Ignorance of the law isn't an excuse, plus it is very easy to look up sex offender laws on the registry. He knew what he was doing.

Ignorance is not an excuse, Rudy101. This sex offender has no business near kids. Period.

You people really believe you live in a totalitarian government who can pass any type of laws you want, whenever you want.

You can't take away the RIGHT to be in public spaces through a LAW. You MUST have due process of law before you can restrict a person from the community or community spaces. If that simple fact doesn't get through to you, you don't belong in the realm of free country. You are simply some despotic totalitarian government who has no credibility in their laws.

After saying all that, the laws restricting this person were passed EX-POST FACTO. He doesn't even have to register. This means, it is ASSUMED he is allowed in public spaces. Without NOTICE, SPECIFICALLY to him, you can't charge him, and these charges WILL be dismissed.

This person is a FREE PERSON, with ALL the protections of the U.S. Constitution. Your so-called LAWS restricting a person from parks? Not credible. Not even a little. Your residency restrictions? NOT credible.

You don't get to make a theory and then apply that theory to a group, especially when that theory of protections limits a person in their ability to be a member of the community.

Who ever this man is is not material. The idea that the State or any government is allowed to restrict the citizens without hearing and without appeal IS illegal. Illegal laws do NOT have to be followed. UNDERSTAND?

Tracy! There are RIGHTS this person has that you do not have. One of those rights are NO EX-POST FACTO laws. I KNOW that the rule about being in a park was not a part of any sentence, but was passed over a decade after his last conviction.

I know you haven't any clue about HOW the State is supposed to apply restrictions upon citizens. I am saying, THIS PERSON NEVER WAS TOLD BECAUSE the State only tracks REGISTERED offenders. A person MUST be given NOTICE about conduct (even at a minimum).

Let me put it this way: You are caught speeding and pay your fine. 10 years AFTER the fine, the State decided to bar you from having children in your car because over 40,000 men, women and children are killed on highways each year and that a major reason are speeders. This is a public safety issue, therefore prohibition on ex-post facto laws does not apply.

So you are driving down the highway and they arrest you for driving with children in your car. The question is: Don't you think it would be FAIR that the State at least give you notice that it would be illegal for you to have kids in your car??? Never mind that it would also be fair to actually have a hearing in front of a judge to determine if you are truly a danger to kids being in your car.

You are under the mistaken assumption that rights are always lost or can be taken at any time because some laws say so. YOU ARE WRONG!

This man is still dangerous? Take him to court and show it.

If the State can show NOTICE he MIGHT have to comply with laws governing so called child sex offenders. But I have been on the website, Tracy, and nowhere on there does it say that a person NOT on the registry has to comply with registry laws.

It also should be noted that the website very clearly says that the Illinois website "... has made no determination that any individual included in the Registry is currently dangerous..."

See, YOU say he still has to follow laws after his registration period. I see nowhere where it states a person has to follow registry laws AFTER their registration period. I also see that the State is denying access to public spaces and making it criminal to be there regardless if they are actually dangerous or not.

I don't care if THIS person is dangerous or not. It is IMMATERIAL. It is the LAWS that are what count. I have already said, if you do not take a person to court and make a claim against them and prove it that they are dangerous then the State CANNOT restrict that person from the community or from community places.

It is that simple. It means your laws are NOTHING, Tracy. As much as you think so, they mean NOTHING.

3 branches of government to protect liberty. Without it, you have no liberty. In other words, your registry and associated laws do not have to be followed and can be fled from in any way possible UNTIL the State has a little DUE PROCESS.

A conviction is NOT enough standing by itself. UNDERSTAND?

And my concern is that the State is RIPPED away from their ability to make laws such as this.

I WILL tell you this, I do NOT register or follow ANY registry laws. The reason is that registry laws ONLY do one thing and that is to STRIP safety and/or security. Nobody can make me follow your laws. You think you have credibility in your laws. You think you don't need a court in order to apply laws like these.

YOU ARE WRONG.

See, MY COMMENTS ARE FOR HERE TOO. It is to DECLARE your laws to be ILLEGAL and to set forth the reasons why they are illegal.

The registry and associated laws are a lot weaker than you think, Tracy.

Rudy101 - I am guessing here that his attorney or parole officer explained this to him.
"Despite not having to register, Albanese still must comply with the laws governing child sex offenders. Some of those restrictions include:

Not being able to reside within 500 feet of a school, playground or any facility with programs or services exclusively directed at minors, unless the offender owned the property before July 7, 2000.
Not being allowed unsupervised access or to be in the custody or control of a minor.
Not knowingly allowed in any public park or building or property making up a park."

He did not COMPLY! Guilty!!! Case closed.

The Patch - do you know if it is common practice for all local park districts to run background checks on the instructors that they hire for park district run programs?

If you read the article he has been coaching for the past 8 years, 2 of which he should have been registering, so he was in violation long before he came to frankfort. and he should have known then. It is his and his lawyers job to know the laws especially as a child sex offender. It doesn't takea brain surgeon to know that if you are a convicted child sex offender than maybe you should check out the laws regarding coahing children.

I agree.

the child sex offender laws did not exist when he first started coaching, they just came into play around jan 2011 so he was legaly coaching. the laws came in after he was already coaching for a number of years.

i meant the parks part this law did not come into law till jan 2011

Tracy? The State can't make "conditions" on freedom. Either a person is NOT free or he is free. There are no conditions UNLESS they are applied by a COURT of LAW. If the State can't do that little things because they are too busy throwing people into jail for being in a park the State has lost their credibility to have ANY so-called, "conditions".

No Tracy, he CAN coach children. He is not being charged with coaching children. He is being charged with being in a PARK. See, I don't know if being a coach means being in custody or control that is unsupervised of a minor. Maybe that is why he is not being charged with that, but 3 counts of being in a PARK.

See, Tracy, you don't understand anything about a law, when it was passed, or how it is passed.

I am NOT talking about this man personally. I don't know if he should or should not be in a park. I am arguing that it is ILLEGAL for the State to pass and apply laws banning people from parks without a hearing or appeal and AFTER a sentence has been completed.

Hey Tracy! Why would you be upset about a law. You believe you have a halo over your head. You are protected from the government coming barging into your home without a warrant in order to criminalize you. You think it is A-okay in order to make ridiculous laws that effect people you know nothing about.

Hey Tracy? Ever smoke a joint? Even once? Most people have. That means almost everyone you know who walked by a park bench was intending to sell to a minor. That means a whole bunch of people BUT for not being caught are and can stay in their jobs and can keep that halo about them.

George Bush the cocaine user? Well, he never got caught and he became President.

The point I am trying to make is, behind those closed door all around your neighborhood is a whole bunch of insanity that so many of you do so much to hide.

Have some decency! Just because a person got a label doesn't automatically make them that. Your history, your culture, your laws and your constitution all says that.

That is why you have the prohibition on ex-post facto laws, double punishments, requirements of due process etc. It is to LIMIT government intrusion upon people's lives.

If a person IS dangerous and you are making that assertion outside of a court of law, do the RIGHT thing and SHOW it.

If you can't than do the RIGHT thing and let them alone OR they will be after your kids next. And believe me, they will be...

No, Tracy, you are not thankful the laws apply to me, because you don't know anything about me. NOTHING.

And let me tell you something about exile. It is an illegal act by the State forced upon an individual by the illegal actions of the State.

That means forcing other countries to care for your rejects is not the way to go. in fact it is the undoing of the registry and registry laws.

See, the U.S. believes it lives in a vacuum and doesn't have to concern themselves with international law. The U.S. can't even give simple basic due process to people they label and then torture. They won't sign international agreements on human rights and have withdrawn support from the international criminal court.

And why would you be thankful for laws that strip safety and/or security? That makes the community more dangerous? That violates basic tenets of Constitutional law?

Because it makes you feel good.

That U.S. has a long history of discrimination and separation laws. None of them were ever found to be justifiable. What makes you think these kind of laws are?

Have a HEARING in front of a court of law OR look stupid, despotic and unable to follow the basics of law the rest of the free world has no trouble with.

Your registry is OVER as it is now.

But I am telling you now, the world isn't going to look kindly upon taking care of the U.S. rejects.

And that is where you are at.

did anyone notice the sept. 2011 arrest? i know it is still pending, but that is pretty recent.

the word public means all the people, he pays taxes i would think so he pays for the parks, a public place is for all or none. this is a violation of his freedom, if he were required to register then they would have grounds to have him under supervision and restrictions. but once off the registry he is deemed not to be a threat yet they still want to punish even though they have no hold on him, this is the start of a facist government to control without due processes not to mention the ex-post facto clause. this law was not in effect when he was convicted. any reasonable person would know that you can't be totally safe in public. you can be shot, mugged, robbed, beaten and or raped. this is a fact of the public world so one must be more vigilant in public then at home. public places are more dangerous then private places because no one can be denied public access to a public place. public means all people. and it his right as a free American citizen to have access. research the net for these laws and you will see that the ACLU is getting residency restriction laws over turned all over the country because they are not only illegal but inhumane.

the problem with back ground checks and registry checks is while your doing all this checking your child is being molested by someone not on the registry or who has no back ground to check. the recidivism rate for sex offenders is the lowest only thing lower are murderers. educate your self, there is no way to be safe except to be with and watch your children and trust no one. almost all sex crimes today are comitted by people with no record. so all this is hype generated by the news media and politicians looking for easy ways to get elected or reelected lol. read the department of justice in washington d.c. sex crime staticts and you will see and be informed and not driven to hysteria by the lies.

Oh, there IS a defence! It is called the defence of the U.S. Constitution. Who do you think that Constitution protects in a very large way? The law abiding? They don't need protection from the government. It is those labeled CRIMINAL. Why?

Maybe because it is there that is becomes the easiest way to oppress the citizens. That is why there is the REQUIREMENT of due process of law BEFORE State action against the citizens. It is a REQUIREMENT that people have the RIGHT to an attorney, and a speedy trial and to KNOW what their punishment is.

The registry violates these precepts by putting out information to the public under the auspices of them being dangerous, (but not really saying so) and then using that registry to systematically strip a person of every vestige of the community without so much as a hearing.

THEM THEY AND THOSE, are the pronouns that are used to strip humanity away from PEOPLE. Because upon closer examination THEY THEM AND THOSE are a lot more complicated than is apparent.

i don't see anyone defending him, what i do see is americans speaking up for his constitutional rights which no matter how heinous the crime or to whom it is perpetrated against they still have constitutional rights. to denigh them is to be socialist and unamerican and if you ever swore an oath to up hold and defend the constitution of the united states and denigh him his constutional rights then you are a traitor to the constitution and the american people and should be tried as a traitor. the us constitution is for all american citizens or none and to denigh it to him because you dont like what he did then your turn will be comming when some one dosent like something you do. this is why everyone must be vigilant and guard eachothers constitutional rights no matter what and treat everyone humanely even if going to execute them it must be done constitutionaly and humanely.

And Brent? Your common sense? Means nothing. See, you NOW are calling this person a pedophile. Is this YOUR diagnosis? Is this a State diagnosis? Is this a diagnosis by a legislature? Or did you consult with a doctor who has spoken and treated this person?

And Brent? I know you forgot all about when you were a kid, but your children are on a team with a whole bunch of people who MIGHT be a sex offender. Yup, it is true. Very few saintly virgins.

But you know all about sexuality and you have turned that knowledge into outrage and expressed that outrage to a legislature to get that common sense into law, right?

Well, let's hope nobody has the audacity to come into your work place and start telling you how to do your job without even a lick of training or experience. I mean, all that training that training that makes you into what you are? It's all common sense, right?

See, you want to use the most vulgar of possibilities in order to deny access to the community to whomever you want. Oh, 1 out of 4 people have a criminal conviction of some sort in the U.S. (It hits minorities in staggering amounts), and you have the precedence to regulate them out of the community.

Do you really think, with the largest prison system, by far, in the world, that banishment laws won't expand to the point where only saints and liars are the only ones NOT affected by the laws???

Thank you Brent.

You lost the argument. You lost the argument because your label as applied to me, means NOTHING. You can't see that, I know. But you will, when one of your kids that you want protected so much, you are forced to protect because of how the State will react to their indiscretions.

And that is also not taken into consideration with these laws, the idea that families won't turn their loved ones in because of the clear knowledge of what happens to them. It is just another failure of your registry, and that is MORE victims of sex crimes.

He doesn't have to comply. DUH! Social studies101, the credibility of State action is found in DUE PROCESS of LAW, not in enforcement. This law has NONE.

That being said, I have made a cogent argument on why there MUST be NOTICE given in order to enforce this restriction upon people not even required to register.

I am betting there is no notice and therefore, there can be NO CHARGES.

Yes, crazy trumps everything, including reason, the process of law and temper of action.

If society thought this gentleman dangerous, then society has the obligation to take him to court and restrict him properly.

A truly despotic society is able to pass laws that restrict and criminalize conduct that is otherwise not illegal and is normal for the rest of society. A truly despotic society knows all the answers and doesn't need any court to determine who can and cannot participate in the community and then specifically says why.

You have the power to banish from the community and all you need is a theory of protection. You don't need to actually show protection because there is absolutely no evidence that keeping groups of people from living near a school or going to a park protects in any way.

In fact, the evidence shows just the opposite outcome.

Don't call yourself a free country. You are just a run-of-the-mill totalitarian government who can regulate, without limitation, their citizens who have no recourse or appeals.

Anyone who thinks a conviction is enough should think again, as 1 out of 4 adults have some sort of criminal conviction.

Pssst Phil, I gave up bothering and deleted all my comments - he didn't even get that when I said I was following another rule; Crazy Trumps Everything, it meant there's no point in arguing with (crazy) him... Get ready for your lashing lol.

No, Phil Dunphy, I don't believe he did have actual notice as part of his prior sentence. Why would I say that? Because Illinois didn't have the State law in 1996, that did not allow people convicted of sex crimes into State parks. I am not quite sure when they passed it, but I am pretty sure it was AFTER this person registry's time was up. But good try, Phil.

No, Tracy, the insanity is, allowing a legislature full authority to make up a list of hated people that cannot be challenged or appealed.

You only say, crazy, because it is all you have. You certainly don't care about banishment laws...well, until they have you or your loved ones in the cross hairs. So all you are left with is name calling...It isn't much, and certainly isn't adding credibility to your laws or your registry.

Or do you know??? Could you be a close relative or *gasp* the criminal himself????

Hey..I could be someone who is taking to task the illegal law of denying access to public spaces, done by legislative fiat, that cannot be appealed, is done outside of a sentence and has absolutely no way to challenge.

That is a violation of the 5th amendment requirement of due process of law.

Because that is an obvious violation of the requirement of due process, ALL person's, regardless of status, law or any other State label CAN use a park.

That law can and will be ignored.

Have you people lost your mind? These kind of laws can't be enforced. If a registered offender wants to use a park, they go 20 miles down the street and use the park where nobody recognizes them.

You got this guy because he was coaching (and he probably shouldn't have been). But that is not the issue. The issue is the enactment of a Stalinist like crime in order to illegally punish someone for the rest of their lives.

It is a per se ex-post facto punishment because it encompasses those that ARE dangerous as well as those who are NOT dangerous, has no mechanisms for challenge, and applies for the rest of ones life and passed long AFTER a sentence has been completed.

He might have been told, but that has to be proven. You just assume he was told. Ignorance of a law like this IS an excuse. One can't be libel for a law that one day the act is not only legal, but common and the next day it is illegal.

As I have said above, a person MUST be told of registration requirements in order to hold that person accountable to registration requirements. That was the ruling by the courts. This was done because.a person is PRESUMED to be finished with sentence requirements when the sentence is over.

The same applies here. Everyone in the community is presumed to be able to use a park. Even your local drug dealer convict, domestic violence convict, or child abuse convict. Especially those that got the conviction decades ago.

Never mind the HUGE constitutional aspects of denying people access to public spaces without hearing and without appeal, but making something one day, that is perfectly legal and common by everyone in the community, and then the next day becomes a criminal act of the most serious sort (it becomes a felony on the 2nd conviction) there MUST be notice.

I don't think the State can show notice. If there is no notice, there are no charges. That simple.

Amen! That was what I was trying to say! He did not comply and that is the bottom line.

You are trying, that is for sure.

However, this man wasn't on Parole. Parole is a comprehensive supervision regimen. All people on parole must sign away almost all their rights.

You assume his registration and parole ended at the same time. It didn't. The registration time usually ends 10 years after a parole.

But regardless, I am talking about one aspect of this case which is a legal technicality.

The idea that anyone can sign away their rights, or must sign away their rights to be in public because of some kind of stupid law some community or state decides on is repugnant to the idea of freedom and justice.

The LAW is illegal. There is ONLY one way to strip a person of a right to be in a park outside of a sentence of a court of law. That is THROUGH a court of law.

The government is too lazy to do such a thing because courts are inherently set up to be FAIR; whereas legislatures passing restriction laws inherently can't be fair.

That is the fundamental reason behind having 3 branches of government. One side makes the laws and the other side gets to apply them fairly; such as at time of conviction OR a by a NEW assertion being made outside of a sentence by a court of law.

This is the only thing that matters. Your law is ILLEGAL as applied to ALL the registrants.

In Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. 386 (1798), the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a state law that enabled a party to obtain a new hearing in a dispute over a will against an argument that the state law was unconstitutional under the Ex Post Facto Clause.
The Court held that the only ex post facto laws prohibited by the U.S. Constitution are those relating to crimes which:
converted an innocent action done before the passing of the law into crime;
aggravated a crime relative to when it was committed
imposed a greater punishment than the law imposed when the crime was committed
changed the legal rules of evidence to allow less, or different, testimony than the law required when the crime was committed in order to obtain a conviction.
The opinion, written for the Court by Justice Samuel Chase, is best known for his list of unacceptable legislative acts, which includes taking property from one private owner to given it to another private owner:
"A law that punished a citizen for an innocent action, or, in other words, for an act, which, when done, was in violation of no existing law; a law that destroys, or impairs, the lawful private contracts of citizens; a law that makes a man a Judge in his own cause; or a law that takes property from A. and gives it to B: It is against all reason and justice, for a people to entrust a Legislature with SUCH powers; and, therefore, it cannot be presumed that they have done it.
this is the definition of the ex-post facto law

rudy is right, he speaks of law, not the fears most have, if the law is not for everyone then it is for none. "they that can give up essential liberty for temporary safety deserve neither the safety nor the liberty" >Ben Franklin" one of the founding fathers of our constitution. "one must be ever vigilant of the imposters of liberty" law makers who like votes over common sense and individual liberty. the laws being passed in this country are headed more and more towards socialistic ideals. but one must remember what George Washington said >"individual liberty is our most cherished asset". to restrict anyone's individual freedom is to smack in the face all them that fought and died for freedom.

Oh yes, THAT law is completely and wholly illegal. Why? Because there is absolutely no relationship between where an offender lives and where he offends, if he does such a thing. What a residency restriction does is forces a person away from support and destabilizes that person. There is NO CIVIL OUTCOME to a residency restriction. That has been shown by mountains of research.

But that doesn't stop the government from passing such an irrational and useless law. But it is another reason why no person has to follow such a law.

AHHH, Monica, defens(c)e can be spelled both ways.

You talk about consequences as if the State can make up any type of consequences any time they want. THAT is a violation of the prohibition on ex-post facto laws.

But the courts have found the registry and registry laws to be civil, and therefore the prohibition on ex-post facto laws does not apply.

However, because there are NO CIVIL OUTCOMES to the registry or registry law, (and nobody can show any) it becomes punitive and therefore nobody has to follow a law passed and applied after a legal sentence.

Now do you understand how consequences are applied?

The thing is, the government will never stop with new consequences. The sex offender registry has become only a political tool. All they need is a theory and the State can systematically strip every single vestige of community from a person, without hearing, outside of a sentence and any time they want. Right now the State is debating the Adam Walsh Act which requires registration and all the attendant restrictions, going back to 1930. Does anyone really think that is fair? Does anyone really think that 30 or 40 years AFTER a conviction the State has the authority to force a person away from their home and community and create a police state around them?

They don't. But it shows how free of a country you really are.

The registry and registry laws are a JOKE.

If that person has no business around children then the State has every obligation to take him to court and tell him exactly why he can't be around children. A conviction standing alone is not enough.

You do not live in a free country where police states can be created purely out of legislative fiat. That is called, by definition, totalitarianism.

And him knowing where he should or should not be, THAT is a factual finding that still needs to be established.

Bully and attack? That is what happens when a community gets together against those they don't like aka, around a registry.

Remember, this is NOT about THIS person, but about the ability of the State to ban people they don't like on an unproven assertion of dangerousness placed upon groups of people long after a sentence and without any appeals or hearings.

Don't flatter yourself you are a free country. No free country in the world has LAWS on their books that ban people from parks. NONE. Free countries use their court system in order to do such things.

Crazy trumps everything!

Well, Donny, I see you have had absolutely nothing to add to this conversation. Not an idea or a thought. Do you even have any thoughts about how your government is set up? Do you know anything about the concepts that keep you free? Do you know anything about limitations on government?

The answer is, you people have an idea that certain segments of the population are inherently dangerous. Who gets to name those that are dangerous? The answer is: It is done by vote in a legislature and strictly is a popularity contest.

Your registry and registry laws and all laws that seek to restrict without hearing or appeal are ILLEGAL.

This means, as a matter of law, that the laws do not have to be followed.

WOW! What kind of wreath would they put on your door? The just plain ole NUTS wreath?

The true words of a despot! Able to, without evidence, without action, without words from anyone, make the assertion of criminal activity and intent. The better idea is, that the State has a HEARING in front of a judge to determine a person dangerous.

I realize you believe freedom and justice can only be found in a ballot box or a legislature and that you and a legislature knows who can be allowed in a park, or a community, but history has always shown that despotism will spread far and wide and can and probably will include you too.

what I belive Rudy is that you don't like any kind of laws. As for your gripe that this man didn't know or wasn't told he could not be in a park around children if just plain ignorance. This man should have had the common sense to not put himself in a position of temptation. Common sense Rudy, common sense!!!

Common sense has nothing to do with HIM, this law, or him being in a park. What this issue is about is the State banning people without hearing or appeal. You believe you can make a medical diagnosis on people you don't know anything about and the only thing you have on the person is a one line of a conviction stating some broken statue.

That is not enough for YOU, a LEGISLATURE, or ANYONE but a court of law to determine a person a pedophile who needs to be kept away from parks or other areas.

Common sense is that when a person has completed their court appointed sentence, that that person then again retains ALL the rights of any other person within the community UNLESS a court says otherwise.

It would be interesting if the State could actually show ANY protection of the community, children, or potential victims.

Of course you could care less about Constitutional rights. They are not your own.

And nobody has diagnosed this person a pedophile. Well, except for you. Did you talk, or treat this individual to come to the diagnosis of pedophilia. If he is NOT a pedophile can he then walk in a park? Live where ever he wants?

No. It is just simplistic thinking driving your laws. Simplistic thinking is what separates the stupid from the free.

YOU people have made THIS person into a victim. YOU did that by not following basic rules when regulating.

Well, it is interesting how little the average person understands anything about freedom. It is interesting how they are so willing to trade freedom for a little bit of security (even if it is fantasy security).

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

the problem is people driven to hysteria are not considered to in a sane frame of mind. do you think all the people in the salem witch trials were in their right frame of mind as they sought out and executed many innocent people, that was hysteria too driven by children with lies lol ia am wondering who is the sane people here rudy or the rest at least rudy speaks facts and law the rest are driven by emotion and hysteria. lol

The answer I have, is simple and without it, America will destroy themselves. The State has NO RIGHT to pass LAWS that single out groups of people for exclusion in the community.

And, "G" No, I am NOT talking about what HE did. I could care less about what he did. What I am concerned with is the unlimited ability of a legislature to pass banishment laws that can not be challenged, passed long after the fact, is based only on a theory of protection and can be applied to whomever a legislature wants.

Again, what he did? Is immaterial. What the State MUST do, (even in HIS circumstance) is have a HEARING to determine him a continuing danger to society. Then and ONLY then can the State keep him from a park. Understand?

I don't care if he knew the laws or not. The technicality of the State NOT giving him notice probably will result in the charges being dismissed. But that is not the idea behind these comments. The idea IS: If the State can decide who can or who cannot partake or live within the community, and does it without a court of law, then those laws CAN and WILL be ignored. THAT is the LAW!

As long as they say, protection of the community or kids, there is no limit to the lengths that government will take. Hitler said something to that effect.

What if I care about the safety and protection of children too? I will make the assertion that YOU are dangerous to children. I will use that assertion to kick you out of the community and community events and places. I will use any evidence I like in order to "prove" this assertion and I won't let you respond to it in any way.

Do you think that is fair? Even if I have testimony that you like to beat children for fun?

Remember, you can't respond to the allegation in any way.

Okay, that is a little ridiculous. How about a person who 15 years ago was caught with child pornography on his computer. He never opened or looked at the pornography, but got caught with it because of a "file sharing" program that doesn't tell anyone what is actually in the file. He pled guilty, did 30 days in jail and a few years later he was informed that he is a child sex offender and can't go to a park with his own kids or live within the community.

The State is asserting that he is dangerous to children and is banning him from parks.

Or the guy who was 23 and had a 16 year old girlfriend 15 years ago. Did 30 days in jail, and is now a child sex offender.

Is he dangerous to children?

Let the assertion fall on you that you are dangerous. 1 out of 4 adults have a criminal record. Let the banishment begin!

Yes, I am sure the police will arrest and charge a person for existing.

That law is clearly illegal and does not have to be followed. In free countries the State cannot pass laws that restrict people from the community without a court of law.

You can't have irrational laws. You think it is rational, because someone told you it is to protect the community. But it was looked at hard by lots and lots of people and they found out, it TAKES protection of the community by forcing people away from their support system.

If you can't apply laws rationally, you can't have them.

You are supposed to be a FREE country, based upon the idea that freedom can only be taken by a court of law; NOT by a legislature.

Barbara- I love the comment of daddy ball--- Most daddy ball players never make it on high school teams. Have your daughter work hard and she will be fine....

Took me 2 mins to google his name and seen he was a sex offender in Indiana.

do you know everyone at the park you take your family to ? and if not do you know every face and name on the illinois registry ? if not then what makes you think a sex offender is not around your kids at any time at the park or in the park at any time ? because of the law ? lol if a sex offender or bunches of them came from another county to your park would you know who they were ? i doubt your answer to any of these is yes. as a parent yes you job is to protect your children and you do that like i did and watch them every minuet everywhere and don't trust anyone because you can't. and stop worrying about the ones already on the registry, they are known and if caught again they are burnt up. do some searches on google for sex offender police or law enforcement if you really wanna get scared lol

sorry this is a list of sites for cop sex offenders
www.youtube.com/watch?v=agNdkWh8yi8
https://www.youtube.com/user/policesexoffenders
the last one will have many links to news videos rarely seen about cop sex offenders and if you serach hard enough on the net you will also find judges lawyers politicans you name it there there.

"no i think they just revel in hate. the need to hate is obvious. the fear is secondary i think. these people do nothing but look around them for a reason to set someone out so they can feel superior. this same hate , fear and loathing this is nothing new just someone new to hate. i feel sorry for people who have nothing better to do then seek out and target people to hate using their kids as an excuse, a shield against controversy or argument when a real parent would not spend their time worrying about who is in the park or near their kids, they would be a real parent and watch them, because while they are worried about the person on the list it is the one with no record not on any registry that will harm their child. the facts prove it. only 3% to 5% of sex offenders commit another sex crime. so almost all sex crimes prosecuted are by people with no record or on any registry and usually known by the victim or parents, and they are the long time or new friends, neighbors, teachers, cops, lawyers, politicians, judges, doctors, priests, scout leaders, park officials, need i go on."

You’re more than welcome to add a new comment and submit it anytime to Frankfort Patch. Just refer to the Patch Terms of Use below.

thank you uscitizen for the link, i have studied the pre world war gremany and read hitler's mein kampf and you are right on with your assessment of the parallels. the problem is most are in their mindset and are too lazy to read and study while it is easier to make emotional or fearful comments with no knowledge of the topic or what they are even talking about and they have a lot of mindless friends who think the same way and support each other while we the few who do research and study and know what we are talking about are considered sex offenders sympathizers pr even pedophiles lol to try and debunk or dismiss the facts when we try to educate the misguided people. the bottom line is it takes more courage to attack something that is wrong but popular then to agree with the masses who are wrong because of being brainwashed by lies and misinformation all in the name of keeping their children safe. this will come to no good end because what is popular is not always right and what is right is not always popular. with this in mind we need to get back to what is right and not what is popular. and the only way it to educate yourself with an open mind using common sense and knowledge but then maybe i am asking too much from sheeple who revel in popular opinion.