ACSOL’s Conference Calls

Conference Call Recordings Online
Dial-in number: 1-712-770-8055, Conference Code: 983459

Monthly Meetings

Q4: 11/18 by phone [details]

National

NC: Petitions to Terminate Sex Offender Registration – Moir Tiers

Last month the supreme court decided State v. Moir. It is a case about how a state sex crime—namely, indecent liberties with a child—fits within the offense tiering system set out in the federal Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA). Full Article

Join the discussion

  1. DavidH

    While I believe the bulk of the problem with SO registries are the result of federal law, I see opportunity in federal law to shut down many a thing in California’s life-time registration for 288 (a)’s.

    For instance, in my case, there is NO “Aggravated Sexual Abuse” and there is only “Aggravated Sexual Contact” because that definition can be used so generally and so broadly. Under federal law, which is very harsh indeed there is now way in hell I could ever be considered a Tier 3 SO, and I believe unworthy of IML notification, depending on whether the federal government truly believes level II’s meet the standard of notification!

    There is also a caveat that one must already be a tier I or II before one can be made a tier II or III, which is not a State of California standard–you become one regardless of whether you were any such level at the time, which assumes a harsh but more reasonable test that one is dealing with already a bona fide SO to begin with, which goes to recidivism.

    I see a lot of hapless means of aggregating people carelessly and negligently and believe that if some sort of reconciliation between Federal and State law were done the SO’s of California and perhaps other States who have a mandatory and conflicting ( with the federal government) life-time registry system in place there could be relief for many.

    In addition, It appears true that I too dont see a way for a judge to relieve someone of their duty to register after 10 years.

    So I ask Janice and Chance do you see a way to resolve this 10 year thing! if so I’m a client!

    • DavidH

      I forgot to ask on my point above if given a successful way of relieving one’s self of the duty (burden) to register under federal law, but not State could I suddenly become exempt of the IML which is a very important matter to me!

      This is the type of interplay I was referring to in State and Federal laws that are out of whack! I believe even though the State under the 5th amendment is entitled to make it’s own laws, it is still constitutionally duty bound by laws protecting the individual. In this case, I believe the State is on weaker ground to defend themselves constitutionally and the Supreme court maybe more inclined to agree given the harsh standard of a benchmark it uses in Wetterling and AWA.

    • FRegistryTerrorists

      The bulk of the problem with the S*x Offender Registries (SORs) is that they exist. I think nearly all the states love them as much as the federal government.

      In the state where I live, it was the state legislators who enacted the P.O.S. and kept adding more and more to it EVERY SINGLE YEAR.

      The state scumbags are the ones who actually thought it was okay that the criminal government force people out of homes that they owned and had lived in for years because they magically decided the homes were suddenly “too close” to a swimming pool or something. And that is just one simple example.

      People should not have to petition to get off the list. That power should not be left in the hands of so many people who are truly nothing but scumbags.

      F all people who support the SORs. They are not Americans.

  2. Timmr

    Well, I guess our fates rest on them agreeing to what is the correct number of angels that can be fit on the head of a pin.

  3. 1984

    I believe our federal government has lost sight of its’ charter, getting involved . The feds have created another over reach program to divert more tax money. It is just crazy. So much is wasted in chaotic duplicated effort by the feds.

    • DavidH

      It’s not about duplicating efforts. It’s about understanding that it is the federal government is solely responsible for making the States create this chaotic nightmare via the Wetterling Act followed by SORNA–all States must have registries to continue certain Federal aid. My point is only that it has gone beyond even what the Federal government mandated. For instance, California places one on life-time registration based on statutory violations as perhaps all States do. That is more harsh than the Federal government’s requirement that someone already be at a tier I or tier II before they can be made a tier II or tier III respectively. So people are made into tiers before ever meeting the standards of recidivism I believe exists in federal law. And the States have so broadened what a sex offense is compared to the federal standard of aggravated sexual abuse and aggravated sexual contact the former being quite significant.

      What I am also suggesting is that the federal government allowed for this hate to develop over a group of its citizens with the ill-executed sex offender registry laws and did nothing to abate it and in fact encouraged the growth of the problem by stating States must at least meet the minimum federal requirement of the Wetterling and SORNA acts while turning a blind eye to the madness that has created.

      under Federal law there must be recidivist behavior that’s evidenced by the fact one must be able to be defined as a tier II or tier II before making it to the tier II or tier III levels where the States are making all first time offenders a tier II and tier III at the start. I’m further arguing that no one cares that these excesses and abuses are occurring because we’ve been turned into to a hated group of people such that the safest thing for a judge or legislator to do is to go with the flow and to take the path that would only bring massive outcry if we were not punished as we are. I’m suggesting that if instead of arguing due process because we ended up on a registry that didn’t exist at the time of our conviction we give judges something palatable to get behind and in that specific argument is that a State has exceeded the federal government’s benchmark and thereby the constitutional rights of the offender turned victim by not proving recidivism first– must be a tier I or tier II first; denied due-process because there is a ten year exit strategy built into federal law which there is no way to exercise–I suggested using the Federal government’s laws against the process the States have developed which are unconstitutional as we know them to be, and in this manner we are giving Federal judges laws to get behind without fear of being easy on the most hated!

      And while it’s a valid argument, I believe these are better arguments than to say Smith V. Doe never envisioned what is occurring today, etc. etc.

      As a whole I believe we’ve been doing it all wrong!

      • 4sensiblepolicies

        While I agree with your point about run-away legislation, I am not sure which federal law to which you are referring. Under SORNA (Adam Walsh Act) which is the current federal law of the land, there is absolutely no requirement of recidivist activity before a person is assigned as a Tier II or III. It is solely based on conviction – and there need be no recidivism. And the activity required to get to Tier III need not be as extreme as one might think it would. One charge, one conviction is sufficient. The ‘minimum’ standard SORNA set is indeed extremely draconian and punitive. Let’s make sure we understand the laws before promoting the superiority of one over the other. Keeping in mind they are all draconian and counterproductive, by the way.

        But the federal scheme is a disaster, and California’s current laws are actually fairly tame in comparison – if you consider frequency of registration, internet posting requirements and so forth. If you think California’s scheme is worse than AWA, I am sure there are plenty of one-time offenders in AWA compliant states that have to line up every 90 days to re-register and jump through all kinds of other hoops who might beg to differ.

        • zack

          I believe you. For example, some here have pointed out that scoring high enough on the static 99 scam will get us into tier III under the stupid tiered registry that Casomb wants to introduce. A lot of these same people also make smart points about how passing a tiered registry will be a step away from making CA an Adam Walsh (AWA) state. It would make sense as CA could use the extra $$$ that come from the feds if we become AWA. But like what you people say tier III means registering every 90 days under AWA. So understandably the tiered registry is going to worry a lot of us.

        • DavidH

          One just has to read this post to see the law–it’s the Wetterling Act that imposes states to have registries and tiers

      • 1984

        All wrong? But of course. Standing back, it appears to me that the feds revel in creating hated and feared groups for different reasons. I do not want to get astray from the topic of influences of SORNA over state activities. I believe each state should have its’ own set of laws based on real and current data. Tier assignment using out dated material and inconsistent methodology is wrong.

      • Michael

        “It’s not about duplicating efforts. It’s about understanding that it is the federal government is solely responsible for making the States create this chaotic nightmare …”

        Nothing doing. States don’t have to pass laws that mirror federal laws, nor are they obligated to enforce federal laws. It’s bribery. Uncle Sam dangles the federal grant carrot, and states salivate like Pavlov’s dogs.

        ….

        • DavidH

          yes exactly and they created an easy target–it’s all the feds doing!

    • Michael

      States are not obligated to enforce federal laws [Printz v. United States], nor are states obligated to pass laws that mirror federal laws [can’t remember the name of that case].

      The issue isn’t with the federal government. It’s with states that have allowed the federal government to bribe them into passing the laws.

      • 4sensiblepolicies

        Very true. Given that the bribe money given to the states does not even approach the added costs associated with SORNA, it is surprising that as many have gone along with it’s ‘minimum standards’. But I do feel that we can place the blame largely on the feds for passing this reckless legislation, in that set the trajectory for states to pass harsh laws and those that have resisted to have to answer to why they do not comply with it’s oppressive and punishing policies.

        • DavidH

          Beyond bribe money–the feds seeded an industry of willing participants: think of all the willing prosecutors and legislators who get off on let alone elected on this kind of stuff; and dont forget the prison industrial complex with the creation of more jobs; and those who had a child as a victim who can now create a non-profit to go around the country and appear on such shows a Oprah to get folks to wallow in their self pity along with them; and oh yes we cant leave out the victim rights groups who are on a feeding frenzy over all this stuff–you think there has been enough red-meat thrown to the wolves???

          That makes the Federal government the culprit behind all this–they planted the seed with incentive’s and said it’s ok that you do this and we wont stop you from your excesses!

          That’s my point, along with my original post that states that this posts brings to light another possible angle to litigate at the federal level! So please accept at face value what I said as that and put away your constitutions!!

  4. Tobin's Tools 2.0

    This is one reason why a tiered registry is not a good idea. It will open a new can of worms!

    If a tiered registry passes, we can expect a lot more of these chaotic-type — and expensive/time-consuming to litigate — court interpretations that may further bog any efforts to fight for a more fair registry.

  5. yuck

    Another example why CA should avoid a tiered registry. A tiered registry will hold us hostage to the even more draconian powers of the Adam Walsh Act.

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. Moderating 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, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, 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.
  • Please choose a user name that does not contain links to other web sites
  • Please send any input regarding moderation to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
 

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

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