Loading ...
HELP US STOP JUDGE MARK HAYES’ RULING FROM SHUTTING DOWN THE INTERNET CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN TASK FORCE
The children of South Carolina are at risk. They have become the target of a rogue activist judge – a man whose job is based around an oath to seek justice, and justice alone – who has employed his radical left-wing tactics to shut down a successful task force aimed at catching online sexual predators.
And as a result, dozens of individuals that use the Internet to victimize minors could be released from having to face justice;
free to once again prey on the innocent youth of this state.
WE CANNOT ALLOW THIS TO HAPPEN.
In a ruling last month, Circuit Court Judge Mark Hayes of Spartanburg unjustifiably claimed that the Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force was using a federal law to obtain information on Internet predators that is not supported by South Carolina law. And as such, he ordered the task force to cease use of what’s known as a federal “d-order” under Title 18 of the U.S. Code, Section 2703(d), which forces companies to disclose subscriber information.
According to the Spartanburg Herald-Journal, this allows investigators to build probable cause for an arrest. If Hayes’ ruling is upheld, the state would have no legal recourse to require businesses to divulge the information. And much of what has already been collected would be inadmissible in court.
In all, 85 cases are in jeopardy of being thrown out for absolutely no reason.
But the federal d-order has already been upheld by another circuit court judge. And in the last five years, state Supreme Court Chief Justice Jean Toal issued three administrative orders permitting judges statewide jurisdiction over matters arising from the use of d-orders.
Thankfully, Attorney General Henry McMaster has refused to suspend the task force and has instructed its members to continue going after predators. McMaster has appealed Hayes’ ruling but admits that if the decision stands, there is little he can do to proceed with many of the cases and that the task force would lose much of its functionality.
“Frankly, it’s a much worse scenario than we originally thought,” Mark Plowden, a spokesman for McMaster, told the Herald-Journal. “The consequences of that order being upheld are dire.”
And that’s an understatement.
Of the previous arrests, Plowden said 24 have resulted in guilty pleas and two defendants have been found guilty at trial. The task force has had overwhelming success in catching these perverts – making their 85th arrest Thursday – and there is absolutely no rationale behind this judge’s decision.
This is a clear case of judicial activism at its worst. Here we have an attorney general who has devoted countless resources to successfully protecting our children through sound legal means, yet it may be all for not because a liberal judge wants to needlessly skirt the law in favor of an ambiguous legal loophole – which may not even exist.
We must stop Hayes before another innocent person is hurt. Every time a child is victimized because of this decision, Hayes will be responsible. And if we do nothing to stop him, so too will we.
Please help us prevent this travesty from happening. We ask that you sign the petition to save the Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force and show your support for Attorney General Henry McMaster in fighting Hayes’ crusade against our children.
[...] House Contact the Webmaster Link to Article supreme court Judicial activism threatens safety of S.C. children » Posted at The [...]
Scoop, this post is pretty over the top. I don’t even really know where to begin but I will start with a few basics.
1. Even without part(d) they could still subpoena those records
2. “They have become the target of a rouge activist judge ” do you really think this judge’s aim is to target children? If you took a step back you might even consider this judge knew he would tak heat from this ruling, yet decided so anyway based on his interpretation of the law. A judge’s job is to rule objectively and NOT make his opinion based what he would like for the outcome to be – that would be judicial activism.
3. Chief Justice Toal’s cotinuous order to the about what their judicial subject matter jurisdiction is, when not authorized by statute, and furthemore not coming to her through a case in controversy is judicial activism or ‘legislating from the bench’ in its most raw form.
4. McMaster’s decision ignore the order, if your reporting is correct on that, instead of just getting a temporary restraining order to continue operations, while appealing the ruling in the case is actually a form of lawlessness that should not be championed but rather scrutinized.
5. Outside of just getting a subpoena or warrant based on the information garnered from the potential arressttee, there are several other methods investigators can use to trap and snare on-line predators and the most effective tactic – as these cases are very hard to get convictions on without it – is to get the predator to ‘meet’ somewhere, which shows his or her actual intent to commit the crime and PC for an arrest – not to mention identityis very quickly forth coming upon arrest in most cases and the PC for search warrants of the person’s computers while they are in jail and not at their residence with an opportunity to thwart authorities.
This is not your best work scoop, and I believe closer consideration would have keep you from writing hurtful things about a judge who actually did his duty as he saw fit EVEN WHEN IT WAS OBVIOIUSLY HIGHLY UNPOPULAR. If you think sticking to what one believes is a narrow constructtion of the law despite the fact that the outcome you would hope for is not the one you will get, then your idea of judicial activism is keenly interesting.
Have you actually read the order? I’m guessing not. It’s a lot easier to launch into inflammatory “rogue judges” rhetoric than it is to do the homework. My suggestion: Post the order itself and let’s take a look at it.
Too bad children don’t have as many rights as the child molesters.
[...] Comments David O. on Judicial activism threatens safety of S.C. childrennotverybright on Judicial activism threatens safety of S.C. childrenSilence Dogood on Judicial [...]
How dare a judge actually expect law enforcement to follow the law? What could he have possibly been thinking?
This type of “victimless” crime is too far out of hand and I applaud the judge for ensuring that there is a real victim. My own son was a victim of this illegal power to arrest on a mandatory one year minimum sentence in another state simply because he wanted to try and “change” the immoral path of the supposedly underage girls on Internet chat. In fact, there was no victim and now my son faces a lifetime of registration as a sex offender along with a felony conviction and from 1-10 years in prison fro trying to turn a wayward girl from straying down the wrong path in life. As you can see, there’s two sides to every picture when it comes to a victomless arrest with the Internet and crime task forces backed with lots of money. Who’s the real victom is a question that judges need to grapple with on these new types of “thought” crimes without a real person involved. The power of police was abusive enough without the new power to arrest someone without an actual crime or victim — except for the person arrested, of course. This new Victomless crime has got to be struck down as illegal until a suitable procedure is developed that protects the accused as well as the victom. Oh, I forgot —there is no victime with the current legislation !!!
It is about time that a judge would rule according to the state law. The task force is using entrapment which is illegal. I’m sorry, but parents need to have more control over their children and how they use the internet. There are many internet filters. Put the blame where it lies. Parents should be punished for what their children are doing illegally on the internet. Children today not nieve.
Too bad Judge Hayes was just DOING HIS JOB. The men that were tracking the sex offenders weren’t. THEY were the ones breaking the law.
“Saving our children” shouldn’t involve stopping a Judge who was following the law. It should involve STOPPING THE SEX OFFENDERS. Hayes is NOT “crusading against the children.” If anyone is, YOU ARE, for wasting so much time and energy trying to bring down Judge Hayes instead of trying to bring down the sex offenders.
Regarding post by S. Puckett:
Great posting. I totally agree with you on your view of thought” crimes without a real person invloved, and the abusive power of Federal Agents to make everyone believe that any person charged is “QUILTY until proven Innocent” I am glad to see That Judge Mark Hayes has the courage to make such ruling. This “Thought/Victomless Crime” prosecution has turned into a “WITCH HUNT”…and you are very correct in stating “there’s 2 sides to every picture when it comes to a victomless arrest with the Internet and crimetask forces backed with lots of money.”
I am trying to find the S tate Law that Judge Hayes used to rule against the Federal Law…I be so grateful if someone could provide me with that information.
Here is my question(s)
If people are caught and charged by the US Federal agents for possesing Child Porn on
their computers, just how many times can of viewing such a image, cause “damage, much less virtual rape” of a child….and since the Federal Statues go on a point system, should they carged a person for Virtural Rape” with one or two points…
1 point for one eye, or 2 points for 2 eyes….hope you understand what I am saying..the federal and state laws regarding possession of child porn…leave little space for individual interpetation at this time…like I mentioned, there are 2 sides to every story. So if someone is charged with this crime…they better pray they get charged with a state crime…vs. a Federal crime. What really irks me is most people charged with such a crime ( I am talking about receiving and not making, or producing the images)….then a person might as well “do the actual crime, vs. “virtual crime”
because as it stands now with the government, the perp. will get about the same time for each…another contention….if viewing such pictures,images are against state/federal as considered such a crime…then it very unlawful for any prosecutor,
defendant’t lawyer, judge, jury to view any of these pictures/images, as all who view them will be quilty of Federal Sections 2252(a)(2)(A) and/or 2252A9A(2), Title 18, US Code. So, how is a person to get a fair juiry trial?
Good job judge hayes , i know that his career will be effected by this . i think that he did a right thing and is following the the law , to bad other judges and attorney are not .