Jan 28, 2013 4:41 PM
- RELATED ARTICLES
- > UPDATE: Sears Pleads Not Guilty To Six Counts Of Child Pornography Possession Mar 11, 2013 3:22 PM
- > East End Architect Jay Sears Released On $250,000 Bail; Now Under House Arrest In Quogue Feb 20, 2013 10:50 AM
- > UPDATE: Jay Sears Released After Posting $250,000 Bond; Under House Arrest In Quogue Feb 15, 2013 2:35 PM
- > Jay Sears Still Being Held On Child Pornography Possession Charges Feb 6, 2013 12:56 PM
- > Mission Of Kindness Is Mostly A Mystery Jan 30, 2013 1:42 PM
more
UPDATE: Monday, January 28, 4 p.m.
U.S. District Magistrate Judge Gary Brown ordered that Mr. Sears remain in custody during a hearing on Monday afternoon after his defense attorney, Mr. Barker, failed to provide the court with a bail package—which would include an official request for bail and an accounting of Mr. Sears’s finances.During the hearing on Monday, Assistant U.S. Attorney Allen Bode, who is prosecuting the case, told the court that, so far, all images found in Mr. Sears’s apartment were morphed images and it was not believed he has any pictures of him actually performing inappropriate acts on children or other inappropriate photos of children. However, Mr. Bode said the investigation was continuing.
Mr. Bode, who spoke for approximately two minutes during the five-minute hearing, also said that investigators... more
Is there a public danger is this behavior? Is it a proper subject for police intrusion? Aren't we entitled to practice our ...more private perversions without big brother knocking down the door as long as they don't harm others?
Get a grip. Put yourself in one of these parent's shoes who is probably sick beyond belief right now.
Child pornography is defined as, among other things, when a “visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaged in sexually explicit conduct.”
It becomes visual to the public as soon as he puts it in his garbage and the garbage can be viewed by the public, such as in the Brookhaven Dump. Or if it was emailed to someone or published on the internet. Supposed a neighbor or other person familiar with the child's photo appearing in a nude situation with Mr. Sears recognized that child? Eliza has it correct. That child's photo was fine on his/hers own body on the beach or at a parade. But if that child's face was ...more superimposed on a mans/womans naked body, then that minor's parents should have some redress involving the use of their child's image in a disgusting manner. Then it would seem to me to be illegal.
In any event, the ...more editorial addition has made it clear that the described behavior IS child pornography. It shouldn't be. The definition supplied would also make pornographic cartoons involving completely fictitious individuals to be child pornography if minors appeared to be depicted.
Terror and drugs have already relegated the privacy rights that I enjoyed as a child to the dustbin of history. This overbroad definition of child pornography just gives the authorities another reason to intrude in the lives of innocent people.
What public good is served by criminalizing behavior that affects no one other than the perpetrator?
Finally, and inevitably, dialectically challenged forum correspondents have accused those who argue on principal to be motivated by personal corruption.
And the process of pasting one body part onto another body etc is "known as" morphing, whether it fits the exact definition of the word or not (kids smashing mailboxes with baseball bats is known as "mailbox baseball"); and besides THIS IS NOT THE POINT . This guy is a freak, and is the reason why anyone who takes my daughters picture without permission is going ...more to lose his camera and probably a few teeth.
But JESUS! That IS a lulu of a story. Jay will be tradin' in the 'ol angel wings for an orange jump suit, I guess.
As disgusted as I am, I'm a bit surprised that he is denied bail on one count of possession. I'm guessing there is far more to this story if a judge found it necessary to remand him.
Not defending this guy in any way, but cool your jets dude, put the pitch forks down and see how this plays out.
The guy's a sicko, but a criminal?
No children were harmed. He didn't make any money from this. He didn't do anything to make the pictures private. The photos were created and viewed in his own home until he threw them away.
I'm not defending this guy, but this seems like a harmless private activity, not grounds for criminal prosecution.
As others have said, if your child's photo was distributed in this matter, you may feel differently.
My first reaction was, yes a sicko, but is it really illegal as the pictures are cut/paste jobs and not actual shots of children being abused? As a parent of young ones, and reading up on the laws, I'm coming to another conclusion. Maybe the FBI guys will give the ...more Dad's of the children whose faces were used, a couple minutes each in the interrogation room. In any case, he will have a very short life expectancy in jail if they put him in genpop.
Since the activity described was private and harmless, it's hard for me to see this as a crime.
(google Sir Jimmy Savile when you have a sec, he could be Sears' role model)
Hiding behind altruistic intention, they prey on these sick children via parents who are also in a vulnerable ...more state because of the child's health problems. Truly evil.
Before he downgraded to EMO, his Blue Book listing shows his address as "Twinkle Tops", Beach Lane, Quogue. (his nom de domus perhaps a red flag?) He also lists memberships at the Quogue Field Club and Quogue Beach Club, also prime hunting grounds. I trust his BB listing as well as the club memberships will be no longer this coming season.
When Mr. Christie Brinkley got in to all his marital difficulty, it seemed half the articles detailed his polo shirt, khaki shorts and brand of sneakers. All of which were mass market items you can get at the Gap and Footlocker. Just don't ...more get it, isn't detailing the offense enough?
PS: not that I'm siding with either chap or defending their actions, it just seems like pointless hyperbole, or perhaps reporters get paid by the word.
Behaviors such as this have their roots in our evolution (apologies to the Creationists) and were "swept under the rug" for many centuries, ...more or even accepted in some ancient cultures. The Church of Rome has turned a blind eye to pederasty, and even pedophilia for a VERY long time.
I'm not saying this man's behavior is acceptable in the 21st century, nor should it be. What I am saying is those of you with the vitriol, torches, pitchforks, and ignorance need to learn about your species; for some modes of sexual behavior considered abnormal by modern standards, were not for thousands of years. They have a root in human culture, and will not be weeded out anytime soon.
No, legally we define minors as not having reached the age of consent. Sex with a child is therefore rape because they cannot give consent. So much the pedarest argument.
As for child pornography, the law defines it as images and the transmission of images. The violation of a minor occurs when you create and or transmit the image. Sounds tenuous but it's true.
As far as a biting dog, though I do see the segue, it's not the intent here. Our evolution has not only created this type of behavior, it has either condoned it, or turned blind to it for many, many centuries. We have allowed them to exist, and pass on their traits for just as long generation, after generation for as long as such behavior has been tolerated.
Would one be in favor of castration in some cases? I know I have my leanings...
No?
I didn't think so.
Things change luckily. Too bad you don't.
But, do we pile on with violence or evolved sensibility? A sound beating, or a sound amount of time in a nice private room without a view? I hope that every parent who was involved with this man files an affidavit regarding Mr. Sears' character/behavior as they see fit, so that it be read into the court record. Speak out about the betrayal. Speak up about how you feel. I say be heard, and make sure he hears you.
Does this individual deserve to be punished to the same extent as a perpetrator who actually creates and distributes child pornography? However repelled one is by his behavior, should not the fact that his actions herein indicate no intent to harm children be taken into account? Finally, do we really want to spend $60K/yr. to incarcerate him?
As I have stated previously, my own opinion is that this should not be a crime since only the peace of mind of the community was harmed. However outraged parents may be at the thought that their children's photographs could have been manipulated by the suspect, I believe it to be constitutionally protected behavior, harmless to others in conception, and that it is pointless, expensive, and a waste of police resources to criminalize it.
I hope, as others have suggested, that there is more to this case than has been initially reported because it is otherwise an FBI boondoggle.
Fiddle Fiddle Fiddle . . .
It is, apparently, under the operative statute, "child porn," and something as yet disclosed brought the accused to the attention of the authorities five or six years ago.
But most of these howls of outrage and calls for physical torture (or worse) are over the top.
Oh, and I NEVER agree with HHS -- but this time ...more his views are the more reasoned one.
Let the obloquy begin!
Can anyone detail some actual good deeds he or his 501 did? Even if he distributed some cash to strained families with sick children, it seems it was largely a self aggrandizing stunt to gain access to children.
But man, this is creepy.
Where there is smoke there is often fire IMO.
Defense counsel did not present bail package. Hmmmmm.
What DON'T we know? Hmmmmmm.
On the flip side the defense may feel that he is safer inside prison than out in public. Draw your own inferences here . . .
"Nowhere to Run" might be the operative ...more theme?
I know I don't warrant much "red ink", but the generic response leaves one to wonder why they "oopsed". Maybe an e-mail?
On a lighter note, they do seem to be keeping the public "in the dark".
Other posts deleted recently included specific references to other publications by name, especially East End and Long Island newspapers.
The 27east Terms of Use are pretty broad, so the editors have wide discretion. Freedom of Speech on public property, ...more but in this forum the Press keeps things on course pretty well IMO. Naturally, reasonable persons could differ on this!
As for one of my heroes regardless, may he find the peace "freedom" did not grant him.
How horrible!
The purpose of the child pornography statutes is to protect our innocent children. Issuing the orders will cause blissfully innocent children to be made aware that they are the subjects of sexual perversion, and will task their parents with the inestimable pleasure of explaining to them what that means, years before they would otherwise need to know about the darker side of human nature and its dangerous ...more proximity to their own lives.
The suspect is not charged with interfering with a single child and the likelihood of his appearing anywhere locally with his camera is remote (SUICIDAL, to judge by the above posts.)
A little prosecutorial common sense at this juncture wouldn't be wasted.
HHS -- Do you know all the facts which are known to the US Attorney and other law enforcement authorities?
Do you acknowledge even the possibility of suicide by a defendant in this situation?
Have you spoken with defense counsel to ascertain what is going on behind the scenes?
Really, you can't make this stuff up!
Please elaborate on the "typical" aspect of prosecutors conduct.
Your objection is inane.
If you actually believe what you have written, why are you constantly posting jeremiads about the Sister Jacqueline Walsh killing? Do you know what is "going on behind the scenes" with the investigation therein? If not, according to your predisposition, shouldn't you be quiet?
Obviously, "I" know no more than is reported in the article. It is on those facts that I base my comments. If we all only commented on articles about whose particulars ...more we were all fully informed, this forum would be blank.
On the basis of the reported facts, the orders or protection are superfluous and adverse to the purpose of the anti-child pornography statutes.
However, if you have additional information, please post it so that the commentary can be more specific.
- - -
Your opinion in an earlier post that , "Where there is smoke there is often fire", is from Senator Joe McCarthy's own mouth.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
to But I'm a blank!:
Once again, you accuse me of “changing facts” and then post easily refutable assertions that show you actually to be describing yourself:
Orders of protection are not issued by a judge sua sponte. He approves them upon a request from counsel. In this case, the prosecutor.
If the children are not told of the orders, those orders are even more superfluous. The children won't be in the company of their parents much, perhaps MOST, of the day. Having received notice of the feckless order, a parent would feel compelled to warn his children. This baneful instruction could be avoided if the prosecution would just use a bit of common sense.
By "typical", I mean undertaken for the sake of publicity rather than for purposeful effect AND adhering puppet-like to standard operating procedure rather than weighing the unique circumstances of the case (cf. "stolid", also, “political”, and, “civil service”.)
The accusations present a question concerning mental illness; and the extent to which that mental illness presents a danger to other people.
Our laws are ill equipped to deal with mental illness, mostly because the community at large is ill equipped to deal with mental illness, mostly because we don't really understand it.
I am not so sure this is victimless; we don't let people use our images for commercial purposes ...more without consent, why are private purposes okay? But the prohibitions on commercial use of images is handled with civil remedies, and mental illness is often dealt with most effectivley with civil, not criminal law.
The posts here are all over the place, mine included, mostly because... see above.
Hmmmmmm . . .
Who knows if anyone was damaged or if they would have been. As if there is anything even close to normal with this type of behavior. It is unnatural, offensive and dangerous. Be careful how much you think you know of someone. In the end, you only know what they want you to know.
Hate to break it to you, but we aren't concerned with sins. We are concerned with crimes - and based on the what has been alleged and case law, we know what he did was a crime and he should have known it was a crime. He was investigated in 2007 for the same stuff and that didn't stop him. One can easily argue that he received gratification taking the "innocent" images of children knowing what he would later do with them. Let's ...more let the judge decide his sentence and keep God out of this please.
From the article....
Mr. Sears, dressed ...more in an orange jumpsuit, did not address the court at the hearing on Monday. Afterwards, a friend of Mr. Sears, David Glover of Yaphank—the only person in attendance in support of Mr. Sears—said that he was shocked about the charges leveled against his friend. Mr. Glover, who has known Mr. Sears for 25 years, declined to speak specifically about the charges, but said that he cannot believe that Mr. Sears would hurt anyone.
“I have never known him to hurt anyone,” Mr. Glover told reporters. “I think he needs support—Jay has helped many people in the community so I felt compelled to be here for him.”
Thank you.
If Mr. Sears went to console the child, took pictures of her, went home, used her photos to assemble a montage, and pleasured himself (even in the privacy of his own home), what is your assessment of this specific scenario?
Assuming Mr. Sears formulated the intent to do the above BEFORE he first left his house ...more to see the child --
Where is the "private domain," if he went to someone else's house to START the process and secure the images?
Where is the "victimless" aspect of this specific set of actions?
Again, assuming the scenario laid out above, don't there appear to be "victims" who had no idea what was to unfold later, albeit in the privacy of his house?
PS -- As cautioned below, these questions assume the factual accuracy of the facts alleged by the parent on 1/27/13 above. If that post is not accurate, it should be deleted ASAP, and this discussion should be considered only theoretical and hypothetical.
Perhaps you should re-read the online version of this article at the bottom of page 2 and top of page 3. There are very specific allegations of behavior similar to that posited here. Much of the actual actions seem to go further than you have in mind IMO.
PS2 -- Any Constitutional search and seizure issues involving the Fourth Amendment are separate from the questions raised here.
Your defense of your friend is commendable, especially since you must know that your loyalty will cause people to draw the inference that YOU are a pornographer as well. You alone have stood by him.
I hope that I behave in like fashion if a friend of mine is ever so disgraced.
Well done!
There is a comment above ostensibly from a parent (1/27) about Mr. Sears coming over to console the family about a very sick daughter, and taking pictures, which he showed to the father years later.
Assuming that the factual information presented is accurate --
-- and only on this basis --
Mr. Glover, how do you judge the possibility that the defendant returned to his home and used these photos as alleged generally here, including deriving some kind ...more of physical pleasure from the entire process? Add to this that the family had no idea that their apparent permissions given may have opened a door they would NOT have opened had they known the ultimate purpose?
Where is the "privacy" in this use of the photographic process?
This string of actions would not have all happened in the privacy of his home, would it?
You have created a straw man, to wit, a child pornographer who manipulated actual pictures of children being raped. You then attack the concept that someone would defend your fantasy creation.
No one is accused of doing what you said and no one is defending anyone who behaved as you describe. The facts in this case are very different from your pernicious fantasy.
At this point, there is no debate as to the fact of the suspect's alleged behavior being criminal. ...more The debate is if it SHOULD be criminal. The harm arising from this incident will be caused by a dump worker pilfering the suspect's garbage and the prosecution insisting that the innocent children be notified that they are the objects of sexual perversion. If the suspect's intentions had not been interfered with, there would be NO harm to the psyches of children, and NO harm to the sensibilities of citizens since NO ONE WOULD KNOW that anything offensive had happened.
As far as I am concerned, whatever perversions a person wants to engage in in the privacy of his own home involving himself and inanimate objects that harm no one else are his own business and protected by the 1st and 4th Amendments.
The mere fact that sensibilities are shocked by the behavior is no reason to criminalize it and no reason to sacrifice our constitutional rights.