Thanks for Commenting
Mario, I wish you'd tell your readers the whole story. The Rendleman case hs been going on for years and Patricia Madrid's been all over it.
http://www.ago.state.nm.us/pio/
p...dPornograhy.htm
December 28, 2003
(Santa Fe, NM) Attorney General Patricia Madrid today called for changes to New Mexico’s state constitution in an effort to fight child pornography.
“The New Mexico Constitution should not be interpreted to protect child pornographers under the guise of free speech. Unfortunately, that is currently the case. Suspected violators of New Mexico’s sexual exploitation of children statute are now afforded more First Amendment protection than most purveyors of adult obscenity are offered in most states. Unfortunately, New Mexico could become a magnet for child pornographers and we must not let this happen. This is a situation that must be remedied immediately. I will ask the legislature to amend the state constitution during the next legislative session,” Attorney General Madrid said.
“Yesterday the state supreme court declined to hear our appeal of the court of appeals decision in the case of State v. Rendleman. Although the case may eventually reach the supreme court in the future, that could be several years from now. The fundamental distinction between child pornography and adult pornography is simply ignored in the Rendleman opinion – adults can consent to the diminishment of their dignity but children cannot. The Rendleman opinion gives suspected child pornographers too much protection and children too little,” added Madrid.
In the Rendleman case, Mark Rendleman and his daughter were charged with sexual exploitation of children for allegedly taking nude pictures and videotapes of three young children. The defense in the case has claimed the photos and videos were art and therefore protected as free speech.
“My concern goes well beyond pending cases. We have a situation where those who produce, distribute, or possess child pornography will be afforded protection from our State constitution. Our children deserve better,” Madrid said.
In this press release, we have Patricia Madrid getting tough on child pornography specifically because of the Rendleman case. Here's the Court of Appeals opinion on the Rendleman case:
http://www.supremecourt.nm.org/p...W/03ca-
150.html
Patricia Madrid prosecuted and appealed a case against Rendleman in 2003-2004. The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Rendleman. Madrid appealed it to the NM Supreme Court and they declined to take the case.
I think it's important for your readers to know the truth about Patricia Madrid's record regarding Mark Rendleman. She aggressively prosecuted and appealed the case. When the judge ruled against the state, she called for tougher laws to protect our children. What more do you expect her to do?
The "whole story" as you put it, only serves to strengthen my point. Your argument seems to be that Patricia Madrid failed the first go around to successfully prosecute this guy because of the NM Court of Appeals. Ok, let's say I give you that. After all, there is a reason that the NM Court of Appeals is known around the nation as a Judicial Hellhole. However, the fact remains that she got a second chance to pursue this man with a vengeance and put him behind bars. Instead, Patricia Madrid let it drop because, and I quote, "because Rendleman's daughter married a good friend of Attorney General Patricia Madrid."
Oh, and one more thing... those self-serving press releases emanated from the Attorney General's office in 2003. Madrid's decision to drop the case happened this year - just like the Matthew Ward fiasco. Despite her rhetoric in 2003, she is two for two in 2006 for letting child predators back on the street.
...Talking about letting child predators back on the streets.
Police File Congresswoman Wilson accused of stealing; Husband accused of touching boy inappropriately!
http://www.rawstory.com/news/
200..._file_1019.html
It's always the cover up isn't it?
Commenting by HaloScan
