Sex Offender Going Door To Door For John Pallone in Long Branch

Long Branch residents are advised not to let their children answer the door this weekend when canvassers for John Pallone’s mayoral campaign come knocking for votes.

An alert Long Branch resident tipped us off to the fact that Christian Hendrickson, a Tier 2 level registered sex offender who was convicted in 2012 of Endangering the Welfare of a Child for Possessing and Sharing Child Pornography went door to door last weekend with Pallone and his running mate Bill Dangler.


Avery Grant, one of Pallone’s opponents in the election that takes place on Tuesday, May 8th, told MMM that he would not welcome a registered sex offender to his door to door campaign. “We all make mistakes,” Grant said. “I would help the man recover and get a job, but no I wouldn’t have him go door to door for me.”  Grant noted that he used to volunteer for a prisoner re-entry program.

Mayor Adam Schneider has not yet returned our call on this matter.

We left Pallone a voice mail requesting an explanation. He has yet to return any of our messages.

Posted: May 4th, 2018 | Author: | Filed under: Long Branch, Monmouth County News | Tags: , , , , , , , | 3 Comments »

3 Comments on “Sex Offender Going Door To Door For John Pallone in Long Branch”

  1. Oh boy, said at 7:38 pm on May 4th, 2018:

    this is beginning to look like a typical Frank operation, in several ways. Hope the Long Branchers are not taken in by this obvious push by the congressman and ex superintendent, to cash in on the accelerated development, there. By the way, isn’t Dangler a county employee? I thought they weren’t supposed to run for office, since around 2005. Not looking like a good situation, is it?

  2. @ Oh boy said at 10:18 am on May 5th, 2018:

    The only county employees forbidden to run for office are department heads. That resolution was approved in reaction to several county department and division heads who also held local office getting picked up in Operation Bid Rig because of corruption by them in their local towns.

  3. Ok, so, said at 10:51 am on May 5th, 2018:

    only department heads could be subject to potential corruption? Seems like that was a knee- jerk reaction to one incident, and actually, seems rather discriminatory- should be that either all can potentially run in their town, on their personal time, or no one can..