# State of CT closes 2 USSD schools; owner Joe Moscatelli arrested for voyeurism



## Carol (Jul 12, 2009)

> Moscatelli, 43, of 98 Round Hill Road, was arrested by police at his home on the night of May 28.  He was charged with two counts of voyeurism and one count of risk of injury/impairing the morals of a minor. Moscatelli was released with a promise to appear in court June 9.





> Guilford United Studios of Self Defense (USSD) owner Joseph A. Moscatelli, 43, has been charged with two more counts of voyeurism, bringing the total to four as police continue an investigation alleging Moscatelli&#8217;s business computer held illicitly recorded video clips of a minor female and employees undressing.  Adding to matters is news that the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection has closed Moscatelli&#8217;s Guilford and Branford studios after determining neither location was licensed. The closings leave those who may have paid membership fees uncertain of what they will be able to recoup.


http://zip06.theday.com/blogs/guilf...suspect-shown-setting-up-tape-police-say.aspx

http://zip06.theday.com/blogs/guilf...s/United+Studios+of+Self+Defense/default.aspx


Comments?


----------



## Twin Fist (Jul 12, 2009)

the old hidden camera in the dressing room trick


----------



## Carol (Jul 12, 2009)

Almost.

The pace-in-front-of-the-bathroom-and-direct-a-female-employee-and-an-11-year-old-to-change-in-the-utility-closet-instead-because-thats-where-the-camera-is-set-up trick.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3-xhKaBTgY&feature=channel


----------



## tshadowchaser (Jul 13, 2009)

it gives a bad name to all the have schools. that being said I imagin that the courts will look at the case and determin how long he will spend time in an all boys facility


----------



## stickarts (Jul 13, 2009)

I hate seeing news like that. I feel very badly for the victims and it also doesn't help the image of martial arts schools.

As far as loss of membership money mentioned, schools that use contracts in CT are supposed to pay into a fund that the State uses to help reimburse people in cases where the school closes and they lose money. I don't know the amount of funds available for reimbursement, however, there is an avenue that students that lost money may take to get some of it back.


----------



## Carol (Jul 13, 2009)

stickarts said:


> I hate seeing news like that. I feel very badly for the victims and it also doesn't help the image of martial arts schools.
> 
> As far as loss of membership money mentioned, schools that use contracts in CT are supposed to pay into a fund that the State uses to help reimburse people in cases where the school closes and they lose money. I don't know the amount of funds available for reimbursement, however, there is an avenue that students that lost money may take to get some of it back.



They are supposed to, but the core reason behind closing the schools was that they were not registered with the state as a martial arts/health club facility and therefore the schools have not paid in to the fund. I believe CT mirrors NH in their requirement for a $50,000 surety bond.

As far as I know under CT statute, the consumer still has protection under the law even if the school isn't registered, but the absence of a surety bond from the defaulted school may make claims a bit more lengthy.


----------



## stone_dragone (Jul 13, 2009)

I can only imagine the fiscal damage that it will do to other USSD schools, since I'd imagine that they all use the same crest/artwork so prominantly displayed on that news piece.

The loss, however, is not - nor should it be - the main concern here.  Does anyone know what the stats say about video voyeurs going into the realm of physical contact?  To me, the video is bad enough, but the danger of this fellow moving into the next level is even worse.


----------



## almost a ghost (Jul 13, 2009)

stone_dragone said:


> I can only imagine the fiscal damage that it will do to other USSD schools, since I'd imagine that they all use the same crest/artwork so prominantly displayed on that news piece.



The other cases pending against 2 USSD instructors in CA haven't had much impact. If it wasn't for MA boards I wouldn't have heard about the CT instructor.


----------



## Milt G. (Jul 13, 2009)

Hello,
Just sad...  Casts shadows on all schools, and makes instructors suspect.
Guess It has always been the "few", influencing the "many".
Glad they caught it when they did.
Hopefully this will remind us all to be "aware" of our surroundings!
Thank you,
Milt G.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Jul 13, 2009)

I'm definately not for bigger government, but I don't see what harm licensing people specifically for martial arts training would cause. Doing background checks and certifying people to train others is not too much I think.


----------



## Carol (Jul 13, 2009)

celtic_crippler said:


> I'm definately not for bigger government, but I don't see what harm licensing people specifically for martial arts training would cause. Doing background checks and certifying people to train others is not too much I think.



It would be extra cost to government and extra encumbrances that would have done _nothing _to prevent this from happening, unfortunately.  Its possible that it could throw up some stumbling blocks for folks that may have run with the wrong crowd at one time but have since turned their life around.  Many schools have members that are LEOs, and I think word could travel fast within the LE community if an instructor has a history of being on the wrong side of the law.  "Talk is cheap when the story is good," as REO Speedwagon said. 

The State of CT requires that all health clubs (which includes martial arts schools) be registered with the state.  Moscatelli did not register either of his schools with the state.

CT also requires that health clubs and martial arts schools that issue contracts have a $50,000 surety bond in place in case the school defaults, leaving customers out of their money.  Moscatelli did not have a surety bond in place for either school.

From what the news reports are saying, it doesn't seem like a background check would show anything of substance. The police haven't received complaints about either school prior to now.  As far as I know, Moscatelli wasn't "known by police" for any other reasons.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (Jul 14, 2009)

celtic_crippler said:


> I'm definately not for bigger government, but I don't see what harm licensing people specifically for martial arts training would cause. Doing background checks and certifying people to train others is not too much I think.


 
No thanks, Government is out of control as it is, this is just another can of worms that gets right up in my business. Besides nothing the government does works, except their apparant resovle to destroy this country.

No I believe that people need to go back to using common sense and paying attention more, that will help alot more then any over paid, highly benefitted, no skill having government employee trying to tell me what i need to do to run a martial arts business.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 14, 2009)

LuckyKBoxer said:


> No thanks, Government is out of control as it is, this is just another can of worms that gets right up in my business. Besides nothing the government does works, except their apparant resovle to destroy this country.
> 
> No I believe that people need to go back to using common sense and paying attention more, that will help alot more then any over paid, highly benefitted, no skill having government employee trying to tell me what i need to do to run a martial arts business.


 

So how would parents with no martial arts knowledge chose somewhere for their children to train that they knew didn't contain people intent on harming their children?
Here we have CRB checks, for teachers and other people employed to work with children and vulnerable people they are compulsory,for others it's voluntary but any instructor/school/club etc worth it's salt will have it done. We have.
http://www.crb.gov.uk/

If parents see that CRB checks haven't been done they will most likely chose not to send their children there.


----------



## Monadnock (Jul 14, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> So how would parents with no martial arts knowledge chose somewhere for their children to train that they knew didn't contain people intent on harming their children?
> Here we have CRB checks, for teachers and other people employed to work with children and vulnerable people they are compulsory,for others it's voluntary but any instructor/school/club etc worth it's salt will have it done. We have.
> http://www.crb.gov.uk/
> 
> If parents see that CRB checks haven't been done they will most likely chose not to send their children there.


 
Here in the US public schools run background checks on teachers, and it make sense. Public school is required unless you can afford a private school or home school.

Pushing this on every private business that works with kids doesn't. It should be optional and let parents decide if they send their kids there or let them ask the owner for his police record if they need it. If the owner won't produce one, go somewhere else. That's the only salt there is. Most schools that teach kids AREN'T worth there salt, martially at least.

If the parent won't sit and watch their kid in class, and doesn't trust the teacher, maybe they should find another form of daycare.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Jul 14, 2009)

True... Anybody can order a background check these days. 

I just get really sick and tired of these buttholes giving the arts a black eye. 

Oh well...Let the buyer beware!


----------



## Carol (Jul 14, 2009)

celtic_crippler said:


> True... Anybody can order a background check these days.
> 
> I just get really sick and tired of these buttholes giving the arts a black eye.
> 
> Oh well...Let the buyer beware!



How would a background check prevent Moscatelli from allegedly doing what he did?


----------



## celtic_crippler (Jul 14, 2009)

Carol Kaur said:


> How would a background check prevent Moscatelli from allegedly doing what he did?


 
There's no garauntees in anything. One can only try to properly prepare in order to try and tilt the scales in their favor. 

I'm not saying it would "prevent" _any_ occurance, but if the parent had run a background check it is possible they would see something that made them uncomfortable and therefore would not enroll their child and put them in a dangerous environmnet.


----------



## James Kovacich (Jul 14, 2009)

Background checks would have little effect. For one it would be to expensive to check all the schools and their instructors before choosing a school. I tried to get one for me and they gave me a teaser rate of $20 but said if I wanted all the info it was $50.

For me a background check will show I "liked" to party alot. That was then, almost 20 years since I had a drink. But the check "should" show that I was incarcerated for several years behind my partying in the '80's. Should I be judged on myself back then? Dosen't really matter because I don't have "daycare" type of  students but the point remains the same. 

Also I almost hate to say it but my fights while incarcerated helped me to evolve into my "what works" mentality. I really did fight "in the cage", before the UFC but it was a real cage in the night shift laundry. 

So there is a Yin and Yang to everything including criminals. I don't consider myself one but some potential jobs that look that far back do. My twist on life and the arts is due all of my experiences, good and bad. 

It's a shame that some people with good hearts could be associated with the truly bad by our country allowing people to profit by selling our personal lives info. Beleive it or not it has effected me as far as getting jobs. Most companies only look back 7 years but that is not written in stone. 

I didn't want drift to far but I feel it's wrong at how much personal info is so easy to get a hold of. Think not, spend a little time searching  social  security  numbers. I easily found my dads and aunts and uncles with their full names and address.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Jul 14, 2009)

You can't fault a parent for using any and all resources at their disposal to help keep their child safe.


----------



## James Kovacich (Jul 14, 2009)

No I would not. Raising my daughters I was more strict on them than my parents were because I didn't want them to follow my path. Theres just to much pesonal info readily available for anyone willing to pay for it. 

There should be more types of resources like Megans list and maybe for serious crimes. But in the case that started this thread, he was totally under the radar and  by the time he pleads guilty it may be for something lessor and may possibly remain under the radar.


----------



## Carol (Jul 14, 2009)

celtic_crippler said:


> There's no garauntees in anything. One can only try to properly prepare in order to try and tilt the scales in their favor.
> 
> I'm not saying it would "prevent" _any_ occurance, but if the parent had run a background check it is possible they would see something that made them uncomfortable and therefore would not enroll their child and put them in a dangerous environmnet.



That sounds very unusual. Do parents and consumers run background checks on professionals in your state?  I don't know any state in the country that supports that level of intrusion, but I've been wrong before.

Here in positions that require background screening, it is done at the time of hire and tthe only people with the information is the individual's HR department (or hiring manager if there is no HR). FACTA laws apply if HR garnered the information from a reporting agency.  Background checks are rarely done after the point of hire so someone hired in 1995 that was busted doing something illegal 2 years ago on vacation in Vegas may not get caught unless they change jobs.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Jul 14, 2009)

Carol Kaur said:


> That sounds very unusual. Do parents and consumers run background checks on professionals in your state? I don't know any state in the country that supports that level of intrusion, but I've been wrong before.
> 
> Here in positions that require background screening, it is done at the time of hire and tthe only people with the information is the individual's HR department (or hiring manager if there is no HR). FACTA laws apply if HR garnered the information from a reporting agency. Background checks are rarely done after the point of hire so someone hired in 1995 that was busted doing something illegal 2 years ago on vacation in Vegas may not get caught unless they change jobs.


 
Anybody can have a background check done on anybody. All you have to do is pay for it.


----------



## James Kovacich (Jul 14, 2009)

celtic_crippler said:


> Anybody can have a background check done on anybody. All you have to do is pay for it.


 True, they also have free checks butyou can't really trust these sources. I can't remember which service I paid for but I came up 100% clean, nothing to report. I demanded my money back and got it.


----------



## suicide (Jul 14, 2009)

one must ask what happend in his life to trigger him off to do such a thing ? or has he always been this way and suppresed it and now with technology so easy to come by he just couldnt resist ? ( knodding my head trying to understand ) well i hope his MA skills are up cause hes gonna need em jail :BSmeter:


----------



## Kenpo17 (Aug 30, 2009)

It definetly doesn't help with the images of martial art schools in Ct.  I do feel bad for the victims as wel as the owner and instructor who was arrested because who knows what was going through his head at the time.


----------



## shaolinmonkmark (Aug 31, 2009)

celtic_crippler said:


> Anybody can have a background check done on anybody. All you have to do is pay for it.


 

i concur.Now adays, you got the money and internet, you can screen anybody.


----------



## Xinglu (Aug 31, 2009)

All a clean background check shows is that they guy hasn't been caught yet!


----------

