ALL AGENTS IN CALIFORNIA CAN READ MORE OF THIS RECENT COURT DECISION BY LOGGING ON TO THE CAR WEBSITE.....Here is the decision in a nutshell:

COURT LIMITS REAL ESTATE COMMISSIONER'S POWER TO REVOKE LICENSE.
The California DRE cannot revoke a real estate license for the commission of any crime. The crime used as a basis for the license revocation must substantially relate to the functions the licensed profession and must be either a felony or a crime involving moral turpitude. This was a ruling of a California appellate court in the recent case of Mr. X vs. DRE (2006 WL 2498015).

The case resolves the interplay between two sections in the CA B&P Code. Section 10177(b) allows the DRE to suspend or revoke a real estate license if the licensee is convicted of or pleads guilty to a felony or a crime involving moral turpitude. Section 490, on the other hand, allows a licensing board, such as the DRE, to suspend or revoke a license if the licsensee has been convicted of a crime substantially related to the qualifications, functions, or duties of the licansed profession.

In this case, real estate broker Mr. X pled guilty to misdemeanor battery for a domestic violence incident and no-contest for another incident. Three years later DRE filed a disciplinary action against him because, among other things, he and his then girlfriend gave highly inconsistent accounts of their altercation, the DRE failed to establish clear and convincing evidence that Mr. X "acted with the sort of readiness to do evil, or baseness, vileness or depravity that generally characterize crimes of moral turpitude". The DRE thus conceded that "under the facts of the convictions in this case there is no moral turpitude as required for a misdemeanor under section 10177(b). The Commissioner nevertheless revoked the broker's license by relying solely on Section 490.

Mr. X won in the Court of Appeal with this ruling, "licensing boards enjoyed too much discretion under their licensing statutes, and were exercising it in an arbitrary and standardless fashion to further penalize licensees for crimes that had no bearing on their fitness to practice their profession" The Court of Appeals concluded that Section 490, standing alone, does not authorize DRE to suspend or revoke a salespeson or broker's license but that it must be read in conjunction with 10177(b) which requires underlying nonfelony crimes to involve moral turpitude in order to discipline a licensee.

This article e-mailed to CAR members via their REalegal ends with the statement that the DRE is considering an appeal of the decision to the California Supreme Court.

ummm first of all, you obviously don't have children or know anybody who has been the victim of a sex offender.

acccording to studies at major universities sex offenders on average have a rate of recidivism of 60%. Which statistically means that more than half of those caught are likely to commit the crime again.

Those that experience sexual assualts are generally affected for life and have multitudes of mental, emotional, physical and financial problems for extended periods of their life.

And forcing a young child to perform fellatio when compared to selling a bit of pot or coke is like comparing rubber bullets to nuclear bombs.

Harry Reems, according to Wikipedia, is selling real estate in Park City, Utah.

I am in Kansas too and I think I remember having a background check at some point. I would say this slipped through the cracks and they are unaware of this persons situation. Of course we have a broker in the area that gets away with all sorts of stuff that KREC would normally come down on. What would it hurt to notify KREC and ask how they stand on the issue. I mean sex offenders need to make a living too but you sure wouldnt put one in a daycare. There has to be a line drawn somewhere. And if it violates there rights so what. They dont care about the victims rights. Dont they still cut peoples hands off in some countries for stealing. Imagine what they'd do to a child molester.

In CA, a conviction or nolo gets reported to DRE by the FBI. Depending on your jx, the crime may be one that tends to affect the man's license.

If you make waves, you may put yourself in jeopardy of being sued by the licensee.

Update from the Wizard of Oz...

Background Check and Felon Legislation Hearing on Wednesday in House Commerce and Labor On Wednesday morning at 9:00 a.m., our background check and felon legislation, HB 2295, will be up for a hearing in the House Commerce and Labor Committee.

HB 2295 would require all new applicants for a real estate license to submit a set of fingerprints to the Kansas Bureau of Investigation (KBI) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) for a comprehensive state and national criminal history record check. This would allow the Kansas Real Estate Commission (KREC) to review a complete and thorough criminal history of the applicant when considering whether to grant a real estate license to an applicant.

HB 2295 would also place limitations on the ability of KREC to grant a real estate license to an applicant with a felony conviction in his or her record. For the purposes of this legislation, past felony convictions would be divided into three separate categories. First, KREC would be permanently prohibited from granting a license to an applicant who had pleaded guilty or been convicted of a felony for any offense which would subject them to registration as a sexual or violent offender in the state of Kansas. Second, KREC would be prohibited from granting a real estate license to an applicant who, within the last ten years, had pleaded guilty or been convicted of any crime involving fraud. Third, KREC would be prohibited from granting a real estate license to an applicant who, within the last five years, had pleaded guilty or been convicted of any felony.

I believe this may be on the way of being taken care of...

In SDak you can be added to the SO registry for getting caught peeing outside. Something that was quite common driving home from a bar

"In SDak you can be added to the SO registry for getting caught peeing outside. Something that was quite common driving home from a bar "
With or without customers in the car?

I'm amazed the person was able to get any kind of license, temporary or not. The California Department of Justice does a background investigation with includes the standard FBI query so if the crime occurred anywhere in the country and involved violence it should show up when the applicants finger prints are run in AFIS. I've fairly confident but not 100% certian that a hit on prints would prevent a person from getting any license in Cali.

You know what they say............

Where ever you may be
Let you pee flow free

YOU obviously were never molested as a child. It is a fate worse than death in my opinion. My life has been completely ruined because of being molested by my step father for several years as a young child. I am 39 years old and am still dealing with my past. I am in counseling and have a lot of resentment and anger. YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT UNLESS YOU HAVE EXPERIENCED IT YOURSELF!!!!!!! I hope all sex offenders burn in HELL. There is no forgiveness or second chances when it comes to destroying an innocent child's life.

^^I'm really sorry for what you are dealing with and ahve been dealing with your entire life.

There should be no second chances - I agree. It should be an automatic life sentence with no parole and no computer access.

If only it were that simple.

It's strange to think that in many places there aren't standard regulations to prohibit criminals from obtaining a license. As Realtors, we have access to people's private homes and offices. Can you imagine handing a proven robber the keys to several homes in the community? Or have someone convicted of fraud handling large amounts of money, cheques or contracts? Sex offenders are no different. Realtors are often in situations where we are alone with people in a private residence. Offenders should not be given the chance to re-offend, especially when there are licensing procedures already in place.
Realtors have access to people's private homes. By giving known criminals a license you are giving them the chance to take advantage. The purpose of licensing is to obtain some type of professionalism- to protect the public.
Unfortunately, if you do the crime- you have to suffer the consequences of your actions. It is unfair to the public to allow criminals such privileged access. While there are always exceptions, or people who have managed to reform themselves- it is still in the best interest of the public to do background checks on all licensees.
I think people should contact their state or provincial licensing boards and demand that background checks be mandatory for their licensees if they don't already exist. It just makes sense.

Let me just say that I know Mr. X personally! He was setup by his ex-wife and ex-girlfriend after he broke up the relationships with them. Then he fired a troubled individual from his company and sure enough this individual teamed up with the ex-wife and ex-girlfriend. As a matter of fact, I have contacted Mr. X and his investigator has proven that most of the people in this forum are those mentioned above.

To the others, Mr. X is a VERY SUCCESSFUL REAL ESTATE BROKER that has made the mistake of associating himself with people like this. As a matter of fact, if two of these individuals did not have a little more in their bank account to chip in for rent with their roommattes, I am sure that Mr. X would be suing them by now. I am personally involved to ensure that this injustice does not continue and will contact Mr. X at once.

This is where the crime comes in: Those of you that have referred to Mr. X as a Sex Offender have now opened exposed yourselves to being sued for everything you have!!! If you read the case, you will determine that these case have nothing to do with SEX. Furthermore, Mr. X has been raising his children as a single father and has been granted PRIMARY CUSTODY of his two children for the last 5+ years now. Why do you think that is the case!

AgentsOnline.Com you should do your own investigation as to EVERYONE on this forum and expect to be subpeoneod for their information. It is obvious these people still can't seem to continue on with their lives without having some association with Mr. X.

Hello ~

I don't believe people can be sued for re-posting articles regarding a case or for sharing personal opinions and experiences. Your post brings up a couple of questions for me, however.

Is this person's character such that he continually aligns himself or associates with malicious people? Or is there something about him that makes an otherwise non-vindictive person to want to go to those lengths to get him in trouble?

You may know him personally but you may not be aware of who he is in private. People don't ordinarily share their "other" side freely and openly. Perhaps there is a reason for the charges?

Linda