Mark Christopher Yantsos was arrested Friday after a County judge revoked his bond. Police allege Yantsos defied orders to stay away from the student. Instead, they allege, he met with her several times since he was charged, and had sex with her once again.
Yantsos made headlines after it was revealed MCPS had hired him without doing a background check, which was proven by the fact that his previous run-in with the law - brandishing a revolver toward a woman he was trying to pick up at a topless bar - is easily called up in a simple Google search. Yet he was hired by MCPS to run security at Richard Montgomery. You can't make this stuff up, folks.
This is some great reporting! Please keep us updated on this story!
ReplyDeleteNice job honey!
ReplyDelete8:16 - LOL.
ReplyDeleteOn another note, this is terrible. Prince George's County has some awful headline about this too.... DC as well. These teachers are just sleeping with the students. I think each school needs a counselor to whom students can report this stuff. Schools are becoming dangerous.
Excuse me... not just teachers but school employees. Most of the teachers seem to be laying off the kids. Sorry. I think it's most support staff but still. WTH?!
ReplyDeleteIn your headline, you a word out.
ReplyDelete@8:44AM I think it needs a comma between *on* and *accused*. :)
ReplyDelete8:44: You may be misreading it - Security leader / MCPS didn't run background check on / accused of sex with student / again
ReplyDeleteHow was Jack Smith "giddy", and how was the decision to drop charges "shocking" to anyone who actually understands how our American legal system works?
ReplyDelete9:02: Did you see his smile during the press conference? It was "shocking" if you believe the police professionals who gathered forensic evidence at the crime scene. The police said it was a slam dunk case, a violent assault. Surely the medical exam reflected that. I didn't hear any specifics on those at the press conference, nor did I hear whether the victim agrees with the prosecutor's decision, has recanted, or...?
ReplyDeleteThese details are important. Also really bad idea to have Leggett and Smith there. The judicial system is supposed to be independent of the executive. The optics are that open borders Leggett and Smith have some influence in this. SA and prosecutors should appear by themselves, and let the politicians talk later to the media. Just a terrible implication to make it a team. They're not on the team, so don't make it look like they are.
What happens with the bond? He put up property to secure the bond, so does the county/state get to seize that now?
ReplyDelete"You can't make this stuff up, folks."
ReplyDeleteExcept you just did.
1. the guy's name is Mark, not Michael.
2. he did pass a criminal background check in 2007.
"A simple Google search" gives me both of those facts.
9:23: He did not pass an MCPS background check, because even the most amateur one would have quickly uncovered the gun incident, and he would never have been hired.
DeleteYour claim that you can read internal personnel records using Google search is laughable.
9:18 - He is in custody now. "Revoking bond" simply means that he is now ineligible for release on bond following his second arrest. The property would have only been forfeited if he had become a fugitive after being released after his previous arrest.
ReplyDeleteIs this blog kept in Pacific Time as an honor to Reimer?
ReplyDelete"Also really bad idea to have Leggett and Smith there. The judicial system is supposed to be independent of the executive."
ReplyDeleteThe County Executive and the head of the MoCoPS can't attend a trial related to an incident that happened in a MoCo public school?
That's nonsensical.
10:54: They can attend, although it would be quite odd and unusual if they did. What they certainly should not do, is appear with the State's Attorney and prosecutors. They have absolutely nothing to do with that office, and their appearance sends the wrong message that they do have some role or influence on it.
ReplyDeleteMCPS has repeatedly and openly discussed that there was a background check done in 2007. Maybe you should read your competition so you don't come across as uneducated, Robert.
ReplyDeleteYou sir, just won the Internet. I'm also guessing that if Dyer wasn't so insulting and nasty, you'd have let him know his competition is publishing facts and better researched in a nicer way.
DeleteNot only does RockvilleNutz have time stamps showing the correct time zone, but it has more comprehensible headlines as well:
ReplyDelete"Montgomery HS security leader arrested for having sex with student...again"
Cut his balls off..
ReplyDeleteDyer, why do you keep denying that there was a background check? There was one - but it missed a charge that happened 13 years prior, in a different state, and which did not result in a conviction.
ReplyDeleteThis is not "reading internal personnel records by Google". As @ 11:54 noted above, this has been openly discussed by the MCPS since it became known shortly after the first arrest, and published in local news media.
Your inability to accept any challenges to your "facts" once you have made up your mind what they are, is infantile.
I come from Guatemala husband and girl daughter and 2 boys sons of mine I am years 38
ReplyDeleteWe leave bc rape and drugs don't want girls boys near bad people's gangs
Scared for kidz
We wait 5 years get in backs line to swear to flag of USA and say citizens
We mad at people's who come without waiting obey law of USA
I saw this news I talk to news man
Please read we like trump we no want the bad people left here
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/08/us/legal-immigrants-who-oppose-illegal-immigration.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=second-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=1
Worst attempt at pidgin English, ever.
ReplyDeleteBelieving MCPS' lie that they did a background check at face value is not journalism. Journalism demands a fact=based approach, and a skeptical mind. Any idiot can confirm no background check was done if a gun charge - in NYC, of all places! - wasn't easily uncovered in any basic background check.
ReplyDeleteThen, maybe assume some joker did an amateur background check via Google search - within 30 seconds, they would have found the gun charge, and he would never have been hired by MCPS.
Use common sense, and you'll get pretty far. I understand the small and slightly-failing magazine is the house organ for the MoCo cartel, and therefore isn't allowed to use common sense. That doesn't mean you can't.
A skeptical mind and a fact-based approach...
ReplyDeleteSo you can chuck it all out the window and use your opinion and your paranoid assumptions.
This kind of propaganda is how the United Citizen Federation got going in Starship Troopers
I'm confused. I keep reading that MCPs did do a background check. But now Dyer says they didn't?
ReplyDeleteDyer is reporting the facts on the case, the other reporters have been reporting what the council wants you to hear. The council is able to control every major news outlet, which is why I have been forced to turn to Robert's blog. Thank you for your hard work Robert! It does not go unappreciated.
ReplyDeleteRobert is NOT reporting the facts.
ReplyDeleteThere WAS indeed a background check. You not liking the results doesn't change the facts.
Exaggeration of the facts does not help with the prosecution of the case(s.)
Robert is clearly reporting the facts. If you don't believe, go down to Woodmont Avenue and see if Tastee Diner is there.
ReplyDelete7:16AM "council is able to control every major news outlet,"
ReplyDeleteThe Washington Post break room is still laughing 24 hours later. Good One!
This is much better than your Poppy character. The satire is more subtle.
7:51: No, there was not a background check. And the beauty of it is, we have proof there was no background check, because a background check of the simplest order would have immediately uncovered the gun charge in New York.
ReplyDeleteIt's embarrassing that other media outlets are so easily fooled. It's why they believed Pizza Pass, Bethesda Barbecue Co. and Quincy's weren't closing. Journalism 101: Just because someone tells you something, it doesn't mean it's true. It's great to have a quote. But if the person you are quoting is lying, the quote is worthless. Use judgement and critical thinking to get to the bottom of a story.
4:11: Have you read an expose on Hans Riemer's donations from out-of-state Wall Street crooks and their K Street lobbyists in any local media outlet (besides mine)?
@5:07AM No, I'm interested in the truth, not wild speculation. Competent people can investigate the same thing and have a different conclusion. It doesn't add up to any type of criminal behavior.
ReplyDeleteJust because you don't like the answer, does not mean it wasn't done. You need to dig deeper or find better sources. There was indeed a background check run. That's a fact, that doesn't change on your whim or your opinion.
Are you implying that the technology and results of background checks hasn't changed in 10 years? Pshaw.
Exaggeration of the facts does not help with the prosecution of the case(s.)
I can't imagine that's your intent.
Love and bacon, 7:51 and 4:11.
6:14: What kind of background check doesn't turn up a gun charge, especially one that pops up in seconds in a Google search? We've caught them dead-to-rights on this - no background check for a security leader. Humiliating.
ReplyDeleteDyer, it's obvious that you've never worked in any kind of organization. Background checks frequently miss important information.
ReplyDeleteIn this case, it was an incident that happened 13 years prior, in another state, and which did not result in a conviction.
6:52: Basic background checks don't miss gun charges in New York City. We got 'em on this one. Are your kids safe at MCPS? In short, no.
ReplyDeleteYou are doing a 2017 google search and wondering why they didn't get the same results over 10 years ago? Well, DUH.
ReplyDeleteTechnology has improved a bit over the years, don't you agree?
There was indeed a background check run. That's a fact, that doesn't change on your whim or your opinion. If needed it will be presented at trial.
7:41: A background check for a security position in 1985 would have turned up a gun charge. No Google necessary.
ReplyDelete1985? Laughable. There's less holes in swiss cheese than in your statement.
ReplyDeleteHere are the facts:
1) There was an actual background check done.
2) You *think* it should have turned up more than it did.
End of story. You can postulate all you want. It doesn't change the facts.
Exaggeration of the facts only helps the defense.
8:07: Ask any longtime FBI agent, or security professional, and he or she will tell you I'm correct.
ReplyDelete"Are your kids safe?"
ReplyDelete#HideYoKidz
8:16AM I did that, I asked someone who works "in Arlington." Wink-wink, nudge-nudge. He wasn't surprised when I laid out the facts. It turns out systems don''t work as well as we think they do. He recommended Malcolm Nance's book "The Plot to Hack America." I haven't read it yet, still reading Kevin Kruse's One Nation Under God.
ReplyDelete