Saturday, April 9, 2016

First Two Men Convicted from Child Trafficking Sting Walk with a Misdemeanor and Just Probation

See all the charged and convicted sex offenders since 2015 in Washington County at WCwatchdog.com.
See more articles like this warning you of released sex offenders in our area: http://wcwatchdog.com/local-sex-offender-articles/

4-26-15: Instead of just complaining we went to legislators bringing up this problem and 17 days later Senator Kathy Sheran sent us the proof she added to SF2862 (the bill to update the law on sex stings) to require convictions with victims 13 and under to register as predatory offenders. Rep Joan Ward and Cindy Pugh also helped make this happen late session. The bill passed 59-0!

-----------

In 2014 and 2015 the Washington County Attorney's office and local law enforcement set up two child sex trafficking "Sting" operations. It was very successful with 15 arrested. Four of those caught live in Washington County! Citizens responded and helped post:

Washington County Child Prostitution Sting "Suspects" Names, Photos, and Addresses

In our articles we explain the almost unbelievable problem in MN with registered sex offenders like convicted child rapists being completely anonymous from the public (Read the articles for details). Completely in line with this problem is the fact the first two men convicted from the child trafficking stings were convicted late March with only Misdemeanor convictions (after almost 2 years being free on the streets awaiting trial/conviction). Both men are free with barely a slap on the wrist with misdemeanor prostitution hire convictions it appears... which caries no jail time, no sex offender registration, and just some probation it appears.

Is showing up to a hotel room with skittles, condoms, and cash to sexually violate who he thought was a deaf 14 year old girl fit the conviction received of hiring a prostitute? Essentially these guys had what they thought was a loaded gun to the head of a 14 year old deaf child's innocence and pulled the trigger only to find out the gun was not loaded and there was no child.

Pete Orput, the head of the Washington County Attorney's office said last year that sex trafficking of minors was "the most egregious crime that could be committed" when explaining why Washington County needed our own sex trafficking unit (which he was given). Orput said the ultimate goal was to "find the bastards and pile on" http://www.woodburybulletin.com/news/crime-and-courts/3885950-coalition-forms-combat-sex-trafficking

Yet:

The first men caught in the prostitution stings were handed down their punishments...after they appeared to have made a plea deal. The County prosecutor for the cases states the plea deals are made to avoid costly and lengthy trials. Also to avoid the chance of these offenders being found not guilty. By offering the plea deal on lesser charges they get the guilty verdict. In our opinion that does not seem like justice. Yes resources are limited; but why should that get in the way of the prosecution? Does handing out plea deals like this show the County Attorney is "Finding the bastards and piling on?"

Write our County Commissioners to better fund the County Attorney's Office so they can prosecute to the fullest extent of the law:fran.miron@co.washington.mn.us; gary.kriesel@co.washington.mn.us; lisa.weik@co.washington.mn.us; karla.bigham@co.washington.mn.us; stan.karwoski@co.washington.mn.us

The other half of the weak punishment coin is MN sentencing guidelines and MN law. We found this out last year when law makers followed our request to DOUBLE the punishment for Child Trafficking from 10 years/ $20,000 to 20 years/ $40,000. We found the effort was a waste because sentencing guidelines force judges to hand out basically 2 years probation and a $50 fine see the dozen+ examples:

http://wcwatchdog.com/local-sex-offender-articles/

From Kare11: “We know of no other state in the union with sentencing as weak as Minnesota’s for child sexual exploitation.”
Report: MN weak on protecting children from exploitation

Write legislators to find ways to increase the penalties for child predators like this. http://www.leg.state.mn.us/leg/districtfinder

Michael Tallman

1.) MICHAEL LEONARD TALLMAN

He arranged to meet who he thought was a 14 year old "deaf" child for sex. Stating he wanted to teach her about sex.

He brought skittles to the arranged meeting place where he was arrested.

Tallman, Michael Leonard 82-CR-15-3967.pdf

Sentenced on March 2016

CONVICTION: Prostitution Hire

SENTENCE: 30 days jail and 2 years of probation, $1,000 fine, psychosexual evaluation and treatment, and no contact with minors.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxFL7FIlX7ijTVhZaVJrU2I1eXc/view?usp=sharing

2.) BRIAN PATRICK O'BOYLE DOB:

County says computer
down. No photo of O'Boyle

He arranged to meet who he thought were two girls in a hotel room who were 14 and 15

years old and the price for a half hour was $80 and $125 for the full hour.

O'Boyle, Brian Patrick 82-CR-15-3964.pdf

Sentenced on March 2016

CONVICTION: Prostitution - Hire

SENTENCE: 30 days in jail, $1,000 fine, 2 years of probation, and take all medications as prescribed.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxFL7FIlX7ijTUpZVmktZjNDM1k/view?usp=sharing

Also see:

Washington County Sex Offenders. Names, Photos, Addresses.

Washington County Child Prostitution Sting "Suspects" Names, Photos, and Addresses

Rampant Sex Crime on Children, in Just 2yrs, 10 Cases From County Alone, 8 Simple Laws to Update

*In no way do we wish harm to the convicted sex offenders outside the judgement of the law. Posting each criminal's data allows the public to decide from the evidence if they appreciate knowing such data. Such as what these sex offender's last known address is. No representation is made that the individuals listed here are currently on the state's offenders registry. All names presented here were gathered at a past date. Some persons listed might no longer be registered offenders and others might have been added. Some addresses or other data might no longer be current. Owners of Washington County Watchdog assume no responsibility (and expressly disclaim responsibility) for updating this site to keep information current or to ensure the accuracy or completeness of any posted information. All data was only accurate at the time of posting per Government sources provided. Accordingly, you should confirm the accuracy and completeness of all posted information before making any decision related to any data presented on this site. The information on this web site is made available solely to protect the public. Anyone who uses this information to commit a crime or to harass an offender or his or her family is subject to criminal prosecution and civil liability. Message us if you can verify us of an address or change in data. Washington County Watchdog is not responsible for the accuracy of the content shared, refer to our linked government sources.

Wednesday, March 23, 2016

Representative Fenton's Bill to Give Washington County Final Say Over it's City's Economic Development

Latest on Representative Fenton:

Seven Reasons Rep. Kelly Fenton was a Terrible Choice for a Republican Assistant Majority Leader

Update: The bill passed

Cities of Washington County can look forward to being trampled by the County if they think their city shouldn't do as the County wishes.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
""city" means county and "city council" means county board."these 9 words are in HF2820 / SF2520 that's currently backed by every legislator in Washington County to change the 233 pages that make up "Minnesota Statute, section 469: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT".

The authors of the bill Representative Kelly Fenton (R) district 53B and Senator Katie Sieben (D) district 54 did a great job presenting this as an innocent jobs promotion bill to update existing law. It flew through the House committee early March and it wasn't until March 18th did we realize this bill most likely has an underlying motive besides it's superficial claims.

On the surface HF2820 / SF2520 appears to be as the legislators claim. A bill that is "Reforming and Streamlining County Government" by granting "economic development" power to the Washington County Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA). It initially appears to be a good idea... why not let the County get involved with Economic development? However, we read the entire proposal and the original law... Nothing in the proposed changes to the law indicates this is anything but encroaching on cities.

"Economic development" as it's written in the law is currently granted to cities (469.091). Cities have the final say to bring in outside help (such as a county) (469.094). In fact, the current law explicitly protects cities with their own economic development power from an over reaching county:

469.1082:
"Any county that has granted economic development powers to a community development agency or a county housing and redevelopment authority under any of these provisions may not form a county economic development authority or grant a housing and redevelopment authority the powers specified in subdivision 4, clause (2)." (emphasis added)

Think... if this bill was such a great idea than:

1.) Why is it only for Washington County?

2.) Why is it at this time? (two months after Lake Elmo kicks the Gateway Corridor out)

3.) Why hasn't it been done for any of the 87 counties in the 158 years that the MN legislature has been meeting? (1857 was the first convention)

It's clearly a plan to at the least duplicate the economic power city's have and as our first sentence points out it supplants it with the County. Republicans are supposed to be the party of eliminating red tape, duplicate services, and cutting taxes. So we sent this email on March 18th and received no response from legislators: "Every Republican Legislator in WC, what's with growing government with HF2820/SF2520?!" Steve Ellenwood, who announced he's is going to run against Fenton for abandoning her conservative base, responded:

"I stand with you. Stop, we've had enough government intervention into our lives and pocket books!"

On Monday March 21st we testified for the Senate Committee on State and Local Government against the bill. My testimony had four reasons to not pass HF2820 / SF2520 through:

1.) It duplicates the power cities have to manage their own "economic development." At worst, city and county economic development powers may not agree and the conflict could end in the city being trampled. ie: if Washington County wanted to force them to accept high density housing or a transit corridor they just kicked out.
2.) Cities and to a greater extent: the private sector free market, is the best at identifying and providing economic development to a property (ie: store placement)

3.) Having followed every Washington County board meeting for the last 3 years I'm familiar with the workings of the HRA. The HRA board in WC is stacked with un-elected ideologues with no qualifications, perhaps good intentions, and the power over millions of tax dollars. Often the person appointed to the position for a given area by the County board is the only person to volunteer. With HF2820 / SF2520 they want to give this unaccountable board "Economic Development" power?!!!! yeah they have to get their budgets approved by the County Board... Mind you, this is the same county board that's tripled the county debt in the period of 8 years (and we're adding another 20 million this year):County Debt Tripled in the Last Seven Years, the Board Undeterred: Budget Passes

4.) Government "Economic development" if that's not essentially the power to redistribute wealth and pick winners and losers, we don't know what is... it's one thing to give local governments the "Housing and Redevelopment" power which is essentially subsidizing high density housing and empowering them to prepare blighted land for development... but it's a huge stretch to start granting counties economic development power to ... even for democrats. At least with cities that exceed the ability for businesses to survive the business can move the next city over, keep their employees, and survive.

Representative Fenton emailed back this response denying any ulterior motivation.... Yet she also happens to be the author of HF1617 to fund the Gateway Corridor that was just kicked out of Lake Elmo. It's not a stretch to claim that she needs this bill to give Washington County the power to tell Lake Elmo what's best for them.

Although Fenton is correct about the HRA maintaining their current power that's about the only thing she's correct on in her response. You will notice she doesn't back any of her statements with quotes from the law change proposal that is HF2820 / SF2520 or in the 233 page law it proposes to change: "Minnesota Statute, section 469: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT"

The rest of Fenton's statements are a mix of semantics with misinformation. Laughable is the comment about how she believes the private sector is what drives the economy since this bill gives the government more power to manipulate the private sector (through the HRA) and what the free market could do with property if the government could just leave well enough alone...

Just ask Cottage Grove:

They go through more big box stores than a teenager on black Friday. But that's their freedom, they elect city councilors that like to micro manage. In turn they attract businesses to their high tax, high red tape, area the only way they know how: By offering up short term candy with their economic development power (EDA)... only to watch them eventually flee: Home Depot, Famous Dave's, Rainbow Foods, the drive in movie theater (on and on)... Not mention the Epic failure their business center is:

http://www.swcbulletin.com/news/education/3842459-after-bleeding-money-out-future-uncertain-cottage-grove-business-enterprise

But if Cottage Grove wants to have a $16 million dollar city hall, pay for a city run Golf Course, pay millions for a YMCA even though south Woodbury has one 5 minutes away... then they can keep reap the consequences of their strategy to bait stores to build there... while they keep leaving when the favoritism expires.

Point is: Don't mess with the will of the citizens of Cottage Grove (or Lake Elmo, that is the opposite in that they keep things small town)

Fenton says "The proposed will compliment municipal economic development and not impede it." Compliment municipal power is an assumption... Sure a city and the county could have mutual goals to bring "fortune 500 companies" in. However, that's not true for cities like Lake Elmo who denied Cabella's their request to build there (so they went to woodbury). Again, it's a tinder box for the County board to say their economic development ideas are better that a city like Cottage Grove or Lake Elmo's EDA wants.

another example:
Washington County offered an elderly 80+ year old man just $423,500 for his historic farmstead in prime Lake Elmo location. He refused so the County took him to court and took his land from him behind the City of Lake Elmo's back:

There isn't a need to change the law to allow the County to help a city prosper.

The County Just created their own EDA in 2015 in preparation for this. There was no need to do this and it cost tax payers $210,000. More in the years to come:

ie:

Washington County is working very closely with Afton on their Main Street road project. Tailoring parking spaces, lighting, and everything to the individual needs of each block... they don't need a law to cooperate or advocate for the city. OR when it came to Washington County who helped Lake Elmo get the trucking company Valley Cartage lured in with a tax abatement deal (because taxes in St. Croix Wi are way lower)... the county didn't need Economic Development power to help:

http://patch.com/wisconsin/hudson-wi/valley-cartage-trucking-company-unveils-new-lake-elmo-facility_36b7642a

Fenton says it "will NOT duplicate or replace work of cities and other public agencies." HF 2820 completely duplicates the cities economic development power! That's the whole point of the law.

Don't take my word for it, here's the proof in HF2820 / SF2520:

They change the language of the law to specifically undermine cities in Section 1 of the law change!:
"For purposes of applying Minnesota Statutes, sections 469.090 to
469.1081, to Washington County, notwithstanding Minnesota Statutes, section 469.090,
subdivision 3, "city" means county and "city council" means county board." (emphasis added) It appears: Good bye "city" and "city council"!

Still don't believe me... here's how they change section 2 of the law:
"Washington County ~~Housing and Redevelopment Authority~~

Community Development Agency includes all of the area within the territorial boundaries
of the county and includes the areas within the boundaries of every city in the county
and the
~~area~~ areas of operation of city housing and redevelopment authorities
and city economic development authorities
in the county..." (emphasis added)... no language to say the cities have the last word.

Perhaps it's still not clear... Section 2a changes:
"Washington County Community Development Agency shall act and have exclusive jurisdiction for economic
development, housing, or redevelopment duties in the statutory or home rule charter city or township" (emphasis added) if that doesn't say 'we own you cities' we don't know what else can convince you.

There's one tidbit to potentially give cities power and that's the final rule change... BUT... it's limited to "projects" so a great way to screw a city is to say it's not an economic development project... it's a transit project (pick your label). ie: foreign truck manufactures get around the truck import tax by shipping trucks in without their truck beds attached and claim they're not technically trucks. Political Semantics: Section 3 subdivision 2

"the project must be authorized by resolution of the governing body of the statutory or home rule charter

city or township with respect to each identified parcel of property" ... but remember the first change in the language of the law ""city" means county and "city council" means county board." So with clever quoting Fenton, and supporters, can claim that cities keep their rights while conveniently failing to mention that the law essentially erases the power of the city council by supplanting the County over City's rights.

Lastly, and most importantly:

She says "This bill follows the same process taken by CDAs established in Dakota, Scott, and Carver counties." Funny, because none of the 87 counties in MN find the need to change the law: "Minnesota Statute, section 469: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT" Yes, we read all 233 pages of current law and nowhere in the law does it say anything about other counties getting special economic development power. In fact if you search for these other Counties their names don't even appear in all 233 pages of the law!

Yes they can trample City rights with the proposal via the current law and it's VERY easy:

469.004 COUNTY AND MULTICOUNTY AUTHORITIES. subdivision 1:
"No county authority shall transact any business or exercise any powers until the governing body of the county, by resolution, finds that there is need for a county authority to function in the county. The governing body shall consider the need for a county authority to function (1) on the governing body's own motion or (2) upon the filing of a petition signed by 25 qualified voters of the county asserting that there is need for a county authority to function in the county and requesting that the governing body so declare. The governing body shall adopt a resolution declaring that there is need for a county authority to function in the county if it makes the findings required in section 469.003, subdivision 1."

ie: the county can simply create a "motion" (a vote) and find 25 voters (might as well be zero) and simply decide what's best for any given city in WC.

The fact is this law does not need to be changed to do the things Fenton claims it will do for cities. Current law gives Counties all the power and freedom to work with cities that they need. The word "county" is mentioned 540 times in the law! Yet city is mentioned 1,370 times in the law... this points to the fact that the law should remain as is. That cities know what's best for themselves and Counties are not prevented from helping them.

Why undo literally everything with these words 9 words in HF2820 / SF2520: ""city" means county and "city council" means county board."?

All the cities need to wake up to the motivation that is behind this law. HF2820 / SF2520 is an insult to every city, township, and municipality in Washington County and to the tax payers and voters of the cities.

Please tell you legislator to take their names off the bill:
Find out who your legislator is here: http://www.gis.leg.mn/OpenLayers/districts/

Seven Reasons Rep. Kelly Fenton was a Terrible Choice for a Republican Assistant Majority Leader
Representative Fenton's New Woodbury Lodging Tax Bill is a Slap in the Face to New Hotels and GOP

At Her Own Crossroads: Will Representative Fenton Lead or Appease
Four GOP Legislators are Silent After Attempt to Sneak Funding for Mass Transit in Omnibus Bill

Exclusive: 8 local Republican Legislators Explain their Position on Transit

Surprise, surprise... still a month after

Lake Elmo Kicks the Gateway Corridor

out the Corridor planners are reporting to the county board they're still planning to roll through Lake Elmo. No mention

of the boot they got the month prior.

How good it will be to have Fenton's Bill to tell Lake Elmo what's best for them?

Wednesday, March 16, 2016

Over 40 Red Rock Corridor Decision Makers Unable to Provide Answers About New Route

Update 5-2018: South Washington County's Red Rock Corridor "Terminated"!

12-21-16:
Red Rock Corridor Faces Delays as 7 Facts Become Undeniable

10-26-16 Open House: A tax payer who attended, printed out this article and asked the County Staff at the event to answer the one Question from the Original 3 we asked in December 2015. The corridor planner at the event, Lyssa Leitner, did not know the answer. She put him in contact with the contracted planner who stated they were not familiar with the Red Line. Which still does not answer the question about the ridiculous low cost estimate of the project.

8-16 update: We still had no response so we asked again on the 15th and Commissioner Greene responded "With your blessing I'd like to run a little interference for Lyssa Leitner. With all the back-and-forth, and then the permanent state of flux caused by the legislative session, and the lack of a special legislative session, she has really had her hands full - and will for the foreseeable future."

This is of course a disturbing response from an elected official so we responded to all 40 leaders asking why one question can not be answered. See the email: "8 months to respond to one serious Red Rock Corridor Q is not time enough?"

7-16 update: We didn't get a response so we brought it down to just one question. How can this new route possibly cost 62% less than the already built $112 million dollar Red Line Corridor in Apple Valley, have the same number of stations, yet be over twice the length (13 vs 30 miles)?

3-16 update: still no answers despite Commissioner Greene of Hennepin County trying to help. So we emailed her that if the six questions were too pressing than how about at least these two questions. She agreed to try to get one of the 40+ leaders to get answers:

"two unanswered questions that even supporters of the project are very interested to know:

I: Why not include feeder bus lines to the corridor from outside communities and limit the station stops so riders are not taking over an hour to make a trip that would only take 20 minutes in a car?

II: How can this new route possibly cost 62% less than the already built $112 million dollar Red Line Corridor in Apple Valley? It has the same number of stations, yet the Red Rock Corridor will be over twice the length (13 vs 30 miles)"

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This post is part 3 on the coverage of the now approved Red Rock Corridor (RRC) route change that has doubled the number of station stops from 6 to 12, among other changes. The planners call it "The Implementation Plan".
Part 1 began with the following post in December 2015 how Washington County Refuses to Disclose Latest Red Rock Corridor Cost Analysis.
Part 2 in January 2016 revealed Proof Washington County Mislead us all about the Red Rock Corridor.

The RRC Commission was unphased and on January 28th 2016 they approved the route change while the public had no access to the study data they based their decision on. On February 26th, the Implementation plan data was finally posted for the public.

To prove to you that every single decision maker with this corridor could care less about the unaccountable disaster that this corridor has become we emailed over 40 leaders involved with the corridor decision making (posted below). we asked them to at least answer our questions. Only Hennepin County Commissioner Marion Greene responded. On February 16th Greene asked if her summarized version of my questions were correct (they were). She has yet to follow up. Even as of July 2016 when we emailed again asking if there's an answer. (and multiple more times)

we reviewed the Implementation Plan data and emailed my interpretation to the same 40+ decision makers and also received no reply.

Quick Recap:

We know the plan reworks the corridor in an attempt to add ridership to the project at the cost of functionality. With the sacrifice of speed (the whole point of Bus "Rapid" Transit) they doubled the transit stops and took the buses further off the highway to loop about a larger service area. On paper, the plan doubles their service; however it will now take just over an hour to make a commute that would take 20 minutes in a car.

We also know the plan attempts to rewrite history on the original cost estimate of the 6 stop corridor in order to make the cost of the 12 stop plan appear better. However, this tactic is not new, they took the $75 million quote on the 6 stop corridor plan in the 2007 AA study and brought it down to $45 million in the 2013 AAU study.

What's new:
In the Implementation plan data we found the huge cuts in costs were from apparently making up new costs from their previous studies with decreases in expense estimates on not only quantity but also unit costs... even for the same previously studied 6 stop BRT route.

For example, on the 2013 AAU study it was assumed a bus costs $700,000 on average and that 20 buses were needed for $14.3 million (p.7 of AAU pdf). In the Implementation plan they miraculously drop to just $500,000 and say they only planned to need 9 buses for the same 6 stop route for a cost that was only $4.7 million (p.16). That's almost $10 million dollar difference for what's supposed to be the same route's bus needs!

This is just for the bus costs!

Three of their own different studies (AA, AAU, and Implementation) with the same exact route plan (a 6 stop BRT corridor) should not have very different cost estimates of $75, $45, and $28.6 million respectively... At least not without serious explanation. All citizens have is silence and no answers to valid questions.

Again, to the 40+ elected and appointed officials below: This is your project with our (tax payer) money. Does no one care?