ACSOL's Conference Calls

Conference Call Recordings Online - All Call Posts
Dial-in number: 1-712-770-8055, Conference Code: 983459, Time: 5 pm PT
Jan 11 (audio added), Jan 25 - Parole / Probation

Monthly Meetings Q1 2017

Jan 28 in Sacramento, Feb 11 in San Diego, Mar 11 in Los Angeles [details]

Lobbying in Sacramento

January 30/31 in Sacramento [details]

International

Caribbean: Sex offenders registry

TWO YOUNG attorneys have decided to work feverishly to change the sex offender registry policies within the Caribbean region. Inspired by the heart-breaking stories of victims and by their experiences in court, Gina Maharaj and Jonathan Bhagan have partnered with Zandoli International Foundation in North Carolina, USA to lead the Caribbean Committee Against Sex Crimes (CCASC). Full Article

Join the discussion

  1. Bill Arthur

    More bad news. Looks like the entire Caribbean region may soon be off limits if these two lawyers have their way in stirring up trouble —

    TWO YOUNG attorneys have decided to work feverishly to change the sex offender registry policies within the Caribbean region. Inspired by the heart-breaking stories of victims and by their experiences in court, Gina Maharaj and Jonathan Bhagan have partnered with Zandoli International Foundation in North Carolina, USA to lead the Caribbean Committee Against Sex Crimes (CCASC).

    http://www.newsday.co.tt/features/0,234116.html

    And, here’s info about the Zandoli Foundation. Looks harmless enough, but I fear that they will empower the spread of IML rule for the entire Caribbean. More beautiful places we won’t be able to visit.

    https://zandolifoundation.wordpress.com/

  2. Rick

    I might care if I ever traveled there, but I dont. Anyways, your way more likely to be raped, robbed, an murdered by their own backward citizens, then bothered by anyone on the so registry, who wont be able to travel there anyways, or be exposed to carribean style crusader vigilantism and corrupt police and theives working together, lol. Yea, we have our own discriminatory rules too. We dont want them coming to our country either selling drugs and killing people.

  3. mike r

    this disease is going to keep spreading like the epidemic that it is unless someone can find and spread the cure

    • Roger

      Mike R, the root cause of this epidemic the public’s fear of RCs, caused by politicians’ fear mongering to get easy votes.

      Yes, we can and should battle anti-RC laws in the courts to slow the epidemic, BUT as we’ve seen the courts alone won’t bring comprehensive justice. New anti-RC laws will continue to pop up like weeds until we address basic human fear. To use an analogy, if we just put a bandage on an infection without dealing with the cause, it will continue to spread.

      The only way to address a person’s irrational fear is to use this formula:

      Confidence = Knowledge + Experience

      For example, if a child is terrified a horse will bite her because a friend said it would, her parent could explain how tame horses are gentle (knowledge), then have the child feed the horse some grass through a fence, then pet the horse’s nose, and so on (experience).

      The public’s fear of RCs is just as irrational as the girl’s fear of horses.

      We must educate the public with KNOWLEDGE from reputable sources, such as statistics and opinions from the California Sex Offender Management Board reports.

      We must also give the public EXPERIENCE with RCs. Some of that will be by people watching each of us live law-abiding lives. On a larger scale, we must show the public that removing RCs from the registry does not cause a wave of re-offenses, as politicians scream would happen. First, we need to most low-level offenders off the registry. This requires a way to recognize low-level offenders.

      As time goes on and those former RC’s don’t offend, the politicians and public will have less fear of allowing medium offenders to get off the registry.

      Following that pattern, in time even high-level offenders might have the opportunity to leave the registry.

      The states will be watching each other’s progress in releasing RCs. Over time, this will build momentum nationally.

      There are a lot of parallels here to the gay right’s movement. When states started giving gays the right to marry, it didn’t cause the disruption predicted by some, which advanced their cause to where it is today.

      • Chris F

        I would have to disagree with the horse analogy.

        A horse is an animal that someone would want to pet, and that person would have a reason to want to overcome their fear and pet it. Others that didn’t fear the horse would want to show those that fear it why they shouldn’t fear it. The horse never actually did anything wrong to begin with.

        Sex Offenders are always going to be feared, and there is no sugar coating it. Nobody, other than a relative and maybe close friend (or rare needle in the haystack that is Janice) is ever going to stick their neck out for us no matter what they believe is the re-offense rate. We still did some bad crime.

        While we definitely need to show we are still human and not re-offend, as that would make our condition worse, we can’t rely on gaining supporters. This will have to be defeated in the courts based on logic, statistics, and precedent. We may be able to turn some haters that spread lies to neutral, but that’s about it.

        Our best case scenario is getting a judge/judges to fairly look at the issues and not use just any excuse they find or make up to rule against us.

        • Timmr

          I think you are right on. We (or rather our crimes) are never going to be looked on but with derision and disgust, and we will feel that disgust, whether it is actually felt or not, by the non-registrants who are helping us.
          While we may never or maybe should never obtain the level of simpathy that an LBGTQ or people who are discriminated by color of skin wil share among the liberal population, we can obtain someday a general understanding that we are also human because of our faults. This would require that people look into themselves and realize that but for circumstances they too would be in our positions. If they have never even contemplated doing what some of us have done, they may still realize that their own lives have not been lilly white pure, simply because our darkness makes their greyness appear more bright, that they may have harmed someone to a greater depth than we and because there was no law that would shame them for that or that they have never been caught, they are placed in a position to judge us. It’s funny, I mean odd, that part of our therapy must include empathy training. That is a great thing, but why isn’t it a part of the education of our youth? Why isn’t it a required course? Surely, all humans are fallable, and without that realization, we will end up hating ourselves and trying to eliminate each other. Death to the Registry.

  4. Look at the Atty's motivation

    You must also look at the atty’s motivation here and ask why are they doing this.

    Where are the attys actually from, e.g. Caribbean or USA?
    Are there possible political motivations at hand?
    Is it really the safety aspect as the article mentions as the crux of this effort?
    Do they realize the Caribbean basin is made up of various countries on these island and a regional pact may not be the best where it should be an individual country’s decision?
    The article mentions island hopping to satisfy predilections, but is that factually/statistically true or mere more unfounded hysteria? If true, to what extent?
    Is it not interesting they went to a foundation in N. Carolina of all places to seek help on this, given NC’s record of late against RCs?
    What are they hoping to get from the US Dept of State, e.g. financial aid, etc, if they agree to this?

    Whether you want to travel there or not is irrelevant, it is the continual lack of informed efforts that make these dangerous.

  5. mike r

    rick ..you should care whether it affects you or not….it effects your fellow human beings and Americans and it is affecting the entire world as it is setting precedents for these other countries to follow suit….as far as Roger’s comments I have to agree with the fact the population needs to be educated but as Chris states there will always be fear and fear mongers who want to instill fear for their own political or personal gains…I have to respectfully disagree that there is any other way to defeat these laws other than in the courts….any civil rights movements were not won in the streets but were actually won in courts…public perception may have influenced these decisions but when it comes down to it it was brilliant attorneys who believed in their missions and were willing to go that extra mile and put everything they had in the Fight.. most if not all of them also had a real personal stake in the fight with either their personal freedoms or the people they loved personal freedom at stake so they were willing to give it 100% and were not willing to settle with the incremental baby steps but fought the impossible and won….that is what this is going to take to bring sanity back to our courts since we can beat that dead horse of yours to death and never bring sanity back to a majority of our imbecile sheeple herd….those are the facts believe it or not…tell me i should do it myself then or I should start my own site and stop whining and complaining and do something about it but im telling you I believe it is also the responsibility of our civil rights leaders and their affiliates to participate and bring meaningful challenges to overturn this out of control tyrannical government…like I said mlk had to be coerced and practically forced to go all in by his colleagues and the people because he was NOT going to go all in like he did if they didnt push him to do it…

    • Rick

      Well I actually do care. My post was meant to demonstrate that we also have perceptions about them. Just a little reverse psychology. Anyways, if you elect to create your own site, thats your business. As for taking these issues to the courts, ya I agree you should. You appear to have the capacity to do so. I’ve filed 3 lawsuits, two were dismissed for technical reasons and the third was dismissed with prejudice and entirely ignored by the judge. I have wasted hundreds of dollars and hours putting them together. So it does get frustrating.

      I am in the process of preparing a small claims court case against my states DOC and couny sheriffs using the claim that they are unlawfully utilizing an employment contract and duty to care against me by requiring me to provide them with labor and information without paying me or giving me any benefits and subjects me to possible harm and injury every time i have to go to the police station. You do know that no contract is lawful unless both parties receive a benefit. Anyways these guys are making me spend my money and time doing work for them, and they control my image. I think the small claims court is going to have a difficult time explaining away this one sided contract under state law. NYS claims the sora is not a punishment, it is also not a federal power, then it must be an employment contract, since it strips me of all of my us constitutional rights, and employment contracts are derived from the master-servant relationship.. Anyways, thats where im headed next, wish me luck. This little case has the potential to hurt the sora really bad if the law is applied.

      • Chris F

        As I’ve said before, the judge will immediately dismiss a case that tries to claim registration is involuntary servitude. All the state has to do is give examples of all the other things people have to “register” for, like driver’s license, business licenses, census, taxes, jury duty, draft, and all the other “administrative” types of registrations and sex registration won’t look different enough. Then they will claim that the potential fines and jail time for failure to register are needed to insure it is done. They will claim that it’s in the public’s best interests and there is no less intrusive way to accomplish that legitimate state goal. They will demonstrate that the state gets no profit or product from you to constitute a traditional service of labor.

        Sorry, I wish you the best, but I don’t like to see you wasting time when your brain power and time could be spent trying other methods, even the ones that failed you before.

        • Katharine

          I have to disagree.

          Driver’s license: you get the benefit of driving legally
          Business license: the benefit of doing business legally
          Census: no legal penalty for not participating
          Taxes: theoretically, you get the benefit of roads and other public services; also, no in-person appearance needed to file them
          Jury duty: only activates for registered voters, not every citizen. You can easily avoid this by not registering to vote. And theoretically, you would get the benefit of seeing that justice is done.
          Draft: no legal penalty; also no in-person registration required

          As for the state receiving no “profit or product”, the product they receive is the registry entry. And theoretically, they profit by “protecting the children.”

          Make not mistake. Rick’s case is a long shot, for sure. But if he wants to file it and makes a really good case, it could be worth doing.

          • Beg to politely differ

            If you don’t register for the draft, there is a legal penalty in the fact it could stop you from getting any financial aid for any education during the draft registration period or afterward. You may not go to jail, unless the draft is reinstituted, but you can be haunted by not registering.

            Drivers and Business licenses are not rights, but privileges. You pay to renew each of them when required to maintain their use.

            There is a financial product for the state in the registration money they receive – it goes to the care and feeding of the registry database and associated paperwork of the registry in addition to the staff who have to administer the registry, e.g. people downtown and those in uniform/civvies who do the compliance checks of the registry. The money offsets those costs, maybe not 100%, but it does.

            So when someone goes in and pays a fee, they are paying for that service mentioned above so they can check on the other RCs in addition to themselves.

            Frankly Rick, kick those tires and see what you get. Never know unless you try…

        • Rick

          I have to disagree with you, the duties, and privileges you raised are provided for constitutionally and or you receive a benefit. Basic contactual law states both parties must receive a benefit in order for any contract to be legal. We are going to find out soon in a court that deals specifically with contracts, not the worthless constitution.

          • Contractual T&Cs for RCs?

            I agree that two parties signatory to a contract need to receive a benefit, e.g. money for a service, etc. I also agree to what you are doing regarding what is your benefit, Rick, for the contract you’re forced to participate in? It is understood what they receive and the public receives, but what does Rick receive (besides hassle, heartburn, etc) in the contractual terms and conditions?

        • Rick

          See my response below incorrectly placed in politely beg to differ post.

      • good luck

        Can you sue the government in small claims court?

        • Rick

          You can sue in small claims court for anything of value above for 20 dollars or more. I will be making claims in excess of 20 dollars for costs related to reporting, the lossof my image, loss of all of my constitutional rights, etc. In nys a vaid contract is comprised of two parties agreeing to get something back.

          The sora takes away all of my rights as a us citizen. They get all of the benefits of this unilaterally imposed contract by forcing me to comply. I never agreed to such a contract. Who would agree to giving away all of their rights to get them back by allowing someone to destroy their image and life.

          Contractually, no one can justify such an act unless it was a punishment. Small claims court is not about the constitution, its about tort law, contacts. Lets see if any judge would be willing to say this contract is valid where the state gets every benefit, including being paid by the us government for sora. The soras are total slavery, nothing more.

    • Roger

      Mike R, I didn’t say anything about defeating existing laws. Of course we need to fight them in the courts. No argument there.

      My point was that this will be an endless game in the courts of “whack-a-mole” until we can lessen the FEAR the public has of us (yes, that includes judges), which will decrease the motivation for politicians to create new anti-RC laws.

      How, you ask? The best way to begin the decrease of public fear is to SHOW the public how low-risk RCs continue to behave lawfully while OFF the registry. Then they will be open to letting more of us off the registry.

  6. mike r

    Benjamin Mays, a social gospel activist whose rich oratory and progressive ideas had left an indelible imprint on King’s father. Committed to fighting racial inequality, Mays accused the African American community of complacency in the face of oppression, and he prodded the black church into social action by criticizing its emphasis on the hereafter instead of the here and now; it was a call to service that was not lost on the teenage King…
    this is exactly what I am attempting to do and marshal Thurgood waited until they had the perfect individual in Rosa Parks (ie frank Lindsey) to challenge the Courts…the real issues have never been more ripe and the time has never been better nor have we ever had a better candidate then we have now

  7. steve

    All of these laws were created on ONE premise. High recidivism. These laws passed the strict scrutiny because of that ONE single belief. I don’t understand why someone doesn’t fight that one single issue. Can it be fought?

    • As soon as SCOTUS admits error

      The supposed “high recidivism” rate will always be a bone of contention until the data is borne out to those who need to see it, understand it and acknowledge it. That will essentially need to happen from SCOTUS first when Justice Kennedy retires. He will need to see, understand and acknowledge he was in error when he said what he said about the high recidivism rate from an article used in a government document that should not have been referred to or published out of context at all. You can read about that plenty here and online. There is a plethora of data already available from previous studies and probably even more recent data from many sources which corroborate only murderers are lower than RCs on true recidivism. Other courts are starting to recognize the data is valid and use it in decisions. However, until politicians stop passing laws and then throw them over the fence to the courts to decide if they are legal, it will be a continual battle.

      Those who believe in the sky is falling continually and bury their head in the sand will never believe the reality and truth of the matter. It won’t suit them or their agendas.

      • nomore

        That’s what lawyers are for. Lawyers SHOW them the errors. It’s what we’re saying and have been saying. It’s mighty frigging odd that nobody is doing that.

      • Solicitor General error correction

        There is a way to possible correct the prevailing the “high recidivism” thought train within SCOTUS.

        As has been noted many times previously, the “high recidivism” rate was provided by the USG’s Solicitor General (SG) as noted in an “‘Frightening and High’: The Supreme Court’s Crucial Mistake About Sex Crime Statistics” (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2616429) to SCOTUS for use in their considerations of the case at the time.

        Come to find out, there is a way for this error could be possibly corrected as noted in this article “Inside the Supreme Court’s little-known revision process”
        (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/inside-supreme-courts-little-known-revision-process/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=pbsofficial&utm_campaign=newshour&_utm_source=1-2-2)

        The question becomes does the Atty General (AG) get petitioned to correct the error if enough people contact them or if an online petition is submitted with an atty generated letter asking the AG to correct the error through the SG? Is it that simple? Obviously there is enough data to overcome the “high recidivism” rate thinking. If they can correct a 200 year old error, see the PBS article, then there should be no reason why they cannot correct an error 13 years later.

        Of course, in the end, you are asking the SG to acknowledge their own error and correct it. Have to wonder if that would get any traction and action.

        • nomore

          It’s one idea. I’ve seen a few ideas posted that I place in the same category as this. They “might” work but they all require the longest route possible to abolishment. A more direct and expediate option would be for it to be introduced into a legal case, perhaps in the IML suit. Pretty much any suit as a side argument. The discussion just needs to be initiated in court and perhaps in the “right” court but no need to do long drawn out approaches.

  8. mike r

    rick I applaud you and your efforts dont ever let anyone deter you or convince you that you cannot succeed in your personal efforts to find ways to fight this crap anyway you can…I to believe a civil suit for damages is a viable option and am actually considering drafting a motion for such action..the following is just an example of what such a argument could look like despite the fact that it’s just an idea thrown into a quick draft and I understand that it’s nowhere near what the actual motion for summary judgement would have to contain and the proper format…just throwing it out there maybe you can use some of the data or who knows just fishing for ideas helps…

    This court has jurisdiction because of the sex offender registration contractual agreement, that I was and am forced into through coercion and under duress with threat of imprisonment against my own volition, between the state of California and myself.

    Statement of the case;

    The defendants are knowingly and willfully misrepresenting the facts and empirical evidence with blatent disregard for the truth with statements of facts that they know or should have known are universally untrue in order to deprive me of my constitutional rights under color of law.

    I am the plaintiff in this case. I am a United States citizen who resides in Sacramento, CA.

    I am a non-violent, non-contact first time ex-offender from a incident that occurred over a decade ago. There was never any physical contact between myself and any victim. I completed my prison sentence and parole supervision without any incidents or violations despite all the obstacles and conditions of parole that were placed on me because of the sex offender designation. I have been arrest free and a completely law abiding citizen since my release. I do not pose any cognizable risk to the public. I was already severely punished for my offense and have been subjected to intensive monitoring and supervision while on parole. I should not be subjected to these registration and notification laws that involve consequences that are severely detrimental to so many aspects of my life.

    Statement of Indisputable facts;

    (1) The sex offender registration and notification laws (CA Penal Code § 290, Sex Offender Registration Act) violate my constitutionally protected liberty interest in my reputation which is protected under the federal due process clause in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and the California Constitution’s Article I, Section 7 on “due process, equal protection and the right to travel” with an irrefutable presumption of future offending that is universally untrue and which provides no meaningful process to determine such facts. See Exhibit (A)

    (2) The sex offender registration and notification laws (CA Penal Code § 290, Sex Offender Registration Act) violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth amendment of the United States Constitution and the California Constitution’s Article I, Section 7 on “due process, equal protection and the right to travel” See Exhibit (B)

    (3) Sex offender registration and notification laws (CA Penal Code § 290, Sex Offender Registration Act) violate my constitutionally protected liberty interests by infringing on my freedom of movement and my freedom of association which is protected under the Fifth and Fourteenth amendment of the United States Constitution and the California Constitution’s Article I, Section 7 on “due process, equal protection and the right to travel” See Exhibit (C)

    (4) Sex offender registration and notification laws (CA Penal Code § 290, Sex Offender Registration Act) violate my constitutionally protected right to liberty and to be free from unreasonable, arbitrary and oppressive official actions, which is protected under the Fifth and Fourteenth amendment of the United States Constitution and the California Constitution’s Article I, Section 7 on “due process, equal protection and the right to travel” See Exhibit (D)

    Exhibit (A)

    (1) My constitutionally-protected right to reputation is encroached upon by an irrefutable presumption of future offending that is universally untrue.

    These laws effectively brand me a “sex offender”, i.e., a public danger, for life. See Doe v. Pataki, 3 F. Supp. 2d 456, 467 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) [here in after Pataki III]; Doe v. Attorney General, 686 N.E.2d 1007, 1013 (Mass. 1997) [hereinafter Doe II];see also Bohn v. County of Dakota, 772 F.2d 1433, 1436 n.4 (8th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1014 (1986).

    Specifically, the public notification provisions imply that I am potentially dangerous, thereby undermining my reputation and standing in the community. Doe v. Poritz, 662 A.2d 367, 419 (N.J. 1995); cf. Neal v. Shimoda, 131 F.3d 818, 829 (9th Cir. 1997) (noting that “[o]ne need only look to the increasingly popular ‘Megan’s laws’, whereby states require sex offenders to register with law enforcement officials, who are then authorized to release information about the sex offender to the public, to comprehend the stigmatizing consequences of being labeled a sex offender”). Indeed, public notification that I am a convicted sex offender implicitly announces that, in the eyes of the State, I present a risk of committing another sex offense. Doe II, 686 N.E.2d at 144.

    The sex offender registration and notification laws violate my liberty interest in my reputation by making public my current personal address and current photo which is not public information and which puts me in physical harm every time I enter or leave my home and even while I’m in my home I can not feel safe. This information is also being publicly distributed on the Internet from privately owned and operated websites such as homefacts.com. That information being made public puts not only myself but my families lives and property in danger of physical harm, harassment and vandalism. These claims are not hypothetical situations or exaggerations, these claims are facts and the possibilities of these incidents occurring are real and in fact some have already occurred in my case. The Megan’s law website also displays my criminal record which is only available to authorized individuals who meet certain criteria and have a need to know basis, not to the general public at a click of a computer mouse.
    These laws affect and limit employment as very few employers will hire me simply because I am on a sex offender website that is accessible to the general public. These laws also restrict or limit my ability to travel for work or to be employed by local, state or federal agencies and severely affects my ability to obtain a business licence or business loans. They also limit what professions and careers that I can pursue and affect my personal and professional relationships in a severely negative way because of my inclusion on the sex offender registry and the publicly accessible Megan’s law website. These issues are not minor inconveniences but are major obstacles to my financial stability and to my fundamental right to life and liberty for me and my family. It also affects housing because very few property owners or property management organizations will rent to me for fear of vandalism and or the loss of present or potential tenants because of the accessibility to the registry by the general public. I am reluctant to move or purchase property for fear that I may violate some local ordinance or be forced to move because of some new law or ordinance being enacted and applied retroactively. I am also reluctant to move or purchase property for fear that I will be subjected to even worse harassment and vandalism by the community in which I move then I have already endured in my present location. These laws create real fears of being the victim of vigilante attacks, harassment and vandalism which forces me limit my activities to avoid being outside of my residence for fear of being harmed or harassed. I have had to call the police twice due to my family and I being physically threatened in one instance and having threats and profanity written all over our porch on the second incident simply because my information is on the Megan’s law website. My family and I have had our vehicles vandalized and our life’s threatened because I am subject to these registration and public notification laws. These laws cause me severe psychosocial stresses that cause major mental disorders such as major depression and anxiety disorders which can and do affect my ability to perform job duties or perform normal daily activities and to reintegrate into society. Once again these are not hypothetical, exaggerated incidents that have happened to other people but personal experiences in my case. I cannot move forward or successively reintegrate back into society because of all the collateral consequences caused by the registration and public notification laws.These collateral consequences will continue to cause me irreparable damage to my liberty interest as long as I am subjected to these registration and notification laws.

    See also for collateral damage caused by these laws.

    http://sosen.org/blog/2015/05/19/collateral-damage-in-americas-war-on-sex-crimes.html
    , http://sosen.org/blog/2015/02/09/spouse-of-registered-citizen-forced-to-quit-job-and-her-three-children-lose-their-home.html
    , http://sosen.org/blog/2014/12/01/refugees-usa-families-destroyed-by-the-registry.html
    . http://sosen.org/blog/2014/02/25/government-sanctioned-cruelty-to-over-half-1-million-american-children.html

    I have a liberty interest protected by the Constitution that entitles me to procedural due process because of: (1) the public disclosure of accumulated and synthesized personal information that would not otherwise be easily available; (2) the harm to my personal and professional life; (3) the foreseeable harm to my reputation; and (4) the statutory branding of me as a public danger, i.e., as a sex offender. I note that the “interest cannot be captured in a single word or phrase. It is an interest in knowing when the government is moving against you and why it has singled you out for special attention. It is an interest in avoiding the secret machinations of a Star Chamber.” Noble, 964 P.2d at 995.

    When the laws that have been passed are based on the justification of the high numbers. And they come out, in fact, be not only low, but extremely low. Lower than any other group that does not have the same restrictions or requirements. You would think that there would be a public outcry to do away with these laws but because of politicians are continuing the myth for their political gain, as well as professionals who have a fiduciary interest in the myth continuing and victims advocates, whose only real purpose is revenge. as well as Sensationalism of the news media. All these people continue the myth. Even though the hard data shows that it is a lie. What is it going to take to bring sanity back to our country and overturned laws based on lies and myths? That are in fact a springboard to passing other laws taking away constitutional rights of the American citizens.

    Finally what is this lie that is so corrupting and insidious that it has destroyed lives, family’s and children. And the fear of being added to the list created by this law has caused both adults and children to commit suicide. The laws based on this lie that have stolen the constitutional protected rights of not only individuals but whole families, well the answer is real simple. The lie is that people who are involved in sex crimes, have a high propensity to do it again. And even though at the time that these laws were passed there were studies showing lower reoffend rates of those in this group than any other criminal class, the laws were passed based on studies that since have been proven false and inaccurate and all the recent studies have shown no high propensity to reoffend.

    Without this issue, (the high reoffend rate) to support the states justification of the existence of the laws the rest of their reasons fall way as nothing more than rules, regulations and laws based on fear that is now unjustified.

    The Supreme Court has fed the fear of frightening high sex offender recidivism rates that has proven to be universally untrue. It’s become the “go to” source that courts and politicians rely upon for “facts” about sex offender recidivism rates that aren’t true. Its endorsement has transformed random opinions by self-interested non-experts into definitive studies offered to justify law and policy, while real studies by real scientists go unnoticed. The Court’s casual approach to the facts of sex offender re-offense rates is far more frightening than the rates themselves, and it’s high time for correction.

    The sources relied upon by the Supreme Court in Smith v. Doe, a heavily cited constitutional decision on sex offender registries, in fact provide no support at all for the facts about sex offender re-offense rates that the Court treats as central to its constitutional conclusions. This misreading of the social science was abetted in part by the Solicitor General’s misrepresentations in the amicus brief it filed in this case. The false “facts” stated in the opinion have since been relied upon repeatedly by other courts in their own constitutional decisions, thus infecting an entire field of law as well as policy making by legislative bodies. Recent decisions by the Pennsylvania and California supreme courts establish principles that would support major judicial reforms of sex offender registries, if they were applied to the actual facts.

    I am asking this court to apply the actual facts submitted in reports from the leading authorities and credible experts in the fields such as the following.

    California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB)

    Sex offender recidivism rate for a new sex offense is 0.8% (page 30)

    The full report is available online at

    http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Adult_Research_Branch/Research_Documents/2014_Outcome_Evaluation_Report_7-6-2015.pdf

    .
    Document title; A Model of Static and Dynamic Sex Offender Risk Assessment Author: Robert J. McGrath, Michael P. Lasher, Georgia F. Cumming Document No.: 236217 Date Received: October 2011 Award Number: 2008-DD-BX-0013

    Findings: Study of 759 adult male offenders under community supervision Re-arrest rate: 4.6% after 3-year follow-up
    The sexual re-offense rates for the 746 released in 2005 are much lower than what many in the public have been led to expect or believe. These low re-offense rates appear to contradict a conventional wisdom that sex offenders have very high sexual re-offense rates.

    The full report is available online at. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/236217.pdf

    Bureau of Justice Statistics
    5 PERCENT OF SEX OFFENDERS REARRESTED FOR ANOTHER SEX CRIME WITHIN 3 YEARS OF PRISON RELEASE
    WASHINGTON, D.C.

    Within 3 years following their 1994 state prison release, 5.3 percent of sex offenders (men who had committed rape or sexual assault) were rearrested for another sex crime, the Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) announced today.

    The full report is available online at. http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/press/rsorp94pr.cfm

    Document Title: SEX OFFENDER SENTENCING IN WASHINGTON STATE: RECIDIVISM RATES BY: Washington State Institute For Public Policy.

    A study of 4,091 sex offenders either released from prison or community supervision form 1994 to 1998 and examined for 5 years Findings: Sex Crime Recidivism Rate: 2.7%

    Link to Report: http://www.oncefallen.com/files/Washington_SO_Recid_2005.pdf

    Document Title: Indiana’s Recidivism Rates Decline for Third Consecutive Year BY: Indiana Department of Correction 2009.

    The recidivism rate for sex offenders returning on a new sex offense was 1.05%, one of the lowest in the nation. In a time when sex offenders continue to face additional post-release requirements that often result in their return to prison for violating technical rules such as registration and residency restrictions, the instances of sex offenders returning to prison due to the commitment of a new sex crime is extremely low. Findings: sex offenders returning on a new sex offense was 1.05%

    Link to Report: http://www.in.gov/idoc/files/RecidivismRelease.pdf

    STATE Studies

    AK 03% page 8 Criminal Recidivism in Alaska Alaska Judicial Council January 2007
    https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8635&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf

    AZ 05.5 % Sex Offender Recidivism Arizona dept. of corrections note bottom of page 03.3%
    https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8633&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf

    CA 00.8% The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) “2014 Outcome Evaluation Report“ http://californiarsol.org/2015/08/new-cdcr-report-reduces-rate-of-re-offense-to-less-than-1-percent.

    CA 05.0 % fig 12 California Department of Corrections And Rehabilitation
    2010 Adult Institutions Outcome Evaluation Report
    https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8632&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf

    CA 03.5% table 3-2 California sex offender management Board January 2008
    https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8630&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf

    CA figure 11 01.9% California sex offender management Board 2012 in looking at this one I realize that this is another attempt to increase the visual concept of a higher reoffend rate than actually exists you will note in table 11 , that there are 8490 released sex offenders and that 5870 are returned to prison or 69.1% going onto figure 11. The pie chart does not represent the 8490 but rather represents the 5870 . When you take this into account and do the math. 1.9% of 5870 comes out to 111 and 111 people involved in the new sex crime, out of 8490 comes out to an actual reoffend rate of 1.3% . This is just another way that the government is using razzle-dazzle techniques. In doing their statistical analysis.
    https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8943&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf

    CA 01.9 % figure 11 California Department of Corrections And Rehabilitation 2012 Outcome Evaluation Report
    https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8943&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf

    CA 5 year study 03.2% RECIDIVISM OF PAROLED SEX OFFENDERS – A FIVE (5) YEAR STUDY
    https://onedrive.live.com/?cid=A754C96E86E37F71&id=A754C96E86E37F71!8627

    CA 10 year study 03.3% RECIDIVISM OF PAROLED SEX OFFENDERS – A TEN (10) YEAR STUDY
    https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8626&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf

    CT page 9 01,7% And prisoners with no prior sex crime are six times more likely to be involved in a new sex crime Recidivism among sex offenders in Connecticut, State of Connecticut
    Office of Policy and Management, Criminal Justice Policy & Planning Division, February 15, 2012

    DE Table 26 03.1% REARREST 6 offenders and on table 27 3 Offenders were not found guilty of a crime that makes the percentage of people convicted of a new sex crime. 01.5% Rearrest should never be used as a determining factor. Delaware Sex Offenders, Profiles and Criminal Justice System Outcomes, January 2008
    https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8622&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf

    DE 3.8% rearrest table 7 Recidivism of Delaware Adult Sex Offenders Released from Prison in 2001 July 2007
    https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8621&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf

    DE 5% rearrest table 8 after 5 years Recidivism of Delaware Juvenile Sex Offenders Released in 2001 September 2007
    https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8620&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf

    FL 4.2% page10 Figure 2 10 year follow up SEX OFFENDER RISK AND RECIDIVISM IN FLORIDA
    https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8784&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf

    HI RECIDIVISM/REOFFENDING BY SEXUALLY ABUSIVE ADOLESCENTS: A DIGEST OF EMPIRICAL RESEARCH STUDIES Years: 1943-2008 85 RESEARCH STUDIES MEAN RECIDIVISM RATE FOR ALL STUDIES = 7.73%
    https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8619&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf

    IA page 7 #4 “With the overall recidivism for sex offenses as low as 2% “ Iowa Sex Offender Research Council Report to the Iowa General Assembly January 22, 2009
    https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8618&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf

    IA table 4 03% new sex crime THE IOWA SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY AND
    RECIDIVISM Iowa Department of Human Rights Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning and Statistical Analysis Center
    https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8617&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf

    IA ARREST 02.3% page 7 Iowa Department of Corrections Report to the Board of Corrections
    Third in a series of reports highlighting issues contributing to corrections population growth April 2006 Sex Offenders
    https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8616&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf

    IN bottom of page “1.05%of identified sex offender’srecidivated for a new sex crime within 3 years.” Indiana Department of Correction Recidivism Rates Decrease for 3rd Consecutive Year

    https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8935&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf

    IN page 22 05.7% Recidivism Rates Compared 2005-2007 Indiana Department of CORRECTION
    https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8936&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf

    ME page 12 03.8% Returned to prison for sex offense SEXUAL ASSAULT TRENDS
    AND SEX OFFENDER RECIDIVISM IN MAINE 2010
    https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8612&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf

    MI 8/10 of 1% three-year study has come out of Michigan looking at the number of people on parole that were returned to prison for new crimes they found that of the sex offenders who were released from prison and found that they were involved in the new sexually related crime at 8/10 of 1%, or in other words, that 99.2% DID NOT Reoffend in the new sex crime. And that they had the lowest reoffend rate of all the criminal classes released. the full report is here http://nationalrsol.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/CAPPS.pdf

    MN 5.7 % over 12 years Table 2 page 21 Sex Offender Recidivism in Minnesota April 2007
    https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8610&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf

    NY 04% profile and follow-up of sex offenders released in 1986 this one is another attempt to hide the facts . I finally found this information on page 19. They state that there were 556 offenders released below that on page 19. They show a table 14 the number of people related to each of those crimes that were returned to prison. If you look at the numbers for a new sex crime. You will see that they are 5,6,5 and 7 totaling 23 , when you do the percentages 23/556 UN that with the re-offense rate of 4% . If you look at the other graphs that they have provided they have shockingly high numbers . The problem is that they are only looking at the people that are returned to prison and ignoring the people that stayed out of prison. So their numbers are skewed because they did not include people not reoffending in their statistical data.
    https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8607&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf

    OH report to the Ohio criminal sentencing commission, January 2006 sex offenders Sex offenders in Ohio have a lower recidivism rate than the recidivism rate of all offenders (38.8 percent). A 10-year follow-up of a 1989 cohort of sex offenders released from Ohio prisons found that only 8 percent of sex offenders were recommitted for a new sex offense
    https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8604&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf

    OH Ten-Year Recidivism Follow-Up Of 1989 Sex Offender Releases EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommitment for a New Crime Sex Offense 8.0 % after 10 yeaars
    https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8603&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf

    WA03 07% Re-offended Department of Corrections Public Safety Update What is the re-offense behavior for sex offenders under supervision in the community? •Of the 264 offenders who committed a re-offense:•83% or 218 were unemployed •73% or 192 DID NOT have stable housing

    WY again I have to dig through the research to find the numbers . The end result is that between 2000 and 2005 , 545 sex offenders were released and of that 24 reoffended it in a new sex crime . That makes the reoffend charade of 04.4%

    For further information and empirical evidence on recidivism rates see also,

    http://sexoffender-statistics.blogspot.com/search/label/Recid%2001%25-05%25

    http://sexoffender-statistics.blogspot.com/search/label/Recid%2001%25-10%25

    http://sexoffenderissues.blogspot.com/p/studies.html

    http://www.oncefallen.com/recidivismchart.html

    http://sosen.org/blog/2015/01/12/simple-question.html

    http://sosen.org/blog/2014/11/06/why-are-the-reconviction-rates-so-important.html

    http://news.legislature.ne.gov/dist20/files/2013/08/NE_sex_offender_recidivism.pdf

    http://therealosc.blogspot.com/2013/04/as-we-said-so-long-ago.html

    https://rsoresearch.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/butner_study_debunking_kit.pdf

    http://www.oncefallen.com/SOMyths.html

    These conclusions are virtually the same in the majority of reports on this subject from multiple government agencies and throughout the academic community.

    Exhibit (B)

    The sex offender registration and notification laws are discriminating irrationally among classes of ex-offenders which violates the equal protection clauses.

    All sex offenders fall into the classification of felons and felons are a group or classification. The question is, are sex offenders being treated the same as all other felons, do other felons have to register or have the community notified of their presence after they have completed their sentence, are they being denied state and government services, are other felons restricted where they can live, work and recreate, do other felons face criminal prosecution, a felony offense which is punishable by three or more years in state prison, not for engaging in any type of criminal conduct but simply for not providing personal information to the government within a certain time frame? The answer is, no they are not. The courts have found that a distinction among members of the class of offenders is irrational regardless of the importance of public safety consideration underlying the regulations or relevance of prior convictions simply discerning any regulatory reason, however plausible, will not serve to satisfy the rational basis requirement of equal protection; relevant inquiry more properly focuses on whether the means utilized to carry out the regulatory purpose substantially furthers that end.

    These laws do not substantially further the regulatory purpose or the legislative objectives of increasing public safety, reducing sexual abuse or preventing recidivism as evidenced in the following reports and actual facts from the leading authorities on this subject.

    California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) End of Year Report 2014. (page 13)

    Under the current system many local registering agencies are challenged just keeping up with registration paperwork. It takes an hour or more to process each registrant, the majority of whom are low risk offenders. As a result law enforcement cannot monitor higher risk offenders more intensively in the community due to the sheer numbers on the registry. Some of the consequences of lengthy and unnecessary registration requirements actually destabilize the life’s of registrants and those -such as families- whose lives are often substantially impacted. Such consequences are thought to raise levels of known risk factors while providing no discernible benefit in terms of community safety.

    The full report is available online at. http://www.casomb.org/index.cfm?pid=231

    National Institute of Justice (NIJ) US Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs United States of America.

    The overall conclusion is that Megan’s law has had no demonstrated effect on sexual offenses in New Jersey, calling into question the justification for start-up and operational costs. Megan’s Law has had no effect on time to first rearrest for known sex offenders and has not reduced sexual re offending. Neither has it had an impact on the type of sexual re offense or first-time sexual offense. The study also found that the law had not reduced the number of victims of sexual offenses.

    The full report is available online at. https://www.ncjrs.gov/app/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=247350

    The University of Chicago Press for The Booth School of Business of the University of Chicago and The University of Chicago Law School Article DOI: 10.1086/658483

    Conclusion.
    The data in these three data sets do not strongly support the effectiveness of sex offender registries. The national panel data do not show a significant decrease in the rate of rape or the arrest rate for sexual abuse after implementation of a registry via the Internet. The BJS data that tracked individual sex offenders after their release in 1994 did not show that registration had a significantly negative effect on recidivism. And the D.C. crime data do not show that knowing the location of sex offenders by census block can help protect the locations of sexual abuse. This pattern of ineffectiveness across the data sets does not support the conclusion that sex offender registries are successful in meeting their objectives of increasing public safety and lowering recidivism rates.

    The full report is available online at. http://www.jstor.org/stable/full/10.

    From Justice Policy Institute.
    Estimated cost to implement SORNA
    Here are some of the estimates made in 2009 expressed in 2014 current dollars: California, $66M; Florida, $34M; Illinois, $24M; New York, $35M; Pennsylvania, $22M; Texas, $44M. In 2014 dollars, Virginia’s estimate for implementation was $14M, and the annual operating cost after that would be $10M.

    For the US, the total is $547M. That’s over half a billion dollars – every year – for something that doesn’t work.

    http://www.justicepolicy.org/images/upload/08-08_FAC_SORNACosts_JJ.pdf

    These conclusions are virtually the same in the majority of conclusions and reports on this subject from multiple government agencies and throughout the academic community.

    Exhibit (C)

    The sex offender registration and notification laws violate my right to freedom of movement and freedom of association by severely curtailing my ability to travel both interstate and intrastate and also international travel. With all the different state laws and local ordinances that are in place and the constant introduction of new legislation in the different states and the constantly changing local ordinances in thousands of cities and counties across the country, it makes it virtually impossible for me to travel or visit anywhere in this country without a very real fear and potential for violating one of these laws or ordinances. It is virtually impossible for a person of average intelligence to research, assimilate and abide by all the different state laws and local ordinances that apply to registered sex offenders across the country. I can not visit family or friends without extensive research of local ordinances and state laws and even after extensive research I still fear I could have missed one of these laws or ordinances. I can not attend meetings or protest that occur in places that prohibit registered sex offenders from being present. The punishments for violating one of these laws or ordinances are severe. The registration and notification laws makes it virtually impossible for me to travel to a multitude of major countries in the world as they are notified by our government of my registration status so therefore I am denied entry. These are not hypothetical situations and are not minor inconveniences of registration but are major violations of my constitutional rights to liberty. These violations will continue to cause me irreparable damage as long as I am subjected to these registration and notification laws.

    Exhibit (D)

    The sex offender registration and notification laws violate my right to be free from unreasonable, arbitrary and oppressive official actions. These laws are completely irrational as applied to me in my case since I currently pose no cognizable risk of re offense. Since I am a non-violent, non-contact, first time ex-offender from a incident that occurred over a decade ago there is no rational basis to continue to subject me to these laws that have consequences that destabilize my life, restricts my abilities to reintegrate into society and have been shown to actually increase known risk factors for re-offense while not achieving any legislative objective of preventing sexual abuse, increasing public safety or reducing recidivism. Since these laws have been seen as strictly regulatory in nature and not considered part of the punishment for an offense, there must be some evidence that the regulations actually achieve some legislative objective. These laws were originally designed to give law enforcement a tool to investigate and apprehend sexually violent predators, child abductors/rapist and habitual repeat offenders when such acts have been committed in the community but have since been expanded to the point to make the registration and notification laws useless to law enforcement or the general public. Just because these laws are so popular within the legislature or the public does not mean that there is a rational basis for such laws. With the facts and evidence of all the destabilizing collateral consequences I endure and all the recent research done on this subject there is overwhelming evidence that these laws are completely irrational and counterproductive especially when applied to non-violent, first time offenders such as myself who currently pose no cognizable risk of re-offense.

    Conclusion.

    (1) The sex offender registration and notification laws (CA Penal Code § 290, Sex Offender Registration Act. ) as applied to me, severely violate my fundamental liberty rights to my reputation and to my right to due process.

    (2). The sex offender registration and notification laws (CA Penal Code § 290, Sex Offender Registration Act. ) violate the equal protection clause.

    (3) The sex offender registration and notification laws (CA Penal Code § 290, Sex Offender Registration Act. ) violate my freedom of movement and freedom of association.

    (4). The sex offender registration and notification laws (CA Penal Code § 290, Sex Offender Registration Act. ) violate my right to be free from unreasonable, arbitrary and oppressive official actions.

    Supreme Court Justice Brandeis noted that the Founding Fathers
    recognized the significance of man’s spiritual nature, of his feelings and of his intellect. They knew that only a part of the pain, pleasure and satisfactions of life are to be found in material things. They sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensations. They conferred, as against the government, the right to be let alone-the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men.
    Olmstead v. United States,277 U.S. 438, 478 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting), overruled in part by Berger v. New York,388 U.S. 41 (1967) and Katz v. United States,389 U.S. 347 (1967).

    Law enforcement already has accessible records of my criminal record, including my DNA, my photograph and my complete set of prints and can easily locate me if they were to implicate me in a crime in the future. That process is the alternative to sex offender registration and notification laws and is the least restrictive measure that is available to the government that is related to the legislative objectives of increasing public safety and preventing recidivism. Furthermore, the government already has a meaningful process to determine if an individual poses a significant risk for re offense before ever releasing the person from custody. It is available in the states civil commitment statues. If a person is found to present a potentially high risk of re offense then that individual is confined under the civil commitment statues until it is determined that they no longer pose a risk to the public.
    It is in the public best interest to grant me this relief as it will increase my ability to reintegrate into society and increase the probability that I will maintain stability in my life and be a law abiding, productive member of society which actually decreases my risk for re-offense even further. It will also allow governmental agencies and law enforcement agencies to re-direct their limited resources to monitor high risk offenders more intensively thereby increasing public safety. It will also save the state tax payer dollars that can be used for policies that have proven to actually be effective.
    These laws will continue to cause me irreparable damage if the court fails to grant me relief.
    No one can doubt that child sexual abuse is traumatic and devastating. The question is not whether the state has an interest in preventing such harm, but whether current laws are effective in doing so.

    Prayer.
    I pray the court grant me this motion for summary judgement in the amount of 2.5 million dollars for lost wages, pain and suffering, and the detrimental affects to my reputation.

    I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to my knowledge on __________ Signed: _____________________________

    • PK

      wow that’s quite a bit of work! How does this affect the Caribbean Sex Offender Registry?

    • Rick

      Well, I think that its quite a draft, I wish I could show you my last lawsuit, it was a book, lol, full of well established facts and law. But I think it would be beneficial to use the michigan decision immediately in your citations. Also, compare and contrast your issues with winning case law, that makes your issue difficut to ignore. In addition, dont expect anything from the lower court, in all likelihood it will rule against you, what you are looking for is an opportunity to get to the ct. Of appeals where if they rule against you and the michigan decision it opens the door to a conflict of law only the u.s. supreme ct can resolve. This a part of the process, our only real help and hope nationally will come from the scrotus and the michigan decision will help immensely. If I were you, I would utilize the punishment, ex post facto, and due process clauses exclusively, just as the michigan case does. Good luck and it will take some time.

  9. mike r

    steve finally your in the same page….dont whine about why it isn’t happening though do something about it…sarcasm…thats what I hear anytime I’ve said these exact same things…

  10. mike r

    man pk get off of the comment police trip man you are just causing interruptions in the flow of conversation… who cares if were on topic constantly as long as were having productive dialog man….stop your bitchin and complaining…..get a life where your not trying to police people and pull your control freak habit on something else besides trying to disrupt productive conversation….no more it looks like some others are starting to come around to our way of thinking its just a slow ride for them lol…Roger I still have to respectfully disagree with your tactics…we have to face the fact and stop living in a fantasy world thinking that we are going to change perceptions and attitudes towards us…the world hates us and that shittttt aint going to change I dont care how much you preach or try to convince the sheeple they are not going to change their little minds about us…..face it….I applaud your efforts and support your right to try anything and everything to further our cause but we have to be realistic and face facts…public perception about us no matter how much evidence or how much talk until were blue in the face we do is never going to change especially when the politicians will never admit their wrong and neither will the public…we have to fight this like Mays said in the here and now not on some make believe future that will never exist……we HAVE to fight in the courts with massive amounts of indisputable evidence and very articulate and experienced lawyers who are in it to win it attitudes who have actual stakes in the fight and are willing to step out of their comfort zones or one of us or a conglomeration of us who will put together a motion that we put our hearts and souls in will we ever overcome and take down this disease infested registry and all its components…..pk dont start a big stink again man if you dont like the way the conversation is going go blank yourself and let others have productive dialog..dont mean to be rude or uncivil but come on man…..some of you guys claim to be so tired of my crap take a long hard look at what you guys are doing to oppress real conversations that may or may not lead to positive outcomes…..

    • ONE DAY AT A TIME

      PK was only giving you a polite reminder to stay on topic. It’s much easier to find your long postings when they are posted in the correct place. PK didn’t deserve your rude response.

  11. mike r

    love it….Hey no more did I hit it on the head with that last comment or what ???????hopefully some of thee guys will get my point now and back off with their strict on topic policing here…..its ridiculous…this stay inside the box attitude is why nothing has happened of any substantial effect on the registry scheme yet….need to get out of that box hit em with everything we got and listen to the wisdom of the past on how to fight this shittttttt…..that comment by Mays is an excellent example on what our cause needs to do too….we just need to find our MLK (which could be Janice and team) and our Rosa Parks which I claim is Frank Lindsey…..

    • nomore

      Absolutely, excellent post. I especially like your percentage posts. I would love it if you’d come to my future site and post those same and sane facts. From what I’ve gathered, there is no rational reason to continue this abomination called a registry. Your facts need to be continuously posted lest the registry supporters forget.

  12. mike r

    great feedback rick I would like to see your motion even if it is a book….your right the objective of any motion will be to get in front of scrotum…love scrotus how fitting

    • Rick

      Wow, I wish I could show it to you, it covered everything, all encompassing, destroying every facet of the sora. If you have access to the legal site PACER im sure you could see the whole thing for itself. I had to shorten it because of costs, lol.

      I wish I could publish it to demonstrate all of the laws, including federal and state, these clowns are violating and have numerous us supreme ct decisions backing it up. In short they have violated every major precedent in us legal history.

      Think about it, us citizens are being required to tell the government everytime they use a fundamental 1st amendment right or go to prison. Are you serious, this is worst then nazism. Its straight slavery. No rational person would agree to give away all of their rights with only the hope of retreiving threm, lol. Soras are not legal contracts, they are involuntary slavery promissory notes.

      Look, the entire us judiciary needs mental help. Because anyone who believes these soras are lawful, are insane, just like the nazis.

  13. DavidH

    unless we can be more committed than them we will lose this and IML will gain a standing in the UN:

    ” They intend for it to work in tandem with the US International Megan’s Law to Prevent Demand for Child Sex Trafficking (HR 4573).

    They are seeking consultation from the United Nations, as well as the US Department of State, to perfect the policy prior to it being signed into international law. “

    • Can't pick and choose which human rights

      As we know, the UN has no real standing in the world today. The UN also should not be picking and choosing which human rights to watch and comment on. Either watch and comment on all or none at all. Enough other entities pick on the USA and their miserable human rights when it come to RCs that the UN should not be any different regardless, even when they are HQ’d in NYC.

  14. cxr

    I notice the a sex registry just announced in the Carribran now the Casrribean is to be pounded by a hurricane, along wih Florida. If I believed God was immediately reactionary, I would think its no coincidence the Carribean and Florida are to be pounded by a HUrricane. But then again, in Florida, and soon in thew Carribean I’m sure, registrants can’t and will not be allowed to go to homeless shelters with families and will have to fend for themselves. SO this couldn’t be an act of God.

    • Rick

      I hate to say this, but I hope florida is decimated. I dont want people hurt. But I do want massive damage, so they can all live under bridges.

      • Chris F

        It will be interesting to find out what happens to the 250+ sex offenders in that camp since they aren’t allowed in hurricane shelters.

        I guess that’s one way Florida can get rid of its sex offender burden. They just had to enact the right laws and hope they didn’t get overturned before the next hurricane solves the problem for them.

      • PK

        Another proud American! Cheers! Are you saying you wouldn’t travel domestically to Florida to help those people who are stranded and have to leave their homes for a day? That’s got to be so stressful for those people, to have to leave their homee, and maybe not have electricity or cephone! What about their jobs?? Hopefully none of those people will loose their dignity and have to move to a different neighborhood- only where the government allows them to move.

        Why wouldn’t you help those poor Americans who have been so good to you?

        • Timmr

          Because sometimes the willfully ignorant need ten feet of water over their heads to see want really needs taking care of and what doesn’t. Gaia knows, they will still deny the obvious and claim they didn’t please God enough, and therefore his watery wrath bestows on all for the fault of the liberals for not enacting even tougher sex offenders laws.
          Seems like the scarier the world becomes, the more America runs for the comfort of its sex offender security blanket. That blanket better be equiped with aqualung or baby’s going to drown.

  15. mike r

    I believe that the human rights watch is part of the UN if I’m not mistaken and human rights watch has been very critical and vocal about the human rights violations being committed mostly here in the US…I love it that the hurricane isn’t just going to hit Florida and go away but is supposed to come back around for another round…love it…collective karma man

  16. mike r

    whats happening with that case rick??? if you can provide me with any way to get to that particular case I’ll be willing to join their site even if it cost to subscribe…

Leave a Reply

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  • Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderation decisions may be subjective.
  • Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  • Please take personal conversations off this forum. Feel free to leave your contact info here.
  • Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  • Please do not post in all Caps.
  • If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links.
  • We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  • We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
 

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Please answer this question to prove that you are not a robot *