Posted on 01/25/2003 3:07:17 PM PST by kattracks
ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) -- Federal authorities have obtained the sealed records in the alleged Internet sex sting of former U.N. chief weapons inspector Scott Ritter to review for possible federal charges.
State Supreme Court Justice Joseph Teresi signed an order Thursday requiring police and Albany County prosecutors to provide records and any evidence to the FBI and the U.S. attorney's office.
Federal authorities filed a motion earlier in the week to obtain the records to determine whether federal laws were violated, the Daily Gazette of Schenectady and the Times Union of Albany reported in Saturday editions.
Assistant U.S. Attorney William Pericak refused to comment to the newspapers. A message to his office by The Associated Press was not immediately returned Saturday.
Ritter, 41, a critic of the Bush administration's push toward war with Iraq, acknowledged his June 2001 arrest this week in national television appearances but said he was prohibited from discussing details because the charges had been dismissed and the records sealed.
Ritter has suggested recent news reports about the arrest were an attempt to silence him. He said the publicity has forced him to cancel a recent trip to Baghdad, where he said he would have offered an alternative to military action.
Broadcast reports when he was arrested and recent newspaper reports have indicated Ritter was caught in an Internet sex sting, something he did not admit.
At the time of the arrest, NBC station WNYT-TV of Albany reported that William Scott Ritter Jr. -- Ritter's full name -- was charged with trying to lure an undercover police officer posing as a 16-year-old girl to a restaurant.
WNYT broadcast Ritter's mug shot but did not make the connection to his role as the chief U.N. weapons inspector in Iraq during most of the 1990s.
He was charged with attempted endangerment of a child, a misdemeanor that carries up to 90 days in jail, reports said. The case was adjourned in contemplation of dismissal, meaning that if he stayed out of trouble for six months, the charges would disappear and the file would be sealed.
That's what I was thinking after reading her remarks ...
WOW that was really stupid of her ..
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.
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.
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
Keep us posted!
Disgusting!
And how!
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.
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.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.