Posted on Nov 23, 2023
Moms for Liberty coordinator revealed to be a sex offender
749
25
11
8
8
0
“Fisher, a local pastor and Republican ward leader, was convicted in 2012 of aggravated sexual abuse of a 14-year-old boy in Chicago, Illinois, the Inquirer reported.“
Moms for Liberty coordinator revealed to be a sex offender
Posted from the-independent.com
Pastor
Children
Sexual Assault
Posted 6 mo ago
Responses: 4
4
4
0
Moms for Liberty exercised due diligence. THE STATE FAILED. Moms for liberty is only culpable in so far as they trusted the state of Pennsylvania.
Another example of the media, and left-wing/liberal/progressive/democrats focusing on their agenda and not giving a DAMN about kids. If you gave a damn about that 14-year-old kid and any other potential victims LTC Chu, there would be outrage that the Pennsylvania DHS cleared this guy. Instead, all we get from you on the failure of the state is crickets. Where's your outrage LTC Chu?
Moms for Liberty responded on X, formerly Twitter, by posting the results of a background check on Fisher conducted by the Pennsylvania Department of Human Services. “Our chapter chair did a background check with Pennsylvania DHS, and he was cleared pursuant to Child Protective Services law,” Moms for Liberty wrote. “He is certified by the state as ALL CLEAR,” Descovich wrote. “It’s remarkable how much time is spent trying to destroy us. The story should be about the PA system certifying this guy.”
SFC John D. MSgt Dale Johnson Cpl Vic Burk Maj Ronald (Ron) Scarpa MAJ Dale E. Wilson, Ph.D. LTC Stephen C.
Another example of the media, and left-wing/liberal/progressive/democrats focusing on their agenda and not giving a DAMN about kids. If you gave a damn about that 14-year-old kid and any other potential victims LTC Chu, there would be outrage that the Pennsylvania DHS cleared this guy. Instead, all we get from you on the failure of the state is crickets. Where's your outrage LTC Chu?
Moms for Liberty responded on X, formerly Twitter, by posting the results of a background check on Fisher conducted by the Pennsylvania Department of Human Services. “Our chapter chair did a background check with Pennsylvania DHS, and he was cleared pursuant to Child Protective Services law,” Moms for Liberty wrote. “He is certified by the state as ALL CLEAR,” Descovich wrote. “It’s remarkable how much time is spent trying to destroy us. The story should be about the PA system certifying this guy.”
SFC John D. MSgt Dale Johnson Cpl Vic Burk Maj Ronald (Ron) Scarpa MAJ Dale E. Wilson, Ph.D. LTC Stephen C.
(4)
(0)
Maj John Bell
SFC Casey O'Mally - I think you are giving the general public more credit than they are due. I don't believe the majority of people are aware of data bases like Dru Sjodin. I've never heard of it before your mention of it.
Most grass roots organizations aren't set up by professional organizers. "Moms for Liberty" isn't even three years old yet. They don't have the expertise they need on their local staff and are unlikely to attract that volunteer staff until they have grown to regional, state or national recognition. And at this state in their young existence, they are focused on their mission, not on potholes in the road. I don't think it is unusual for young non-governmental organizations to find out about a "land mine" until they've stepped on it.
The plain and simple is that Pennsylvania CPS did not do their job. If we cannot trust government to be thorough, accurate and diligent in areas under their purview, why are we paying them?
Most grass roots organizations aren't set up by professional organizers. "Moms for Liberty" isn't even three years old yet. They don't have the expertise they need on their local staff and are unlikely to attract that volunteer staff until they have grown to regional, state or national recognition. And at this state in their young existence, they are focused on their mission, not on potholes in the road. I don't think it is unusual for young non-governmental organizations to find out about a "land mine" until they've stepped on it.
The plain and simple is that Pennsylvania CPS did not do their job. If we cannot trust government to be thorough, accurate and diligent in areas under their purview, why are we paying them?
(0)
(0)
SFC Casey O'Mally
Maj John Bell
There is the difference between the "general public" and NGOs hiring for positions of trust. Even if it is volunteers.
And it is true that few folks have heard of Dru Sjodin (one of my reasons for posting; - back-door awareness). But a simple Google of sex offenders registry will get you there pretty quick. It is number 2 result for me, with the state registry being #1.
As far as the state goes, again it depends on what they are being asked to check. I am not from Pennsylvania, nor do I know their law or work for their department. But I *do* do similar checks on behalf of a different state. There are two different checks that can be done. The first is a local database check. This checks the state database for any mention of this person's contact with Children's Services - even as a prior victim. The second is a "full" background, which involves fingerprints, an FBI check, and a check of multiple public databases, such as Dru Sjodin. Depending on which check I am being asked to run, a lot of stuff - especially the out of state stuff - can be unseen.
It should also be noted that the "full" checks cost money. We have to pay a fingerprinting company, and pay the state Bureau of Investigation. These are generally not run on behalf of the public - because they cost money. However the public CAN get them done if they pay for them.
There is also a third type, called "Adam Walsh checks" that different people in the department run, but those are only for internal use.
So, generally speaking, when someone asks me to run a name, I am checking the state child abuse database. Anything beyond that is on them - and on their dime.
Now, all that being said, yes this is a learning lesson, and they should not necessarily be condemned for not knowing. But neither should they be entirely absolved or be blaming PA for not doing what they were not asked to do.
There is the difference between the "general public" and NGOs hiring for positions of trust. Even if it is volunteers.
And it is true that few folks have heard of Dru Sjodin (one of my reasons for posting; - back-door awareness). But a simple Google of sex offenders registry will get you there pretty quick. It is number 2 result for me, with the state registry being #1.
As far as the state goes, again it depends on what they are being asked to check. I am not from Pennsylvania, nor do I know their law or work for their department. But I *do* do similar checks on behalf of a different state. There are two different checks that can be done. The first is a local database check. This checks the state database for any mention of this person's contact with Children's Services - even as a prior victim. The second is a "full" background, which involves fingerprints, an FBI check, and a check of multiple public databases, such as Dru Sjodin. Depending on which check I am being asked to run, a lot of stuff - especially the out of state stuff - can be unseen.
It should also be noted that the "full" checks cost money. We have to pay a fingerprinting company, and pay the state Bureau of Investigation. These are generally not run on behalf of the public - because they cost money. However the public CAN get them done if they pay for them.
There is also a third type, called "Adam Walsh checks" that different people in the department run, but those are only for internal use.
So, generally speaking, when someone asks me to run a name, I am checking the state child abuse database. Anything beyond that is on them - and on their dime.
Now, all that being said, yes this is a learning lesson, and they should not necessarily be condemned for not knowing. But neither should they be entirely absolved or be blaming PA for not doing what they were not asked to do.
(0)
(0)
Maj John Bell
Well... I think it is wrong to release the names of a person's contact with Children's Services - even as a prior victim.
We're going to have to agree to disagree.
1) I doubt that Moms for Liberty is putting people in paid or volunteer positions having "direct contact with children." Direct childcare is not really part of their charter. I may be wrong, but I doubt it. If my assumption is correct, how much scarce resources should be spent on making sure LTC Chu and his ilk have no grease for their wheels. LTC Chu wins because he draws precious resources away from the NGO's primary effort.
2) How much expertise should a local chapter have? I bet that as we discuss this, "Moms for Liberty" is painfully aware that people like LTC Chu will look for any chink in the armor, relevant or not. LTC Chu is more interested in doing damage to Moms for Liberty than he is in ensuring that predators are kept away from children. I suspect that a Moms for Liberty national policy letter will be issued sooner rather than later on background checks.
3) You mentioned that you conduct similar background checks for a different state. Is it possible that your level of experience and expertise colors your view as to what constitutes basic due diligence? Not related, but I am a wood worker. I am continually amazed at how little people know about the basic care of things like wooden cooking utensils, cutting boards and knives. Things that should last for decades, generations don't last for a year because people let wood soak in water, requires some oiling, shouldn't be left to sit in a cooking fluid, etc. etc. etc. Then I think about how much I knew before I became a serious student of my hobby.
https://www.dhs.pa.gov/KeepKidsSafe/Clearances/Documents/CY113%20form%20-%20English.pdf
We're going to have to agree to disagree.
1) I doubt that Moms for Liberty is putting people in paid or volunteer positions having "direct contact with children." Direct childcare is not really part of their charter. I may be wrong, but I doubt it. If my assumption is correct, how much scarce resources should be spent on making sure LTC Chu and his ilk have no grease for their wheels. LTC Chu wins because he draws precious resources away from the NGO's primary effort.
2) How much expertise should a local chapter have? I bet that as we discuss this, "Moms for Liberty" is painfully aware that people like LTC Chu will look for any chink in the armor, relevant or not. LTC Chu is more interested in doing damage to Moms for Liberty than he is in ensuring that predators are kept away from children. I suspect that a Moms for Liberty national policy letter will be issued sooner rather than later on background checks.
3) You mentioned that you conduct similar background checks for a different state. Is it possible that your level of experience and expertise colors your view as to what constitutes basic due diligence? Not related, but I am a wood worker. I am continually amazed at how little people know about the basic care of things like wooden cooking utensils, cutting boards and knives. Things that should last for decades, generations don't last for a year because people let wood soak in water, requires some oiling, shouldn't be left to sit in a cooking fluid, etc. etc. etc. Then I think about how much I knew before I became a serious student of my hobby.
https://www.dhs.pa.gov/KeepKidsSafe/Clearances/Documents/CY113%20form%20-%20English.pdf
(0)
(0)
Maj John Bell
Maj John Bell - Should read "as a prior victim." People should be able to make their own choice as to whether or not they want to out themselves as a victim of child abuse.
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
I, personally, would favor more severe punishment for any adult that harms a child.
(4)
(0)
3
3
0
LTC Eugene Chu Is that Supposed to be Surprising? At this Point I'd be Surprised if there was a "Conservative" with an Agenda that isn't a Pervert
(3)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google