General Comments December 2016

Comments that are not specific to a certain post should go here, for the month of December 2016. Contributions should relate to the cause and goals of this organization and please, keep it courteous and civil.

Related posts

161 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

This, from Bill Dobbs:

Just before the deadline, as expected, Michigan filed a petition asking the US Supreme Court to review Doe v. Snyder. So far this effort to get help from the Supreme Court hasn’t made the news; the legal papers are not yet online. If you want to see the state’s petition, drop me a line.

Doe v. Snyder is an important decision concerning Michigan’s sex offense registry. Lots of cheering by registrants, lawyers and civil libertarians last summer when the ruling was handed down by a federal appeals court, the US Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Michigan is unhappy and hoping to get some relief from the US Supreme Court. The chances? Many requests for review are made but few are granted…

The petition, recidivism fears: The public has much fear about sex offenses, and that those convicted of such crimes will do it again—recidivism. These widespread fears play a role in the creation of registries and other draconian laws. Michigan’s petition to the Supreme Court starts off with a bang, saying the recidivism rates related to sex offenses are “frightening and high,” quoting from a landmark 2003 Supreme Court case (Smith v. Doe). That’s a very interesting beginning because in 2015 a widely circulated essay by Ira and Tara Ellman debunked that claim—the statement was based on the bragging of a treatment provider, not on research. Recidivism rates are actually among the *lowest* for any category of offenses. With its fateful words in that 2003 decision the Supreme Court promoted a falsehood that went on to infect a whole area of law and policy. The Supreme Court’s own dubious reasoning has now come back to haunt – what will the court do? “Circuit splits” are another big issue in Michigan’s petition, there’s plenty about federal and state courts who see the registry as a mere administrative mechanism and refuse to reckon with its power to incapacitate, to cause what Michelle Alexander calls, “social death.”

Background: Michigan’s registry is one of the largest in the country with over 42,000 individuals required to sign it. Lawmakers didn’t just get the registry rolling and call it a day, over the years they’ve been enacting ever harsher measures designed to slam registrants harder and harder. A federal court lawsuit knocked some holes in the state’s registry law; Michigan, the losing party, took its plea to a federal appeals court. Late last summer a three judge panel of the US Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals handed down a remarkable ruling in Doe v. Snyder that did really serious damage to Michigan’s scarlet letter machinery. The appeals court blasted various registration requirements as “punitive,” the first federal appeals court to do so. And it put a stop to piling more penalties on those already sentenced, ruling the practice is ex post facto and unconstitutional.

What’s ahead: Next, the legal eagles fighting for justice for Michigan registrants will be answering this petition, led by Miriam Aukerman of the Michigan ACLU and Paul Reingold of the Michigan Clinical Law Program. Below is the first passage of Michigan’s petition to the Supreme Court, and some past headlines and links to new stories about Doe v. Snyder. Stay tuned. –Bill Dobbs

News coverage and blog stories about Doe v. Snyder

Washington Post | Aug. 26, 2016 | By Fred Barbash
Court says Michigan sex offender registry laws creating ‘moral lepers’
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/08/26/court-mich-treating-sex-offenders-as-moral-lepers-restrictions-struck-down/

Reason.com | Aug. 26, 2016 | By Jacob Sullum
6th Circuit Says Mich. Sex Offender Registry Is Punitive and, Not Incidentally, Stupid
http://reason.com/blog/2016/08/26/6th-circuit-says-michigans-sex-offender

Mimesis Law | Aug. 26, 2016 | By Andrew Fleischman
Sixth Circuit: Michigan’s Sex Offender Registry Is Punitive
http://mimesislaw.com/fault-lines/andrew-fri-sixth-circuit-sex-offender-registry-is-punitive/12483

Simple Justice | Aug. 27, 2016 | By Scott Greenfield
The 6th Circuit Finally Said The Magic Word: Punitive
https://blog.simplejustice.us/2016/08/27/the-6th-circuit-finally-said-the-magic-word-punitive/

Michigan Radio | Aug. 26, 2016 | By Jack Lessenberry
Michigan’s sex offender law is unfair and probably unconstitutional
http://michiganradio.org/post/michigans-sex-offender-law-unfair-and-probably-unconstitutional#stream/0

Slate | Aug. 26, 2016 | By Mark David Stern
Appeals Court Issues Scathing Ruling Against Michigan Sex Offender Penalties
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2016/08/26/appeals_court_strikes_down_michigan_sex_offender_penalties.html

There used to be a PDF with each states requirements.

I cannot find it.

Does anyone have the link?

Thank you!

Has anyone done their annual reg lately?

Have you noticed any significant changes or additions to the requirements?

I only asked because of the recent changes on the Megan’s law website and seems like our group is gaining traction and has a lot of articles and laws passed or rejected throughout the nation.

So apparently you need a cellular phone in order to register with Long Beach.

I went in for my annual, just as I have for the last five years with no problems, and there are two newer, younger officers. I walk in, the woman officer points to a chair and orders me to sit. I sit. There’s this form already laid out for me from the Department of Justice clarifying that my information may be subject to internet disclosure on the Megan’s Law website, for which I have never had to worry about previously. I suspect it’s just a generic privacy notice every registrant got this year. Anyways, she explains this is to be done every ten years and it’s now my turn. Pretty standard form: Address, DL number, SS number, registrable conviction, arresting agency, etc. It’s reportedly being uploaded to DOJ for an unexplained reason. I asked for a copy of the form and she vehemently refused initially. I retorted that I will have an attorney in here in a New York minute if I don’t have copies of everything I’m signing today. She threw me a pissy look and reluctantly made me a copy, however, this set a precedent for the rest of the registration experience moving forward.

So the officer has this pissy attitude, which I’ve dealt with before but not in a long time. She’s going through the questions and asks me for my cell number. Because of her tone, I felt a little rebellious and asked her why she needed my cell number. She immediately blows up at me, refusing to register me unless I provided a cell number. I then asked her what would happen if I was transient and couldn’t afford a cellular phone? She shot back a look at the officer behind her and he stood up and asked why I was being a jerk. He then asked me if I wanted him to call down some detectives (intimidation) and I said that was fine with me as long as I get processed and be on my way. He sat back down in his chair and tells the other officer to just get me out of there.

Hahaha.

She grudgingly had me fingerprint my thumbs. No picture was taken, which is a first. I received copies of all paperwork and I was out in ten minutes.

I’m not sure if there’s a moral to this story.

So, I’ve been in a battle of sorts with the State of Utah Department of Corrections, over my information online. During Doe v. Shurtleff, they told the judge I would have to register for life under Utah law – which was the first time I have heard such a thing. During that time they changed my conviction information was well – which does not match my charge sheet given to them by the military.

I’ve complained in the past, and they fixed my release date on one charge back to the correct date – but then screwed up the charge. On the other charge, they screwed it up as well – but put the release date a full year after my maximum sentence (which was 18 months). I was released unconditionally, with good/earned time, 6 months early and was not under any terms of supervision – just done.

I challenged Utah through letters regarding the lifetime requirement, and they tweaked the law 2-3 years ago to separate non-Utah convictions from Utah convictions.

So, this December is my 10 year Anniversary… BUT, my charges are military (aka Federal) and thus the AWA applies directly to me (AWA Tier II – 25 years). I met my sixth month requirement, by registering December 1, 2016, and even had a compliance check on December 10, 2016.

I’ve been checking the website to see if they corrected my information, every couple of days, as I sent them another notice to correct it. Today I go to check, and my name is not listed on the Utah State or National Sex Offender Registry. I don’t show up on the map in my neighborhood.

Utah law states:
77-41-105(3)(b) Except as provided in Subsections (4) and (5), and Section 77-41-106, an offender who is convicted in another jurisdiction of an offense listed in Subsection 77-41-102(9)(a) or (17)(a), a substantially similar offense, or any other offense that requires registration in the jurisdiction of conviction, shall:
(i) register for the time period, and in the frequency, required by the jurisdiction where the offender was convicted if that jurisdiction’s registration period or registration frequency requirement for the offense that the offender was convicted of is greater than the 10 years from completion of the sentence registration period that is required under Subsection (3)(a), or is more frequent than every six months; or
(ii) register in accordance with the requirements of Subsection (3)(a), if the jurisdiction’s registration period or frequency requirement for the offense that the offender was convicted of is less than the registration period required under Subsection (3)(a), or is less frequent than every six months.

So, my conviction was outside Utah’s jurisdiction – it was military. The military is its own jurisdiction, outside the federal court system and Title 18 of the U.S. Code. The military has no provisions in the Manual for Courts Martial regarding registration, they just give you a paper upon release telling you to register IAW the laws of the State you live in.

So, am I done? Looks like I have to contact an attorney now, to see if this will stick and I am done in Utah, or if the AWA will require me to register here.

Is the AWA controlling? Does Utah even have to register me if their laws say it’s not needed (Utah is Non-compliant with the AWA)? What mechanism does an offender use to register if he is no longer under a state obligation, but is still under the federal obligation, and the state won’t register him?

Well, wasted my time applying, but had a better chance than Past POTUS’s since he did a Record conv. reliefs. Hoped to of been #79 since that’s when I Grad and also convicted date.
Here is the article… I was turned down but he helped Worse convicted. I didn’t take anyone’s life away perm.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2016/12/19/president-obama-grants-153-commutations-and-78-pardons-individuals-deserving-second

Since our Gov Brown won’t allow any 290’s, I thought what the heck, he has (POTUS) been helping more people than any other Pres.

I’ll try and post my denial from the office of the WH. for Pardons. Don’t own a scanner and use Chrome OS.

So…The Beef (poultry) I have with the Potus Pardons is that…

They will Pardon a damn Turkey,

and state….”INDIVIDUALS DESERVING OF A SECOND CHANCE” even decades later most of us will NOT make it to the POTUS Table for signature of a PARDON…feeling we are less than < deserving. Sad. We're MORE reliable and consistent and dependable than most others getting these pardons and don't go back to the Pokey. (No hawaiin fish involved here) Just Sad. Happy Holiday Fellas (and Gals on here too). I'm still glbtq

Going in for my annual this Friday. It’s only the 3rd time. The last 2 times it was pretty simple. For this one after I made the appointment I got a letter with a form I had to fill out and take with me. I’m in California (LA county).

The form asks for lots of info. Address, social, home phone, cell phone, drivers license number, additional address, emergency contact, work address, when I started working there, vehicle information including plate, make, model, year, color, VIN, year vehicle registration ends. They also ask for probation/parole officer contact info if on probation or parole.

I definitely don’t want to give them any more info than I have to, but I am still on probation and realize that during this time they have me by the balls so I have to do anything they say.

Am I correct in thinking that home address is the only thing legally required? But also that while I’m on probation I should just provide all they ask? With any luck I should be expunged and off probation by next year’s annual, I would definitely have more fire to fight anything then.

Thanks.

Nancy Skinner was just appointed Chair of the Senate Public Safety Committee. She has supported criminal justice reform in the past and definitely someone we can work with. The Democratic members of the committee are Bradford, Mitchell, Skinner, Wiener and Jackson. I don’t think we know where Bradford is, but the other four have supported us in years past. Anderson and Stone are the Republicans on the committee. In general, I think it is a committee that will be very open to reform.

Rapper Tupac Shakur is being inducted into the Rock’n Roll Hall of Fame. Aside from being a gangsta rapper who is getting into the RR HOF – were he still alive today, Mr. Shakur would be a Registered Sex Offender. Of course, there is no mention of his Sex Abuse conviction from the mid 90s that I have seen.

Ed Hasbrouck, who writes and speaks extensively on travel freedom, sent the following link to me which provides a wider perspective of U.S. border controls and demonstrates the expansion of extreme vetting of visitors to the U.S. IML exists within this system which, nevertheless, is about so much more.

“Documents suggest Palantir could help power Trump’s ‘extreme vetting’ of immigrants. Training materials obtained by the Electronic Privacy Information Center show Palantir has played a role in a far-reaching customs system”

http://www.theverge.com/2016/12/21/14012534/palantir-peter-thiel-trump-immigrant-extreme-vetting

Janice Belucci and affiliates+ CASOMB,
Please dont forget about us registrants that have moved out of state that fall under the California guidelines of the registry. I am a registrant that has followed you for the longest time. Please do not forget us when it comes to the tiering system because it will make a difference for us as well. It is some rso’s that are not computer literate that have moved out of the state as well with no recourse other than a tiered registry bill. I live in the most harshest state known to the registrant,Florida!! No registrant should ever move to Florida. Some states already have tiering systems and allow some out of state registrants off of the registry. I made a mistake in moving back to Florida 8 years ago, I am warning all registrants to stay away from Florida. There are no levels of the registry, everybody is the same here. No justice for no one at all. I dont want to be selfish either, even though , I am a level one registrant, I would like to see every registrant on all tier levels be given a chance to come off of the registry at some point to be able to know what it is like to be able to support your self and family. Some one please respond!!

Okay, none of us in Calif on Gov BROWN’s PARDON list, he did do more than 100 YET, he Pardoned a guy that shot someone else’s eyeball out…and that’s NOT VIOLENT? REALLY?
He said from his office, he is ONLY Pardoning NON VIOLENT OFFENDERS, is Online RC’s Really VIOLENT???

WHy or what is Gov. Brown’s excuse for NOT Pardoning any RC’s his final and last year in office, He maxed out like his father, but REALLY? Obama too.

Sad. Pardon the drunk driver who kills and mames and the kidnapper, but not one of us?

As the sunset of 2016 is appearing in the West and in the timing of this Christmas season, I would like to express, to everyone, my gratitude and a Merry Christmas and great blessings and accomplishments for the New Year!

For activists, here is an indispensable link I came across. It is a database that allows you to find out the laws of all state legislatures with regard to any sex offender laws on the books. This also allows you to find all laws of various states that may pertain to a single subject, such as residence restrictions.

http://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminal-justice/sex-offender-enactments-database.aspx

Los Angeles is now considering barring all adults from playgrounds unless they are accompanied by children. And this in conjunction with Los Angeles’ continued actions to put in pocket parks everywhere in the city that they can fit a few feet of grass.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-playground-ban-20161227-story.html#nt=oft03a-1la1

This latest related to playgrounds comes from Councilman Mitch O’Farrell, a close protege of Mayor Eric Garcetti — both of them Democrats and (falsely) claiming to be liberals, so nix that thinking that Democrats will be our saviors, that is phenomenally naive. O’Farrell justifies his proposal by saying that it can’t be assumed that every adult at a playground is benign — that is, all adults on their own in a park are presumed by law to be pedophiles and shall be treated accordingly. And Garcetti has been the big pusher of the pocket parks everywhere, which we all know prevents us from living anywhere, even as these stupid pocket parks are normally too small for anyone to even use them for anything, some even only about 10 square feet, but they will keep us out.

At least the Los Angeles Times came out with the editorial at the link above opposing the proposal. But while they wrote the editorial, they have yet to cover the story, the public doesn’t even know about this proposal, because the Times generally chooses to keep the public in the dark about most of what is going on in the city, the better to manipulate the news.

I note, for what its worth, O’Farrell is gay. I have always been surprised at gays coming out in favor of all this crap imposed on registrants, as so many guys struggle with their sexuality, or course more so looking backwards that forwards. I also suspect gays are disproportionately represented in the registrant ranks, as that struggle can lead them (or anyone) to the wrong situations. So, I say not only are Democrats not going to be our saviors, neither does it seems gays will be.

On an aside, I have told friends for years that I won’t even go to a park because the hysteria is such that any lone male who goes to a park will automatically be leered at and presumed to be a child molester looking for a victim. Everyone tells me I’m being stupid, that is not so (no one knows my status). Well, I did end up at a park a year ago alone, the only time I have allowed that — waiting for two friends to show up who turned out to be very late. After a while the police came up and gave me the third degree and told me to get out. They said there had been complaints about me making people uncomfortable. But all I was doing was minding my own business sitting on a park bench, waiting, and even only about 25 feet from a security guard, as the park was adjacent to a museum (that’s where we were going), and the guard was there to make sure anyone going past that point had a ticket. The guard already knew I was waiting for friends. Yet the police terrified me and told me to get out, there had been complaints. And gee, there weren’t even any children around!

This proposal from Councilman O’Farrell now takes this public hysteria and makes it a formal law, and to hell with any Constitutional presumption of innocence. We should put O’Farrell high up on the enemy list.

Hello everyone Merry Belated Christmas,

I was just wondering if anyone has heard anything regarding Michigan’s Does v Snyder, and how much longer it could take SCOTUS, to rule whether they will take the case,or not, I do know that as far as Michigan v Temelkowski goes that oral argument took place 12-7-16,and you can find that on youtube.

I just want to find out what is going on with does v Snyder, I know we here in michigan just have to be patient,but that is getting to be very hard,since the new year is approaching very quickly now, if anyone has heard any recent news regarding Does v Snyder, and can let me know something,or anything at all I would greatly appreaciate it. Thank you in advance for any help.

excellent link Eric,we need more contributions such as that..

My other half looked my info up and still no convection dates, test, or test score.. anyone else’s info still hasn’t been upgraded?

Well as many of you know… I was denied entry into Thailand due to the Lovely IML. I have been to Thailand two times prior to spend time with my fiance… Now ex fiance. This is the most recent correspondence from my Thai lawyer in an attempt to obtain a copy of the Alert Notification sent
Dear Al
USA

Festive Seasons & Happy New Year.

THAI IMMIGRATION
1.1.1) The Thai Immigration authority has not yet disclosed written evidence about your case.
1.1.2) We will not pay the official to expedite communications because that could be interpreted as bribery.
1.2) Therefore, we telephoned them whereby its official stated it shall not disclose any correspondence received from the US authority; however, confirmed you were refused entrance after its receipt of the US correspondence.

APPEAL
2.1) It is possible for you to submit an Appeal to the Thai Ministry of Interior without inclusion of the requested evidence from the Thai Immigration authority.
2.2) The grounds shall be either:
– the Thai Immigration’s decision was erroneous or unsubstantiated;
– procedural non-compliance or impropriety; and
– your connections to Thailand, reason/s to return & subsequent conduct since the original offence.
2.3.1) The Appeal process cannot be used as a means for discovery because the Thai authorities cannot be compelled to present the US correspondence as evidence.
2.3.2) Instead, it is likely the Thai Immigration shall assert its reason to refuse you entry was your 1998 US conviction (howsoever such intelligence was reported and established) & your comments, including adverse admissions/ confession, made during interview.
2.3.3) Therefore, whether the Thai Immigration complied with the procedural requirement to provide you with an opportunity to Appeal may be asserted as a separate policy-issue to the substantive risk of prohibiting an alien felon from (re)entering the jurisdiction to prevent the commission of a potential further offence.
2.4) Regarding the prospects of your Appeal being successful, we cannot guarantee that the Ministry of Interior shall revoke the restriction. In our professional opinion cases involving a fact-pattern similar to your own matter, when the alien felon committed a less serious offence, have been dismissed.

US GOVERNMENT
3.1.1) Whether your Thai Appeal is successful shall not reveal the US correspondence.
3.1.2) Instead, if successful, it shall revoke the endorsement in your Passport and permit you entrance.
3.2.1) Therefore any potential action you may have against the US government authorities will be separate.
3.2.2) We cannot advise on whether the US government authority will disclose the correspondence directly to you.

OPTIONS
(a) Appeal ‘out-of-country’ from the USA = THB 50,000 & 7% VAT plus disbursements.
(b) Wait an indefinite period for the Thai Immigration authority to reply; whether including or omitting the US correspondence.
(c) You travel to Thailand and, during the 48-hour period while detained, Appeal ‘within country’.
(d) Separately, you engage an US attorney to apply to the US government authority/ies for disclosure of your personal information.
Option (d) can be initiated regardless of options (a), (b) & (c).
Option (c) attracts the actual risk of being refused entry & detained without a positive outcome; plus additional (wasted) travel expenses.

REQUEST
What are your instructions?

Best regards

In short….. I’m screwed on that front.

Here’s a quote from the Washington Examiner:


Beginning on Jan. 1, prostitution by minors will be legal in California. Yes, you read that right.

SB 1322 bars law enforcement from arresting sex workers who are under the age of 18 for soliciting or engaging in prostitution, or loitering with the intent to do so. So teenage girls (and boys) in California will soon be free to have sex in exchange for money without fear of arrest or prosecution.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/california-democrats-legalize-child-prostitution/article/2610540

Ummm… Wait, so those under 18 years of age can consent to sex? Am I missing something here? And what exactly does this mean to any registrant involved in any “statutory” situation b/c a person under 18 cannot consent – be a willing participant?

Does not this law conflict with just having sex with anyone under 18 years old? I’m really confused right now. Can ACSOL help explain this new rule and does it have any effect for registrants? Thanks in advance!

Just had my annual, which went well overall. Same woman I’ve had in the past and she is pleasant so that helps. Only issue out of the ordinary that was brought up was the station declares one must carry the receipt on the person at all times. I know better and asked for the ordinance or code number, something, to prove that. When she returned to provide me my copies, she stated there was nothing that could be found. She then followed that up with, “if a cop pulls you over and asks for it, you can deal with it then”, in a threatening like tone. I’ve read the other posts, including Janice’s, about the rules of the receipt. I’m somewhat appalled by the blatant lies, as this is not the first person from this station to feed me a line.

“HUNTED”!! IMHO, it will be interesting to watch the new CBS reality show “Hunted”. What secret law enforcement tools will be revealed?? And just for fun, let’s label all the contestants “sexual predators” so the general public will also be hunting them! Fun, huh? *rolls eyes* Maybe viewers will get a taste of what our society is really becoming: a fascist regime designed to oppress the masses.

http://www.digitalspy.com/tv/news/a807656/heres-why-hunted-is-the-most-terrifying-television-show-on-the-planet/