hamptons local events, express news group

Story - News

Jan 30, 2013 10:12 AMPublication: The Southampton Press

East End Architect And Philanthropist Arrested On Child Pornography Charges

Jan 30, 2013 10:39 AM

Shock waves rippled through the South Fork last week when prominent East End architect and philanthropist Jay Lockett Sears was arrested on federal child pornography possession charges.

Mr. Sears, the 73-year-old founder of the Mission of Kindness organization in Quogue, which assists troubled families, is being held without bail at a federal facility in Nassau County after his defense attorney, Daniel Barker of Riverhead, failed to provide the court with a bail package on Monday afternoon that would have included an official request for bail and an accounting of Mr. Sears’s finances.

During his initial hearing on Friday afternoon, U.S. District Magistrate Arlene R. Lindsay issued a permanent order of detention for Mr. Sears, describing him as a “danger to the community and young children,” and refused to set bail. Mr. Sears will remain in custody unless a third bail hearing is set or until a trial begins.

According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the charges against Mr. Sears, who was arrested Friday morning at his East Moriches apartment, stem from him possessing sexualized images of identifiable minors. Investigators say he cut and pasted children’s faces onto the bodies of adults appearing in pornographic photos—a process known as “morphing.” Mr. Sears would then take pictures of his sexual collages, authorities said, though it was not clear if he ever shared or electronically transmitted the images to others, officials said. The court complaint, which is dated last Thursday, January 24, also includes a request for a warrant to search his apartment.

Hundreds of the altered pornographic images were found inside Mr. Sears’s home and in a Dumpster in Brookhaven Town. In several of the images he created, the complaint notes, Mr. Sears cut out photos of his own face and pasted his image onto the faces of the men appearing in the pornographic photos. He would do the same with photographs of young girls he previously photographed at various East End social events, including those taken at the Quogue Beach Club, pasting their faces onto the bodies of women in the pornographic images to make it look as though he were having sex with them. It appears that Mr. Sears used only photographs he took of young girls, according to authorities.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Allen Bode, who is prosecuting the case with Assistant U.S. Attorney Thomas Sullivan, said that at this time, it does not appear that Mr. Sears had sexual contact with any of his victims. Mr. Bode did note during Monday’s hearing that the investigation was ongoing. Likewise, the complaint does not allege possession of any images that actually show children being molested—only the pasted images allegedly created by Mr. Sears himself.

“As alleged, Sears victimized countless children by using their innocent images to create child pornography,” said U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York Loretta E. Lynch, in a statement issued by the FBI. “He then went so far as to use his own image to virtually join in the exploited scenarios he created.

“The sexual exploitation of children is one of our most important law enforcement priorities,” she continued. “Those who seek to harm children will be arrested and prosecuted.”

Mr. Barker has declined to comment on the charges filed against his client.

At Monday’s bail hearing, Mr. Bode said investigators are making progress in identifying the children in the pictures, adding that affected families will be notified. Mr. Bode also announced that his office intends to seek orders of protection for each of the children identified as the case moves forward.

The U.S. Attorney’s office now has 30 days to bring Mr. Sears before a grand jury for indictment, according to Robert Nardoza, a public information officer with the U.S. district attorney’s office. At that time, specific charges can be brought against Mr. Sears and it is possible that he will face separate charges for each individual child in the altered images.

If found guilty, Mr. Sears faces up to 10 years in prison.

Investigation Launched

The complaint states that on or about January 11, 2013, a man whose identity was withheld by investigators contacted the Suffolk County Police Department after discovering pornographic materials featuring images of children while emptying a Dumpster at the Brookhaven Town dump transfer station in Brookhaven. An experienced child pornography investigator, identified in the complaint as Detective Rory Forrestal, examined the materials “and immediately recognized them to be similar to materials from a prior SCPD investigation of the defendant ... in approximately 2007.”

1  |  2  |  3  >>  

You've read 1 of 7 free articles this month.

Already a subscriber? Sign in

This comment has been removed because it is a duplicate, off-topic or contains inappropriate content.
By LovedHerTown (132), southampton on Jan 25, 13 1:34 PM
What a disgusting man, wolf in sheep's clothes. Mission of kindness, yeah right. So gross.
By Eliza (29), Westhampton Beach on Jan 25, 13 1:37 PM
4 members liked this comment
Creepy, but child pornography? If I read the article correctly, the suspect cut out the heads of children from photographs of their appearance at public events and glued them onto pictures of adult men as if they were engaged in sexual activity. He did the same with photos of his own head. None of the parties ever saw each other much less interacted sexually.

Is there a public danger is this behavior? Is it a proper subject for police intrusion? Aren't we entitled to practice our ...more
By highhatsize (4217), East Quogue on Jan 25, 13 1:38 PM
1 member liked this comment
Are you kidding me? The article says "identifiable" children, obviously known to either police or other authorities. Do you think those children's parents were 1) ok with him having their children's photos or 2) even if they were ok for whatever reason with him having their photos, that they'd be cool with him cutting and pasting onto pornographic photos.

Get a grip. Put yourself in one of these parent's shoes who is probably sick beyond belief right now.
By Eliza (29), Westhampton Beach on Jan 25, 13 1:53 PM
I am definitely against any sort of practices myself.. However, highhatsize has a very valid point.. First off, there is absolutely NO implied privacy in a public place.. Therefore photos taken of you in such places are perfectly legal. Furthermore, him cut and pasting the photos onto another photo does NOT make the child naked - it is 100% implied, however still.. This is obviously just a visual creation of what his fantasy depicts in his mind. Again, I do not condone such things myself, but ...more
By The Royal 'We' (199), Southampton on Jan 25, 13 2:17 PM
From the way you sound maybe they should be looking into your affairs a little too.
By Andrew (11), Calverton on Jan 25, 13 2:23 PM
The story has been updated to reflect the legal definition of child pornography, which includes the practice of "morphing," of which Mr. Sears has been accused.
By Bill Sutton, Managing Editor (117), Westhampton Beach on Jan 25, 13 2:26 PM
Not at all... You couldn't be any more wrong. I'm just curious as to the interpretation of the law here.. There must be something there if he was arrested for it...
By The Royal 'We' (199), Southampton on Jan 25, 13 2:29 PM
2 members liked this comment
Maybe Mr. Sears, like HHS, didn't fully understand the true and legal definition of child pornography.
By Miss K. (103), East Quogue on Jan 25, 13 2:34 PM
1 member liked this comment
he posted the kids onto porn pics of women. not sure, but maybe you wouldnt mind your 7 y/o's pic being used in the capacity. I know I certainly don't want that going on.
By ArnoldZiffel (3), on Jan 25, 13 2:58 PM
1 member liked this comment
yeah, except it's illegal to morph like that.
By ArnoldZiffel (3), on Jan 25, 13 2:59 PM
1 member liked this comment
I think you and I sir can both agree that there is a VERY visible line when it comes to pictures of children.
By Eliza (29), Westhampton Beach on Jan 25, 13 3:24 PM
Det. Forrestal is a he.
By bb (922), Hampton Bays on Jan 25, 13 6:10 PM
2 members liked this comment
I hope he doesn't walk. There is more to this story.
By joan s (53), hampton bays on Jan 26, 13 8:56 AM
By Jaz1230 (4), Westhampton beach on Jan 27, 13 5:18 PM
1 member liked this comment
In answer to your question...as stated in the original article:

Child pornography is defined as, among other things, when a “visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaged in sexually explicit conduct.”
By pstevens (406), Wilmington on Jan 30, 13 9:33 AM
To "The Royal We":
It becomes visual to the public as soon as he puts it in his garbage and the garbage can be viewed by the public, such as in the Brookhaven Dump. Or if it was emailed to someone or published on the internet. Supposed a neighbor or other person familiar with the child's photo appearing in a nude situation with Mr. Sears recognized that child? Eliza has it correct. That child's photo was fine on his/hers own body on the beach or at a parade. But if that child's face was ...more
By plplpj (8), westhampton beach on Jan 25, 13 2:52 PM
Posters have misread the adjective, "identifiable", in the article. I believe that it means that the subjects were identifiable as minors, not as named persons. Further, the definition of morphing is as follows: "Change smoothly from one image to another by small gradual steps using computer animation techniques." The suspects behavior wasn't morphing, which aims to make it appear that the change is real. Rather it was decoupage whose artificiality was evident.

In any event, the ...more
By highhatsize (4217), East Quogue on Jan 25, 13 3:16 PM
Is this guy related to you? Only reason why you would so staunchly defend such disgusting behavior. This is not about big brother. I forgot you are the voice of the progressive liberal left on this website and others. Good grief.
By mrmako61 (148), southampton on Jan 25, 13 5:50 PM
Perhaps you should explain all of this to the FBI. they seem to have it wrong.
By bb (922), Hampton Bays on Jan 25, 13 6:12 PM
3 members liked this comment
Identifiable means the photo can be iidentified as a specific person, as in not blurry or darkened or obscured in any way.

And the process of pasting one body part onto another body etc is "known as" morphing, whether it fits the exact definition of the word or not (kids smashing mailboxes with baseball bats is known as "mailbox baseball"); and besides THIS IS NOT THE POINT . This guy is a freak, and is the reason why anyone who takes my daughters picture without permission is going ...more
By CaptainSig (716), Dutch Harbor on Jan 25, 13 6:40 PM
1 member liked this comment
I can see HighHatSize's technical point. Though whatever the technical nature of the images, they apparently still qualified as child pornography according to the law.

But JESUS! That IS a lulu of a story. Jay will be tradin' in the 'ol angel wings for an orange jump suit, I guess.
By elliot (254), sag harbor on Jan 25, 13 3:35 PM
4 members liked this comment
There are two issues here. One is the question of whether this man is guilty or not ("innocent until proven guilty"). The second is the subject matter, which is child pornography. If this man is proven guilty, then he needs to go to jail, and anyone on this thread who even shows an inkling of pity or understanding for him or child pornographers, including those people who are delving into the deep discussion of "whether the morphed pictures are really child pornogrpahy," all need to stop. There ...more
By briantymann (31), westhampton beach on Jan 25, 13 3:47 PM
I've seen Mr. Sears' Acts of Kindness presentation in different places, which I shall not name and was so impressed with this man. I'm in shock to think that. God only knows what really was going on in his mind as he presented to young children. I hope my children were never a part of his " cut and paste" pictures as the thought sickens me! Can't trust anyone it seems!!!
By pegee (14), Southampton on Jan 25, 13 3:52 PM
2 members liked this comment
As the parent of a former Quogue elementary student, where he spent an awful lot of time talking about kindness, and where he was pretty much a "celebrity" it's stomach turning to say the very least.

As disgusted as I am, I'm a bit surprised that he is denied bail on one count of possession. I'm guessing there is far more to this story if a judge found it necessary to remand him.
By Eliza (29), Westhampton Beach on Jan 25, 13 4:12 PM
4 members liked this comment
It seems as if it is open season on children,,,,they are under attack from so many people we look up to,,,If I had kids growing up at this time I would be scared to death.
By Etians rd (543), Southampton on Jan 25, 13 4:24 PM
I guess it's safe to say Jay won't be in the running for this year's Grand Marshall at the WHB St. Patrick's Day Parade.
By WHBinManhattan (47), Manhattan/Westhampton on Jan 25, 13 6:03 PM
he was the grand marshall like 10 years ago
By 5-0 (44), Montauk Point on Jan 26, 13 9:06 AM
I know, it's obviously just a timely joke.
By WHBinManhattan (47), Manhattan/Westhampton on Jan 26, 13 1:42 PM
1 member liked this comment
And now we must think of this perv every time we drive past one of the many homes he created throughout the area.
By Summer Resident (251), Southampton N.Y. on Jan 26, 13 1:12 AM
Where did he create/design homes.did he have direct contact with the children he used in his advertising,hope the DA takes a close look at wher the money went that he received through his appeals,SCPD INVESTIGATED HIM IN 2007 does an one know what the results of that investigation were?
By Etians rd (543), Southampton on Jan 26, 13 6:16 AM
He designed many large homes in WHB and Quouge. In the 70s and 80s they were rather angular and contemporary. In the 90s he went PoMo
By smacw (240), New York on Jan 26, 13 7:19 PM
I agree. What happened with the 2007 investigation? As Quogue is involved, it was probably swept under the rug like everything else. If Sears was indeed investigated for the same thing before - how many more children were subjected this since? Who else is in on this or has been covering it up?
By G (342), Southampton on Jan 26, 13 8:19 AM
1 member liked this comment
I am not sure if this is accurate but someone did say that his organization has been quiet for the last few years. Perhaps that is why?
By bb (922), Hampton Bays on Jan 26, 13 8:30 AM
they were rumors with this guy and this sort of thing a long time ago. . we as a people need to investigate this sort of thing when there are runmors
By 5-0 (44), Montauk Point on Jan 26, 13 9:11 AM
1 member liked this comment
"we as a people need to invesitacate"? I am sure you mean the proper authorities need to investigate, don't you? And should not such investigatins be done on more than a "rumor"?
Not defending this guy in any way, but cool your jets dude, put the pitch forks down and see how this plays out.
By But I'm a blank! (1283), Hampton Bays on Jan 26, 13 9:23 AM
The purpose of child pornography laws is to deter people from using children to produce pornography.

The guy's a sicko, but a criminal?

No children were harmed. He didn't make any money from this. He didn't do anything to make the pictures private. The photos were created and viewed in his own home until he threw them away.

I'm not defending this guy, but this seems like a harmless private activity, not grounds for criminal prosecution.
By JonathanM (5), New York on Jan 26, 13 11:37 AM
But that isn't what the law says. Of course, we also don't actually what he did and didn't do, other than the photos. There could be much more to the story.

As others have said, if your child's photo was distributed in this matter, you may feel differently.

By bb (922), Hampton Bays on Jan 26, 13 12:28 PM
Where there is one of these guys, there is a ring of other like minded sorts who trade these photos, and worse among themselves, and even peddle these images on the internet. I think we may have seen just the tip of the iceberg.

My first reaction was, yes a sicko, but is it really illegal as the pictures are cut/paste jobs and not actual shots of children being abused? As a parent of young ones, and reading up on the laws, I'm coming to another conclusion. Maybe the FBI guys will give the ...more
By smacw (240), New York on Jan 26, 13 12:55 PM
smacw, it appears you didn't read the article fully. Yes, it is illegal. It's called "morphing". Let me explain the scenario to you...Mr Sears finds a pornographic photo that appeals to him. Let's say it's a man engaged in a sex act with a female. He morps his head onto the man's body, and morphs a head of a little girl that he took a photo of at a fundraiser or event onto the woman's body. He then views it and I am sure we know what he uses that photo for! You don't find that even the least ...more
By Miss K. (103), East Quogue on Jan 26, 13 1:41 PM
Sorry that was meant for Jonathan....
By Miss K. (103), East Quogue on Jan 26, 13 7:04 PM
This comment has been removed because it is a duplicate, off-topic or contains inappropriate content.
By smacw (240), New York on Jan 26, 13 7:09 PM
sorry too, tried to delete but cannot seem too
By smacw (240), New York on Jan 26, 13 7:12 PM
1 member liked this comment
Jonathan--you ARE defending him . Its NOT a harmless private activity when hes using pictures of peoples kids you dum-azz
By CaptainSig (716), Dutch Harbor on Jan 26, 13 10:17 PM
He didn't distribute the photos to anywhere except the trash.
By JonathanM (5), New York on Jan 27, 13 10:20 AM
I did read the article and I do find it greatly disturbing.

Since the activity described was private and harmless, it's hard for me to see this as a crime.

By JonathanM (5), New York on Jan 27, 13 10:27 AM
That we know of. Clearly we don't know the details, just what the FBI has released.
By bb (922), Hampton Bays on Jan 27, 13 1:29 PM
The sentencing judge said that no children were harmed.

That's the key fact here, no matter how indignant you feel.
By JonathanM (5), New York on Aug 23, 14 8:37 AM
I remember reading years back about him having some mid life epiphany and starting this charity. Sounded great, but it seems he had an ulterior motive. This has become all too common. Dirty old man leverages celebrity and starts sick children's charity in order to have proximity and access to those children.
(google Sir Jimmy Savile when you have a sec, he could be Sears' role model)
Hiding behind altruistic intention, they prey on these sick children via parents who are also in a vulnerable ...more
By smacw (240), New York on Jan 26, 13 12:45 PM
1 member liked this comment
Why do they need to describe his clothing in such detail? Because it's not the the usual suspect uniform of baggy pants and hoodie? Or do reporters just have such a strong class warfare bone that they need to do this with upper socio-economic suspects?

When Mr. Christie Brinkley got in to all his marital difficulty, it seemed half the articles detailed his polo shirt, khaki shorts and brand of sneakers. All of which were mass market items you can get at the Gap and Footlocker. Just don't ...more
By smacw (240), New York on Jan 26, 13 1:23 PM
He always gave me the creeps.
By double standard (1506), Remsenburg on Jan 26, 13 2:03 PM
1 member liked this comment
Yeah man, that photo with the angel wings was over the top.
By dnice (2346), Hampton Bays on Jan 26, 13 9:49 PM
1 member liked this comment
If arrogance was a felony, this guy would have been incarcerated years ago. Funny, I have yet to meet an architect that is even remotely likable.
By realdeal (23), Southampton on Jan 26, 13 2:17 PM
1 member liked this comment
I never really liked the way Jay Sears was always running around trying to convince people he is some kind of God and should be put on a pedestal. I think true good people are very quiet about their charity and let their actions speak for themselves. I don't know what the Quoque School district was thinking by letting him in the school. After a five second conversation you can figure out Jay Sears was a little off his rocker. I hope that he never sent these images over the internet or ever touched ...more
By chief1 (2800), southampton on Jan 26, 13 3:05 PM
I would like to say my husband and I Heard about jay Sears yesterday.Our daughter battled brain cancer for two years and passed two years later, before she had passed we had got a call from jay Sears and he was very pushy to meet our daughter,he winter he needs to see her quickly there are angels around her,we accepted.This man came and met all of us,he than began to take pics of her and him and her this makes us sick knowing he has pics of her ,he also bumped into him after a few years anGBd he ...more
By JosephZarzana (1), on Jan 27, 13 7:33 AM
So sorry to hear about your child. You had no way of knowing that Sears was a sicko. If he was using the grief, pain and sadness of others as leverage to feed his twisted addictions, then he's a worse piece of garbage than I'd want to believe exists.
By double standard (1506), Remsenburg on Jan 27, 13 8:28 AM
3 members liked this comment
... is he a flight risk because of the wings?
By William Rodney (561), southampton on Jan 27, 13 8:41 AM
Good One
By Hambone (514), New York on Jan 27, 13 10:46 AM
lol, good one!
By WHBinManhattan (47), Manhattan/Westhampton on Jan 27, 13 10:47 AM
Best comment on the page.
By Hamptons Broker (3), East Hampton on Jan 27, 13 5:50 PM
Looking back through History, pederasty was an accepted practice through the centuries. But, if you've ever read about a teacher and a student doin' the "mess around", apparently it's fallen out of approved societal convention. It would seem we don't consider our adolescents as mature in our current culture, and we see modern adults as more manipulative.

Behaviors such as this have their roots in our evolution (apologies to the Creationists) and were "swept under the rug" for many centuries, ...more
By Mr. Z (11847), North Sea on Jan 27, 13 8:54 AM
Church of Rpme must have learned it from the Ancient Greeks. Thanks for the history lesson, but another side of human nature is strong reactions to violations of children. if you have children you would understand that. Will guys like Sears ever be weeded out fully, probably not. Parents have to be ever vigilant about adults taking too much or unusual interest in their children. And while I have seen some strong opinions and reactions in this forum, I haven't seen or read anything that qualifies ...more
By smacw (240), New York on Jan 27, 13 9:20 AM
It's always a good idea to understand behaviors, Z. The thing is, if I had a dog that was biting people, I could probably explain the behavior as instinctive aggression. Then I'd shoot the dog so he couldn't bite anyone else.
By double standard (1506), Remsenburg on Jan 27, 13 9:40 AM
1 member liked this comment
??? "apparently it's fallen out of approved societal convention"

No, legally we define minors as not having reached the age of consent. Sex with a child is therefore rape because they cannot give consent. So much the pedarest argument.

As for child pornography, the law defines it as images and the transmission of images. The violation of a minor occurs when you create and or transmit the image. Sounds tenuous but it's true.
By Hambone (514), New York on Jan 27, 13 10:51 AM
As Seneca once wisely opined, "Ignorance is the cause of fear". Fear incites anger, and "missing a camera and a few teeth", or "cover him with heavy stones", and even "maybe they should be looking into your affairs too" are things I noted in this thread. And, just stop to think about human nature for a minute. These are a few things posted here. People do alot more talking, than they do writing. I did not specify solely those here, or this thread. In fact I left it a general statement for ...more
By Mr. Z (11847), North Sea on Jan 27, 13 10:56 AM
Hambone, pedarest was an approved behavior because it was seen as guidance by an elder in Roman culture, as well as some others. It was brought up as a matter of comparison as to what has been considered appropriate behavior, and where the line is drawn as to what is not. Society did consent to it at one time, and now we in our "more advanced state" do not. It was about pedagougery when it was part of societal convention. If you look back to the prophet Mohammed, and there's some contention ...more
Jan 27, 13 11:06 AM appended by Mr. Z
By Mr. Z (11847), North Sea on Jan 27, 13 11:06 AM
I'd like to think we've evolved as a culture somewhat since back then.
By Miss K. (103), East Quogue on Jan 27, 13 11:31 AM
As do I. But, there are many days I have to stop and wonder if it's really wishful thinking. I do still see the oldest "sins", being committed in the most new fangled way every time I turn to the the news.
By Mr. Z (11847), North Sea on Jan 27, 13 3:00 PM
Leave it up to old MR Z to say such a bizarre thing that sexual relations was once ok with children. It has never been ok nor will it ever be ok to do any such thing. You think becaue you read about pedophiles on wikipedia that you are the know all of yet another subject.
By chief1 (2800), southampton on Jan 27, 13 7:07 PM
Historical fact proves otherwise. I wager you don't recall Mohammed being called a "pedophile" over the years?


I didn't think so.
By Mr. Z (11847), North Sea on Jan 27, 13 7:22 PM
This comment has been removed because it is a duplicate, off-topic or contains inappropriate content.
By smacw (240), New York on Jan 28, 13 2:32 PM
One posting away from 500 Chief1, what will you blather on about or complain about in that one? Mr z was merely stating fact. That at one time in mans evolution, pedophiles were accepted in society.
Things change luckily. Too bad you don't.
By But I'm a blank! (1283), Hampton Bays on Jan 29, 13 12:35 PM
1 member liked this comment
Thanks for the chuckle...
By Mr. Z (11847), North Sea on Jan 29, 13 5:15 PM
Yeah Z, but our evolution has also made us aggressive towards the wolf in sheep's clothing. So, it's not all that unpredictable that people want to hammer a man that used the guise of charity and goodwill as a vehicle to gain trust, and then betray that trust. If people want to pile on in this case then I think it's warranted, and I hope the pile is high and heavy.
By double standard (1506), Remsenburg on Jan 27, 13 11:33 AM
1 member liked this comment
That is true.

But, do we pile on with violence or evolved sensibility? A sound beating, or a sound amount of time in a nice private room without a view? I hope that every parent who was involved with this man files an affidavit regarding Mr. Sears' character/behavior as they see fit, so that it be read into the court record. Speak out about the betrayal. Speak up about how you feel. I say be heard, and make sure he hears you.
By Mr. Z (11847), North Sea on Jan 27, 13 3:13 PM
Yeah, a guy like Sears (if he's found guilty) may go to jail. When he gets out, the community will know he's a phony and a fraud. How many years did he spend trying to become a saint? So his legacy will be "That twisted pervert." That's a far cry from sainthood. So there's that.
By double standard (1506), Remsenburg on Jan 27, 13 5:35 PM
This comment has been removed because it is a duplicate, off-topic or contains inappropriate content.
By G (342), Southampton on Jan 27, 13 3:16 PM
once a sicko always a sicko! angel wings? sicko!! how long as this been going on with this pervert?? seems everyone knew but nothing done. I say we strip the angel wings and put him where he belongs, in prision where he will earn his "angel wings"
By xtiego (698), bridgehampton on Jan 27, 13 7:18 PM
2 members liked this comment
This comment has been removed because it is a duplicate, off-topic or contains inappropriate content.
By G (342), Southampton on Jan 28, 13 9:41 AM
I am stunned by the vitriol in some responses. The "actus reus" of this crime, as described in the article, is a lone individual manipulating photographs of children for his private sexual (?) gratification. The suspect is not charged with promoting or exchanging child pornography or of ever interfering with a child in any way. It was a wholly private perversion between him and inanimate objects that would never have come to life (and have inspired the calls for death by stoning) had not a dump ...more
By highhatsize (4217), East Quogue on Jan 28, 13 12:48 PM
2 members liked this comment
Surely HHS, one cannot be that naive, or can one?

Fiddle Fiddle Fiddle . . .
By Nero (301), Sag Harbor on Jan 28, 13 1:23 PM
However repulsive this entire activity is to most, since the man was not trading in these images by selling or swapping them, is this not a "victimless crime?"

It is, apparently, under the operative statute, "child porn," and something as yet disclosed brought the accused to the attention of the authorities five or six years ago.

But most of these howls of outrage and calls for physical torture (or worse) are over the top.

Oh, and I NEVER agree with HHS -- but this time ...more
By Frank Wheeler (1826), Northampton on Jan 28, 13 2:53 PM
1 member liked this comment
I suspect we may only know the tip of the iceberg. As the FBI is involved, that indicates that there may and interstate element to the investigation.

Can anyone detail some actual good deeds he or his 501 did? Even if he distributed some cash to strained families with sick children, it seems it was largely a self aggrandizing stunt to gain access to children.
By smacw (240), New York on Jan 28, 13 2:40 PM
3 members liked this comment
Along with members of a local church, I was present with Jay on a trip in the mid-90s he had helped to organize to find and feed homeless people in Manhattan. For what it's worth, there was nothing whatsoever during the course of the trip that led me to believe he was doing it for any other reason than concern for those in need.

But man, this is creepy.
By BigBlue (12), Water Mill on Jan 28, 13 4:18 PM
Article updated. US Attorney is seeking orders of protection for the children who have been identified. Professors of Constitutional Law recently aligned above may wish to consult the dictionary [no pun intended] regarding "naive" IMO.

Where there is smoke there is often fire IMO.

Defense counsel did not present bail package. Hmmmmm.

By PBR (4956), Southampton on Jan 28, 13 5:14 PM
1 member liked this comment
Hmmmmm indeed. A request for bail would necessarily raise issues of whether the defendant would possibly be a danger to himself or others if free on bail. A hearing for bail could be a circus in this case, especially if the authorities are holding their cards close to the vest.

What DON'T we know? Hmmmmmm.

On the flip side the defense may feel that he is safer inside prison than out in public. Draw your own inferences here . . .

"Nowhere to Run" might be the operative ...more
By PBR (4956), Southampton on Jan 28, 13 7:45 PM
This comment has been removed because it is a duplicate, off-topic or contains inappropriate content.
By Mr. Z (11847), North Sea on Jan 28, 13 8:43 PM
Can we get more than a generic explanation?

I know I don't warrant much "red ink", but the generic response leaves one to wonder why they "oopsed". Maybe an e-mail?

On a lighter note, they do seem to be keeping the public "in the dark".
By Mr. Z (11847), North Sea on Jan 29, 13 5:13 PM
Z -- The standards for deletion do seem to have shifted a bit, for the better IMO. As I recall, your deleted comment may have contained an "inappropriate" [to the editors] reference [by full name] to a person who had committed suicide.

Other posts deleted recently included specific references to other publications by name, especially East End and Long Island newspapers.

The 27east Terms of Use are pretty broad, so the editors have wide discretion. Freedom of Speech on public property, ...more
By PBR (4956), Southampton on Jan 29, 13 6:09 PM
Well, then let's leave it at don't be too zealous in your prosecution, or persection.

As for one of my heroes regardless, may he find the peace "freedom" did not grant him.
Jan 29, 13 6:12 PM appended by Mr. Z
By Mr. Z (11847), North Sea on Jan 29, 13 6:12 PM
Read a lot of these comments and learn why we have, and must have, an organized system for the administration of justice -- courts, lawyers, juries, etc. Sure, the crimes alleged here are heinous, but let some of these posters loose and you'd have nothing but bloody chaos. Let's hope they all restrict their acting-out to rants on good old long-suffering 27east.
By Turkey Bridge (1979), Quiogue on Jan 29, 13 11:03 AM
"investigators have had success in identifying many of the children represented in the pornographic images, and he will soon be seeking orders of protection for the children, whose families will be notified soon."

How horrible!
By Miss K. (103), East Quogue on Jan 29, 13 12:17 PM
Issuing orders of protection is a mistake typical of stolid government prosecutors.

The purpose of the child pornography statutes is to protect our innocent children. Issuing the orders will cause blissfully innocent children to be made aware that they are the subjects of sexual perversion, and will task their parents with the inestimable pleasure of explaining to them what that means, years before they would otherwise need to know about the darker side of human nature and its dangerous ...more
By highhatsize (4217), East Quogue on Jan 29, 13 4:13 PM
Oh, the gall !!!

HHS -- Do you know all the facts which are known to the US Attorney and other law enforcement authorities?

Do you acknowledge even the possibility of suicide by a defendant in this situation?

Have you spoken with defense counsel to ascertain what is going on behind the scenes?

Really, you can't make this stuff up!
By PBR (4956), Southampton on Jan 29, 13 4:29 PM
Once again,, HHS changes facts to suit his stand. The prosecutors do not issue an order of protection, the Judge does. And I doubt that he hands a copy to the children involved. The order is for Sears to stay away, refrain from, etc. While the parents may be told of the Order, the children are not.
Please elaborate on the "typical" aspect of prosecutors conduct.
By But I'm a blank! (1283), Hampton Bays on Jan 29, 13 4:26 PM
This comment has been removed because it is a duplicate, off-topic or contains inappropriate content.
By nodarngood, westhampton on Jan 29, 13 6:21 PM
to PBR:

Your objection is inane.

If you actually believe what you have written, why are you constantly posting jeremiads about the Sister Jacqueline Walsh killing? Do you know what is "going on behind the scenes" with the investigation therein? If not, according to your predisposition, shouldn't you be quiet?

Obviously, "I" know no more than is reported in the article. It is on those facts that I base my comments. If we all only commented on articles about whose particulars ...more
By highhatsize (4217), East Quogue on Jan 30, 13 12:31 AM
Res Ipsa Loquitur
By PBR (4956), Southampton on Jan 30, 13 5:26 AM
Assuming for the moment the truth of the allegations.

The accusations present a question concerning mental illness; and the extent to which that mental illness presents a danger to other people.

Our laws are ill equipped to deal with mental illness, mostly because the community at large is ill equipped to deal with mental illness, mostly because we don't really understand it.

I am not so sure this is victimless; we don't let people use our images for commercial purposes ...more
By Publius (358), Westhampton Beach on Jan 30, 13 8:27 AM
2 members liked this comment
This Just In! HHS has offered free legal consul to Mr. Sears... (or so it would seem. BLECH!).
By Nature (2966), Hampton Bays on Jan 30, 13 9:48 AM
1 member liked this comment
Two new articles just filed. Links are at the top left under this article.
By PBR (4956), Southampton on Jan 30, 13 2:26 PM
This article has also been updated with many new details.
By PBR (4956), Southampton on Jan 30, 13 2:28 PM
Apparently defense counsel has not filed a request for bail this week.

Hmmmmmm . . .
By PBR (4956), Southampton on Feb 1, 13 7:15 AM
I am not a blogger, I am not a lawyer, and I don't even normally write much, but I feel compelled to do so, hopefully to shed light on the situation that Jay finds himself in this day and hopefully it might help whomever may read this. The images that Jay created were never intended for public domain, they were his own. Some may even argue he has the right to do so, some may even say it was art, I am not the judge, I know he created them within the privacy of his own domain. He intended to rid ...more
By dglover (9), Brookhaven on Feb 1, 13 1:20 PM
dglover, curious first post.
By dnice (2346), Hampton Bays on Feb 1, 13 8:57 PM
dglover, did Mr. Sears actually take (with a camera, cell phone, etc.) any of the photographs of the children? Or are you saying that they all came from various publications only? Thank you.
By PBR (4956), Southampton on Feb 2, 13 8:59 AM
Dglover, art and his right? Give me a break. Maybe you should question the motives behind all of his "good work."
By double standard (1506), Remsenburg on Feb 2, 13 1:41 PM
I personally have never seen the images that Jay created. I am sure that many if not all would find them offensive, but they were his own. I am sure Jay is pained by the pain he has caused the community, and many that he has disappointed. I don't believe he ever intended to hurt any humanbeing. I found it interesting that he was trying to rid himself of something that I don't believe ever harmed anyone, but he finds himself in the place he is in today. I do believe his mission to spread kindness ...more
By dglover (9), Brookhaven on Feb 3, 13 1:01 AM
I have never seen nor was ever aware that such photos existed. Jay was a avid photographer taking pictures all the years I have known him. He is an architect, creative individual, I don't believe that he gave an image that he created the we may see as pornography to another, certainly didn't sell or post on the internet, I don't believe he would harm a child. I am sure the community will find the images he created, or thinking of them offensive, it concerns me as well, but they were never intended ...more
By dglover (9), Brookhaven on Feb 2, 13 11:07 AM
Dg you miss the entire point. The man who claimed to see angels in order to gain the trust of parents, and then have access to their children, is the same man who then manipulated photos of these kids to satisfy his perversions. To me those are the calculated actions of a pervert and a fraud. It also makes me wonder if all the good the man was supposed to do was authentic, or a clever path he created for easy access and trust. Either way, the 2007 investigation and now this should have questioning ...more
By double standard (1506), Remsenburg on Feb 2, 13 2:27 PM
2 members liked this comment
I don't know what the punishment should be, but if he's guilty, he sure as heck isn't the angel he wants us to believe he is. Frankly, I think he's a predator, pervert and a fraud. I wouldn't want him within a mile of my kids.
By double standard (1506), Remsenburg on Feb 2, 13 2:31 PM
However, the creations were Jay's own, who is damaged?

Who knows if anyone was damaged or if they would have been. As if there is anything even close to normal with this type of behavior. It is unnatural, offensive and dangerous. Be careful how much you think you know of someone. In the end, you only know what they want you to know.
By dnice (2346), Hampton Bays on Feb 2, 13 3:39 PM
dg - "Jay has sinned it should be left between him and God"

Hate to break it to you, but we aren't concerned with sins. We are concerned with crimes - and based on the what has been alleged and case law, we know what he did was a crime and he should have known it was a crime. He was investigated in 2007 for the same stuff and that didn't stop him. One can easily argue that he received gratification taking the "innocent" images of children knowing what he would later do with them. Let's ...more
By Nature (2966), Hampton Bays on Feb 2, 13 11:34 AM
2 members liked this comment
And just for the record to all reading this, DGlover is David Glover - quoted in the article above. Note Mr. Glover that I have nothing against you and think that you going to court to stand by your friend was courageous and commendable. Even if he is guilty, it does not mean that he should be abandoned by friends - it's my belief that your attendance does not in anyway imply you condone what he has done, you simply wanted to lend support.

From the article....

Mr. Sears, dressed ...more
By Nature (2966), Hampton Bays on Feb 2, 13 11:38 AM
Where do the laws and statutes come from? Is it possible that we may have bad case law? Were you there in 2007? Who was damaged, who was hurt? I understand when you mention children and pornography it is very upsetting, we want and should fight back at those who harm children, but can we as a people ever become to mistrusting or distrusting? May His peace and grace be upon you, and I hope this may help. David.
By dglover (9), Brookhaven on Feb 2, 13 4:13 PM
Look the other way, dg. That's the convenient path. I don't know who you are or what you do, but your judgement seems to need tweaking. Manipulated pornographic images of children and Jay and you question the laws. Man, you are out of touch. I seem to remember the Catholic church looking the other way when priests were molesting kids. I suppose that was a problem with our laws too? Unreal. May his peace and grace be upon me, and may he grant you the ability to see the forest through the trees.
By double standard (1506), Remsenburg on Feb 2, 13 5:01 PM
1 member liked this comment
dg - this is why we have courts and judges and juries. The only bad case law is case law that gets appealed and loses. That's not the case. The law is pretty straightforward on this, let's hope the grand jury sees it the same way so he can be punished for his crime. I'm not going to say he needs to rot in jail for years - but it seems to me that he needs something to set him on the proper path.
By Nature (2966), Hampton Bays on Feb 2, 13 5:55 PM
1 member liked this comment
My friend, I would never ever suggest looking the other way especially when it comes to protecting a child and I realize why many are so upset and rightfully so. I am not a blogger, or lawyer, or licensed minister, but I am a believer. And as believers I believe we are called to minister to oneanother. I have never discussed the laws with Jay as you suggest, I do believe there might be a flaw in the case law. I don't believe it has been argued at the US Supreme Court level and it may have been ...more
By dglover (9), Brookhaven on Feb 3, 13 10:44 PM
dglover, do you feel that the parents and child, about whom I asked questions below this morning, were "victimless?"

Thank you.
By PBR (4956), Southampton on Feb 3, 13 11:34 PM
2 members liked this comment
DG - maybe you know more about God than I do, and perhaps I know more about the nature of predators than you do. Predators look for opportunity. They manipulate situations and find weakness. They morph into whatever is necessary in order to make their victims (and there are victims here) feel comfortable, safe, and let their guard down. You choose only to see Jay's charitable work as good and harmless. I choose to see it as a means to a perverted end. Some people aren't worth friendship, benefit ...more
By double standard (1506), Remsenburg on Feb 4, 13 7:19 PM
Unfortunately there are people who have this problem. I don't know what Jay had created or his mindset at the time, and it is very concerning. However, if he would have been successful in ridding his mind and private domain of the images would there have been a victim? I know Jay needs prayer and I am going to be praying for you as well, In-Christ David.
By dglover (9), Brookhaven on Feb 5, 13 12:20 AM
dglover, IMO you do not appear to have answered the questions posed to you above and below, about the one specific instance alleged by the parents with the sick daughter.

If Mr. Sears went to console the child, took pictures of her, went home, used her photos to assemble a montage, and pleasured himself (even in the privacy of his own home), what is your assessment of this specific scenario?

Assuming Mr. Sears formulated the intent to do the above BEFORE he first left his house ...more
By PBR (4956), Southampton on Feb 5, 13 4:13 AM
PS dglover, not sure if you know that, in order to read long posts such as the one above, one must click on the blue "more" to open up the full post. Thank you.
By PBR (4956), Southampton on Feb 5, 13 4:25 AM
The lack of God is why we have a lack of morals and an increase in crimes. This country is becoming arrogant to think it above God our creator. We like to throw unborn babies in a dumpster and think it's open season on the born children. I don't know what Mr Sears did or didn't do, but I can tell he must of had some kind of bad experience to be accused of something so disturbing.
By chief1 (2800), southampton on Feb 2, 13 4:06 PM
"Lack of God" has NOTHING to do with it. Crimes against children have occured in countless communities and different countries in the past and currently. The most pious priests have been convicted of child abuse. So please leave God out of it.
By Miss K. (103), East Quogue on Feb 4, 13 10:25 AM
Chief - the accused claims he was visited by angels which lead him to start his not-for-profit. Pretty sure angels are wholly tied in with religion/christianity. Your argument is boggggussss
By Nature (2966), Hampton Bays on Feb 4, 13 10:39 AM
Hey Chief, I guess the problem with all the pedophile priests is "lack of god." Give me a break. People act the way way they do because they are who they are. If you believe there is an omnipotent god then he/she/it is responsible for everything, good or bad, that happens in this world. Its all part of the plan...
By Arnold Timer (327), Sag Harbor on Feb 2, 13 7:27 PM
1 member liked this comment
to dglover:

Your defense of your friend is commendable, especially since you must know that your loyalty will cause people to draw the inference that YOU are a pornographer as well. You alone have stood by him.

I hope that I behave in like fashion if a friend of mine is ever so disgraced.

Well done!
By highhatsize (4217), East Quogue on Feb 3, 13 12:30 AM
Yes Hat, I too hope your friends turn a blind eye to your perversions and fraudulent actions if the need arises. Bravo, sir.
By double standard (1506), Remsenburg on Feb 3, 13 9:38 AM
1 member liked this comment
In reading your comments, HHS, I would think it likely that you associate with friends who might be 'so disgraced', so prepare yourself...
By shampton (30), southampton on Feb 3, 13 2:17 PM
Mr. Glover,

There is a comment above ostensibly from a parent (1/27) about Mr. Sears coming over to console the family about a very sick daughter, and taking pictures, which he showed to the father years later.

Assuming that the factual information presented is accurate --

-- and only on this basis --

Mr. Glover, how do you judge the possibility that the defendant returned to his home and used these photos as alleged generally here, including deriving some kind ...more
By PBR (4956), Southampton on Feb 3, 13 7:34 AM
To reiterate, the question above assumes that the parent's comment is factually accurate. If it is not, it should be deleted ASAP IMO.
By PBR (4956), Southampton on Feb 3, 13 7:37 AM
dglover, please see the follow up questions above, about the specific scenario posed by the concerned parents, which would appear to include the defendant forming an intent, going to see the sick daughter, coming home, and so forth . . .

This string of actions would not have all happened in the privacy of his home, would it?
By PBR (4956), Southampton on Feb 5, 13 4:17 AM
My heart goes out. I really try to shy away from thoughts that may come into my mind that may only serve to robb me of living life. I would always choose life. I am reminded by a prophet who said that our emotions will often decieve us, he said that the heart above all is decietful, in other words we should not even trust ourself, never mind trusting anyone else, don't even trust yourself He goes on to say that we should put our trust in the Lord, I believe their daughter has gone on to a much ...more
By dglover (9), Brookhaven on Feb 6, 13 12:29 AM
Thank you for the courtesy of your reply.
By PBR (4956), Southampton on Feb 6, 13 4:58 AM
to Mathers:

You have created a straw man, to wit, a child pornographer who manipulated actual pictures of children being raped. You then attack the concept that someone would defend your fantasy creation.

No one is accused of doing what you said and no one is defending anyone who behaved as you describe. The facts in this case are very different from your pernicious fantasy.

At this point, there is no debate as to the fact of the suspect's alleged behavior being criminal. ...more
By highhatsize (4217), East Quogue on Feb 5, 13 12:34 AM
2 members liked this comment
HH .... Do you believe in preventative medicine?
By razza5350 (1911), East Hampton on Feb 5, 13 9:13 AM
Hat - let's say that you have a child that is in the hospital. Your phone rings and it's Sears on the other end. He plays his angels game and you let him come visit because you have heard of his charity and you trust him, like others have trusted him. He gets there and talks the angels talk and snaps a few photos. Then you find out that the pics he took are being manipulated and turned into something to satisfy Jay's sexual perversions. You are ok with that? This is acceptable behavior? You are ...more
By double standard (1506), Remsenburg on Feb 5, 13 2:30 PM
Do you really think that the children themselves are going to be notified? C'mon man, now you are just sensationalizing for the sake of winning an argument. The parents will be notified that their children's images were used, and the fragile psyches of innocents will be preserved.
By bubby (236), southampton on Feb 7, 13 2:17 PM
HHS images the police knocking on the door, pulling little janey aside and explaining - IN DETAIL - what this "not-so-bad" man did. I agree Bub, the parents get notified and it's up to them to decide what they tell their kids.
By Nature (2966), Hampton Bays on Feb 7, 13 2:23 PM
New article out. Link at top left under photos.
By PBR (4956), Southampton on Feb 6, 13 12:59 PM
Looked up this case recently. I see he was sentenced to time served, three weeks, and people complained about the light sentence.

At the sentencing, the judge stated that no children were harmed. Repeat, no children were harmed.

This guy spent time in jail and received a criminal conviction for a private activity where no one was harmed.

I guess that doesn't matter once the lynch mob mentality sets in.
By JonathanM (5), New York on Aug 23, 14 8:34 AM