Matthew Bagert, 40, former priest, pleads guilty to child porn

[penelopejo]

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/yahoolatestnews/stories/041409dnmetexpriestplea.cfaaef44.html

http://i472.photobucket.com/albums/rr85/everdcg/0414bagertmatthew.jpg
Matthew Bagert

A former Grand Prairie priest has pleaded guilty to downloading child pornography on a church computer in 2005.
[Matthew Bagert]
Matthew Bagert

Matthew Bagert, 40, was indicted in November for downloading four sexually explicit photos of boys. His plea agreement was filed Friday in Dallas federal court. He faces up to 10 years in prison, up to a $250,000 fine and possibly a lifetime of supervised release. His sentencing date has not been set.

Bagert was initially charged under state laws in Dallas County district court. But in 2006 the case was dismissed because a judge ruled that a fellow priest and a deacon at Immaculate Conception Catholic Church in Grand Prairie broke the law when they searched Bagert's church computer without his consent.

State prosecutors turned the case over to the U.S. attorney’s office in Dallas, which filed federal charges.

According to court files, the Rev. Jesus Belmontes, an associate priest, said that he first saw what he thought was a questionable image on Bagert’s computer in December 2004 but that he wasn’t sure it was pornography.

More at the link.

How does someone not recognize porn?

[Dakota Valkyrie]

How does someone not recognize porn?
I can't even post a picture here to illustrate because I am a chicken shit to do the image search and what might come up. Then I would be the one with the name in the title getting posted on here.

But maybe it was just a young man in a provocative pose. A pouty face hip thrust thing but not naked? It did make the priest uncomfortable but until they looked at ALL his pictures, they were not sure.

We often see pics on MySpaces that are not pornography BUT are suggestive and make many uncomfortable. That may have been the case here with the one image.

[penelopejo]

I can't even post a picture here to illustrate because I am a chicken shit to do the image search and what might come up. Then I would be the one with the name in the title getting posted on here.

But maybe it was just a young man in a provocative pose. A pouty face hip thrust thing but not naked? It did make the priest uncomfortable but until they looked at ALL his pictures, they were not sure.

We often see pics on MySpaces that are not pornography BUT are suggestive and make many uncomfortable. That may have been the case here with the one image.

But they are not allowed to have such being Catholic Priests and all. Which is mainly why I asked that question.

I do have to wonder though, would I be able to sue my employers if they decided to search my work computer without my consent and find something incriminating? I mean, it is a church computer, and his job is at the church.

That deacon actually had the balls to go looking into the computer for what was believed to be pornography, and came out with more than he bargained for. But he deserves a thank you, or else this "man of God" wouldn't be pleading guilty today.

[runecire]

Makes you wonder what else was going on. Are the interviewing possible victims? Hard to believe he was doin the kiddie porn thing but not goin' after the kiddies also. I hope not; the last thing this world needs is more victims.

[El Supremo]

I do have to wonder though, would I be able to sue my employers if they decided to search my work computer without my consent and find something incriminating? I mean, it is a church computer, and his job is at the church.

Nope. In almost all cases, the computers themselves, as well as the network, internet connection, etc. is owned by the company (or church in this case). Here at my job, there is even a specific rundown in the Employee Handbook stating that all of our emails are property of the company, and that all systems will be checked periodically to ensure compliance with company policy. We are technically not allowed to install software, download programs, etc, and that employees should not expect their email messages or the contents of their computers to remain private.

[penelopejo]

Nope. In almost all cases, the computers themselves, as well as the network, internet connection, etc. is owned by the company (or church in this case). Here at my job, there is even a specific rundown in the Employee Handbook stating that all of our emails are property of the company, and that all systems will be checked periodically to ensure compliance with company policy. We are technically not allowed to install software, download programs, etc, and that employees should not expect their email messages or the contents of their computers to remain private.

But the whole reason why the previous charges was thrown out was because someone went on his church computer. Church=work for him, so why was it able to be thrown out in the first place if they are following the same rules as most companies. I guess cause he was the priest, he made the rules.....that's odd for sure cause I know I wouldn't be able to sue my company if that happened.

[Dakota Valkyrie]

But they are not allowed to have such being Catholic Priests and all.
They are not allowed to have pictures that make other people uncomfortable?

I was thinking along the lines of something like this:

http://i44.tinypic.com/2v0gaow.jpg

Not porn. But might make a priest uncomfortable when he found it on another priests computer. They said it was only one image he saw. So while it made him squirm, he was not going to say anything with out further proof. I suspect Bagert was giving off some other vibes that even made them question it.

I borrowed that from Abercrombie & Fitch. Their home page ad was a little more blatant:

http://i39.tinypic.com/2u555bc.jpg

Preists can have both those on their computers. Neither is porn. But I sure as hell would wonder why they did...

[penelopejo]

They are not allowed to have pictures that make other people uncomfortable?

You got me there. But, then there is this in the article:

Father Belmontes said that after attending a church workshop on recognizing and reporting sexual abuse in January 2005, he became concerned and decided to sneak into Bagert’s office to search his computer because he feared making a false claim against his colleague.

I don't know but it seems he recognized it after taking the shop. I guess we can say this father really is pure as the driven snow if he was unable to recognize it (or any other images) before hand.

[Kalehue]

But the whole reason why the previous charges was thrown out was because someone went on his church computer. Church=work for him, so why was it able to be thrown out in the first place if they are following the same rules as most companies. I guess cause he was the priest, he made the rules.....that's odd for sure cause I know I wouldn't be able to sue my company if that happened.

I wonder if he had his personal computer at work? Would that make a difference? Or perhaps since it was a co-employee and not someone in a supervisory position that did the search?

I'm not familiar with the laws, but it's sad that the first charges didn't stick and that Father Pervert didn't learn his lesson when he had the chance.

[Dakota Valkyrie]

... it seems he recognized it after taking the shop. I guess we can say this father really is pure as the driven snow if he was unable to recognize it (or any other images) before hand.
I was thinking more along the lines that the FIRST image itself was not pornography (it said he only saw one), but it made the priest suspicious along with other "signs" the guy was giving off. Once he took the seminar, he just felt more comfortable with the idea that something was "off". He STILL was not sure so got another priest to help him decide and went and looked at ALL the pictures. Obviously there were some definite things in there. No way would the priest not recognize hard core porn.