Feds obtain sealed case of Ritter's arrest

AP | 1/25/03

[Mo1]

And I think that the judge in New York should threaten her with a lawsuit. HA!

That's what I was thinking after reading her remarks ...

WOW that was really stupid of her ..

[cyncooper]

Excellent work in bringing it to the attention of others besides Crier herself.

The tack she chose to take during this interview was clearly dictated by Ritter himself, or someone on his behalf. How else would she have been able to review "bunches of information".

War-room strategy was put into effect and she betrayed her bias by buying what Ritter was selling.

[cyncooper]

WOW!!! .. that is one hell of an accusation to make with NO FACTS to back it up.

And she didn't dream it up out of thin air, you can be sure. Her willingness to accept this representation revealed her sympathies for what the likes of Scott Ritter represents regarding his anti-war/anti-Bush stance, IMO.

Might I point out, too, that this talking point was floated and no other media have picked up the ball and run with it. Could it be that on actual investigation it did, indeed, turn out to be false?

I know freepers have been looking into it and have not found her charges to be true, so far. Other media surely must have been eager to check it out, too.

Shocking that she discussed it as if it were established fact.

[Howlin]

Word for word.

[Mo1]

And she didn't dream it up out of thin air, you can be sure. Her willingness to accept this representation revealed her sympathies for what the likes of Scott Ritter represents regarding his anti-war/anti-Bush stance, IMO.

I don't care what party Ritter is registered with and I don't care whether he is for or against the war with Iraq

WHAT I DO care about is the fact that the POS was surfing the internet trying to pick of UNDERAGED GIRLS for HIS pleasures

And if Ms. Crier can't figure out what is important then she is NO BETTER then Ritter

That fact that she would try to direct blame towards ANYONE else besides Ritter SPEAKS VOLUMES

I watched the Aaron Brown interview and even he looked disgusted by what Ritter did

Ok .. Rant off

[nicmarlo]

I'm writing some emails today.

Keep us posted!

[nicmarlo]

AND I just certainly hope that a sitting town Judge isn't violating someone's rights by passing off sealed records to the media.

Disgusting!

And how!

[nicmarlo]

I'd be more than happy to help someone get the articles posted.... :) There are some on this thread, Miss Marple.....I can't remember the post numbers of them, many were posted this a.m. though.

[nicmarlo]

no, thank YOU! : )

[TLBSHOW]

Your going to love this one.

I called my local paper (rat paper) and asked if they would be doing the Scott Ritter story.

They said they hadn't seen it and they use AP and it hasn't come over AP yet, so I directed them to it from AP and they said we still don't see it sorry.

Then she asked was there any thing new today.

I directed them to the fed story from Ap and she came back and said nope I don't see it, sorry.

[aristeides]

Did Ritter cross a state line with the prohibited intent to engage in a sexual act, or did he engage in such a prohibited sexual act "in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States"? Maybe there's some case law or legislative history indicating he did, but, without such authorities, it's certainly not clear to me.

[nicmarlo]

That I don't know, but Bonaparte quote a U.S. code... is it 18 USC 1243??

[aristeides]

According to findlaw.com, there is no 18 USC 1243. I strongly suspect there is some basis for federal jurisdiction, since I'm fairly sure the feds have prosecuted such crimes in the past. But, as I read 18 USC 2243, it doesn't look as if it provides jurisdiction.

[nicmarlo]

I misquoted, it's this: TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 109A - SEXUAL ABUSE

Sec. 2243. Sexual abuse of a minor or ward

STATUTE

(a) Of a Minor. - Whoever crosses a State line with intent to engage in a sexual act with a person who has not attained the age of 12 years, or, in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States or in a Federal prison, knowingly engages in a sexual act with another person who -

(1) has attained the age of 12 years but has not attained the age of 16 years; and

(2) is at least four years younger than the person so engaging; or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 15 years, or both.

[aristeides]

And do you think Ritter either crossed a state line with the intent to commit a prohibited sexual act with a minor, or engaged in such an act in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States?

[bvw]

Speaking of San Diego, the Bucc's just TD'd! Hooray!

[nicmarlo]

I do not know of what the Feds are seeking information on....and I don't know if they have "particular" jurisdiction over ALL internet traffic.....we shall probably learn more, as I am unfamiliar with internet laws, although, I assume, it is a federal, rather than state, jurisdiction.

[nicmarlo]

and why the heck are you not watching the SUPER BOWL? (you know, the game where men chase around a brown spherical ball, and in between times, there are really good commercials, for once? : )

[aristeides]

Well, I'm not sure exactly what the "special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States" precisely entails either, but notice that that part of section 2243 requires the knowing commission of a sexual act, not just an attempt, or the crossing of a state line with the intention. At least as the story has been reported so far, we still have no evidence that Ritter actually engaged in such an act with a minor.

Also, I hadn't focused on the ages the statute mentions until now. Crossing the state line has to be with the intent to engage in a sexual act with someone less than 12 years old. So even the 14-year-old in Ritter's case does not qualify. And the other prong, where the sexual act has actually been committed, has to be for someone younger than 16, so that, in Ritter's case, only the 14-year-old comes into question, and it sounds as if Ritter's e-mail to her was too vague to be the basis of a criminal action.