Sunday, August 31, 2014

Background Checks



To whom it may concern:

I recently discovered a situation here in Century Village that caused me a great deal of concern. While doing research for a presentation on child sexual abuse I discovered that there are registered sex offenders living right here in the village. On further investigation I discovered that at least three offenders living here who were convicted of crimes against minors. Two of them for child pornography, which is an indication that the person is in fact a child molester as they are known to possess this kind of material, and one person convicted of some kind of molestation against a child in Broward County.

I brought these concerns to representatives of UCO ( Dom Guarmagia and Ed Black) at their offices on 8/28/2014. Their answer was that there was nothing they could do as the named offenders had completed their sentences and have been released into society as rehabilitated and have a right to reside wherever they like. On further questioning about the security checks that are a requirement for residency in Century Village . They replied that they had no jurisdiction and that it is the decision of the building association to accept or deny an application.

They further stated that there are in fact six offenders of this type living here.

This is a concern not to be taken lightly. We have many vulnerable elders living here , Do not make the mistake of believing that these types of predators are solely interested in children . In fact most child molesters are not pedophiles. Most are classed as situational offenders.

A situational sex offender is an opportunist who engages in misconduct when a situation develops or exists that makes the abuse possible. Situational molesters may engage in a wide range of abusive behaviors with individuals of all ages and do not fit any single profile. What they share in common is the willingness to engage in sexual misconduct given the opportunity. They may use force or coerce their victims, be indiscriminate concerning whom they molest, and act completely on impulse.

In light of this information I have to ask if UCO is perpetrating an extreme disservice to the residents who they profess to protect. I and many others residing here are under the misconception that thorough investigations are being performed to filter out people who may pose a threat to others. I am certain that not one person who has applied for residency here is aware of this gaping hole in our security , For the most part they have been lulled into a false sense of security by the perpetration of a myth by UCO and it's apparent security checks. I for one would have never agreed to live here and pay a fee for a service that is at best ineffective and at worst downright dangerous.

There is no legal recourse to force these people from our midst. However the best weapon in our arsenal is to expose them for what they are and what they have done. Usually this results in the molesters moving away .
The molesters among us may get shamed into moving away, but it still leaves Century Village open and vulnerable to others who may arrive in the future, and does not answer the question of how many other criminals who have engaged in serious crimes are among us at this time.
We as a people who care for the safety and welfare of others have a duty to act for the peace and security of all.

Yours in Service

A Concerned Villager


  1. This is not new news. I made UCO aware of this 14 years go when I first moved into the village. I had petitions going asking UCO to at least inform the residents when an offender was moving into the village. It fell on deaf ears, and it obviously still does. Nothing has ever been done about it. Yes, it is up to the association to decide to allow or refuse someone to live here, but that is not an excuse as to why oue residents are not informed when an offender moves in, as they are notified outside the village.

    When I first learned about the offenders living here, I contacted Detective Wood, who at the time was attached to the sexual offenders unit of PBSO, which he still may be. He notified me that one of the offenders who was on the list at the time should have been removed from the list, as he had just been arrested and therefore was no longer living in the village. He attacked some woman in the village and then absconded, and was found in NJ and brought back to West Palm where he was in our county jail. Incidentally, 2 of the 4 who were living here at the time were also under 55 years of age, and two of those same people are still living here. Aren't you happy to know that they have the very same privileges as you and I? I'm not! We also had another man living here, who dressed in crazy costumes, and dyed his hair and beard the same colors as the outfit he was wearing. He had a website, where he advertised his recipe for boy sperm soup, among other things. He was NOT on the offender list, as they could never catch him in the act. He used to brag that he enjoyed living here in Wellington association, because there were lots of grandchildren that he had exposure to, and that's also why he wore the crazy costumes - because the costumes attracted children.

    1. Boards can adopt amendments that permit an applicant to be rejected based on criminal history. These amendments cannot be enforced in an arbitrary manner. In other words, they should set forth specific criteria, such as persons convicted of a felony within the last 5 years or persons convicted of a crime involving theft, violence or property damage, so that the ultimate decision would be the same regardless of who is making the decision.”
      Often governing documents are written to provide a board what is called the right of first refusal. In those cases, a board can reject a tenant without providing a reason. Legal experts say such provisions tend to hold up in court.
      In Florida, unless there's a provision in the association's governing documents that deals with whether people who've been convicted of crimes can live there, the association has no power to keep those people out, whether it's a murderer who's been paroled or a sexual predator who's served his or her time.
      It may be impossible for an association to block a buyer of a condo unit. However, a rule excluding convicted sex offenders as tenants may be reasonable and could be enforced against all tenants if properly adopted.
      The law prohibits sex offender registry information from being used for the purpose of denying housing. A landlord who does use the registry for that purpose can be sued for damages and possibly fined. However, a landlord also has a duty to protect residents from known risks, or risks that the landlord should have been able to recognize.

      If a landlord decides that sex offenders constitute a known risk, he or she may consider denying applicants who are current sex offenders or evicting such residents. If a person is found to be a current health or safety risk to others that person will not be protected by fair housing discrimination laws.

  2. Good lord! Hope he is not living here any longer. Does anyone know the address of these offenders. Why can we not publicize where they live, alert people. I think there is actually something like this on line. I would have no compunction about listing them. Why do we bother doing criminal checks if the association is going to let them in? Are they nuts?

  3. Esther, that's what I was trying to do 14 years ago. Yes, we know the addresses of these offenders, and we can publicize where they live. As I said, I had petitions going around, along with the flyers with all the information about the offenders living here at the time.........including their pictures. If you want to check this out for yourself, here's the website with the info:

  4. Megan's Law was enacted to notify buyers and tenants about the proximity of registered
    offenders. The law requires every purchase contract and lease agreement to contain a specific written
    notice that a database containing information about registered sex offenders may be accessed by buyers
    and tenants. This disclosure is required for every lease or real property sales contract for residential real
    property entered into on or after July 1, 1999.
    There is no law specifically requiring disclosing specifics other than notifying prospective
    purchasers or renters that a database is available for them to look up the information themselves.
    It is possible this could be an issue covered under the Florida Supreme Court case Johnson vs.
    Davis, 480 So. 2d 625 (Fla. 1985). In Johnson vs. Davis, the court held that a property owner must
    disclose any information about the property that isn’t readily known or observable, which could
    materially affect the property value in the buyer’s eyes. Studies have found that property values decline
    4% to 17% in areas close to known offenders