Monthly Meetings

Q4: 10/14 in Los Angeles

2017 ACSOL Conference Videos

General News

General Comments September 2017

Comments that are not specific to a certain post should go here, for the month of September 2017. Contributions should relate to the cause and goals of this organization and please, keep it courteous and civil.

Join the discussion

  1. Illinois Contact

    Illinois Sex Offenses & Sex Offender Registration Task Force Public Hearing is scheduled for Sept 20.

    If you can get to Chicago, please come to testify. I anticipate that there will be many victims advocates and other special interests opposed to a sensible approach, so whatever we do to counter their arguments will be very, very helpful. You can also submit testimony in writing, so let’s inundate them with logical, thoughtful, reasonable, accurate, informative, but passionate, advocacy.

    The Sex Offenses and Sex Offender Registration Task Force will be presenting the Illinois legislature with recommendations for a new, and hopefully more lenient sex offender law by Jan 1, probably including tiers and early relief (it’s currently life for almost every felony conviction in the state of Illinois).

    The Sex Offenses and Sex Offender Registration Task Force requests public testimony from people affected by state sex offender law and policy, and researchers, advocates, policy experts, and concerned citizens on how Illinois can improve its sex offender laws and policies.

    Public testimony must be germane to the Task Force’s mandate of making recommendations to improve Illinois sex offender laws and policies. Oral testimony must be limited to five minutes per person.

    Wednesday, September 20, at 10:00 a.m. Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority Headquarters 300 West Adams, Suite 200 Chicago, Ill.

    To provide testimony in person on September 20, all speakers must either:

    1) Send an email to CJA.SORTF@Illinois.gov signaling the intent to speak. Please include name, organization, and contact information. Email must be received by Tuesday, September 19. Or
    2) Sign up in person at the hearing on September 20. Speakers must sign in by 10:30 a.m. to be ensured time.

    The Task Force also requests written testimony, which can accompany or be provided in lieu of oral testimony. Please email written testimony to CJA.SORTF@Illinois.gov by Wednesday, September 27. They have been having hearings since last December and you can read about their findings so far in a number of PowerPoint presentations, and see who the members of Task Force are at this website:

    https://soortf.icjia.cloud/
    Illinois Sex Offenses and Sex Offender Registration Task Force (312) 793-8550
    cja.info@illinois.gov http://www.icjia.state.il.us

    • Registry Rage

      I think it’s rather laughable they refer to these units as a “task force.” It’s as though they’re trying to prevent some obtainable goal through proactive hyper-vigilance.

      “Security theater squad” or “Operation safety illusion unit” would be a more intellectually honest and accurate designation.

  2. mike r

    I thank god that the tiered registry did not pass…I think this is a major part of why we have an extreemly airtight case…The following is very important and I think I read somewhere in the decision how important the issue was when they stated the following…
    SORA allows some but not all registrants to petition for removal from the registry and/or
    have the CBI remove their information from the State’s internet site. C.R.S. § 16-22-113. Certain
    persons required to register may file a petition with the court that issued the judgment for the
    conviction that required registration to discontinue that requirement or internet posting, or both.
    Such a petition may be filed after a period of five, ten, or twenty years after discharge from
    incarceration or other completion of all sentencing requirements; the length of the applicable
    period depends on the statutory classification of the sex offense for which the registrant was
    convicted. C.R.S. § 16-22-113(1)(a)–(c). Persons convicted of certain offenses are subject to
    SORA’s registration requirements for the rest of their lives. C.R.S. § 16-22-113(3).3

  3. AJ

    I just had another question pop into my head regarding IML. IML requires me to give a 21-day notice of my full travel itinerary. What does one do if permanently moving to another country? I understand I would “deregister” with my home State, but that is independent of any IML criteria. Though I am permanently relocating, that is still “travel.” It would seem that it is impossible for to me comply with the provisions of IML, and could therefore be arrested as I try to board. This is similar to what mike r (and probably others) have raised about being able to roam the globe. My study and depth of knowledge of IML isn’t sufficient to have the answer to this myself.

    Ref. text from IML: “(b) INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL REPORTING VIOLATIONS.—Whoever—
    (1) is required to register under the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (42 U.S.C. 16901 et seq.);
    (2) knowingly fails to provide information required by the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act relating to intended travel in foreign commerce; and
    (3) engages or attempts to engage in the intended travel in foreign commerce;
    shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.”

    If I’m moving, I am unable to provide, “‘(7) Information relating to intended travel…outside the United States, including any anticipated dates and places of departure, arrival, or return, carrier and flight numbers for air travel, destination country and address or other contact information therein, means and purpose of travel, and any other itinerary or other travel-related information required by the Attorney General.’’ I have no idea when I anticipate returning, and what if I have yet to obtain lodging? There just seem to be so many frickin’ constitutional holes in this law! I mean, I even have to provide where I’ll be staying overseas “or other contact information”? Nothing like extrajurisdictional travel supervision. It’d be one thing if the country I’m entering asks me that detail, but the USG has no business knowing.

    Anyway, I’d appreciate thoughts, opinions, (oxford comma) or answers.

    • lovewillprevail

      Good point. I guess you will be arrested trying to relocate out of the country. It appears the government hates you, but will not let you leave…lol…

    • New Person

      Giving your full itinerary on travel is akin to being monitored. Hmmmm… Didn’t the PA courts rule that a form of punishment due to it’s traits to being under custody?

    • TS

      @AJ

      If there was any way around it or ideas to discuss, I surely wouldn’t mention it here where the enemy could read it and then try to stop it.

    • AJ

      @lovewillprevail:
      The Eagles (RIP Glenn Frey) need to rewrite their song, making it “Hotel USA.” I can file the paperwork, but get barred at the port of exit! 🙂
      ——-
      @New Person:
      Yes, that’s exactly where I was headed, supervision. I’m sure the USG says they need it to inform the other country about us, but that in no way justifies the USG issuing a Green Alert which, according to INTERPOL’s website (https://www.interpol.int/INTERPOL-expertise/Notices), is, “[t]o provide warnings and intelligence about persons who have committed criminal offences and are likely to repeat these crimes in other countries.” As I’ve said before, the USG has zero indication I am “likely to repeat” *any* crime, let alone the one for which I’ve been convicted. This tailors into the CO opinion where the Government is putting the burden of proof upon me to try to prove a negative.
      ——-
      @TS:
      I’m not seeking ways around it; also, evading it would be a violation, meaning possible arrest if you later happen to find yourself in the US, its territories or possessions. I want to know how one plans an open-ended international trip (whether for moving, roaming, or some other reason) while remaining in compliance. That one has to be sneaky and creative only goes to reinforce the problem that exists in IML. In fact, I would love for there to be no way around it, as that would only bolster a claim of an affirmative restraint of my fundamental right to travel.
      =======
      In Califano v Aznavorian (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/439/170.html), SCOTUS affirmed that the USG may not restrict one’s right to travel without due process (Kent v Dulles https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/357/116/case.html). Also of note is that in Aptheker v. Secretary of State (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/378/500.html), SCOTUS, “again recognized that the freedom of international travel is protected by the Fifth Amendment. Congress had legislated too broadly by restricting this liberty for all members of the [Communist] party.”

      Unlike interstate travel, which SCOTUS has ruled is, “virtually unqualified,” international travel, “can be regulated within the bounds of due process” (See also: Zemel v Rusk, http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/381/1.html, and Kent). So, the USG can regulate one’s international travel, but only through application of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. IML does regulate travel, and therefore appears to be a clear violation of Due Process through, at minimum, the 21-day requirement and through sending unfounded, prejudicial, Green Notices. When, where, and how has the USG applied Due Process to any travelers subject to IML? Where is the legal finding or risk assessment that the traveler is, “likely to repeat these crimes”? As well, IML is excessively broad in application, following in the footsteps of the anti-communism travel laws struck in Aptheker.

      • TS

        @AJ

        Sounds like someone who has traveled and was turned back since IML and notifications have been instituted has the ability today to file a case on Sub Due Proc claims within the Fifth Amendment based upon what you just wrote. That could be as simple as going to Mexico or Canada. Interesting…..

      • New Person

        @AJ

        I’ll go one further. Snyder and Muniz cite Ex Post Facto. The IML was recently passed, but there were thousands already on the registry before the IML was implemented. Therefore, using Snyder or Muniz, the IML is Ex Post Facto. The PA courts have deemed travel for any registrant (in PA) was still being supervised and deemed a punishment trait.

        Colorado courts just deemed the registry unconstitutional as the punitive aspect comes from the people. Welp, replace people with countries. That’s what the IML has done. They’ve stigmatized all registrants to be monsters without due process. The IML represents another registry where the registrants are already deemed a criminal without a hearing to determine the risk factor, if any. Those countries now banish registrants from travel without a form of court hearing.

        And the problem with the IML is the standard practice of who’s a registrant? It can’t be per individual state. Thus, it must come from the Smith v Doe ruling of who’s on the registry. I say this b/c all dismissed convictions are not to be registered as per Smith v Doe. Anyone in California with a 1203.4 should not be on any registry as per Smith v Doe.

        But I truly doubt CA will conform with the likes of Michigan, PA, or CO in defense of its citizens. Despite denoting the unconstitutionality of presence restrictions, the registry remains stalwart in CA, always referring back to Smith v Doe. (The contradictions are Smith v Doe states in-person registry is punitive and only those with convictions be on the registry.)

        • Chris F (@New Person)

          @New Person

          Take that even further…IML is a national law, but since it relies on the state’s individual decisions on who is on the registry and for how long, it completely fails the Equal Protection that is guaranteed under the 5th amendment’s Due Process clause for the federal government. People in virtually the same situations can’t be treated differently, yet that’s exactly what IML does and to an extreme.

    • Trust me

      I moved out of new york overseas. They still want me to report to them. I asked them if they were going to send my verification paper over here. One said yes and to mail it back in 3 days. It takes a month to get a letter here from the US. The other said just to send them a selfie every 3 years to keep my photo up to date. Either way its ridiculous to check in and have my address listed on the local registry if i live overseas. I dont even show up right on their map because its only set up for new york.

  4. Ron

    What is there preventing someone from traveling to a temporary destination (say Mexico), spending a night or a week, then buying a ticket to your final destination. It seems to me this would be legal and even better you wouldn’t have to tell uncle Sam where you are living. – be sure not to follow my legal advice

    • Chester M

      This is the purpose of the passports being marked with a clear and prominent marking.

    • AJ

      @Ron:
      You would not be supplying, “information relating to intended travel…outside the United States, including any anticipated dates and places of departure, arrival, or return, carrier and flight numbers for air travel, destination country and address or other contact information therein, means and purpose of travel,” and would thus appear to violate IML. The law has the all-encompassing phrase, “travel…outside the United States,” not just the first place of travel outside the US. You’d also probably be in violation for, “knowingly fail[ing] to provide information required by [SORNA] relating to intended travel in foreign commerce; and engag[ing] or attempt[ing] to engage in the intended travel in foreign commerce.” So yes, one could slip into an intermediary country (though I’d choose other than Mexico!), then travel onward. However, that is still a violation of both the letter and spirit of IML. One would have to convincingly show you only intended to travel to Mexico (using your example), then once out of US jurisdiction and “deregistered” (i.e. no longer subject to IML or SORNA), decided to travel further. Having to travel indirectly to attempt to satisfy IML with one’s open-ended plans in and of itself points to IML excessively restricting one’s right to travel *freely.*

  5. mike r

    Oh, TS. I revised every problem you described..Proper indentation, and everything else….Thank you….Here’s the link once more since we are in a new month..
    https://gofile.io/?c=vgt6xm
    I already fixed what TS stated and revised the CaU, adding proper punctuation and grammar, so disregard any of that…

  6. mike r

    Whenever they start claiming that the laws have not adversely affected us, my argument is that: did the Jim crow laws effect African Americans? The answer is undoubtedly yes: They were not always physically prevented from using the whites only water fountain, but would be subject to arrest, or worse if they did use it , so therefore they did not do it out of fear of retribution (effected); they were not always physically prevented from the front of the bus, but were subject to arrest and/or worse if they did, so therefore did not do it out of fear of retribution (effected); they were not always physically prevented from moving into white neighborhoods, but were subject to arrests and/or much worse if they did, so therefore they did not do it out of fear of retribution (effected). Just because we haven’t tried to do any of the things that are not allowed, or not did something that we are required to do, does in no means that we do not have standing and haven’t been adversely effected. It doesn’t take an arrest to trigger the standing claim….

    • AJ

      @mike r:
      Funny how those who are unaffected by a law are experts on the adverse effects of said law.

  7. mike r

    Hey do we have access to the original briefs in Colorado????Not the closing briefs, but the original opening and response on both sides……..

    • TS

      @mike r

      Good point on Jim Crow and analogy. There may be some applicability there in the motion you are writing. I will get to the revision later today to review. The CO initial and supplemental (not closing) briefs have not been downloaded.

    • AJ

      @mike r:
      All the docs, including such things as witness lists, are available via PACER (pacer.gov). Other than Opinions, which are free, PACER charges per page for documents. As I mentioned to Chris F, just one of the two documents that I believe are court transcripts will run you $11.90. Not a huge amount, but it does add up. I’m guessing the whole shebang would touch $100.

  8. mot

    Today is LABOR DAY and after reading the comments recently about the Tiered and then CO courts I think we should focus our LABOR to the abolishing the REGISTRY completely. If a murderer, DUI, drug dealer etc can be free to go where they want to go without tags then this group and our members should work to have the same rights. So I want to see Janice and Chance and the group move the focus to getting rid of the registry completely
    Happy Labor Day to all especially those who labor for the freedom of RSO

    • mike r

      ya, that’ll happen…

    • Paul

      I was thinking the same I don’t know why these sites don’t start a targeted campaign aimed at relief We could all donate for fees and join in. Lets get serious about it, I elect AJ as the lead man, if he is inclined. Everyone has skill sets. we could have someone head up a blog site another handle finding lawyer. We could have a board and a 501c to handle the contributions all funds will be targeted to killing SORNA in the FED system.

      • AJ

        @Paul:
        Thanks for the recognition and faith, but this is something well beyond doing and availability.

  9. Timothy Moore

    So in relation to compliance checks, were does the law enforcement agency get off the hook of providing us probably cause for the visit and by threat of their presence, demand to see our faces (personal property of the most basic) in order to verify that non court verified probable cause?
    http://www.shestokas.com/constitution-educational-series/fourth-amendment-origins-court-battles-lead-to-revolution/
    Is being on the registry none other than a general warrant, an unannounced attempt to garner information for a particular government interesest ? Is it not an an assumption that we are owned by the state and that the State of California’s presumed natural right to privacy doesn’t apply to us?

    • AJ

      I found this article enlightening: http://www.policemag.com/channel/patrol/articles/2014/02/constitutional-home-entry.aspx. Of particular interest was #8, which is one more reason not even to open the door to LEOs.
      ——
      @Timothy Moore:
      I’m still picking through some court cases to see about the constitutionality of compliance checks. I don’t know that any LE agency mandates they be done, which indicates to me that it’s all done via one’s “agreement” to it through lack of refusal. Kind of like when you answer a LEO’s questions beyond the required legal minima of your State.

      • AJ

        @Timothy Moore:
        I think I’ve stumbled upon some guidance regarding compliance checks, and believe it’s one big “it depends.” Between some case law and some LEO-related sites, it all depends on how the interaction occurs.
        1. Police are allowed to enter your curtilage (http://thelawdictionary.org/curtilage/) at least as much as anyone else is. So if the mail carrier or paperboy can access your curtilage, so can the police. The police have a little bit more right to enter curtilage, but may need to justify their entry as reasonable in connection with their objective. A locked, fenced yard does make it a slightly higher standard for them. Note that one’s driveway is pretty much considered open game for access, as it is a traditional method of access from street to house. Again, a locked gate that applies to all would strengthen the case against a LEO entering.
        2. There are three types of citizen-police interactions: Consensual, Investigative (known as a “Terry Stop”), and arrest. Whether the compliance check is consensual or investigative hinges on a number of factors. Helpful in explaining those factors (and their applicable case law citations) is found on this LEO site: http://www.policemag.com/channel/patrol/articles/2016/02/consensual-encounters.aspx. From reading what’s on this link, it would seem that if one or two officers show up and talk to you at your door, it’s a consensual stop. But when you get a battalion showing up in riot gear and brandishing weapons, it would seem to be a Terry stop.
        3. Whether consensual or Terry, opening the door potentially exposes you to problems, depending on your State’s requirements as to what you must supply a LEO. (Some States require nothing of you, some, require name, address, DOB, etc.) Of course if you never open the door, there’s no obligation, regardless what State you’re in.
        4. It would be left up to a judge to take all the elements involved in a compliance check to see if it rises to the Terry Stop criteria. As the above-mentioned website lays out, it all depends on how the LEOs approach you and whether you feel free to go. Note that even if it were found to be a Terry Stop, it could be ruled constitutional if it was brief and took no longer than needed to accomplish the task. However, key to that is again the reasonable suspicion issue. If they cannot show reasonable suspicion to be at your door, and they showed en masse with lots of guns, lights flashing, etc., there could well be a Fourth Amendment violation.

        In short, it is all highly dependent on how the check occurs and how your property is secured. From reading case law, their using a list of RCs to do these interactions is not a violation if they are performing legal administrative functions. In this case, they would argue they are, by confirming the data they have about an RC. One could possibly, though weakly, argue that they need a search warrant to do that (along the lines of case law requiring a building inspector to have one to gain refused entry). I feel that would be a very tough argument.

        Life lesson from all this? Have a fenced yard with a locked gate, and allow nobody in–not even FedEx or UPS–and do not answer the door unless you’re sure it is not LEO. It would also be smart to know what minimum information your State requires you to give a LEO. Obviously if it includes name and address, their objective is solved the moment you open the door…as you either give them that info, or you go to jail for failing to provide the info, and they get what they are seeking while booking you.

        • Timothy Moore

          Well that is the thing, I don’t think they are seeking anything but to shame you, which seems obvious, but hard to prove; and/or to show the public how they are keeping a watch on us, which is not so hard to prove. At least here San Diego County they make a big point of stating on the task force’s website how they are checking up on registrants.
          I have read the issues on stop and frisk and knock and talk type policing. The examples they use are not completely applicable to our type of compliance checks. The knock and talk are generally justified because of an immediate public safety concern recognized by the police in the heat of the moment. Say, the police come to my door, because they saw a thief they were chasing jump over my fence. Or maybe they’re investigating a loud noise complaint –not as immediate, but reasonable. These are similar to the reasons to stop a motorist for a broken tail light or low tire ppressure, because it is an immediate safety issue. If someone can’t see your tailight, or your tire may blow, it may cause a crash. After 18 years of no violation or any glitches in updating my annual information, were does the reasoning for a public safety concern come in, immediate or not? These checks are simply scheduled on a rotation, apparently. And, the reoffense rate is extremely low for people that had commited similar crimes. I know you are focusing on the “how” of these checks, but many people here, including myself think the “why” is as important or the main question. The why can’t be an arbitrary why or somehow it seems to violate the spirit of the fourth. The why seems to be the important part of the fourth, look at the words “oath” and “affirmation” required of the government and no action required from us. The onus is on them, not on us. The idea is for the government to explain what authority brings them to your house. If not, it serves a purpose other than stated in law.
          Harrassment? You have to deduce that unless the registrant is giving them a reason other than a former conviction. You are only required to verify information if you change or add residences. That is what I am thinking but can’t find something or someone to back it up.

    • New Person

      Are you stating that you are subject to the service of the state as a free person by way of legal coercion, namely sent to prison?

      Involuntary servitude is prohibited unless to punish a crime.

      Thus, if the registry is not punishment, then it cannot “force” anyone to do any service for them. Remember, it’s stated on ML’s website that “it’s your duty to registry.” Duty means service. Service to who/whom? The state of California. Wait, but you’re a free person and the registry has always been deemed not a punishment.

      I’m a basic layman (redundant, I know). That Constitutional law is one sentence long. It basically states that no free person can be forced to serve. The only exception is if it for punishment, which means you’re under custody and not a free person. The registry laws cannot co-exist with Involuntary Servitude law. Forcing a free person into service is prohibited!

      This false guise of public safety is unconstitutional. If there is a threat, then it’s called punishment and that individual will be kept in prison much longer. The registry is continued services to the State well beyond its legal capacity once an individual is no longer under custody (a free person).

      Again, there are four traditional factors for involuntary servitude:
      1. Contract
      2. Term
      3. Compensation
      4. Domination

      CONTRACT – There is none. It’s a part of your punishment detail. This is a red flag. A free person working without a contract.

      TERM – In California, it’s a lifetime term. Again, this is a serious red flag. There are no lifetime contracts that a free person cannot get out of.

      COMPENSATION – There is no compensation. This actually ventures into being a slave since the service is administered upon a free person. (A person going to a police station and scribing information. That’s you and that’s a police employee. Both of you are appointed to the police station. Both of you are scribing information, one by hand and the other via computer. Yet only one of you is compensated for that time scribing as a free person.)

      DOMINATION – As a registrant, you cannot leave this service. You are bounded by law to comply or be hunted down, sent to prison (punishment), and returned to service. The PA court system has already deemed this act punishment b/c the penalty for not registering is going to jail.

      My question is why do the court systems not deem the possibility that Involuntary Servitude exists in today’s era? It’s like what the Colorado case stated about the online registry – Justice Kennedy did not realize the scope of what the world wide web can do when Kennedy chastised the potential harm initially in Smith v Doe and has recanted in his decision for Peckingham case.

      Recall, Doe v Smith stated that the registry is regulatory. Great. This is not punishment, but it is a service. A service upon a free person. That’s where the four factors of involuntary servitude comes into play. Why can’t the injustice of “involuntary servitude” not exist in today’s era? The SCOTUS incorrectly stated that the internet did not resemble that of a town square before, but now we know it’s much worse than a town square as it involves the whole world. Japanese Internment Camps and Jim Crow Laws are a few examples of the US Govt abusing its powers and not protecting all citizens.

    • someone who cares

      AJ and Timmr ~ If you are not on probation or parole, you do NOT have to answer the door to LE or answer any questions. You can NOT go to jail for not providing information unless there is reasonable suspicion, which these “compliance checks” are not. They are harassment and nothing more.

      • Timothy Moore

        As far as I know they are attempting to violate your rights. What if it is a “prole” who does not know his rights? Well then fair game, I guess.
        (“Prole” , a proletariat from the novel 1984, one of the politically unsavy masses.)
        I guess we keep discussing this and getting nowhere. Sorry to bring it up again.

      • AJ

        @someone who cares:
        Yes, I know. I was addressing the constitutional basis of their even BEING at one’s door. Patchworking together what I can find, it’s slimy, but probably legal. If they show up in full assault mode, it could change things, but even then a court might ask, “where was the harm, and was it excessive?” That could go either way.

        • someone who cares

          AJ ~ Nothing in PC290 requires any compliance checks other than the annual registration. If they go to everybody’s door that day to verify an address, it could be legal, but I doubt singling out a certain person or group is legal or ethical. Sure, they can come to your door and knock, but if nobody answers, they need to leave, especially if there is a “No Soliciting” sign on the door. They know, the registrant is NOT obligated to answer any questions or open the door, so they know that they are most likely wasting their time with no legal ground to stand on. The problem is that we are all afraid and will most likely open the door or answer a question or two just to get them off our backs and avoid any more embarrassment than they have already caused. We can file a complaint afterwards, but again, fear stops us. If they come to our door and also everybody else’s, they don’t actually harass but if they only choose our door, they ARE harassing. There HAS to be lawyer who would take a case of harassment like this, but that will be hard to find.

          • AJ

            @someone who cares:
            I’m not in CA, so have no idea what 290 says about anything. I was analyzing with a federal view.

            The police could easily argue they are doing the administrative task of confirming the addresses of RCs in their jurisdiction. If they apply the same criteria SCOTUS mandated with “safety checks” (i.e. roadblocks), which requires a neutral formula, I doubt there is a court in the country that would say LEOs cannot do them–“No Soliciting” signs be damned. SCOTUS has already ruled the State’s interest in briefly detaining you at a roadblock outweighs any Fourth Amendment claim you may have. I say good luck finding a judge (except perhaps Matsch in CO and his kith here and there) who would say a knock on the door and a 30-60 second conversation is unreasonable, especially since it would be considered a consensual conversation in public (the moment you open the door, privacy is gone). It’s also important to remember the 4th prohibits *unreasonable* search and seizure. All it really takes to void any claim is to show it was reasonable. Your not answering the door only weakens any claim you’d try to make as to unreasonable search and seizure, as neither occurred.

            Ethical? A whole different discussion, but one with little legal standing.

            • TS

              Read the fourth complaint recently published in the CO case and what the Loveland, CO PD are doing on compliance checks. Someone going rogue. Make you sick. It is in the last ten pages of the doc.

            • Nondescript

              Yeah the only problem with that AJ, is that a random home visit is an investigation, and NO ONE is compelled to
              make statements to , answer inquiries from, or otherwise cooperate with law enforcement when they are under investigation.

              The first thing any attorney will tell you is to avoid making any statements to the police In absence of an attorney.

              There is a good reason for this.

              They usually show up early morning( when you are half asleep) and make a ruckus. And they know you won’t have a attorney present, unless you live with one.

              • TS

                @nondescript

                On what probable cause (PC) do they have to do an investigation at your door/gate early in the AM? History? Charm? Good looks? Off paper means, go away and leave me alone unless you have PC.

                • AJ

                  @TS: If they are able to demonstrate they were accomplishing administrative activities under the State’s policing powers, there is no PC required.
                  —–
                  I agree with you, Nondescript. However, its being an investigation does not change their legal authority to do it, nor does it change your constitutional right to decline to participate. But, I would bet LE would say it was not an investigation, rather it was administrative activities, and in order to complete the task, they had to ask questions.

                  Again, I am not making a statement as to what happens *when* LEOs show up on your property. I am giving my opinion as to the legality of their doing so. Police are allowed to investigate, and they are also allowed (tasked, even) to perform administrative duties as part of the State’s policing powers. That it’s random from your perspective does not mean it’s random from the planners’ perspective. Similarly, a roadblock which may appear random to you was actually planned out with some arguable, justifiable rationale by the State. The point remains: LEOs may knock on anyone’s door, at any time, and ask questions, as long as they have an arguable reason. For the general public who have not (yet) been run through the judicial system, LEOs have little arguable reason to knock on their doors. In the case of RCs, LEOs have the arguable reason that they are performing the administrative task of verifying supplied information to actual information.
                  What type of interaction they have with a citizen (consensual, Terry, arrest) is driven by a number of factors, as outlined in an above posting and through reference URLs.
                  —–
                  Only *rarely* must one speak with a LEO. Heck, you don’t even have to talk to them at a traffic stop, or even a roadblock. LEOs can ask you questions, but you don’t have to answer (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IG7niM9PzeE, 4’30” and on is all that’s pertinent; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRjmvgZX9ak is another good one…pay particular attention at 5’10”). They can give you commands, to which you must respond; however “respond” does not have to mean “verbally reply”. Really, a LEO typically only has the authority to make you act. “Pull over.” “(Present) license and registration.” “Get out of the car.” “Hands behind your back.” “You’re free to go.” In some States you may be required to give minimal identifying information such as name, address, and/or DOB, but otherwise you can be dead silent. One could even accomplish this minimal task by giving ID instead of speaking.

                  • TS

                    @AJ

                    Then can the show of force of more than one or two LEOs be questioned for someone off paper when a squad or more of them show up dressed for a hostile takeover and make a scene while doing it? Can same be said for cold calling on neighbors in an admin action when not required or than to create hostility within the community? Splitting hairs here I know….

                    • AJ

                      “Then can the show of force of more than one or two LEOs be questioned for someone off paper when a squad or more of them show up dressed for a hostile takeover and make a scene while doing it?” See: http://all4consolaws.org/2017/09/general-comments-september-2017/#comment-185272.

                      “Can same be said for cold calling on neighbors in an admin action when not required or than to create hostility within the community?”
                      What sort of admin action are neighbors calling in? If they’re calling to complain that they suspect you’re doing something illegal (whether true or not), LEOs typically investigate. Your being a RC almost certainly puts a pup-tent in their trousers. If this sort of thing happens with *any* sort of regularity, I’d start logging the events to try to establish a pattern of harassment. I might even call in “suspicious activity” I see my neighbors doing, and log response and response time.

                • Nondescript

                  They have no probable cause. The police told me it was their policy. A departmental policy pertains to them to follow to avoid disciplinary action. Citizens have no obligation to follow their policy. So, as AJ suggests, yes, it is “administrative” but the moment they start asking questions, it becomes investigatory.

                  • TS

                    @nondescript

                    where is the break between administrative questioning and investigational questioning? Questions that deviate from sheet with the data they are to confirm only become investigational?

  10. nylevel1

    I heard that New York State will introduce a bill banning all Californian registered sex offenders from residing in the the state for more than 12 hours.

  11. Registry Rage

    https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/09/02/federal-judge-rules-state-sex-offender-registry-is-unconstitutional/23195014/#slide=5070791#fullscreen

    The comments left on that article are typical of the ignorant public in regards to the registry:

    “Liberal judge (who is actually a Nixon appointee) must not have kids.”

    “My children’s rights come first. I want to know where these creeps live.”

    “Let those offenders live next door to that judge!”

    “just shoot sex offenders…… problem solved” – (had 15 likes last count).

    • Tired of this

      This is why things like this can’t be put to a public vote (and also why the public can’t be trusted with registry information). The lynch mob mentality today is no different than in centuries past. I long ago stopped reading the comments on articles having to do with RSOs, as they are toxic to my state of mind.

    • Counting the days

      The people who comment are trolls, just like youtubers. The ones that write their reps get attention, not online goofballs.

  12. mike r

    What do you guys think, should I go with Newperson’s argument for Involuntary Servitude???Something short and sweet like the following…The one thing I didn’t agree with Newperson is the contract issue. I believe we are forced into a contractual agreement (sex offender registration form and agreement) through coercion, under duress, and under color of law with the threat of imprisonment for failing to comply.

    1. Involuntary servitude is prohibited unless to punish a crime.
    2. Thus, if the registry is not punishment, then it cannot “force” anyone to do any service for them. Remember, it’s stated on ML’s website that “it’s your duty to registry.” Duty means service.
    3. Service to who/whom? The state of California. Wait, but I am a free person and the registry has always been deemed not a punishment.
    4. I’m a basic layman (redundant, I know). That Constitutional law is one sentence long. It basically states that no free person can be forced to serve. The only exception is if it for punishment, which means you’re under custody and not a free person. The registry laws cannot co-exist with Involuntary Servitude law. Forcing a free person into service is prohibited!
    5. This false guise of public safety is unconstitutional. If there is a threat, then it’s called punishment and that individual will be kept in prison much longer. The registry is continued services to the State well beyond its legal capacity once an individual is no longer under custody (a free person).
    6. Again, there are four traditional factors for involuntary servitude: a) Contract; b) Term; c) Compensation; d) Domination.
    7. CONTRACT – Sex Offender Registration Form. I am coerced into a contract under duress, under color of law, with threat of imprisonment for failing to enter, or comply with, that contract. It’s a part of your punishment detail. This is a red flag. A free person working under a contract that I was coerced and forced into under threat of imprisonment.
    8. TERM – In California, it’s a lifetime term. Again, this is a serious red flag. There are no lifetime contracts that a free person cannot get out of.
    9. COMPENSATION – There is no compensation. This actually ventures into being a slave since the service is administered upon a free person. (A person going to a police station and scribing information. That’s you and that’s a police employee. Both of you are appointed to the police station. Both of you are scribing information, one by hand and the other via computer. Yet only one of you is compensated for that time scribing as a free person.)
    10. DOMINATION – As a registrant, you cannot leave this service. You are bounded by law to comply or be hunted down, sent to prison (punishment), and returned to service. The PA court system has already deemed this act punishment b/c the penalty for not registering is going to jail.
    11. My question is why do the court systems not deem the possibility that Involuntary Servitude exists in today’s era? It’s like what the Colorado case stated about the online registry – Justice Kennedy did not realize the scope of what the World Wide Web can do when Kennedy chastised the potential harm initially in Smith v Doe and has recanted in his decision for Packingham case.
    12. Recall, Doe v Smith stated that the registry is regulatory. Great. So if the U.S. Supreme Court continues to claim that the registry is not punishment, then it must recognize that it is a service. A service upon a free person. That’s where the four factors of involuntary servitude come into play. Why can’t the injustice of “involuntary servitude” exist in today’s era? The U.S. Supreme Court has now stated that the internet now resembles that of a town square. Packingham. Now we know it’s much worse than a town square as it involves the whole world. Japanese Internment Camps and Jim Crow Laws are a few examples of the U.S. Government abusing its powers and not protecting all citizens.
    13. I am entitled to relief because: a) I am forced into a contractual agreement (sex offender registration form and agreement) through coercion and under duress, under color of law and threat of imprisonment; b) I must report at least once a year in person for the rest of my life, monthly if I become homeless, and every time I enroll or unenroll in school or change any information that the state requires me to report, which means that I may have to report at the very minimum 25 times in the next 25 years, plus since I am enrolled in college, I must report at least 50 more times ( each time I start or end a semester, (fall, spring and summer semesters)) in the next 10 years and for an unknown amount of times for other reasons such as information changes or, if I become homeless (which is a real possibility and which I have already had to endure), then we are talking about hundreds of in-person onerous reporting sessions and contact with law enforcement; c) It cost me thousands of dollars in lost wages and travel expenses to comply with these registration requirements, that I am not being compensated for. I get paid for my time; therefore my time is a service for which I must be compensated; d) Failure to comply will result in the return to prison for a lengthy time, and then I will be subjected to the subsequent intensive and life debilitating consequences of parole once again, and be placed right back into the same regime that becomes a never ending cycle of incarceration and supervision.

    • TS

      @mike r

      I think the registry is a type of civil commitment w/o the incarceration part and has release points for most, but not everyone.

  13. kind of living

    @ registry rage I hope you were just talking about bucket heads 15 likes , and stupid comments , lol , I am use to the threating comment on articles , but not here ,lol ,

  14. mike r

    Actually I like the following much better..
    14. Recall, Doe v Smith stated that the registry is regulatory. Great. So regardless if the U.S. Supreme Court continues to claim that the registry is not punishment, it is the intent of the legislature that these laws be strictly regulatory, so they therefore are legislative acts that constitute a “service” to the government (Involuntary Servitude), whether they are determined to be punishment or not, does not matter. A service upon a free person. That’s where the four factors of involuntary servitude come into play. So why can’t the injustice of “involuntary servitude” exist in today’s era?

    • kind of living

      @ Mike r ,,, ,, , sounds like your onto something , we are being forced to register , and will be punished if we don’t register or follow the many rules of the registry , dang sure against our will

    • Chris F (@Mike R)

      In my opinion, Involuntary Servitude is a valid argument but not the most likely to succeed. However, when placed within all the other arguments you have it give it some legs to stand on and at the least will bolster other arguments.

      One suggestion would be to re-write portions to sound more professional and less conversational. Things like “Great.” as a stand alone sentence may be too casual.

      Also, go deeper into your own experiences with registration if elaborating specific examples will show how it isn’t just a price club membership or a fishing license you are updating. Perhaps go into the vagueness of the requirement, as in, do you have to report if you reduce your sideburns length by half, or just if you get rid of them completely? Do different officers give you different answers?

      Also, in my situation I would point out that Probation was much easier than Registration. I could report most re-portable changes to myself or my situation on my probation officer’s voicemail and there were much fewer things I had to report. Reporting to probation was in an office environment at a time and day during normal business hours convenient for me and with little wait time. Reporting to register was in a police station to a police officer at only the one specific day and time they demanded regardless of my job or hardships, and could require waiting for hours.

      Probation only wanted to know my primary vehicle, while registration wanted to have photographs and license plates of any car I drive, before I drive it. Technically, even rental cars somehow have to be reported while I’m in another state.

      Probation would call me if they visited my home and I wasn’t there, while registration meant the police would leave a big yellow notice on my door for everyone to see.

      For traveling within or outside your state for a probationer in good standing, probation would normally approve such travel without more than a request being filled out and no notification to anyone else. For people on the Registry, you are subject to potentially re-register in other cities within your state, or in any state you travel to, based on lengths of time at that location that can vary from state to state. Some states, like Florida and New York, will permanently keep you on their registry even after you leave.

      You will also want to repeat the Packingham quote here that talks about the “troubling” fact that this service continues after you are no longer under supervision and have served your time as determined by a judge to punish, rehabilitate, and protect the public.

      • New Person

        Kennedy’s parenthetical quote form Peckingham
        =============
        Of importance, the troubling fact that the law
        imposes severe restrictions on persons who already have
        served their sentence and are no longer subject to the
        supervision of the criminal justice system is also not an
        issue before the Court
        =============

        I would place this at the beginning of the Involuntary Servitude portion.

        Please note that Kennedy identifies punished duty was “served”. The registry is another form of service to the state, where one is subject to continued service to the state after being declared a free person. The registry was deemed not punishment, Smith v Doe 2003.

        Involuntary servitude is prohibited unless to punish a crime.

        • Timothy Moore

          If it is deemed punishment, then I was sentenced to a lifetime of punishment and like prison the punishment is very open. That is great for people sentenced before the registry, then it is ex post facto but not for those afterwards, how would that work?

          • New Person

            For those afterwards: Now the registry falls into punishment scrutiny. Which means double jeopardy if you’re looking at statutes. They’re punishing a crime twice.

            Then, you can look towards what Colorado has already founded – the registry is punishment, is it cruel and unusual punishment.

  15. kari

    Hello Everyone,
    below is something Trump wanted if you want a new regulation you must kill two.

    U.S. District Court Considers

    Legality of 2-for-1 Order

    By Gary L. Visscher, Esq

    The May 2017 newsletter reported on President Trump’s “two-for-one” Executive Order (E.O. 13771), and litigation challenging the Executive Order which was filed in the U.S. District Court in Washington D.C. E.O. 13771 requires that an agency or department which proposes or promulgates a new regulation must identify at least two existing regulations to be repealed, and requires that the cost of any new regulation must be off-set by repeal of other regulations, so that the “total incremental cost of the new regulations… to be finalized this year shall be no greater than zero.” For fiscal years after 2017, the Executive Order requires that an agency issuing a new regulation identify offsetting costs from regulations that have been or will be repealed. According to the Executive Order, each agency will be issued an annual “regulatory budget” which will state the total amount of incremental costs that will be allowed the agency in issuing new regulations. The “incremental costs allowance may allow an increase or require a reduction in total regulatory cost” imposed by the agency’s regulations.

    In April, the Office of Management and Budget issued guidance on the implementation of the Executive Order. Amount other clarifications, the OMB guidance states that offsets will only be required for “significant regulatory actions,” which are generally items that have an annual incremental impact of $100 million or have other substantial impacts on the economy. On the other hand, the OMB guidance allows any cost reductions from changes in regulations and guidance to count as off-set. Thus for example, any costs saved by elimination of paperwork requirements may be counted.

    The Executive Order was challenged in court shortly after it was issued, on the basis that it violates the Constitution’s separation of power s by imposing factors on regulations that are in addition to and unrelated to the criteria set by Congress in enabling legislation. The plaintiff’s also argue that the Executive Order violates the President’s constitutional duty to “take care that the Law be faithfully executed,” as well as the Administrative Procedures Act.

    The Department of Justice, and proponents of instituting a regulatory budgeting approach as is embodied in E.O. 13771, have argued that the lawsuit challenging the Executive Order is premature (not “ripe” for judicial review), because no regulations have been rescinded or proposed for rescission, as a result of the Executive Order (though regulations may be reviewed for other reasons and counted for purposes of the off-set). Proponents of the regulatory budget approach have noted that such an approach have been used by other countries (though structured differently) to help to control the overall costs of regulations.

    The District Court held oral argument in early August on the motion to dismiss by the Department of Justice, as well as a motion for summary judgment filed by the plaintiffs (Public Citizen, Natural Resources Defense Council, and the Communications Workers of America). The Court did not rule on the motions, but is expected to issue a decision soon. If the District Court grants either side’s motion, an appeal is likely to the Court of Appeals

  16. TS

    Are sex offender registries unconstitutional?

    https://hotair.com/archives/2017/09/02/sex-offender-registries-unconstitutional/

    Interesting comments

  17. Eric

    I have a question about the current registration requirements for California. Particularly #13 that states, “If I have more that one residence address that I regularly reside (regardless of the number of days or nights I spend at each address) I must register in person…with the law enforcement agency having jurisdiction.” This is incredibly vague. Does the word ‘have’ mean it is my property or just a place I frequent? What is the definition of residing? Is that visiting, sleeping, or what? This could mean if I attend a bible study in someone’s home, play cards at a friend’s on Fridays, do regular maintenance work at a property, or have girl friend I occasionally stay with, I would technically have to register all those places. Is that correct???? Arizona and Utah define ‘residing’ as a place you stay at for several consecutive days. So I could stay at my girlfriends without having to register if I live in AZ. The key word is ‘have.’ Does that mean the residence is my property? If not, then technically every SO would have dozens of registered addresses, and could in fact be picked up for violation for visiting a friend’s home. Webster defines ‘have’ as to hold, own, or possess. How does one change the registration requirements in CA to make them more livable???

  18. mike r

    Yeah, screw it Chris, like I said, I am just going to keep it short and sweet. Like you stated, it’s not the main issue but it can only bolster the other arguments, and who knows, SCOTUS decides in favor on issues that you may never think they would ..
    Here it is people, the final draft. I am filing tomorrow!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    https://gofile.io/?c=Uck9w1
    I guess we’ll see how good of a job we all did, right????? I got rid of the “Great”, and a couple of other repetitive or irrelevant words or remarks……….Let me know what you think….

    • TS

      @mike r

      I offer these comments to you:

      1) italics vs non-italics, e.g. Paragraph 28, 314 and overall, stay one way or the other (technically, the source should italicized and that is it)

      2) Paragraph 116 & 222, should be semi-colons, not commas in the list due to the size, like you do in Paragraph 152

      3) Saw some stray punctuation here and there that did not align itself, but easily overlooked

      4) I saw plenty of websites I think were meant to be attached to preceding sentences with commas, but were separated with periods instead. Do a doc search on “http” to find them and update that if you are inclined.

      Whittled the list down from big to these few nits, but I would say 1, 3 & 4 above are more important.

      Nice work!

  19. David Kennerly, Poster Boy For Whatever Pisses You Off

    This apropos of little recent discussion but I thought this was a very revealing discussion of, in this case, sex offenders attending “Your Church,” and is from the perspective of the insurance and liability exposure.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DVemC6lRKA

    • Chris F (@David K)

      That’s a little long for me to watch. I wish it were something I could read to see the major direction.

      Could you summarize for me please?

      Thanks David!

    • Chris F

      I’ve had a chance to view most of it now.

      I find it interesting that only 3% of churches surveyed indicate they would want to ban a sex offender from their church if they find out about them. 80% say they would have them sign an agreement to only attend church service, not volunteer at or represent the church, and not interact with children while attending church.

      This points to why our government should have NO list or registries of people due to past crimes. The list transfers liability to everyone else to determine the risk and take precautions or face potential lawsuits instead of the Judiciary doing it one time, during the sentencing phase and tailored to the individual. Remove the registry, and guess what, that was already the way it was done! Judges set the duration of jail/probation/parole and conditions during that time to protect the public. No “public disclosure” of potential dangerousness was needed.

      Same thing with IML. It transfers liability to every other country on every occasion you visit to determine our threat and what to do about it, which usually means just deny entry and incur no expense or liability. How about judges just use the law from 2008 that has them revoke passports for those convicted of sex tourism? Done.

      Interesting video David K.

      • Nondescript

        I think they have written the laws this way to create division and chaos. Everyone including businesses must be on heightened alert if a registrant is in their midst or they face potential penalties themselves. Take for example a city ordinance from Lomita California :

        [More than one registrant may not occupy different rooms in the same hotel, motel, or inn if ten percent of the total guest rooms within the hotel, motel or inn are already occupied by registrants]

        This puts the onus on the establishment to ask every guest at check in if they are a registrant in order to comply with the law. The registry doesn’t just affect people who are on it. It is one big psy-op on society as a whole.

      • Timothy Moore

        Well yes, it is described beautifully in the Colorado case, the government is saying, danger, stay away from the registrant. Danger, Will Robinson. Danger. Danger.

  20. mike r

    Hmmmm. I wonder why Janice referenced the CA state Constitution in her suit that she filed in federal court…

  21. Chris F

    From NARSOL:

    https://narsol.org/2017/09/tenth-circuit-splits-in-holding-revocation-enhancements-for-sos-unconstitutional/

    Interesting case. I read the judges’ opinions. I don’t see too much to use in other cases to help us, but it is good to know the majority upheld the Constitution even though it was a sex offender involved.

    In reading the dissent opinion though, I do not understand at all how that judge comes to the conclusion that you can increase the original sentence due to a new charge where the offender did not get a trial by jury under the “beyond a reasonable doubt” requirement and instead just got review by a judge under the “preponderance of evidence” lower standard. I’ve read his short dissent multiple times and I just don’t get how he comes to that conclusion.

    Opinions:

    https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3986316-United-States-of-America-v-Andre-Ralph-Haymond.html#document/p1

    I do like the “Booker” SCOTUS references, and wonder how it can be used to defeat the registry since judges are supposed to only use mandatory max and min sentencing as “guildlines” to keep discretion with the judges, yet sex offender registration is imposed on all as mandatory by legislators and take away all discretion that “Booker” says a judge must have.

  22. mike r

    Filed my brothers @!!!At the casino, I will post a copy of finished and filed motion when I get home…It’s really a beautifully written peice of literature….Wait and see….

  23. mike r

    Well, here is what I filed, address and phone # redacted (why I don’t know, since you can easily find it on the net, right?) Way different then what we had, so check it out…Thanks TS, but it’s a done deal man……
    https://gofile.io/?c=DfsiZR
    Insights???????????? For those that said, do it already and stop talking about it, well I put my money where my mouth was, and I hope you pray right along with the rest of us for success….

    • TS

      @mike r

      No worries. Always been your product to file when you’re ready. Just glad to be able to assist your endeavor here and hope it makes a difference in the end.

  24. Paul

    Gee. A massive hurricane is going to hit Florida

    \_(“~”)_/

  25. Illinois Contact

    Just received this email from Illinois Voices For Reform. Hope you will join me in participating in this very beneficial cause.

    Our partner attorneys have been asked to file an Amicus Brief (also known as a “Friend of the Court” Brief) in support of a case that is going before the Illinois Supreme Court. This case involves the retroactive application of registration requirements. At issue is whether or not the state can require someone to register based on a law that passed after a person was convicted.

    This is an important case for all of us, and we could use your help. We need people who are willing to share their story about how being on the registry has impacted them. It is important to note that this is about the registry, and not about the restrictions that are based on conviction.

    Examples of the types of stories we’re looking for:

    •If you were turned down for employment, or lost your job, and you know for sure that it was because someone found you on the registry (and not just because of your conviction), that is the sort of story we want to hear.
    •If you were denied housing, or were forced to move, because the landlord looked you up on the internet, that is another story we’re looking for.
    •We’re also looking for any negative experiences you’ve had with the registration process itself, for example being harassed, extremely long wait times, not being allowed to register, being charged with failing to register even though you tried to comply, etc.
    •Finally, if you have experienced other negative problems as a result of being listed on a public registry, for example being harassed or threatened by neighbors, damage to your house or car, children being teased by other children, and you know these were because someone found you on the registry, we need those stories, too!

    In order for a story to be included in an Amicus Brief, actual names have to be used. We know that is a problem for many of you, but we encourage you to share your story even if we can’t use it for this particular case. We want to compile as many stories as possible that can be used either now or in the future.

    In order to be considered for this Amicus Brief, we need your stories by Monday, September 11, 2017. (That’s this coming Monday.) I know it’s a short time frame, but the attorneys have to submit the Amicus Brief by early October in order to get it into the record.

    To share your story, please visit our website, http://www.ilvoices.org, and click on “Get Involved” and then choose “Share your Story.” The Share Your Story form asks for a lot of personal details about your offense. You should know that is ONLY so the attorneys have enough background in order to make the best decision on what stories to include. We never share any of that information with anyone but the attorneys! The attorneys base their decision on getting stories from a variety of unique situations, and they don’t automatically dismiss a story because of the offense.

    Thank you for considering this request. Together, we will make a difference.

    You can read about this case, as well as other important legal action, on our website. As always, thank you for your continued support.

    Any questions, please email will@ilvoices.com

    • AJ

      @IL Contact:
      I trust this is the Pepitone case. Can people outside IL chime in, or is it limited to IL residents for submitting harms suffered? That may help with your response rate.

  26. Chris F (@Mike R and all)

    @Mike R

    I just finished reading the entire motion.

    It’s a masterpiece and a compilation of all of the ways the government and a society driven by irrational fears has deprived us of our Constitutional Rights.

    I recommend that every one on here downloads it and either tailors it to their own needs, or gives it to their attorney. Be very careful though, because for many, if not most, this deep dive into Constitutional law is beyond an attorney’s knowledge and experience in spite of what they may tell you. If they try to tell you one of these claims won’t work, make them quote the case law that backs up that claim and research it yourself. I’m serious here. I’ve spent money on some of the best attorneys in the Dallas area and I can guarantee they don’t know enough to handle many of the claims in Mike’s motion.

    This motion has grown over the last two years to include some of the best research available on each of the individual motions as discussed on these forums.

    My biggest hope is that the first time this motion is reviewed by a judge, that it becomes a newsworthy event and, much like Colorado, has a domino effect of spreading the arguments like wildfire across the country.

    Mike R, great job, and please keep us posted here of any timeframes or reactions from the court so we can all learn how this Pro-Se process can work, or what needs to be done differently in the future. You’re our guinea pig here, and for all our sakes I wish you the best of luck at doing what lawyers have not been able to do in decades!!!

    • Chris F

      Does anyone here have access to, or are on good terms with, any of the legal scholars that have written on our cause? I was thinking of people like Emily Horowitz or Catherine Carpenter.

      It would be great if someone could get Mike R’s court filing to them for comment.

      I would love to know their opinions on what arguments could succeed and if there are any arguments that just won’t work, and why. I’m sure getting this to a Constitutional Law lawyer for comment wouldn’t receive a comment for free.

    • HOOKSCAR

      I agree. This argument has grown and I find myself in a position where all I have to do is tailor the argument to me and my situation. I would greatly recommend that all RCs or family download this and tailor it to them.
      @ Miker
      Please keep us informed on everything. Can you imagine the reaction from the courts if all of a sudden there was an influx of these challenges? The burden is on the government, not us.

  27. mike r

    Man its happening all over the country …Love it….Don’t understand where all the civil rights Orgs. are in this state. Oh well… Yeah, I have read over my paper copy of my motion. A few typos in the beginning, but otherwise incredible job everyone……Lets see if the ACLU steps up to the plate once this is rolling…If not, I am ready to fight it myself…Watched the Larry Flynn DOC and SCROTUS case over and over again. Love it, lots of inspiration…..

    • AJ

      @mike r:
      Have you reached out to ACLU-CA or Cato or anyone for possible amicus filings?

  28. Chris F

    It’s a little old for me to be discussing Packingham now, but I find this interesting and relevant to any current or future registry challenges where the State tries to defend its assertion that its laws are justified due to high recidivism:

    Briefing the Supreme Court: Promoting Science or Myth?
    By Melissa Hamilton PhD
    https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2940002

    Essentially, the conglomerate of 13 states that filed in support of the North Carolina law banning sex offenders from social media had used irrelevant or incorrect and easily refutable studies to try to essentially “trick” the Justices into ruling in their favor. This is exactly what happened to us in 2002-2003 with McKune V Liles, Smith V Doe, and Connecticut DPS V Doe where no fact checking was one on the “frightening and high” and “80% recidivism” the Solicitor General of the U.S. put forth as justification for Sex Offender laws back then.

    I understand that part of the accepted system of justice in our country is that both sides present their side in the best way possible to allow the judiciary to reach a fair conclusion, but shouldn’t there be some consequence or at least acknowledgement when one side purposely uses irrelevant or incorrect data to try and manipulate the judiciary? I would think the Judiciary would take offense to this at some point, but I guess they love the States for giving them the option to rule against sex offenders and can later point the blame toward the states providing false information.

    • Chris F (@Mike R)

      @Mike R,

      Keep the link above handy for when the States file their briefs against you, and perhaps beg Melissa Hamilton to help you if they try to pass off different false studies as facts.

    • AJ

      @Chris F:
      I think SCOTUS, not to mention legal counsel, is well aware of those games now. And, ironically, the same proliferation of the Internet that has occurred since Smith, when Kennedy essentially (and naively) said it was merely putting paper records online, also helps find real data. I have no doubt whatsoever that SCOTUS is/will be in full grasp and possession of correct data in the next round. Fourteen years of data and studies, including by our antagonist (read: Government), are on our side.

    • Eric Knight

      That citation/refutation was one of many that Will B. of Sosen provided to Packingham attorney Dave Goldberg’s office, which was actually first used in a court in an expungement case in Ohio in 2015. In that case, when the citation was introduced, the state attorney attempting to prevent the expungement was severely criticized for citing Smith v. Doe “frighteningly high recidivism” rates by the judge. (Incidentally, the state attorney was the same prosecutor who prosecuted the petititioner in the original case, along with the same judge.)

  29. Illinois Contact

    I would like to call everyone’s attention to LifeTimes, a magazine which has much helpful and supportive information. It’s rather on the positive side of dealing with the reality of the registry, rather than focusing on legislative/legal strategies for ending it, which may seem Pollyannaish to some, but we have to survive in the meantime (until liberation comes).

    LifeTimes is a lifestyle magazine designed to share stories, ideas, thoughts, suggestions, and information about how to prosper in life despite the adversity of the registry. The goal is not to diminish the impact of what was done, nor to complain about the negative consequences of being on a registry. Instead, we recognize that being on a registry presents serious challenges, and that many people have found ways to overcome those challenges.

    We begin with a fundamental belief that everyone, including those who have broken some of our most serious social norms and laws, deserves the chance to find joy and happiness in their lives once they have paid their debt to society. Our target audience includes people who live under the burden of public registries, either directly or as the result of being close to someone who is on a registry.

    Each issue will include features highlighting those who have prospered in their job, found meaningful relationships, started their own businesses, and found a sense of peace in their lives. In addition, we will provide practical information that anyone can use as they seek to rebuild their lives and move forward, including sections on Arts & Entertainment, Technology, Culinary, Higher Education, Sexuality, Religion, and more. We’ll also include information about local and state-by-state support organizations and events. ​

    Here’s the link to see a sample issue and subscribe:

    http://www.lifetimesmagazine.org/lifetimes.html

  30. Eric Knight

    I would like to start a mini-thread to discuss the merits of putting together a case to challenge the registry in California, similar to the way the registry was challenged in Colorado. To be emphatically clear, I don’t want to interfere nor otherwise influence what Janice, Chance, and the other professionals are doing for registrants in California, and in fact they are actively determining the merits of constructing such a case in the same manner, then I would love to hear someone chime in with it. I hate reinventing the wheel.

    The optimal result would be to render a decision so substantially in our favor it would supplement the Colorado decision, strengthening the likelihood that a case could be heard regarding the legality of the registry at the US Supreme Court.

    On that note, my idea would be to make the same approach as Colorado: First, find four or five registrants who have been clearly impacted with the registry, preferably anyone who has a document trail of registration requirements that, under Mendoza-Martinez thresholds, render the registry punitive.

    These four or five registrants would ideally:

    • Off paper (not under court supervision)
    • Listed on the Internet (preferably with full address, though just zip code is ok)
    • One-time offenders with no other offense of any type
    • Sex crime was not violent
    • Sex crime was not committed against prepubescent children, either physically nor digitally or through images

    All registrants must be available for court-related appearances and dispositions as necessary. The case should be filed through Federal Court to maximize the chances of being tied in with Colorado’s decision.

    Again, let me repeat: This is NOT a supplement nor even a course of action to actually undertake. This would be more of a way to discuss particular issues, what is needed, citations, etc, etc, etc.

    Then if anyone really wants to join, we can discuss this more thoroughly in a private collaboration client such as Slack, where citations and whatnot can be exchanged as well as chat and messaging. Finally, we we get anything substantial, we can forward the results to ACSOL leadership and see what the best course of action would prevail.

    Thanks for your time, and would love to hear ideas on moving forward. I would respectfully state that the discussion be limited to actual substantive suggestions, and refrain from just offering oneself as a plaintiff at this point, as this is only to be done as “working research” more than an actual petition.

    • TS

      @Eric, et al

      Highly recommend you listen to the NARSOL recording of the phone conference today. You will learn a lot from it for a similar effort. There is a right way to do it. Read the third and fourth complaints too. Get a dozen folks impacted similarly.

  31. Bobby

    hello everyone,

    I have a question, I know no body here is a lawyer, and I am not looking for legal advice, just curious on what everyone’s opinion is to my question so here it is in a nutshell, I hope I say it clear enough.

    When Snyder gets heard on th 25th, and whether they take it, deny it, or just plan don’t discuss it. so if they deny it, and Michigan Ohio, Tenn. and KY and OH. win, and they do take it, and we ALL eventually win, does anyone know or have an idea, on whether we will be able to sue our individual states that we live in, specially thougth’s of us that have been on the stupid thing since the early 90’s. Also for those of us here that live in Michigan and any other states that may have done this as well.

    For Example, we here in Michigan had our registration dates changed to our conviction dates, so if or should I say when we WIN, will they move our registration dates back to the original date. again example mine went from 12-15-95 to my conviction date of 6-19-92, which means I am currently past my original 25 years, but if they move it back to 1995 then I would have to wait till 2020. unless they remove me completely since I was never told by a judge I had to register, because well Michigan did not have a registry at the time, and my Judge is now retired 2007. Does any one have an idea or opinion on how this might play out when all is said and done. Thanks in advance.

    • AJ

      @Bobby:
      There are a whole lot of moving parts involved in Snyder, so what exactly will happen cannot be readily determined. I also want you to realize that Snyder will not be “heard” on Sep 25. It will probably either be accepted (and oral arguments scheduled) or deferred (moved down the calendar to the next conference). What may happen with the effective date is something that will probably work independently of Snyder–or at least could. My thoughts are one’s registration date is the date when one initially registered. Did you have to make your initial registration upon conviction, or upon sentencing? I’m guessing it was probably the latter of the dates you supplied, which obviously might suck.

      I counsel patience, Bobby. As I said, there are all sorts of variables to do with Snyder.

  32. mike r

    I guess these guys haven’t scan these threads or noticed that collaborations that they are talking about to create a rock solid, masterpiece of a motion has already happened and is now in the federal district court for the eastern district of CA…The clerk wouldn’t give me a time frame or even an estimate. He said the judge has to approve my fee waiver first, which he said can take a couple weeks, and then it depends on the complexity of the issues, and the merits…I don’t know exactly why the merits of the issues have anything to do with the timing, but thats what he told me….

    • Chris F

      Things in my state seem to take 18 months, but that was for appeal to state.

      Does anyone know the time frame for federal normally to initially rule?

      • AJ

        @Chris F:
        I’m sure that time frame is one big “it depends.” The recently decided CO case was filed in 2013, based on its case number (13-CV-02406). The original Does v Snyder (District, not Appeals, Court) was filed in 2012 (case no. 12-CV-11194) and decided 31-MAR-15. The appeal of the ex post facto provision was obviously on or after 31-MAR-15, argued 27-JAN-16, and decided 25-AUG-16. It would seem a over a year should be expected for a case, shorter for an appeal. Perhaps the CO case took longer due to the amended motions.

  33. mike r

    Hello miss Horowitz……
    My name is Michael Richardson, I am emailing you in regards to some of your research on sex-offender registration laws throughout this country. I am in Sacramento, CA and have filed a Pro Se motion in the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of CA yesterday. I could not find any attorneys or civil rights org. to assist me so I have created my own filing with the collaboration from a few others.
    The reason I am emailing you is that I want to know if you would read the following DOC (motion) that I filed and give me some feedback, and that when this comes up for further proceedings if you would be willing to provide some type of documentation on your research, and empirical evidence, as well as provide an expert witness statement if it becomes necessary? I would, of course, not be able to compensate you, as I explain in my motion that I do not have unlimited disposable income available to me. If you can please take the time to read and digest what I have created in my Doc. I would be forever grateful. I know it is an arduous read, but I think you will find it extremely interesting. I look forward to hearing from you.
    Thank you for your time.
    Michael.

    Same thing to Miss Carpenter.

    • mike r

      Yep, emailed Hamilton too.

      • Chris F

        I’ve had only brief replies from very brief questions or no reply at all from some that you emailed.

        They are really top of their fields, but are so popular and sought out that a reply will be quite amazing. I was hoping someone on here might have connections. I wasn’t able to attend the NARSOL call yesterday to ask questions, but those types of calls may be the only way to get some free legal opinions. I really want to know why separation of powers isn’t attempted. I don’t think the US Code could be any clearer that the judiciary is tasked with punishment, rehab, and protecting the public so the judiciary shouldn’t interfere to the extent it does with the registry and laws against those on it that extend beyond the limit set by the judge for duration of supervision.

        Please keep us posted!

  34. Facebook

    I need to comment on numerous internet news articles that affect my status as a registered sex offender, but I’m not allowed by State law & by Facebook policy, to have a Facebook profile. A Facebook profile, is the Only way for one to join in on the comments section of these internet news articles. What should I do?

    • Chris F

      Take the results and quotes from the Packingham case, and add it to the Pro-Se motion that Mike R filed in comments up above and file your own motion. Mike R does not have to disclose his internet identifier to the state, so he did not need to include that in his motion that the registry is unconstitutional.

      If you are still on probation or parole, you are less likely to succeed. If you are off, then the “troubling” fact that you are under these restrictions was brought up as a concern by SCOTUS in the Packingham majority opinion but the issue was not before them to rule on. In Packingham, SCOTUS recognized sites like Facebook being the new town square. You can’t sue Facebook, because they can do what they want. You could however sue the government, because it is them providing the “list” to Facebook that infers you are dangerous without justification and that violates Substantive Due Process and some other sections of the Constitution.

      • TS

        As was mentioned in the NARSOL call, still on paper will not get you anywhere in any effort. It’s best to be off paper completely then try. Putting forth a fruitless effort will only prolong the matters and make it worse for others that takes a long time to correct as was also mentioned in the NARSOL call.

        • Chris F

          Correct. Don’t put the cart before the horse.

          First, we need the registry unconstitutional for those off probation or parole.

          After that, people will have grounds to eliminate for some on probation or parole as the conditions on probation or parole are “supposed” to still be the least restricting to accomplish the goal of public safety and also must be tailored to the individual and circumstances and not just the crime. But you can’t fight that fight until the registry is deemed unconstitutional for someone not under supervision.

  35. AJ

    Here’s a paper from 2011 (updated from 2009 publishing) promoting the idea that what’s going on right now is quite similar to the (failed) War on Drugs: “The Emerging Criminal War on Sex Offenders”(https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1456042)

    There are some very good points made, and some of the statements are eerily accurate when you change the drug-related phrases and words for SO-related ones.

  36. AJ

    Here’s an overlooked tidbit from the Smith Opinion: “Whether other constitutional objections can be raised to a mandatory reporting requirement, and how those questions might be resolved, are concerns beyond the scope of this opinion.”
    This seems similar to the phrase in CT DPS that has been lying there, long dormant and begging attention. Well, SCOTUS has such “objections” awaiting in Snyder and Muniz!

    • Chris F

      Exactly.

      SCOTUS continues to give hints, but lawyers don’t have the drive to get anything to them in most situations. Nobody wants to be the one that took down the registry, even if justified. Janice and a few other’s are the exceptions, but I am sure they need more funding, the right victims, and the best climate. I think we’ve finally gotten to the best climate in the judiciary after all these years.

  37. AJ

    Here’s another decent, and recent, paper addressing SORAs: “Sex Offender Registration and Notification” (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2930663)

    What I found to be one of the most remarkable statements from the paper was this quote (from a cited source): “[R]esearch has highlighted another, more structural way in which SORN might foster a false sense of community safety. The concern is most evident with offense-based classification regimes, used in most states and urged by the federal government in the Adam Walsh Act (2006). In a recent study, registrants in New York, which classifies registrants in terms of individual risk, were instead classified under the AWA’s offense-based approach. Researchers discovered that registrants classified as low-risk under the AWA actually sexually offended at higher rates than those classified as moderate- or high-risk under New York’s regime. Summarizing their results, the authors stated that the offense-based approach: may give community members a false sense of security. That is, community members may believe they are safe if no Tier 3 offenders are residing in their neighborhood when, in fact, Tier 3 offenders are not at increased risk to reoffend. As such, [the AWA] appears unable to accurately identify high-risk offenders and,
    therefore, increase public safety.”

    I can only say, “wow.” Anyone who says offense-based tiers work needs to learn otherwise.

    • Chris F

      The more I read the more upset I get that someone (other than Mike R) doesn’t throw the 1000 reasons registration is unconstitutional at a judge at the same time to show how ridiculous it is. Forget this nickel and diming by only hitting a couple things like Ex Post Facto.

      Offense-based classification regimes – While I don’t have time right now to find the references, judges are bound to rules that they cannot subject someone to special conditions of probation or parole based merely on the crime, and must tailor them to the individual and circumstances in the least restrictive way to achieve a goal. Yet, the legislation thinks it is under no such restriction. There is a reason sentencing is supposed to be done by a judge and not legislature. UGh…

      • New Person

        Because registration is regulatory, it doesn’t exists in the realm of punishment and not under any scrutiny.

        This is a devious guise to force a free person to remain in service to the state, but no one believes they are employing involuntary servitude. Look at how the japanese internment camps were ruled constitutional.

        Four traditional factors for involuntary servitude:
        1. Contract (offense based from a crime)
        2. Term (any registrant who has been designated a lifetime term is a red flag)
        3. Compensation (there is no pay for this service to a free person… sounds like slavery)
        4. Dominance (put under threat to continue service, including law)

        No one wants to utilize the fact that the registry is not a punishment, but is being applied forcefully to free citizens under threat of punishment if they do not adhere to the service to the state.

    • kind of living

      @ AJ @ Chris F @ New Person ,,, GREAT points, every one of them ! no way I can add and make your points any better ,

  38. Man it don't have to state anything like that..It's common sense mike r

    Man I am reworking our motion so I can file it in CA superior court as well. I don’t know if I am supposed to have two suits about the same issues in process at the same time, but I see no reason why not. I am not being lumped in with the tier three offenders at any cost!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!I WILL NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  39. AJ

    @AlexO:
    I’m not sure if you’ve seen this article before: “The Death of the Static-99” (http://ssrn.com/abstract=2239089).
    You seem to be the resident expert about it, so I thought perhaps you’d like this. I read it, but it didn’t mean a whole lot to me. (Also, it has some typos, and could use some commas!)

    • AlexO

      There’s been several papers in that regard published over the years from many different sources, but non of them seem to matter as the Static-99 is still being used independently of a clinical evaluation and doesn’t even follow its own guidelines of needing to reevaluate after two years, nor the fact that according to its own documentation the risk roughly halves for every 5 years of remaining offense free. It’s why there’s a fair consensus among doctors that the test itself becomes worthless after 17 years (and most likely much sooner for most). It’s a mess that has great impact on our lives.

  40. SO4life

    Mike R << here is a great report you can use on your motion for cruel and unsual punishment! This report has documented the murders and assaults of people on the registry. Might be a good read for those wanting to add immunitions to their cases! https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2017/may/5/vigilantes-assault-rob-and-murder-registered-sex-offenders/

  41. jc

    Questions for those who have received early probation termination in California (LA county)… I am coming up on my halfway point on October 15. I know it’s recommended to wait longer but I really want to give it a shot.

    When can I start the process? Is there enough prep work that I should be contacting a lawyer now to be ready to file on October 15 or is it quick that I can wait until closer to that date?

    How long does the process take once filed? Is there any chance of being off before Halloween? Ideally I’d like to avoid what happened last year when probation officers with guns drawn banged on my door with only my teenage daughter in the house. And all just to deliver the “don’t celebrate Halloween” notice.

    Thanks.

    • AlexO

      Were you given more than the 3-year standard (and minimum)? If yes, than you might be able to get off at the 3-year mark, provided you’ve completed everything required by the probation such as community service, fees paid, and any treatment programs. If you still have any of these things outstanding, you’re not going to get off early. It’s also unlikely you’ll get off early if you’re doing it before the three years.

      • jc

        I was given 5 years probation. Next month will be the 2.5 year point. The law says you’re eligible at the halfway point. Everyone here says to wait 3 years though 🙁

        I just can’t imagine another 6 months. This nightmare started 3.5 years ago and enough is enough. I’ve played their game and it’s time to get my life back.

        I have completed all the requirements.

  42. Rodney

    I waited before responding to some of the angry responses to my comment about taking responsibility for our actions because I know better than to engage a person when they are angry. Just FYI I am a 220 and will be required to register for life if the new bill becomes law. My comment had nothing to do with the new bill and everything to do with how we deal with our emotions. I’ve been on the registry for 24 years and lost a lot but I never bow down or lay down. I move forward to the best of my ability in spite of wearing the scarlet letter on my forehead and I couldn’t have survived for 24 years had I not managed my anger and stayed focused on surviving. So no, I don’t know you and my comment was not satire or taken from a text book. It comes from 24 years of experience as a registered sex offender.

    Being angry with me for stating the truth about what I hear from some (not all) on this site serves no purpose. Passion is great but should be tempered or it’s just anger disguised as being a good soldier. I have made several comments on this site and none of them supports continued abuse for anyone who has served their time for the crime they committed. Of course the registry should be dismantled; but until the U.S. Supreme Court finds the registries unconstitutional it doesn’t matter how loud we scream about the ruling in Colorado because in California we still have a registry; and in my case I’m on it for life.

    As always I only speak for me and I always make that clear when commenting.

  43. Rodney

    I waited before responding to some of the angry responses to my comment about taking responsibility for our actions because I know better than to engage a person when they are already in a fighting mood. Just FYI, I am a 220 and will be required to register for life if the new bill becomes law. My position has always been let’s take what we can get out of the Legislature and fight in court for the rest. I’m a “Lifer” either way. But my recent comment had nothing to do with the new bill and everything to do with how we deal with our emotions.

    I’ve been on the registry for 24 years and I lost a lot, so I understand where the feelings come from but I never bow down or lay down and I do not get angry about it anymore. I move forward to the best of my ability in spite of wearing the scarlet letter on my forehead and I couldn’t have survived for 24 years had I not managed my anger and stayed focused on surviving. So no, I don’t know you and my comment was not satire or taken from a text book. It comes from 24 years of experience as a registered sex offender. But it’s also true that yes, I am a Counselor of 16 years so some of that will always be a part of me and what I say.

    Being angry with me for stating the truth about what I hear from some (not all) on this site serves no purpose. Passion is great but it should be tempered or it’s just anger disguised as being a good soldier. I have made several comments on this site and none of them supports continued abuse for anyone who has served his or her time for the crime they committed. Of course the registry should be dismantled; but until the U.S. Supreme Court finds the registries unconstitutional it doesn’t matter how loud we scream about the ruling in Colorado because in California we still have a registry; and in my case I’m on it for life.

    As always I only speak for me and I always make that clear when commenting.

  44. Not Really @ Rodney

    You make some good points and apparently aren’t saying we should lay down and accept the registry and its constant devolution.

    Over all, I agree, and try to obey a rule of thumb I made for myself: Always argue as if arguing before a judge that can make the final decision. I try to keep to this standard anywhere the subject comes up.

    That means, trying to stick to the evidence and facts. Trying to remain respectful enough to be heard and taken seriously. Listening to counter arguments as a means to strengthening my own.

    Watch a few videos of the various Supreme Courts and you, general you, will see how the judges challenge and play devil’s advocate, even if agreeing with the argument. They try to anticipate the other side and get to it first. They all stay rational and try to stay calm, even though some lawyers before the court are obviously nervous as hell.

    Calm, deliberate and informed with facts of the law, the courts or science. Those are our three weapons. Pick one and try to get good at it.

    So, that’s my game plan and I think, and hope, it is more productive than ranting, which I would love to do often, and do do, inside my own head.

  45. TS

    Registry of violence against RCs

    https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2017/may/5/vigilantes-assault-rob-and-murder-registered-sex-offenders/

    Great info for cases going forward

    (Not sure if this has been posted before here, but I see some Mike r listed in his motion)

  46. mike r

    We already have that here in CA. We also have a drug offender registry.

  47. Chris F

    I just received this forwarded from Mary Sue of Texas Voices and thought you all may be interested:
    *********

    Just received this appellate court decision from a contact in Illinois. Although this ruling affects only those in Illinois, it is refreshing to see that some judges are actually getting it.

    This ruling came from the same appellate court that found the park restrictions to be unconstitutional (that case is pending appeal to the IL Supreme Court):

    http://www.illinoiscourts.gov/Opinions/AppellateCourt/2017/3rdDistrict/3150154.pdf

    Justice McDade said this which I think many of you will appreciate:

    “I am compelled to express my concern that an increasingly restrictive SORA has moved in a direction that is at odds with not only the basic foundational principles of our constitution: that all individuals, including those who have committed a crime and served their sentence, should be afforded the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but also with such basic rights of citizenship as equal access to the benefits and services supported by their taxes and the fair representation of their elected officials. In sum, I believe the legislature has failed to equitably balance the various human interests impacted by SORA. As it stands, SORA fails to consider reasonable interests which an offender who has completed the sentence the legislature deemed sufficient, especially one who is unlikely to reoffend, has in resuming a normal family and work life.”
    ********

    • AlexO

      Thank you for the post. It’s always encouraging to see more and more judges do this. It’s really starting to feel like there’s an end in sight to this whole mess.

  48. mike r

    This is a favorite of mine, and exactly what i have been saying. We as tax paying citizens have a right to all the public places that our tax dollars have gone to create and maintain. I love it when my logic is confirmed by others, especially judges, and our basic right to fair representation, which no politician represents our best interest.

    “but also with such basic rights of citizenship as equal access to the benefits and services supported by their taxes and the fair representation of their elected officials.”

    • Chris F

      On one hand, it’s great to see a judge say all that.

      On the other hand, after reading the entire thing, the only thing the judge felt was not constitutional was that all sex offenders were banned from public parks. They go over lots of other things that they say doesn’t affect a liberty interest. That contradicts his stated opinion on how burdensome it has become. In other words, the judge thinks SORNA is unconstitutional but he doesn’t want to rule that way so he’ll just say it is for the parks part and nothing more.

      I don’t understand how substantive due process claims are simplified to the government just needing a rational goal and none of the hundreds of problems SORNA creates on a sex offender qualify as a right it infringes on. Privacy? Right to travel? Right to reputation? Right to be free of arbitrary government action? Right to raise your kids and participate?

      While this ruling shows a sliver of hope, it is still full of challenges that we should be winning and also missing many challenges that would be hard to ignore if brought up.

  49. C

    I wonder how these 11 (!) mayors voted or supported increasingly harsh sex offender penalties and registries during the course of their political careers?

    http://dailycaller.com/2017/09/13/at-least-11-mayors-accused-of-child-sex-related-crimes-since-2016/

  50. David Kennerly, Poster Boy For Whatever Pisses You Off

    Another terrific piece from Reason Magazine and Elizabeth Nolan Brown:

    “Bad Science Behind Campus-Rape Guidance Echoes ’80s Trauma Myths”
    The “neurobiology of trauma” on campus is based more on social-justice goals than science. We’ve been here before.
    Elizabeth Nolan Brown|Sep. 12, 2017 2:50 pm

    http://reason.com/blog/2017/09/12/neurobiology-of-trauma

  51. David Kennerly, Poster Boy For Whatever Pisses You Off

    I didn’t hear about this case at the time (2009). It should certainly be included in any list of sex offenders targeted for violence. In this case, it was a fifteen year old boy murdered by his father.

    “Enraged Michigan dad Jamar Pinkney Sr. shot son, 15, over alleged sex abuse of toddler: cops”
    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/enraged-michigan-dad-jamar-pinkney-sr-shot-son-15-alleged-sex-abuse-toddler-cops-article-1.415936

    I was alerted to it by a Ted Talk which I hadn’t previously seen about juvenile sex offenders, also worth watching:
    Dangerous myths about juvenile sex offenders: Meghan Fagundes at TEDxAustinWomen
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81hy3AZjkr4

  52. Not Really

    Sentencing Law and Policy now has a link to this site! This is a big deal because all the important people in the legal world visit that site.

    It is listed under SEX OFFENSE BLOGS with only one other site, Women Against Registry. There were 3 listed there yesterday, but two of them were dead links.

    http://sentencing.typepad.com/

    • Not Really

      Maybe you know of a site that may link to here. This is what worked for me.

      Subject: Comprehensive Sex Offender Law Blog

      Hi, Professor Berman. Hope all is well.

      You may be interested in this site:

      all4consolaws.org

      It is probably the most active and detailed site on the ‘net dealing with sex offender laws. Janice Bellucci has won a lot of cases. I’m hoping you decide to link to it in your SEX OFFENSE BLOGS​ category since two out of three of your current links are broken.

      Once again, thanks for your blog.

      George

      He not only linked to all4consolaws.org, he also thanked me for pointing out his dead links. Win-win.

      If you want to try to get sites to link to here, give it shot if you are so inclined.

  53. TS

    36 Percent Uptick in Texas Teacher-Student Sex Cases over Last Year, Data Show

    http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2017/09/14/36-percent-uptick-texas-teacher-student-sex-cases-last-year-data-show/

    Wants to blame social media for this raise in incidents?! Since when did social media ever reply to someone or anything?! That’s like blaming a gun for a shooting, a pencil for writing an article or a spoon for making you eat. Cannot do it without the human input. The teacher is the individual in control here.

  54. David Kennerly, Sniff Me If You Can

    “First sniffer dogs trained to help find paedophiles, terrorists and fraudsters”

    Because we all smell of usb memory sticks, hard drives, laptops, etc. Yes, really.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/sep/15/first-sniffer-dogs-trained-to-detect-digital-data-devices-in-uk-unveiled

    • AlexO

      They use these dogs to find evidence after raiding a property. They don’t use them to sniff random people.

  55. NY Level1

    Sex abuse accused vicar ‘burnt himself to death’ at Hawley vicarage UK

    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-hampshire-41232622

  56. AJ

    Just found this SCOTUS petition about sexually suggestive communication with a minor: http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/muccio-v-minnesota/.
    The SCOTUS petition is about another charge she faces, and addresses a First Amendment issue. I suspect SCOTUS denies this petition, despite the disagreement among some courts across the country.

    What I found interesting is that the 41-y.o. female was also charged with possession of CP, created and sent by the 15-y.o. male. No mention is made of whether he was charged with production and distribution, but I bet he wasn’t because, “he’s just a kid and doesn’t know better.” BTW, the BIO (brief in opposition) may make some of the Supremes blush and squirm a bit…it contains a faithful transcription of graphic communication between the male and female. The kid definitely knew what he was involved in.

  57. Bobby

    Hello everyone,

    As I have stated before, I am not the brightest light bulb in the box when it comes to this stuff? , so can some one please tell me what this means exactly. I think I know maybe for example the AG Shitty (Schuette) wants to put his 2 cents into the oral arguments is this correct.?

    I am not sure why he would want to keep embarrassing himself, when he know’s he is about to lose the Snyder case, but ok it’s his funeral. Anyway here is the link: http://publicdocs.courts.mi.gov:81/SCT/PUBLIC/ORDERS/150643_141_01.pdf

    Thanks in advance

    • AJ

      @Bobby:
      It may mean he feels the case is in jeopardy and wants to handle it personally. Then again, egos know no limit, so maybe he just has to be part of it. Given the a$$ whooping he got from the USSG amicus in Snyder, it should be a sh!tshow watching him in this one, too. In truth, I think it boils down to the State, just like in every other case, refuses to say uncle, and they send in their toughest dogs for the fight. Why it took this long for the decision to partake in oral argument is a bit curious.

      • Bobby

        @AJ,

        Thanks for the explanation I really appreciate you explaining it so an idiot like me can comprehend it, I still think they are dragging their feet, to see what happens with Snyder. This is a re-oral argument on October 11th I believe the orginal oral argument can be found on youtube with Ms Aukerman arguing the case.

        • AJ

          @Bobby:
          You’re welcome, though my ramblings were more conjecture than explaining! 🙂 On a side note, I hope and wish you would quit beating yourself down (“idiot”, “not the brightest”, etc). Not being in tune with legal documents and posturing does not make you in any way and idiot, or dumb, or anything else. I am quite sure there is something you do or know that would make a number of people look like idiots, dumb, or dim bulbs. You obviously are good at making contact with people involved in cases, as you’re the only one I’ve heard who have any level of rapport with ACLU-MI.

          • Bobby

            Thank you AJ, for your kind words

          • Tim Moore

            Quite true, AJ. I thank Bobby for his continual play by play on what is happening in Michigan. I would not have a clue what is going on there without him. It can potentially affect us all what is going on there.

  58. Bobby

    I was not sure were to post this if it should be here or some where under Michigan news, so anyway for any one on here from Michigan, besides my self or anyone that is just interested in general of the goings on here in Michigan. I just received this e-mail today, and thought I would post the ;ink for anyone who wanted to take a look, so here is the link: http://courts.mi.gov/News-Events/press_releases/Documents/Oral%20Argument%20Media%20Advisory%20October%202017.pdf

    • AJ

      @Bobby:
      Well, at least the case shouldn’t suffer from lack of attention! 🙂

    • David M

      @Bobby Thank you for always posting information regarding Michigan. Many of us are from Michigan and it’s how we find out what’s going on.

  59. David Kennerly, Social Contaminant

    Anyone hear about this? Apparently, it’s passed the U.S. Senate and is on its way to the House. Another, very scary law to address a crime which hardly exists.

    Wiretapping Sex Workers, Punishing Pre-Crime, and National Strategy to Stop Sex-Buyers Approved by Senate

    Introduced by Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley, the bill (S.1312) gives the attorney general power to file a civil suit against anyone suspected of committing or planning to commit “any action that constitutes or will constitute” a violation of various federal statutes. If a court agrees, the person or entity would have to stop whatever activity allegedly contributed to a current or future crime.”

    S.1312 – Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2017 whose “friendly” title is “FREDERICK DOUGLASS TRAFFICKING PREVENTION ACT OF 2017”

    Wonder what Frederick Douglass would have made of it?

    https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/1312/text

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 *