Tara ,'Storyteller'
[NAFDA] Spike-centric discussion. Lusty, lewd (only occasionally crude), risqué (and frisqué), bawdy (Oh, lawdy!), flirty ('cuz we're purty), raunchy talk inside. Caveat lector.
The no convictions is only saying "in the juristrictions that report electronically that we have access to, there are no convictions." as I understand it
Note the wording. If they don't want to pay the fees, or if they don't have adequate security for the jurisdiction, for example, a search is going to come back clean.
Sadly, I don't know how much you can do to convince your mom given his stories to her. It's such a shitty position to be in, hon. I'm really sorry.
Unfortunately there isn't much you can do with adults other than present your views and stand your ground. She has the option to have him in her home, but you don't have to ever see him again. I hope it at least has opened a question in her mind. It is really hard to believe someone you care about is evil. I am just so sorry you have to deal with this.
And an adorable little tummy it is! Seriously, she has a lovely figure.
I just heard back from the dog rescue place. They're going to send someone over to do a home visit, and check my references, and if all that works out, then I'll get to adopt the dog!
No, omnis, there were felony convictions.
The California state government Megan's Law page lists three offenses. Two of them are phrased "prior code" so we're looking at multiple time frames. And the key phrase here is in the middle of the page: "Registrant has subsequent felony conviction(s) but DOJ has no incarceration information for this felony." which reads to me that there were subsequent felony convictions besides these.
"Sheriff's daughter" scapegoat thing could conceivably "explain" 288(c)PRIOR CODE - LEWD OR LASCIVIOUS ACTS WITH A CHILD 14 OR 15 YEARS OF AGE, but I'm skeptical on even that.
But even if that is exactly as he says, it does not explain the remaining two counts of 289(e) SEX PENETRATION WITH FOREIGN OBJECT OF A DRUGGED VICTIM and 261(2) PRIOR CODE - RAPE BY FORCE.
Plus, like I said, potentially additional felony convictions.
Ugh, omnis. I was worried that he would try to explain it all away. I'm sorry.
I'm not surprised that the guy would try to explain away the convictions. But Ido give him credit for having told your mom. If she has the information then I think you have done what you can. I can't see why you would have any liability beyond the normal kind with him at your house. Not that I would want him sleeping over myself...
I'm going to repeat the previous suggestion: ideally your mother, but if not, you, should talk to the prosecutor involved in the case. (His story has the added benefit - to him - of making the police sound untrustworthy, but if there are previous charges and such, you need to know the evidence and the story on any priors.