well. Unlike the disposition, this one can be a bit tricky to understand. To simplify this, we’ll just explain it. In a court proceeding, evidence, statements, etc. are submitted. Once this everything has been turned into the court, you may see something like “completed,” as is the case of the docket below. Without understanding this, it looks like the case is completed. The easiest way to comprehend this is through the term, ‘processing.’ The term process simply means, ‘to present.’ If you’re done presenting information, then it’s marked as completed.

Case status

In this docket, case status is not talking about the court proceedings, but rather the investigation. Once the investigation is complete, it’s marked as closed. At this point, all of the evidence would have been submitted and, from there, the courts will decide rather or not they can proceed with litigation. To figure out if the court has decided to move forward, you have to look at the ‘Disposition’ status. In the docket, the status reads, ‘Held for court,’ with the date 9/27/2022. This means that following that specific court date, Nahtain Hisey was incarcerated until further litigation; the case is not closed but appears to be going into the criminal court system.

In our title, we asked a simple question: Did an accused child predator walk free? The answer seems to be no. This conclusion, regardless of the closed case status, is made by the fact that the disposition of both charges read, ‘held for court.’ This is a strong indicator that there is enough evidence that the court has decided to proceed with further litigation. To help you better understand, we have included that docket as well.

document

MdjCourtSummary

Business relations, children, Consumer reports, Consumer Reports, Cyber, Free Article, internet safety, Law Enforcement, Media, Opinions, predatory

Man defends children from predator: Facebook’s response is appalling

It’s an all to common trend that we see online. Child predators who utilize social media as a means of targeting children. What is equally disturbing is how the social media giant, Facebook (Meta,) responds to those who defend against these individuals. For one Facebook user, however, the situation went further than just the social media site. The predator showed up at his house, unexpectedly and uninvited. So how does Facebook relate to a predator showing up to a man’s home? Before we get into that, let’s first go into the events that unfolded prior to the man’s account being “restricted” by the platform.

“Something felt off to me…”

According to the family, the registered sex offender, Lonnie Green had befriended the youngest adult sister. Though there is not much information as to how they met, the family did implicate Facebook as the method. At this time, neither the sister nor family, were aware of the fact that the man had just been placed onto the sex registry just months before. Though he was actively around children, he at no point, disclosed this information. However, that did not prevent the family from eventually finding out.

“When I met him, I don’t know if it was my law enforcement training, but something felt very off with this man.” The primary source informed us. He goes on to tell us that initially he began watching Lonnie, whom he repeatedly caught staring at his young nieces. “It was pretty screwed up, I would watch him as he’s watching them, he would see me and immediately divert his eyes to the horses.” Upon doing the background check on him, it was discovered that Lonnie had omitted some information about himself. That information was the fact that just a few months prior, he had been placed onto the Oklahoma sex offender’s registry for sexual acts with a minor under the age of 12.

Needing to alert his family, who was still oblivious to this information, he made a post onto Facebook. However, months later, that post has now gotten his account restricted. Why? According to Facebook, speaking out against a convicted pedophile, who is actively placing himself around small children, is considered “hate speech.” Meanwhile, the predator is allowed to maintain an active account, in complete violation of Facebook’s own terms of service. Why is this? Good question let’s discuss that very subject.

Facebook: The double standards

This situation isn’t the first of its kind, when it comes to Facebook. In fact, it happens more than what people may be aware. According to Facebook’s own policy, which we’ve posted below, a person who is on the registry is not allowed to have an account, and yet we see that happen on a near daily basis. When these accounts are reported, it seems that Facebook has taken the stance of punishing the individuals who report these accounts. But it goes beyond that. They have also apparently taken the position of restricting accounts who try to alert others of a predator’s presence. Let’s ignore the fact that this man now has access to countless children. Afterall, Facebook does. We can even ignore the fact that this predator utilized Facebook to befriend a mother, gain access into her real life, giving himself access to her children, and then proceeded to gain access to other children within a family. Again, Facebook clearly is ignoring this fact also. But why?

It’s no secret that there are a few progressives who wish to make pedophilia a recognized sexual orientation. Given the extreme views that Facebook has already demonstrated, it’s not to farfetched to believe that just maybe, Facebook shares in this ideology. After all, they’re apparently classifying it as hate speech to speak out against these people. Meanwhile, Facebook’s very own policy clearly states:

Convicted sex offenders aren’t allowed to use Facebook. If you’ve seen an account that may belong to a convicted sex offender, please report it to us.Make sure you provide one of the following types of information with your report:

http://www.facebook.com/help/210081519032737/?helpref=uf_share

Regardless of this policy, Facebook continues to create a dangerous and hostile environment within its platform. While the site consistently violates its own policies, it’s not a problem that has gone unnoticed. In fact, because of Facebook’s lack of responsibility toward its users, independent social media sites are on the uprise.

What happened in this situation is appalling, at best. The fact that speaking out against a predator, who is actively trying to gain access to children, as hate speech simply cannot go unnoticed, nor should it be ignored. While the individual only got restricted for a day, that isn’t the point here. The message that Facebooks conveyed in this action, matter. Worst, it’s as we’ve already stated, this isn’t an isolated event. The bottom line is this: From outer appearance, it looks as if Facebook is willfully protecting child predators at the expense of your right to protect your family.