ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings
Q4: [details]

Other Events
ACSOL Conference: June 15/16, 2018 in Los Angeles [details]

General News

General Comments November 2017

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

Join the discussion

  1. AJ

    SCOTUS granted cert in a CA case that may be worth watching in support of IML and marked DL suits. The case is a compelled speech case. Of course CA is saying it’s merely regulation. Sound familiar? 🙂 I read the CATO amicus, and, surprise, surprise, they toss out Riley (factual compelled speech), Barnette (Pledge of Allegiance compelled speech), and Wooley (license plate motto compelled speech) as case law references. Though this case has to do with professional speech, if it’s ruled as subject to strict scrutiny, it’s all the better for us, as private speech is held to an even higher standard than professional.

    From the petition itself, here’s the question to SCOTUS: Whether the Free Speech Clause or the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment prohibits California from compelling licensed pro-life centers to post information on how to obtain a state-funded abortion and from compelling unlicensed pro-life centers to disseminate a disclaimer to clients on site and in any print and digital advertising.

    Hopefully SCOTUS tackles the Free Speech angle instead of the Free Exercise one. But regardless, I’m hopeful for some more compelled-speech doctrine to come out of it.

    http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/national-institute-family-life-advocates-v-becerra/

  2. ML

    Listening to the news today, there has been 15 million payed out by the US Government to cover claims much of it relating to sexual harassment. I hope that someone soon does a FOI request to shed some light on what has been going on. If the wealthy and powerful were all held accountable to the degree of those on the registry, maybe some laws would change. There would at least be more money for legal action.

  3. mike r

    Well AJ and Chris, the representative for AG for CA called me and asked me if we could reschedule our court date for Dec. 20 at 10 am. and claimed that they will be filing a motion to dismiss some of the issues. I really hate to agree with anything the opposition wants, but I agreed, since it is going to get the case in front of the judge as soon as possible. The thing I need to research is, can the AG for CA file, and it seems as though they want to severe their arguments from the federal issues, or they are trying to get a judge to dismiss it outright by claiming they are not a federal agency and therefore they have to be sued in state court before I can take it to the federal level. I am not sure if they have a nefarious intent here, and are working some kind of technicality but I am going to always assume they do and are. I know if they try to subvert justice and deny me a fair and just judicial process, I am not going to let it go, I can tell you that. I know that they have to work in good faith to remedy this case ethically without getting a procedural due process claim against them. Like I said, I have to research this more but I wanted to get your guy’s take on this.

    • AJ

      @mike r:
      CA will probably try to bounce anything that’s not CA or US related. If I recall correctly, you had some references to things happening in other States–which neither the CA AG nor the US AG can address, let alone litigate. They may well try to sever anything to do with violations of the CA constitution, too. I’d argue against that, but you may end up losing the argument. Were I you, I’d go over my suit and see what items are low-hanging fruit for them to get dismissed. There will certainly be some. But, I would also be ready with Snyder (allowed to stand) and Millard (CO 8th Amendment case) as possible rebuttal. (I’m not sure how much, if at all, they apply to CA situations.)

  4. mike r

    I know that there is a “supplemental jurisdiction” rule that allows federal courts to rule on state issues and defendants.
    “Supplemental jurisdiction is the authority of United States federal courts to hear additional claims substantially related to the original claim even though the court would lack the subject-matter jurisdiction to hear the additional claims independently. 28 U.S.C. § 1367”

    I imagine that the CA AG is aware of this rule which is why they are going to file a motion to dismiss some, but not all claims, in the federal court. I really don’t see any downfall for agreeing to this hearing date, so if anyone can enlighten me as to why I should not agree to this hearing please feel free to express your opinions.
    Thanks…………..

  5. mike r

    This might even be a good sign since when I was in prison fighting for my halftime credits I received a letter from the warden on Christmas eve stating that I won my appeal, and my halftime credits, along with my new release date; which was about a two year difference…Maybe I will get a decision on or about the same time….Wouldn’t that be ironic…..

  6. We are the scary airline passengers??

    Seriously, they scrutinize RCs’ travel plans, but this “violent psychopath” has no trouble boarding an overseas flight?? WTF!! 😡 Good work, TSA!!

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2017/11/15/escaped-psychiatric-patient-flew-to-california/865502001/

  7. AJ

    Here’s an interesting case involving Playboy TV that could well apply to marked DLs and passports: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/529/803/case.pdf. Though the specific case is about cable TV operators needing to block sexually explicit channels from minors, the constitutional issue is content-based regulation of free speech. In this case, the regulation is restrictive, but since free speech is defined as speaking (or not) and/or listening (or not), the direction of regulation matters not. As well, this case states, “[t]he distinction between laws burdening and laws banning speech is but a matter of degree. The Government’s content-based burdens must satisfy the same rigorous scrutiny as its content-based bans.” (A burden/ban is compelled speech through forced silence; the complement of forced speech on a DL or in a passport.) It’s all subject to strict scrutiny, and Government must show a compelling interest and use the least restrictive means. For DLs, that would be the existing ML websites. For IML…I’m not sure. Compelling interest is probably going to be rooted in “foreign policy,” since the US Government may have interest in protecting children overseas, but compelling? Hmmm. As for least restrictive means, the Government already sends Green Notices, and perhaps other messages, to foreign entities. Even if they don’t already have less restrictive means, they still must create and use them. So says strict scrutiny.

  8. mike r

    Thanks AJ. I will definitely be going over my brief like you said. This is kind of a tricky situation since I am not claiming any CA constitutional issues but only US constitutional issues, I severed all references to the state constitution on purpose so as to leave those arguments available if some how I don’t prevail on the fed issues. I will bring a lot of the issues pertaining to the CA constitution in the state courts, which is even more likely to succeed then the feds. State const. usually have greater protections then the fed so I want to keep that ave. open….I guess it’s just all speculation on what they are going to try to come up with, I will know more as soon as I am served their brief. I do find it semi comforting that she stated that she was going to be filing a motion to dismiss some of the claims, most important I think is the statement “some” and “not all”. That apparently means that they are having a problem with at least some of the claims I raised which they cannot just dismiss on technicalities, or other obvious reasons….I will keep you posted, What happened to Chris? I am going to need all the brilliant minds I can get once I get their brief. I will not have much time to prepare since the date is set for the 20th Dec. That is coming up very fast and I am almost at the end of my semester which is going to be hectic until about the tenth. really I have at least ten days I can just focus on rebuttals. >>>>>>>>>> Janice, ACLU, NARSOL, W.A.R., any orgs. or civil rights advocates, Derek, Will, SOSEN, someone feel free to jump in any time now….It’s getting real now and this is extremely important to many Americans, not just me…………I really cannot believe that these civil rights leaders or orgs. are going to let me go this alone, but I am ready, if that’s how it’s going to be then so be it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • Son of Liberty Child of Freedom

      @ mike r

      I would encourage you & all to be proactive and contact the following Attorneys for review and assistance on your case. As they have dealt with Plaintiffs are from all over the USA and it may be possible to add insight to your relevant Case.

      In addition I would venture to reach the conclusion that Janice & ACSOL may not have the ability to file a limitless amount of Cases.

      —~~~<<>>~~~—

      Greg J. Fuller – Daniel S. Brown
      FULLER LAW OFFICES Attorneys at Law
      161 Main Avenue West
      P. O. Box L
      Twin Falls, ID 83303 Telephone: (208) 734-1602 Facsimile : (208) 734-1606
      ISB #1442
      ISB #7538
      fullerlaw@cableone.net

      Link to PDF:
      http://www.idahostatesman.com/news/state/idaho/article152033757.ece/BINARY/Read%20the%20complaint#storylink=related_inline

      —-~~~~<<<>>>~~~~——

      Furthermore:

      Perhaps Professor Catherine L. Carpenter at Southwestern Law School can help with her advise on the Case. She may be able to refer Eager & Capable Attorneys to Champion the Cause to defend The Constitution Of The Citizens of the United states.

      Link to Catherine L. Carpenter YouTube video:
      https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=E-bpw5sCFcY

      Link to Students Rating of Professor Catherine L. Carpenter:
      http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=538905

      —~~~<<>><<<~~~—
      Contact info for Professor Catherine L. Carpenter:
      http://www.swlaw.edu/faculty/full-time/catherine-carpenter

      B.A., cum laude, English, 1973,
      University of California, Los Angeles; J.D., cum laude, 1976,
      Southwestern Law School; Member, California State Bar
      Email ccarpenter@swlaw.edu
      Phone 213-738-6875
      Office BW417

      —~~~<<>>~~~—
      Link to 8 Research Papers written by Professor Catherine L. Carpenter:
      SSRN https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=359075

      Elected to the American Law Institute in 2012, Professor Carpenter is nationally renowned criminal law scholar in the area of sex crimes and sex offender registration laws. Her scholarship has been cited by numerous courts and used as a guide by attorneys. In addition, Professor Carpenter is one of the foremost authorities on law school curricula and accreditation. She has served in several leadership posts within the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar of the American Bar Association (ABA). She has served as past chair of the Section’s Accreditation Committee, past Chair of the Curriculum Committee and as a member on the Standards Review Committee. As chair of the Curriculum Committee from 2002-2004 and again from 2009-2012, Professor Carpenter was principal drafter of two comprehensive national surveys: A Survey of Law School Curricula 2002-2010 and its predecessor A Survey of Law School Curriculum 1992-2002. She earned national recognition in 2013, 2014, and 2015 from the National Jurist as one of the “Top 25 Most Influential People in Legal Education.”

      Legal education, and Southwestern in particular, has been Professor Carpenter’s professional passion for more than three decades. After distinguishing herself while a law student earning several academic awards and serving as Notes and Comments editor of the Southwestern Law Review, she returned to her alma mater in 1980 as a member of the faculty and continued to add dimensions to her association with the law school—as Alumni Association President and member of the Board of Trustees, a professor and an administrator. She served as Vice Dean from 2014 to 2016. She previously spent over a decade from 1984 to 1997 as Assistant Dean/Dean of Students and Associate Dean for Academic Affairs from 1984 to 1997. She also served as an advisor to Southwestern’s Moot Court Honors Program from 2006 to 2014. In recognition of her tremendous contributions to the law school, legal education and the profession, Professor Carpenter was named Southwestern Alumna of the Year in 2013.

      ————-<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>~~~~~~~~~~~

      I conclusion:

      I call Heaven & Earth to bear witness today to their Only Possesor Who alone formed the Light and alone created the Darkness His Dominions Alone and forever, to Be at your side, give you courage, Light the path before you, clear and rebuke all barriers (ha’ shatan) that stand in your face with ill will.

      The Father Most High in Heaven incline your ear, hear my Prayer for Relief.

      As Yehovah Lives, so should we

  9. mike r

    Thank you for the prayer Sons, and your input…Yes I have already contacted every person I can think of, including Miss Carpenter, along with Ira Ellman, Emily Horowitz, and all these civil rights orgs. to no prevail. Carpenter actually emailed me back stating that she was in Europe and could not assist me, and she didn’t have any legal resources other then her research that I can use. I will be attempting to contact all these people again with another request for immediate assistance, or any assistance at all. I am not holding my breath though….It is kind of ironic that I have been searching for some good advice on pro se civil litigation for some time now and last night the first search I did resulted in the following article, which I suggest should be mandatory reading for all US citizens….AJ, if you haven’t read this already, you should find this incredibly interesting…Check out the link, its up forever….It’s beautifully articulated, and is a masterpiece about the subject and just confirms everything that I have been stating and more…..

    https://gofile.io/?c=SJxeoq

    You have to read the entire article to really appreciate what is being stated……Massive amounts of relevant, and authoritative citations….I am currently researching all the statutes and codes that show reasons for dismissals that the might try and about how I may be entitled to court appointed counsel of some sort…I only want stand by or assistance of counsel, not to give up the reigns to anyone ever again….

  10. AJ

    Sometimes ignorance of the law *is* an excuse. MN SC overturned a conviction of FTR due to the RC not having knowingly violated the law: https://cases.justia.com/minnesota/supreme-court/2017-a15-1701.pdf?ts=1510769244. Between this and Lambert (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambert_v._California), it does sometimes pay to be a bit “dim” on things. Unfortunately, it’s probably a tough argument to be made that you didn’t know State X has a registry law. Also, other States may not have the “knowingly violates” clause in their laws like MN apparently does. (Anyone wanna bet the Legislature amends the Statute to get rid of that phrase?)

    • AlexO

      I’m reading this but I’m having issues actually understanding this. Does this basically mean that while we’re vacationing in another state we now don’t have to register with them since we’re not really moving there for residence purposes and really have not been directly informed of the time table, especially considering how wildly different it is state-to-state? I mean, vast majority of the RC laws that I’ve come to know all over the country is because of this website. Nearly nothing was directly dictated to me by the courts and PO’s. Almost everything I learned was from here and my 3 years in mandatory counseling (actually a positive experience from me, cost aside).

      Considering how many lawyers and law enforcement are not fully aware of all the RC laws, how are we, as a private citizens without legal education, supposed to keep things straight?

      • AJ

        @AlexO:
        It’s one big “it depends.” It depends on what a particular State’s laws and courts say. What happened in MN is that the Statute requires mens rea in order for a violation to have occurred. So to my layman’s eyes, unless and until someone specifically tells you to register when traveling to MN, ignorance currently is a valid defense if nailed for FTR. (MN doesn’t require you to register until 14 days, so it’s pretty lenient on that angle anyway. I guess sex offenses involving transients only happen after 15 days.) The Lambert case also highlights that unless one is put on notice of the requirement to register, ignorance is a valid defense. Note that Lambert was a SCOTUS case, so nationally binding.

        How this all works for each of us also depends. I believe part of the paperwork I had to sign during initial registration included a requirement to register in other States’ as required by those laws. So for me, there may be a legal requirement for me to dig up the laws to see if/when/how I need to register. Again, my layman’s opinion is that if no documentation exists showing you’ve been told of a registration burden outside your State’s boundaries, you may well have a defense under Lambert. If traveling to MN, it would seem one would have double protection if nobody can show a probability that you knew you had to register. Again, I see the Achilles’ heel to this being that the Gov’t would argue that of course there’s probability you know, since all these laws have been publicized when signed, yada, yada, yada. In short, it seems to be a plausible defense if one trips up, but I sure as heck would not intentionally rely on it. (In fact, intentionally relying on ignorance in some measure points towards not being ignorant.)

        • AlexO

          I’ll have to dig up my papers from my last reg and reread all the lines I initialed. From what I recall, it was all about California and nothing outside of it as California isn’t even SORNA compliant. Even what we sign is fairly ambiguous in parts such as definition of “new residence”. It’s not clearly defined as what moving actually is. Even reading deeper into the codes it’s still fairly unclear.

          But of course “violating” any of these things results in your ass going to prison because you broke this clearly non-punitive code that’s there to protect the public from our horns and drool.

          • AJ

            @AlexO:
            You may also want to look up the FTR law and see if it addresses “knowingly” in any manner.

        • Paul 2

          15days lol good one Shows its all about the smoke and mirrors and ego man. Im sure they did a big study and found the optimal time it takes an out of state persons gonad output to acclimated to the difference in altitude and vitamin D up take haha Wonder if they have an ice-cream truck clause like PA does? lol

  11. Bobby

    hello everyone,

    I watching the 2nd oral argument to the Michigan v Temelkoski case, and decided to ask Ms Aukerman or the Intern Tim a question, and here is the question I asked.

    Hello Tim, or Ms Aukerman
     
     
    I was watching the 2nd Oral Argument on the Temelkoski case, and at about 52 minutes in the AG or SG say’s because of the 6th circuits decision, Michigan is NO LONGER allowed to apply the 2006 and 2011 amendments to ANYBODY, but yet I still have to check in come December my profile still says I am a tier 3 and have to register for life. WHY?
     
     
      If you remember I was convicted in 1992 when there was NO REGISTRY yet because I was on parole in 1995 the legislature passes Megan’s Law nd puts me on the registry unconstitutionally, how can the legislature force some one to register, when that is up to the Judiciary, this seems like a clear violation of the Supremacy Clause/ Article 6 Paragraph 2.
     
     
        I shouldn’t of never been placed on the registry for 25 years, let alone have it changed to life, and was does the AG say everything has go  back to the 2005 amendment, well I looked there is NO 2005 amendment to be found, there is a 2004 amendment, and a 2002 amendment a 1999 amendment and 1994 amendment, so why does he  keep speaking about the 2005 amendment.? .
     
      So can you please tell me WHY he keeps mentioning 2005 amendment when there is not one, or WHY they are still applying the 2006 and 2011 amendments when he clearly says they are no longer allowed to apply those amendments to anyone retroactively anymore.  Thank you for your time.
     
     
                                                                                                                            Bobby

    and this was her reply back to me,

    Bobby,
    We are working on a class action that will ensure that you and others get the benefit of the 6th Circuit decision

     
     I am a bit confused since she really did not my question, does Class Action, mean that Michigan is refusing to do their part in replacing the registry, or Michigan is dragging there feet to slowly, I mean I have to check in ,in December and I will, but what is the point when the guy just admitted that Michigan is NO LONGER allowed to apply the 2006 and 2011 amendments. anyone have any theories on this confusing situation. Thanks in advance.
     
     

    • AJ

      @Bobby:
      Her succinct reply means that MI is dragging its feet and ACLU is going to compel them to comply with Snyder. In other words, the State can ignore a court ruling until forced, but you and I must comply promptly.
      Yeah, that’s how our government, constitution, and laws are supposed to work. They deserve to be hit with punitive damages, as it appears to be willful.

      She didn’t answer your question about 2005 vs other years, but that’s probably because it’s of no consequence.

      • Lake County

        Bobby,

        I would not suggest doing this, but if you did not register in December, I wonder if the DA would even file charges against you? And if they charged you, would a judge be willing to find you guilty? But no matter what, you’re lucky since it looks like your time on the registry is about finished.

  12. AJ

    I stumbled across what may be a helpful SCOTUS snippet for those fighting being prohibited from religious services. Delivering the Opinion in Brown v Entertainment Merchants Association (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/564/786/), Justice Scalia stated in Footnote 3, “what is good for First Amendment rights of speech must be good for First Amendment rights of religion as well.” That would seem to allow one to parlay the Packingham decision into a religious freedom claim as well. I wonder if one could also parlay it into other First Amendment rights, such as freedom of assembly (which is burdened when I cannot attend *any* event on school property).
    (BTW, the Footnotes in this case are great examples of how Scalia would pillory those Justices not agreeing with him.)

  13. AJ

    @mike r:
    Some of your “liberty interest of reputation” claims will probably get knocked by Paul v Davis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_v._Davis or https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/424/693/case.html). From the Opinion, it would seem any defamation would need to be pursued in State court.

    There’s also a notable line that may apply to Green Notices: “Imputing criminal behavior to an individual is generally considered defamatory per se, and actionable without proof of special damages.” Hmmm…actionable without proof of special damages. Nice!

    • Lake County

      Green notices: Good find AJ! But what are special damages? How specific or narrowly tailored does the crime or individual assessment need to be?

    • mike r

      AJ, if I understand it correctly further case law has shown that other tangible interest has been shown enough to establish the due process clause, and that the state is actually violating both the federal constitution in many different aspects such as child rearing, familial relationships, professional relationships as well as state issues. I will go check my motion see if I can find the qualifications for my argument, but the following from the Paul decision is relevant. Just off the top of my head, there is Hawaii v. Bani and many others in my motion that show more tangible interest. I am swamped in school work at the moment so I will get back to you on it….Thanks for the input AJ, all comments and opposing arguments are extremely important…
      “Damage to reputation, alone, apart from some more tangible interests, was not sufficient to invoke the protection of the Due Process Clause. Further, the police chief did not deprive respondent of any state-provided right, and respondent’s case was not within the constitutional zone of privacy. The Court reversed the judgment.”

      • mike r

        Courts have found other tangible interest……
        Courts have required that there must be serious harm to other “tangible interests” as a result of registration as a sex offender. Courts have repeatedly found that other tangible interests are being harmed in the application of the sex offender registration schemes. Potential employers and landlords are reluctant to employ or rent to me once they learn of my status as a “sex offender.” See Pataki III, 3 F. Supp. 2d at 468; W.P. v. Poritz, 931 F. Supp. 1199, 1219 (D.N.J. 1996), rev’d, 119 F.3d 1077 (3d Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1110 (1998) [hereinafter “Verniero”]; see also In re Reed, 663 P.2d 216 (Cal. 1983) (quoting In re Birch, 515 P.2d 12 (Cal. 1973)). (8).
        69. Indeed, the public notification provisions do adversely affect my personal and professional life, employability, associations with neighbors and choice of housing. Noble v. Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision, 964 P.2d 990, 995-96 (Or. 1998); State v. Myers, 923 P.2d 1024, 1041 (Kan. 1996), cert. denied, 521 U.S. 1118 (1997); Rowe v. Burton, 884 F. Supp. 1372, 1378 (D. Alaska 1994), appeal dismissed, 85 F.3d 635 (9th Cir. 1996) (personal and professional lives); Artway v. Attorney General, 876 F. Supp. 666, 668 (D.N.J. 1995),aff’d in part and vacated in part, 81 F.3d 1235 (3d Cir.), reh’g denied, 83 F.2d 594 (1996) (employability and associations with neighbors); Robin L. Deems, Comment, California’s Sex Offender Notification Statute: A Constitutional Analysis, 33 San Diego L. Rev. 1195 (1996) (citing Jenny A. Montana, Note, An Ineffective Weapon in the Fight Against Child Sexual Abuse: New Jersey’s Megan’s Law, 3 J. L. & Pol’y 569, 580-81 (1995)) (choice of housing). In addition, public disclosure encourages vigilantism and exposes me to possible physical violence. See, e.g., Poritz, 662 A.2d at 430-31 (Stein, J., dissenting); Pataki I, 940 F. Supp. 603, 608-11 (S.D.N.Y. 1996); Doe v. Gregoire, 960 F. Supp. 1478, 1485 (W.D. Wash. 1997).
        70. When a government agency focuses its machinery on the task of determining whether a person should be labeled publicly as having a certain undesirable characteristic or belonging to a certain undesirable group, and that agency must by law gather and synthesize evidence outside the public record in making that determination, the interest of the person to be labeled goes beyond mere reputation. . . . [I]t is an interest in avoiding the social ostracism, loss of employment opportunities, and significant likelihood of verbal and, perhaps, even physical harassment likely to follow from designation.
        Noble, 964 P.2d at 995-96.
        71. In Paul, the Court recognized that, in addition to the interests recognized by state law, “[t]here are other interests . . . protected not by virtue of their recognition by the law of a particular State but because they are guaranteed in one of the provisions of the Bill of Rights which has been ‘incorporated’ into the Fourteenth Amendment.” Paul, 424 U.S. at 710 n.5. As an example, in Bohn, 772 F.2d at 1436 n.4, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit found a protectible interest in reputation where the stigma of being identified as a child abuser was tied to the protectible interest in privacy and autonomy of family relationships. See also Poritz, 662 A.2d at 419 (holding that the stigma resulting from notification that petitioner was a sex offender was tied to the protectible interest in privacy inasmuch as he had an interest in his reputation); Neal, 131 F.3d at 830 (holding that Hawaii’s designating of prisoner as “sex offender” without hearing and requiring successful completion of treatment program as precondition for parole eligibility together implicated a liberty interest protected by the right to due process of law).

      • AJ

        @mike r:
        I’m not agreeing or disagreeing with any of what’s in your suit, I’m simply trying to put myself in the State’s seat to see what can be attacked and dismissed. Reputation appears to be one of the “easy” ones, and probably one that they will attempt to hack off. The rebuttal you posted here is *exactly* what you need to be able to say to the judge when this is raised. Good job.

  14. AJ

    That PSP amicus mentioned something from Smith that caught my eye. SCOTUS stated: “The process is more analogous to a visit to an official archive of criminal records than it is to a scheme forcing an offender to
    appear in public with some visible badge of past criminality.” In using this contrast, SCOTUS clearly felt, “some visible badge of past criminality,” to be more than benign. This statement came from their analysis of traditional shaming using the Mendoza-Martinez Factors. Also mentioned in that analysis was that traditional shaming involved forcing one to endure, “permanent stigmas, which in effect cast the person out of the community.” Isn’t this *exactly* what’s going on with marked DLs and passports??

    • CR

      Very good catch, AJ! YES, that is exactly the effect of marked DLs and passports. Those marks are “permanent stigmas, which in effect cast the person out of the community.”

      Most of us on a registry have known this for as long as such laws have been used to single us out. But it really great to see it explicitly stated in a SCOTUS opinion.

      • Lake County

        I have several friends here in CA that do not drive and use a passport as their regular ID. One of them is a registered citizen and does not want me to keep them updated on current laws, so they will soon be shocked when their passport gets updated. I’m so glad CA does not have a mark on my DL as I need to show it regularly when I buy cigs or alcohol.

    • New Person

      AJ, nice catch on those two points:

      1. some visible badge of past criminality… ie, in-person registration, compliance checks.
      2. permanent stigmas … any state with “lifetime term” as its only term.

      Maybe it can be brought up again? Hopefully, someone isn’t going to say something to the effect of, “well, all that info has been around for ages and none of the sex offenders lawyers have contested it, so why bring this information up?” Because that would be hypocritical of someone.

    • AJ

      The thing about this quote from Smith is that we’re well beyond that.

      I don’t recall someone being able to go down to the courthouse to find out where I work and/or go to school. I don’t recall their being able to find out about scars, birthmarks, tattoos, and/or piercings I may have. I don’t recall their being able to go to a courthouse in-state to find out what I did in another state. I don’t recall their being able to find out about every single vehicle I drive. I don’t recall their being able to find out if and where I own a second home or other property, either in or out of state. I also don’t recall the Government pushing the public records to third parties in the good old courthouse days.

      This simple, quaint scheme which may have existed back with Smith, and which PSP tries to claim still does, is total rubbish.

      • CR

        All very good points. Not all state registries have all of those features, but most have some substantial portion of them. These points should be raised in every court case that challenges a registration scheme.

        If registry information were limited to only what is already available to the general public in court, arrest, and jail records, it would simply be a factual historical record, albeit one that is much more accessible than the underlying records from which the information is extracted.

        But no registry is comprised solely of such historical information. The whole point, legislators and pro-registry proponents claim, is to foster public safety and awareness by proactively warning the public about us. But they don’t simply provide a historical record. By listing current address, photo, place of employment, vehicles, tier ranking or other classifications that infer a level of danger, and so on, does the state not imply that we are likely to engage in future criminal behavior?

        While not an explicit statement of “likely criminal behavior”, as with the Green Notices, it nevertheless implies it. That seems per se defamatory to me.

        • AJ

          What other public-safety reasoning is there besides risk of future criminality? We’re not on there to encourage others in any positive or supportive manner. The laws themselves are based on the risk of future crime–specifically sex crimes–as indicated by the boilerplate “intent” language.

          • CR

            Do you agree that it is defammatory, per se, then? Or am I misunderstanding the concept you described earlier?

            • AJ

              I do believe it to be defamatory, however courts tend to disagree or simply say that’s a collateral consequence of the offense. So in the day-to-day scheme of things, there’s probably little traction available. However, when a Green Notice is sent out, that’s not simply stating facts of conviction (a major point in Smith), it’s imputing dangerousness and *likelihood* of similar future criminality. That is a baseless statement, and completely outside anything SCOTUS has said is okay. Even CT DPS relied, at least in part, on the dangerousness disclaimer the State had on the ML site. Such a disclaimer gives enough of an appearance of neutrality to satisfy the courts; Green Notices are clearly partisan and, to me, absolutely defamatory; marked DLs and passports are a bit fuzzier–I agree, they imply it.

              • mike r

                Hows this for imputing dangerousness…
                See CA Family code sect. 3030, (3) “The fact that a child is permitted unsupervised contact with a person who is required, as a result of a felony conviction in which the victim was a minor, to be registered as a sex offender under Section 290 of the Penal Code, shall be prima facie evidence that the child is at significant risk”.

            • David Kennerly, "Wait, do you smell gas?"

              “Defamation” requires that the information being communicated is untrue. If the U.S. says that Joe Blow is a convicted child sex offender and he is, in fact, a convicted child sex offender, then that is not defamation. If they say that Joe Blow is likely to re-offend in the absence of any supportive evidence, then that is defamatory. However, the “fix,” were they compelled to make it by the courts, would simply be to amend their notification to be strictly factual, i.e. “Joe Blow is a convicted child sex offender.” Not a great improvement. We’re still kicked to the curb.

              • Alec

                David,

                That’s exactly right, and that’s not a huge win. Instead, we are forced to “go for the jugular” as it were and directly challenge the constitutionality of the various clauses themselves, not the more minor points of law. If registries are punishment, are punitive, are ex post facto, fail the rational basis test, etc. then the very principle must be thrown out and some other solution pursued.

                I prefer that outcome to removing half the warning but the substance remains.

                Ironically if the US were to follow the UK model where the registries are not public (and not used to influence public activity), none of us would have anything to complain about. It’s the Scarlet Letter approach that Americans love so much that is the problem. In fact ONLY the US – of all nations that have registries – ONLY the US makes the registry public.

    • Paul 2

      How about this? The fact that they tell the public this site is needed to show dangerous people, and that it has to be up in order to protect the public, is really what creates the reputation damage, not the information, its how they use the information and define it. So singling out SOs and presenting this information in that way, is harming reputation.

      • CR

        @Paul 2, I replied to AJ’s post just above based on reasoning similar to yours, before I read your comment. I agree with you.

        The registry doesn’t just tell the public what those on it did at some point in the past. It implies current danger and likely future criminality. That goes well beyond being a collateral consequence of having committed a crime. The registry is per se defamatory.

  15. TS

    Former Oklahoma state senator pleads guilty to child sex trafficking charge: report

    http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/361073-former-oklahoma-state-senator-pleads-guilty-to-child-sex

    • David

      Oh look, another anti-LGBTQ, anti-same sex marriage, family values Republican hypocrite! 😲 What a surprise! 😨
      Forget the Alamo! Remember the 2018 midterm elections!!

    • C

      My God, the term child sex trafficking has such sinister connotations, as though he were smuggling 5 year olds across borders to work in the darkest back alley brothels of Manilla. They may as well call it Baby Rape.
      But a superficial scratch of the story reveals all he did was maybe have relations with a teenager a few months shy of legal adulthood. Old enough to join the military and die for his country (albeit with a waiver) but not a consensual relationship with another adult.

      On the other hand, I do love it when a politician crashes and gets burned by laws he/she probably supported.

      • David Kennerly, "Wait, do you smell gas?"

        Whenever the “child savers” “rescue” “children” being “trafficked” they come up with a handful of 17 1/2 year-olds trying to make a living.

        • Nondescript

          I notice the word “trafficing” being thrown about in the media more and more lately. I read a news story recently about a sting ( law enforcement posing as minors on the internet in chat rooms) in Tennessee that resulted in arrests and the mainstream news referred to a bunch of random men from different towns as ” a child sex trafficing ring” I always thought human trafficing involved the movement of humans across borders against their will to be used as a resource but the definition has become quite fluid. Now it seems like this term is used to describe all kinds of offense involving a minor, including propositioning one.

          It is interesting to note that one of the goals of Agenda 2030 is to abolish “human trafficing” and specifically speaks of “traveling sex offenders”. So this is a global agenda pushing memes and new legislation around those memes.

          • David Kennerly, "Wait, do you smell gas?"

            “Trafficking” is a trendy term used to revivify previous failed attempts to eradicate prostitution, to “rescue” teenagers who don’t want or need rescuing and to save illegal migrants, particularly women, who are said to be being sold into slavery. Of those three, only organized crime treating migrants like livestock has any real validity but then, in far fewer actual numbers than are hysterically reported. It is, after all, far more prevalent in other countries than in the U.S. They’ve combined all of these campaigns under the umbrella of “trafficking” and, no surprise, the public has bought it lock, stock and barrel.

            • Tim Moore

              Got to love it, the public has a fascination for new terms and concepts, even if not understanding what they mean. They throw them around like a puppy with a new toy, play with it day and night until they break the squeaker and find there is nothing to it after all but polyester fill and ripped fake fur scattered about. Then they forget about it, go back and lay on the sofa, so bored, until the news media manufactures a new lie to show them . I suppose hopefully this is a sign the term sex offender is showing signs of being worn out, and maybe now with the term sex offender applied to each person’s chosen favorite politician or beloved actor, it’s shock value as being a term reserved for the creepy stranger is being worn away, too.

              • David Kennerly, "Misandry? You're soaking in it!"

                There’s just no doubt about it if ever there was any: we’re in the middle of a full-blown social purification movement.

  16. E

    Murder isn’t the end of the road as it is for someone who committed a sexual offense. Irony: I agree this guy is moving on with life well and LOVE the fact that the city is standing up for him! Hooray! I’m just “a bit” jealous.

    http://www.denverpost.com/2017/11/16/colorado-school-board-member-served-time-for-murder/

  17. ⛥ New CA Real ID ⛥

    ⛥⛥ A federally complaint “Real ID” will be available to California residents starting in January. I plan to get mine ASAP (before some jackass politician decides it, too, needs a “unique identifier” on it for Registered Citizens.) ⛥⛥

    https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/realid

    • AlexO

      I’ll be doing this as soon as I can as well. My license just renewed this year but I’ll get it compliant just the same just in case.

    • AJ

      I recommend getting two, in case you’re required to turn one in if/when they decide to mark it. Just go in a few weeks/months later and request a replacement. That way you always have a “clean” ID, as most places, aside from those related to operating a vehicle, don’t care (notice?) if it’s expired or current.

    • TS

      Hope the OK DL case is ruled in the RCs favor and makes DL markings moot and unconstitutional.

      • CR

        Unconstitutional would be the desired outcome. Moot would mean that the case could not be heard because either the law was repealed or no longer applied to the registrant.

        • TS

          @CR

          No, moot in this case means making any future CA effort to mark any DL with a marker impossible and relative discussion irrelevant because the law would be found unconstitutional. The phrase “moot point” refers (in American English) to an issue that is irrelevant to a subject being discussed; therefore, any discussion to marking a CA DL with a marker specifically designated for an RC would be considered moot based on a hopeful OK DL Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in the RCs favor. Thanks.

    • C

      Ditto. Will get my Veteran stamp on there, too, and enjoy discounts wherever offered.

  18. mike r

    I agree, I’m on it asap. Everyone should be too. Thanks for the heads up…

  19. mike r

    You know, I was just thinking about how the moniker “predaror” is always used and attached to most of these cases, including mine back in court. The more I think about it the more I believe such a moniker is actually a defamatory remark since its original meaning connotes an organism or animals that stalks, attacks and kills its prey. Just because it has made it in the lexicon to a person who preys on another doesn’t negate the force if the word or the original meaning which there’s a very stark disconnect between the two definitions. Thr CA AG called again asking me to change the court dste to Jan 24 at 10 am which I knce again agreed, even though I wanted to tell her got to he…. I want it heard assp and if she files her response on monday the timeline requires that I have so many days to respond which wouldn’t if happened by Dec 20..Just thought I would give a heafs up….

    • CR

      Just a reminder to you mike r that these forums are public. Anyone can post here, subject to moderation. More importantly, anyone can read these posts.

      Possibly you are using a pseudonym here that won’t be recognizable by the CA DA you are referring to, but you may be posting enough info, such as specific dates, for someone from the DA’s office to recognize the case.

      I’m just suggesting that you not antagonize your opponent before you see her in court.

      • AJ

        Sage advice. Venting and wanting to inform is well understood and appreciated, but caution is certainly warranted.

        • Steve

          I believe I made that recommendation a few months ago. Her changing it again could have been because she wanted to verify that’s you on here.

  20. ML

    The hypocrisy of the Republican party is clearly evident in the stance toward Roy Moore. They posture and spout about sex crimes and being tough on crime, to the point of electing, at the very least the misogynist Donald Trump as president. Now it is even more clear as they will state that they support Roy Moore who is an unconvicted sex offender, because he is better than a Democrat. That puts their ideology in perspective.

    • C

      Seriously, you’re actually bemoaning the hypocrisy of the Republican party as we watch the left utterly implode with a parade of leftist liberals, one after another, fall to accusations of sexual misconduct?
      Oh, there is oodles of duplicity to go around. You just proved it. Pull your head out.

      Me? I am going to sit here and enjoy watching these Democrats devour their own. Popcorn, anyone?

      • New Person

        The need for greed an power isn’t exclusive to one party. They’re punishing people, but state it’s not punishment. They say it’s for public safety b/c these monsters recidivate at an 80% rate!

        The registry is bad. It is extended service to the state that is not called punishment. I hate to re-state this, but that’s called involuntary servitude. It’s easy to paint monsters under the guise of the law. Remember, the IML was passed by both parties and ratified by a Democrat President. That means many don’t think emblazoning a scarlett letter isn’t punishment.

      • ML

        Yes the Democrats also have those that behave poorly but they are not the ones that like Congressmen Chris Smith and Senator Richard Shelby that have sponsored and pushed some of these insane laws. While they pontificate about protecting the children and pass overreaching legislation, they now advocate electing Moore, in spite of clear indications that he was a perpetrator. I hear what you are saying but not the same.

        • C

          I do believe that The Chosen One, media and liberal (redundant, I know) darling, Obama, signed IML into law. This makes him just as bad, just as stinking rotten, as anyone who sponsored the bill.
          And, of course, a Republican would have signed it, too.
          I truly believe that the American Constitution is one of the greatest documents ever written, but I can’t think of anyone currently in office who enforces its principles without first sticking their finger in the air.

          • CR

            Congress passed it overwhelmingly, so yes, any president would have signed it.

            This is not a conservative vs liberal issue. No politician wants to be seen as soft on crime, and especially not soft on sex offenders.

            • Sam

              I’ve always wondered how many people took time to actually read it in its entirety though. It’s still a pretty vague law one section saying anyone with any offense against a minor and another saying anyone who registers in any jurisdiction. Likely it will try to blanket everyone on any registry due to its vague wording in areas

            • David Kennerly, "Misandry? You're soaking in it!"

              Well, actually we don’t know how many votes were received for IML since it passed under “suspension of the rules.” It is believed that only a handful of Members were there, at the time (for both House and Senate votes) all or most of whom supported the bill and who then expressed their support as a voice vote.

              • AJ

                Gotta love transparent democracy in action! (I know, we’re actually a representative republic.)

                • David Kennerly, "Misandry? You're soaking in it!"

                  Well, I’d say that that’s part of the problem. Our system really acts like more of a democracy than a republic with all of the attendant vulnerability the individual has to the masses who are, as always, asses.

              • Tim Moore

                “The purpose of considering bills under suspension is to dispose of non-controversial measures expeditiously. ” (Congress House Floor Procedures Manual). What’s scary is they consider marking citizens passports with a debilitating notice something that is non-controversial. I don’t forgive those not there or blame Chris Smith for some sort of slight of hand. They should have known. Their silence is damning. These are the same folks that make an accuser go to counseling for thirty days before one can file a complaint of sexual harassment against a congressman. Real victims rights advocates, except when they are the perpetrators. No, not a democracy, except one representing themselves only. A hypocrite-ocracy.

  21. CR

    Does anyone have a list of past and ongoing cases related to sex offender laws? It would be great to have a list of all state and federal cases involving registration, punishment, so-called collateral consequences, and so forth, in order to know how courts have ruled on various challenges.

    • Steve

      I believe the WAR website keeps a record of cases but it could be another. It’s hard to keep up lol

  22. mike r

    You guys could be right about the AG but I think you are giving them to much credit on competency…I believe she just realized she has to give me 60 days notice from time of filing. Apparently ine of her clerks writing the brief caught this armature mistake and schooled her on how the rules work…I maybe underestimating them, but if they are like a lot of these other attorneys representing the state I am leaning toward incompetence. As far as “poking the bear” so to speak and angering the opposisition, I am sure they are already there….All this court date is a practice run, because they still have to answer to the complaint in the March hearing. I don’t know yet how the judge is going to react and rule on this since I already have a date set in March. They might moot this hearing or they might decide the federal to state arguments. She said she was filing Monday so we’ll find out soon what’s up their sleeves….

  23. PK

    How about this latest: “DOJ moves to strip citizenship for immigrant child sex offenders”

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/11/21/doj-moves-to-strip-citizenship-for-immigrant-child-sex-abusers.html

    I wonder if the same DOJ would encourage other countries like Mexico to strip the citizenship from those RSO’s who fled the oppression of life in the United States as an RSO and began a new life in another country?

    • Sam

      If I knew everything I know now back when I was arrested I would have let them deport me like they were trying to do, because “my kind” didn’t belong here. Hindsight is a bitch.

      Funny how when you’re all American and just finished serving your country you don’t want to be deported, but when they use that against you saying it made you a danger to society you will give anything to get out. (my thought process when everything was going on.) not sure how fixing planes made me more of a danger though 😂😂😂

    • AlexO

      I actually don’t see what DOJ is doing in this case as wrong. At least based on the info in the article. These men were convicted of an offense (doesn’t matter what) and lied about it when filing for citizenship. The lie in itself is reason enough to revoke their citizenship. The fact that their offense was against minors isn’t really relevant other than it looks that much worse.

  24. 🍁 Thanksgiving 🍁

    With the season in mind, I am certainly very grateful for Janice, Chance, Frank and ACSOL for all they do to protect, defend and further our civil rights.
    And I am very thankful for community members like Abigail Kokai:
    “I mean are they going to be punished for the rest of their life and never be able to live as a functional human being as a result of something that has happened, or do we assume or hope that our rehabilitation processes have allowed that person to successfully be a part of society again?” Kokai questioned.”

    http://kbbi.org/post/personal-rights-and-stigma-when-and-where-can-sex-offenders-participate-community

  25. Sam

    Just saw this in my feed. Not sure how to take this.

    http://www.newsweek.com/cyntoia-brown-heres-why-teen-was-sentenced-life-after-claiming-she-was-sex-718766

    Honestly I have a hard time believing the girl. Not because of her past story, but what she did after.

    Last I knew I’d you killed someone in self defense you didn’t rob them and run off. And if her pimp were so abusive and controlling, why did she have a gun to begin with?

    She claims she was getting raped etc etc and tried to say the guy she killed was a pedophile predator but an innocent person doesn’t do what she did.

  26. TXSO4Life

    Yesterday, a very BAD ruling (People v. Rodriguez) coming out of Illinois COP for SO. In that case, the judges (unanimous) undercut and bashed the ruling in Snyder (6th circuit) as well as other favorable SO state supreme courts rulings. See link.
    http://www.illinoiscourts.gov/R23_Orders/AppellateCourt/2017/1stDistrict/1151938_R23.pdf

    • Sam

      That he was found innocent because of not being able to understand what he did
      And didn’t have to register because he said he didn’t understand?
      In Michigan even if you’re found innocent by means of insanity, incompetent, etc you still have to register.

      If I could’ve been found innocent for not knowing I did something illegal that would have been great, but “ignorance of the law isn’t an excuse”
      Honestly if we didn’t have to register because we couldn’t understand the registry none of us would be on it without a law degree

      It’s a bit crazy that you can get punished when found innocent though. But this actually proves that they are using the registry as a form of punishment. Constitutional or not it’s still a punishment.

      • TS

        @Sam

        Well said. Still being punished after being found not guilty is crazy and should be unconstitutional.

        The only ones who can plead ignorance of the law and still be legal are actually LEO/As as deemed by SCOTUS. They ruled on it before and it has been posted here with court citings giving LEO/As the ability to be ignorant of the law and still be legal.

        • Sam

          How can one enforcing the law be ignorant of the law and still enforce it and expect others to follow it?

          Makes no damn sense. Here they have to prove that you intentionally broke the law.

          One girl here killed a man while driving the wrong way down the highway and they charged her with a drugs charge because she tested positive for amphetamines but didn’t charge her with vehicular manslaughter because she didn’t intend to kill anyone.

          I think if intent were taken into law in the US there would be a lot more politicians and police in jail though

          • TS

            @Sam

            I hear you but SCOTUS said so…. Didn’t say it made sense

            Ahhh, mens rea…The intent, the real action and Prosecution’s discretion all rolled into one.

    • AJ

      [W]here there is Illinois law on point, we need not, and should not, consider cases from other jurisdictions.
      —–
      Wow, what a myopic view of their role in our constitutional system. Apparently there are no valid viewpoints outside the borders of IL. There’s a reason cases from outside a court’s jurisdiction are called “persuasive,” and not “irrelevant.” The IL court system is disgusting. Hopefully this gentleman appeals, though I fear ILSC will affirm, and SCOTUS will deny cert.
      =====
      “And ‘by keeping sex offenders who have committed offenses against children away from areas where
      children are present (e.g., school property and parks) and out of professions where they could come in contact with children (e.g., driving an ice cream truck, being a shopping-mall Santa Claus), or vulnerable people (e.g., driving an emergency services vehicle),’ the legislature rationally limited the opportunities sex offenders have to reoffend.”
      —–
      Umm, no. All it does is criminalize those situations. Someone bent on doing the crime is not going to care about this extra bit of punishment. I guess they must believe that posting signs saying “no guns allowed” or “drug free zone” will limit people too. Hardly.
      *****
      I don’t see this case so much as bashing Snyder, as completely disregarding it because it’s neither IL nor Fed/SCOTUS case law. This is a prime example of why a SCOTUS affirmation of Snyder would have been helpful. Hopefully this guy tries again in Federal court, where the court will probably pay a little closer attention to Snyder.

      He was not found innocent. He was found “not not guilty,” which does make sense and, depending on how IL’s law is written, matter. (Nobody is ever found “innocent” in court, only “not guilty,” which is wholly different.) In truth, if a State were to apply RC laws to someone who *was* found not guilty–or never even charged–it would actually bolster the position it’s regulatory. That it’s only used on those convicted–and only those convicted of specific offenses–though the State is almost certainly aware of others who plead downward to avoid registration, points more towards punitive. If truly regulatory, pleading downward would not allow escape from registration. To me, that shows registration is inextricably linked to the offense, which also points toward punitive.

      P.S. At least it’s not for use as precedent!

      • TS

        @AJ

        I saw the precedent note and thought interesting…then they trash everything under the sun. Of course, this is Cook County, Chicago, IL…’nuff said

        Lincoln would be disappointed I believe had he read this.

  27. David Kennerly, "Misandry? You're soaking in it!"

    “Hudson man charged with attacking sex offender with ax”

    http://www.hudsonstarobserver.com/news/crime-and-courts/4363940-hudson-man-charged-attacking-sex-offender-ax

    • CR

      Sounds like a drunk with anger management issues. I wonder if he really thinks that hitting someone in the head with the blunt end of the axe rather than the sharp end is ameliorative?

  28. David Kennerly, "Misandry? You're soaking in it!"

    “Prison ‘not much use’ for sex offenders,” says retired Supreme Court judge
    Catherine McGuinness
    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/prison-not-much-use-for-sex-offenders-says-retired-supreme-court-judge-1.3298970

    • CR

      Nice find. I thought her attitude was refreshing. I wish more judges here in the US shared her view. But even the ones that do generally have their hands tied due to plea bargaining arrangements and statutory minimum sentences.

      She made no mention of sex offender registration. If I recall correctly, they require it there, but the registry isn’t public. Thus the damage it does to the registrant is probably vastly less than what it does to us.

  29. AJ

    While poking around for info, I found a couple Congressional Research Service (CRS) papers that are worth a read. There are a couple cases mentioned here and there in the more recent one that made my eyebrows lift a bit.

    1. Federal Involvement in Sex Offender Registration and Notification: Overview and Issues for Congress, In Brief (https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/R43954.html) (@David Kennerly: Footnote 35 lists the 14 “Persons Files” of NCIC.)
    2. Post-Incarceration Controls of Convicted Sex Offenders (https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/R41183.html)

    There’s a third report, “SORNA: A Legal Analysis of 18 U.S.C. §2250 (Failure to Register as a Sex Offender)” (https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/R42692.html) that may have something interesting in it, but I have yet to read it. (There’s also an abridged version.)

    A handful of other CRS papers regarding RCs exist: https://www.everycrsreport.com/search.html?q=sex%20offender&hPP=20&idx=everycrsreport&p=0&is_v=1

    • CR

      I read the first link you posted, AJ. It was a very tedious read. I can’t say I got much out of it. It was repetitive, dry and mechanical, vague and circumlocutory, and devoid of actionable advice to whoever commissioned the report (presumably Congress). I sincerely hope that tax-payer dollars didn’t pay for that useless pablum. All it served was to show the extent to which “sex offenders” are objectified and abstracted to an impersonal generalized class of disfavored members who are not even accorded the decency of being recognized as individuals.

      Not only does it make me angry, it also puts me to sleep. There is nothing worse than being bored to sleep.

  30. David Kennerly, "Misandry? You're soaking in it!"

    Thank you, AJ. That (Federal Involvement in Sex Offender Registration and Notification: Overview and Issues for Congress, In Brief ) is interesting and helps to give structure to the edifice that has been erected against us if rather depressing.

  31. Lake County

    Well, they’re trying to do a compliance check on me. As some of you may remember, I have a secure fence around my property and no one can reach my door to knock. Since I’m not on parole or probation I choose not to cooperate with these checks. So far they have been to the front of my house everyday for about 7 days now. They pull in front of my house once or twice a day and sit there and honk their horn. My car is out front so they assume I am home however I keep my house dark with no signs that anyone is ever there. I make it hard for them to contact me so it will continue to cost the county extra money in overtime for these checks. They will eventually contact me, so I’ll keep you all updated on how that happens.

    • AJ

      @Lake County:
      Rock on, brother! I also recall your saying they would sometimes pigeon-hole you in town? Let the cat and mouse games begin! (Maybe leave right after they’re there to accomplish your errands and shopping.) I’m definitely with you in spirit and support!

      Heck, maybe you should call the local LEOs and complain about someone outside your property, honking and making a public nuisance. 🙂

      Careful: Watch them decide they have probable cause to storm the place because they haven’t been able to prove you’re there for 7 days…so you must have absconded. So goes their simpleton thinking.

      • Lake County

        Yes AJ, I have left for errands just after they left and had them honking shortly after I arrived back home. Yes, it is a cat and mouse game. Except I’m playing by the rules of law. However I do have some fear that somehow they could get a warrant, but I don’t see how without some real evidence that I don’t live there or evidence I live somewhere else. They would have to convince a judge I was in violation despite the evidence they received last month. They could always sit down the block for a day or two waiting for me to leave if they are that worried about me. They could also ask my neighbors if I live there, they’ve done that before many years ago. Everyone knows about my status anyway. It can’t get any worse. They have not left me any phone messages or a business cards requesting me to contact them like they have done several years in the past. And they should know by now that although I’m hard to contact, I own my home and have lived here for almost 20 years…and my car is parked right in front. I just had my annual last month and provided the required proof of residency via a utility bill. IDK, I am considering sending the Sheriff a request to not bother or harass me. Perhaps that could be a first step in a lawsuit? We need this sh*t to stop. But they will likely corner me while doing business in my small town.

        • TS

          @Lk County

          I had to think about this overnight, but here is what you could do to stop them:

          Put up a video recording system with audio to view them in full view when they drive up to record the whole honking session. As they start, call the LE Office to report a harassing nondescript car honking in your drive (note the previous pattern too) and record that conversation as you have it on speakerphone because you know they are recording it on their end (it is a public conversation too, so wire tapping is not in play). Get license plate and all associated info in the call to inform them you feel threatened and are tired of the harassment, so they should send out a squad car pronto to deal with them to avoid any confrontation and potential escalation. Once the car is gone and the conversation is over, copy it all several times to save in different locations for retrieving later while sending a copy to Janice, et al for processing.

          Just my two cents worth…

        • AJ

          @Lake County:
          I know you’re pretty well seasoned on how to blunt their antics, but…

          Even in town, they gotta follow the rules. Let me guess, they typically wait until you’re operating a vehicle, since that requires your providing ID. But, they still need reasonable suspicion (which we all know they’ll lie and say you didn’t come to a complete stop, etc). Otherwise, I’d say nothing besides, “am I being detained?” and “am I free to go?” And you don’t need to be handcuffed to be detained. Their words and actions can make it so. If they block your car so you cannot drive away, it certainly points toward being detained–and *definitely* warrants (no pun intended) asking, “am I being detained?” and “am I free to go?” No matter what, I’d have my phone’s voice recorder running the entire time–with the screen dark so they don’t think of it–to record their lies and statements.

          It’s also important to understand what a Terry stop is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_stop. They can briefly detain you and ask questions *if they have reasonable suspicion you’ve committed a crime.* They cannot just stop you to stop you. From the URL: “To have reasonable suspicion that would justify a stop, police must be able to point to “‘specific and articulable facts’ that would indicate to a reasonable police officer that the person stopped is or is about to be engaged in criminal activity, as opposed to past conduct.” Note that last snippet: past conduct (i.e. registration you completed a month ago) is not reasonable suspicion. So unless they have “specific and articulable facts” to indicate you’ve moved or lied on the paperwork, they do not have reasonable suspicion.

          A nice reminder from a few years back: http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-daniele-watts-lapd-show-id-20140915-story.html
          And some helpful advice about interactions: http://www.browarddefender.org/page3.html

          • Tim Moore

            Great finds, AJ.

            • David Kennerly, Forgive me for laughing

              And then there is this brilliant lecture by James Duane, a law school prof to his students on “Why You Should Never Talk To the Police.” I watch this one whenever I’m feeling a bit down 🙂 I just can’t get enough of him. I highly recommend that everyone should watch this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik

    • Tim Moore

      Hey, a new face to that old slang term “honkies.”

      • Lake County

        Timmr, Lol: That was funny.

        • Tim Moore

          Thank you, I used to be soooooo serious about everything. Now I find without some sense of dark humor keeping me going, I would internalize all this and I wouldn’t survive.
          You know, if I were not directly the butt of this Keystone cop like war on sexual offending, this would be hilarious.
          They started that honking in my driveway last time. Like bored teenagers. Your district and mine are hundreds of miles apart. They must get together in some sort of sheriff cabal and compair notes on how harassing you can be without crossing a legal line. Same on our side until someone crosses the line and the lawyers have to get involved.
          Whatever costs them money and esteem and wears down the machine. All fair in love and war.

  32. TS

    What Parents Can Do to Help Keep Their Children Safe From Assault

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/16/well/family/how-to-help-your-child-not-be-a-metoo.html

    “An estimated 90 percent of the perpetrators of child sexual abuse are people the child knows, with 30 percent being family members. Just 10 percent are strangers.”

  33. mike r

    I usually am not in sync with Lake but I am with you all they way on this… Give em hellllll….

  34. E

    Has anyone ever seen social research on why societies always seem to need an “outcast group” on which to blame everything/push all their hatred?

    Jews in many places in the world

    In the US:
    First blacks
    Then Native Americans
    Then adulterers
    Then homosexuals
    Then other sexual minorities
    Now anyone who’s committed a sexual offense

    Each successive group has become more and more “acceptable”, but then society has always found another group to hate. “Groupthink”. Who will be the next group? Or are we it, till the end of time?

    • CR

      Very likely we’re “it” until such a time as inimical aliens from another galaxy invade the earth to lay claim to our resources and enslave us all.

  35. mch

    This is an interesting read. Further proof of what we all know.
    https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/police-who-prey-victims

  36. David Kennerly, "Thankful? Well yes, I'm still alive, if that's what you mean"

    Europe is Americanizing fast. Yesterday, I watched French President Emmanuel Macron’s entire, stultifying “grande cause du quinquennat” (France’s ‘Five-Year Plan’) speech in which he manages to smash together/conflate violence against women with pornography and age-disparate relationships. It was an “all-things-violent-and-sexual/we’re-all-interchangeable theme which I found it to be depressingly familiar. We shouldn’t underestimate the extent to which many countries have been thoroughly Oprah-fied into victimological worship, including France. He wants to effectively eliminate the statute-of-limitations, increase punishment for sex crimes, and uses kids as a crowd-pleasing emotional push-button to either eliminate or regulate pornography (I wasn’t too clear on that). Last, but not least, he wants to raise the age-of-consent to a “hard” fifteen-years-of-age which, coincidentally is the age at which he met his wife (that’s convenient) from a squishy and subjectively interpretable definition that took into consideration any ideas or opinions the particular kid might have on the subject. I know, fifteen is comparatively astounding when viewed against California’s eighteen but still, they’re on that continuum we’re all so familiar with. Raising the AOC was the line that got the loudest roars of approval from the mob. The media does the same thing there that the media does here: it tells scary and oh-so-thrilling tales. Are they more frightening or more entertaining? They’re two sides of the same coin. We all love to be scared! But not THIS much.

  37. Last Call

    Now besides all these actors, judges and hiding politicians and others famous, women and men coming out to nail em’ years later, especially in Cali where the cap limit is now off for past incidents, comes a movie from Italia landed here in L.A. where they are saying, it’s okay for a 17 and a 24 to have illegal relations and sex.
    I just don’t get it.
    What is this all coming to a head to ?
    Is our Prez next and back on the block?
    Is more going to come out since so many has and hang all?’
    California here we come!
    Cosb and others including the college stud that left Cali from Stan and is now a RSO 4 life elsewhere.

  38. TN RC

    Following this case in TN closely. Ex Post Facto claim based on the Michigan ruling:
    https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/19788237/Doe_v_Haslam_et_al

    Here’s the scribd version: https://www.scribd.com/document/330569896/Tennessee-lawsuit-challenges-sex-offender-registry-laws#from_embed

    Seems like a slam dunk based on the Michigan ruling, which includes the district of TN…

    • New Person

      Oh wow! Thanks for the link

      That guy went through hell. Read it and the laws kept piling up. His offense preceded any registry laws too! But 2003 Smith v Doe said that the registry was not punitive and can be retroactive. But seeing how TN just keep adding more and more makes the TN look disastrous. Also, how they harassed him was bad.

    • AJ

      @TN RC:
      Thanks for posting this case. It does seem to have some legs to it, especially since it’s in the 6th. One would think that even if it’s shot down at the District level, the 6th will once again rule for Doe. It’s really sad and also infuriating, the type of harassment and abuse this man has suffered. He’s lost his family, not because of his offense, but because of @sshole LEOs. Though perhaps legal, it’s inhumane.

      I especially like this tidbit that was cited: “In re W.Z., 957 N.E.2d 367 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011) (automatic classification of juvenile as Tier III sex offender required to register for life based solely on crime of conviction violates due process).” Once again, an example of a court disliking offense-based tiers. I continue to believe and espouse that offense-based tiers will be the downfall of the schemes. If the State is required to foot the bill for individualized risk assessments, the system will teeter quite a bit more.
      I’m quite curious as to how the Due Process claim for going contrary to the plea agreement will come out. The Contract Clause would seem to apply–but who knows if it has any traction, because we all “know” that civil regulation is not subject to the Constitution. Making me even happier is the reference to Lambert, which held that ignorance of the law was indeed an excuse in some cases.

  39. Counting the days

    Does anyone know of any suicide support groups in Santa Clara county. And I don’t mean the help line. They are idiots. I mean actual groups that can listen.

    • matthew

      Not sure but I am always willing to talk/listen at anytime.

      • Counting the days

        Thx. This time of year is especially hard. I met my wife 10 yrs ago new years eve. It’s been almost 3 yrs since she passed, and never gets easier.

        • matthew

          Hey, you have every right to feel the way you feel. No one can ever take that away. The way it hurts is understandable. That is actually one of my worst fears in life is losing a wife after years of marriage. I am not sure if this is allowed but feel free to e-mail me at mr.eoff@Outlook.com to truly talk.

        • C

          I am so sorry for your loss, friend. You’re in my thoughts and prayers, to be sure.

    • Lake County

      Counting the days:

      The Center for Living with Dying
      4326 BELVEDERE DR SAN JOSE, CA 95129
      (408) 252-8526

      I went to these people 30 years ago when I was dealing with the death of a family member. Back then they offered group sessions for adults to listen and talk. At the time the services were free. I have no idea what services are offered or if there is any cost these days. This is a long time community support service that should be able to help you or direct you to an agency that can. Santa Clara County has lots of support services for just about anything if you just ask around.

    • C

      I don’t know of any support groups, but I encourage you to stay strong, especially if you have family, children in particular, who love you.
      I’d rather have a father, friend, son, spouse, etc, who happens to be an RC, alive and in my life, than to suddenly leave a whole in my heart.
      If you don’t have anyone, you will. Are you able bodied? If so, look around, man. There are tens of thousands who would gladly take your place. Stay healthy, stay strong and just hang in there and don’t make your most important decisions in the darkest of times. And my final tidbit of encouragement, one that makes me smile every day: get your revenge on the fuckers doing this to you by living well and rubbing their noses in it.

  40. jm

    Is it harassment for the local PD to send me a ‘reminder’ letter the month before my birthday?

    Been getting it every year since I’ve had to register. It starts with “… we are sending this letter as a courtesy to remind you that since you are a convicted sex offender you are required to register…” It then goes on to say that if I fail to register they will submit to the DA for prosecution.

    I just got the letter this Friday, Thanksgiving weekend. What a way to start the holidays. And this is something that will continue for ever apparently. I hate it. It really made me sad. My case isn’t expunged yet, but once it is, aren’t I not technically ‘convicted’ anymore? Couldn’t their letter then be considered harassment?

    Figured out I only have 4 days to register. They only do it Mon – Thurs. My birthday is the 25th of December so they’ll be closed that day. The other days are weekends a couple of Fridays.

    What about redemption? When does that happen? When do I get my life back? It helps to write this out because I have no other outlet. Thanks and sorry for the rambling.

    • TS

      @jm

      Sorry to hear of this and the frustration related to it for you, but once a year probably wouldn’t qual as harassment, even if it is yearly at the same time.

      • HOOKSCAR

        I agree, but compliance checks do. Every year since 1999 I and my household have endured these at 7:00 am. EVERY YEAR!!! Now, as I do have a respect for Janice et all for everything that they do, residency restrictions and presence restrictions have been beat like a dead horse. Let’s address the compliance checks for what they are. HARASSMENT.
        Would a cease and dicist (?) order have any traction against the sheriff and his representatives?

        • David Kennerly, Forgive me for laughing

          Residency restrictions and presence restrictions are not a dead horse until they are, in fact, dead.

        • someone who cares

          Hookscar ~ I agree. We need to at some point address these compliance checks which I am sure are unconstitutional. I took this from another forum and coped it here for whatever it is worth:

          “First of all I want to know what state law gives them the authority to do a compliance check? if it is based on a city ordinance then the city ordinance pertaining to the compliance check.

          Since the registry is a state controlled registry I question whether the city has the authority to pass any law or ordinance pertaining to the operation of the registry this would include compliance checks.

          The next thing is if the compliance checks are not specifically spelled out by a legislative law then they cannot be performed by law enforcement if the legislature has allowed law enforcement to make rules pertaining to the operation of the registry then that’s a violation of the *non-delegation of authority doctrine. Legislative laws must be specific — especially when criminal convictions are attached as consequences legislators do not have the authority to allow the executive branch which law enforcement is part of to make any rules, regulations, procedures, or ordinances.

          As well as being in violation of *abuse of rights law, *doctrine of unconstitution al conditions law, abuse of power through creating *special laws, (see explanation below)

          if the city has made such an ordinance they must be specific in how it is to operate otherwise it is invalid for vagueness or being overbroad. as well as a violation by a city or county board creating a special law pertaining to a specific disfavored group.

          If they are asking questions other than what is specifically required by state law than they are most likely in violation of fourth, fifth and 14th amendment of the Constitution and this would be true even if the legislators put it into law that they can ask you extra questions such as family associations a normal citizen is not required to give up that information and a person no longer on parole or probation is in fact a normal citizen and retains all the rights and privileges under the state and federal Constitution

          If the state patrol or the local law enforcement is operating outside of constitutional bounds then the people making the unconstitution al rules can be charged under title 18 section 241 242 243 and 245. Conspiracy against constitutional rights and are subject to up to five years in Federal prison”

          We have to stop these compliance checks. Heck, they can come by today, and tomorrow I move, so these checks do nothing to prove that I live where I say. The annual is the only requirement that the law requires, everything else is harassment!

          • Lake County

            I agree that if you are not on probation or parole, compliance checks are an undo invasion of our privacy. However as I’ve stated before many times, if you have not ever formally requested in writing that they not come to your door and disturb you, then how can you complain that they keep doing it every year? The first step in trying to get them to stop coming to your door and disturbing you with these compliance checks is to ask them. No one here in this forum including myself has ever asked them to stop coming to our door. You never know, if you are threatening legal action for any further compliance checks, perhaps after consulting their attorney, they may decide to just leave you alone unless they have reliable evidence that you have moved. If they ignore your request, that would be the time to try and seek legal assistance. I don’t see what ACSOL can do to help any of us with this issue if the police are not violating the law by knocking on your door (like anyone can do) once a year or if they are not ignoring your request to stop bothering you. And of course if you are not on probation or parole, you do NOT need to open your door or speak to them at all. Any question police ask can potentially backfire on you. Only a fool would answer any questions by the Police without your lawyer present. I imagine a large percentage of us were arrested only after being cooperative and answering questions that seemed unimportant.

            I’m considering sending my local Sheriff Dept a letter requesting that they no longer park in front of my house and honk their horn, but they have not been “honkies” (Timmr’s word) for the last 3 days so perhaps they gave up? If I had an attorney be willing to help me with a draft for the letter, then I would definitely send it. (hint, hint)

            • TS

              @Lk County

              Maybe they read here what you’re willing to do to counter their efforts and recognized they were a problem?

              • Lake County

                Maybe. It’s not too hard for them to figure out who I am if they read this site.

            • someone who cares

              Lake County ~ We have asked them to stop coming via phone but not in writing. They still came again. Of course we know that we don’t have to open the door or speak to them, but they only start banging and yelling “sheriff”, so that is the problem. If it happens again, we might file a complaint in writing. Nothing mandates these compliance checks, and there is no 290 law that requires them. I don’t even think that LE knows why they come by. I keep a log to show how often and when they come by. Hopefully, we won’t have to deal with these checks again, but I am sure that is just wishful thinking.

              • David Kennerly, Addicted to Love

                You need a security camera AND one that records audio. I have a Ring Doorbell that will do that and will shortly add two other additional cameras (also recording audio) at the front gate to my house (the only way to get access to my house which is behind a very high wall). It would be fantastic if you were to, say, record their abuses and car-honking and post it to YouTube, for example. Part of the reason why I got the Ring Doorbell was to see if the police were coming to my house while I wasn’t here since I’ve had no evidence of them attempting to conduct a “complance check” in many years.

              • Registry Rage

                Plus, if you don’t answer the door, they go to your neighbors!

    • wonderin

      Funny how this works. They send a letter to the address they know you live at so you can be sure to let them know your present address.
      The only thing I can think of to help your train of thought is to relish in the fact that this type of wasteful taxpayer spending will someday make the registry too expensive to maintain.

      • AJ

        …and given that (according to an attorney I spoke with a couple years back) a First Class letter is legally considered received unless it comes back, their mailing the letter would be de facto confirmation of the information you’ve provided! That would seem to completely remove any “need” to do a physical check.

  41. kind of living

    hope everyone had a great turkey day , and for better days ahead . I have been sitting here reading , and looking at the info everyone talking about ,as well as checking all the really cool links , I just want to thank everyone for being here and send my family’s as well as my own best wish’s to everyone ! keep your eyes pealed and watch your 6 , stay safe , enjoy the season ,

  42. Bobby

    Lets be clear I am NOT asking for a lawyer type opinion, just a regular person’s opinion, that may be in the same boat as me, or at least similar, just trying to get an idra on what Michigan might do with me after they rewrite the Michigan registry, so any opinions would be appreciate, and if this sounds similar to any questions I may have asked in the past I apologize in advance.

    Hello,

         I have been wondering about something, I know they said that the 2006 and 2011 Amendments can NOT be retroactively applied to me, but then there is the 2013 Amendment and the 2004 2002 and the 1999 and 1994 Amendments  I understand I was still on parole when  Megan’s Law was passed in 1994, and since I was OFF Parole in 1996, I was wondering shouldn’t the 1994 Amendment be the ONLY one that should/would apply to me?.  unless they remove me from the registry completely.  

      I was also curious since there was no registry laws in 1992 when I was convicted how could the legislature tell me I have to register, I mean is that not a violation of the CONTRACT/PLEA I took between me the my lawyer the prosecutor and judge?  or maybe even a violation of the supremacy clause, or the separation of powers 

        I’m just asking just trying to understand how this works, or how the final rewrite of the registry is going to effect me.  Thank you for your time.

    • Sam

      Honestly, in my opinion Michigan (whenever their registry is back up, last I checked it was still offline) will go back to their old system where people are off after 25 years. I know for a fact that if you move out of state they take you off their registry like they should. If I had the chance instead of moving to New York prior to moving out of the country. I would have just found a country and moved there and live a normal life as far from the US as possible.

      Michigan is a horrible place to be on the registry even if you’re not on parole or probation. The police like to pull you over for no reason and search your car because you’re “suspicious” plus having to check in every three months in person between 9am and 3pm is a pain in the ass if you work during the day. And God forbid you try to get an education and not unenroll from the school before taking the summer semester off. Even though you told then you’d be back in the fall.

      There are too many cops and prisons with not enough to do. Other than that it’s an okay place.

      If you hadn’t notice I dislike Michigan police more than anything else. It’s like a group of Klansman put on blue(city and state) or brown(county) uniforms.

      • Bobby

        @Sam

        I’m not sure where your getting your information but I check Michigan’s registry everyday, and it is not off line nor has it bee, and the ONLY thing that has changed on my profile is that they put my original registration date back in place, but I am still a tier 3 and have to register for life in stead of my original 25 years. So I am not sure where your getting your info, but it is wrong, also I do not care for the police either, and I am sorry you and many others have such a rough time with them, I have no issues with police and I live in a very small town where everyone knows everyone ,they even some times stop and say hi and just ask how I am doing, if I have any problems they can help me with, they have even told me they are glad that Michigan lost their case and that I will finally be done with it. They even agreed with be that it is useless and protects no one just like a PPO protects no one.
        I would like to know where you got your information so that I may check on it and do some investigation of my own, or talk to Ms Aukerman about it.

        • Sam

          When i last checked the Michigan website which was about a week ago it was down and said it couldnt be accessed due to too much traffic. I was just saying, after they fix it all and find that the tier systen is fucked. They will probably revert it back to the original system.

          As for getting off Michigans registry, you just have to move out of the state. I moved to New York and they took me off Michigan’s but now stuck on New York’s because a lack of wording in their law. If you move to a country without a registry, and live there legally they cannot keep you on their list.

          I lived in Kalamazoo its not much of a small town other than all the cops have nothing better to do than pull over the only Asian living on the south side.

          • Bobby

            @Sam Thanks for the clarification, like I said I check it every day to see if they are making the changes they are now forced to make, I live in South Lyon which is still a small town, and the cops even though they have nothing better to do then pull people over for making a right turn on red,when the sign clearly says no turn on red, it’s been that way since I was a kid.

            I miss that part because when I was a kid and teenager in the 70’s and part of the 80’s no one knew where South Lyon was or ever heard of it, the good ole days. .

            it also where Leslie Allen Williams who worked a the local gas station were a family friend also worked, and one day he walked her home from work, and when he realized Kami’s parents and sister and brother’s weren’t home he raped and killed her. So we do have a black mark on our small town, like any other town or city.

            • steve

              You’re allowed to look at your profile? We aren’t in CA.

              • Sam

                You guys aren’t allowed to look at the registry in California? Its ironic if its that way it is, where anyone can see all this information about you except you.

                • AlexO

                  It’s a bit more stupid than that these days. We’re not allowed to look at the registry via official website. There’s no restriction on getting the same info from 3rd party websites like Homefacts. It’s especially stupid when the information is wrong and you can’t verify it without someone else doing it for you. So your wife or whomever, can log on form your home on your behalf, but you just can’t do it yourself.

              • CR

                Has this prohibition ever been challenged? It is the online internet equivalent of a presence restriction. The registry is government speech, isn’t it? It’s also public record. How can the CA government forbid you from accessing government speech and public data?

                The registry is not a forum, but it is an information site. I wonder if anything in Packingham could be applicable?

  43. steve

    Tid bits of a story of a guy who just killed 6 people driving drunk. He was driving with a suspended license for previous DUI. So yeah, let’s focus on SO’s.

    “CHP Officer Matthew Hamer is quoted by KPIX 5 saying that Lowe was driving on a driver’s license that had been suspended due to a previous drunk driving arrest.

    Lowe was booked into the Contra Costa County Jail on suspicion of four counts of felony hit-and-run, felony DUI and driving on a suspended license, Hamer said. He remains in Contra Costa County Jail on $1.15 million bail.”

    • UnitedStatesofOppression

      No they will just put him in drug/alcohol court slap him on the wrist and send him on his merry way. I know a guy here in the town I live that got his count ’em 10th DUI. 3rd one here is a felony. He didn’t have to serve any prison just jail and lost his license for ten years. And as long as he finishes drug court without any violations he will get off probation and get his license back early. But let’s not give a first time sex offender any wiggle room no good time for no violations or upholding your end of probation. Where is the equal protection that is afforded by the Constitution. What a crock of excrement.

      • steve

        I was just thinking about equal protection considering:

        “2016 may go down as one of the worst years for drunk-driving deaths. This year may go down as one of the worst years for drunk-driving deaths. On average, 28 people a day have been killed in DUI accidents.In 2015, 10,265 people died in alcohol-impaired crashes, an increase of nearly 300 from the year before.”

        TWENTY EIGHT PER DAY! Holy sh!t. Could this be included to the IML challenge as to why, with these stats, drunks aren’t given a stamp.

        • Tim Moore

          Heck, those people were just killed. Nothing there to grab people’s attention. Oh, now sexual assault, there’s a subject to grab people’s attention.

  44. TXSO4life

    A bad ruling (RAY NEAL CARNEY,. Plaintiff – Appellant, v. OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF. PUBLIC SAFETY) coming out of the 10th circuit of appeal this morning regarding license requirement for SO. A unanimous panel ruled license requirement for SO survives the basic rational test. Plz google for the link to the ruling.

    • TS

      Here’s the link to the published findings on this particular OK DL case in the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals:

      https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/16/16-6276.pdf

      Interesting read, but more importantly, mike r needs to read this to see what to avoid in his case given Ray did his appeal Pro Se also, especially where the court will not argue for you on points (as they say). Compelled speech points are interesting to read as are equal protection clause points.

    • NPS

      I just finished reading the case. The bad ruling is the result of a bad petition and subsequent appeal on the part of Carney. He should’ve consulted with an attorney before filing his original claim. The biggest mistake is not including the First Amendment on his original claim before filing his appeal. Carney may have had a stronger argument with the First amendment and the issue with compelled speech. However, the court could only affirm or overturn the decision of the original claim, which included only the 8th and 14th amendments.

    • David Kennerly, Addicted to Love

      Reading NARSOL’s analysis of this loss, in which they were an amicus filer, they (Larry?) made an important point which should be kept in mind in any future lawsuits, such as IML, “The outcome serves as a useful lesson about the need to preserve ALL possible claims at the initiation of a lawsuit even where some of them, as expected, are likely to be rejected.” You can read it here: https://narsol.org/2017/11/tenth-circuit-coa-upholds-oklahoma-drivers-license-requirement/

      • Tim Moore

        I never thought about that in lawsuits. I always wondered why lawyers always contended everything they could think of. I thought is was in the hopes that something would stick. That sounded kind of lame, kind of like grasping at straws. Now it looks like it preserves your ability to appeal.
        The same was true when fighting legislation or other government actions. I had already known that. If you don’t bring something up early in the public comment period, say the county wants to put a bypass right through your back yard, and you fail to say it will endanger your kids play time, you won’t be able to use it later in the process when the cars are whizzing by. Makes it even more important we comment whenever and wherever we can when a government action threatens us, as soon as we can. They can’t say, well it must not have been a big deal, you didn’t say that in the beginning.
        Of course rules are different when complaining about government compared to complaining about your fellow citizen. Your fellow citizen you can bring up claims of abuse against whenever you want, and depending on where the wind of opinion blows, noone will require evidence.

    • Chris F (@Mike R)

      As already stated, this is a must read for Mike R…though I think he already knows this lesson quite well from all of the other cases he has researched. It’s one of the reasons he is throwing all valid constitutional violations and not just the easiest to win. Those that seem tough to win now, may be easier and have new precedents set before he gets to argue it.

      The biggest constitutional violations that could have had a chance weren’t brought up or sustained through the process. I would have attacked the mark with 1st amendment compelled speech (he did but didn’t keep it valid through appeal), but also Substantive Due Process, Bill of Attainder, and fought that it was arbitrary given the duration being set in stone and not tailored to the individual and the fact that it doesn’t really prevent anything or benefit society. I would have also challenged right to reputation, also because it doesn’t accomplish any meaningful state goal while forcing disclosure of the sex offender status to those that have no reason or need to know and the duration of this treatment isn’t narrowly tailored, or tailored at all.

  45. Sam

    I just saw in CNN bittom ticker that they might try ti charge Harvey Weinstein with international sex trafficking because one of his recent happenings tjat came to light happened in France

  46. David Kennerly, Addicted to Love

    No, it hasn’t been challenged but needs to be. It’s an incredibly stupid law not only for its inability to be enforced but also for its breathtaking arrogance in flying in the face of the First Amendment. To view California’s online registry as a Registrant is, quite possibly, the most obvious form of civil disobedience that can be performed and crying out to be challenged in the courts. I suspect that California’s original law dating back to 1947 included a provision barring Registrants from viewing the (paper) Registry back than and that some not-so-clever legislators decided to tack this on to the online Registry requirements. It’s a kind of legacy from the original.

  47. mike r

    Well, I received the AG’s brief today. It is kind of a joke in my opinion. She is only contesting claims six thru nine and those are only on basically subject matter jurisdiction, as I assumed would happen since they have no control over IML or other non CA state statutes or ordinances, and the fact they rely on the smith case and the “frightening and high” comment out of those cases. She states that they will address the other issues during the proceeding but does not specify on what grounds other then subject matter jurisdiction, claiming that the AG of CA can not be sued since they have no direct connection to enforcement of the statutes at issue. She then goes on to cite Ex Parte Young which seems to totally contradict her position.

    Wiki….The Court, in laying out this doctrine, created two legal fictions:

    That such a suit is not against the state, but merely against the individual officer, who cannot be acting on behalf of the state when he enforces a law that is unconstitutional; and
    That an individual can be a state actor for Fourteenth Amendment purposes (which only prohibits unconstitutional acts by the state, and those who represent it) while remaining a private person for sovereign immunity purposes.
    The Court also rejected the contention raised by Young that an injunction was inappropriate because the railroads could get an adequate remedy by testing the statute in the courts. The Court noted that the railroads could never recover the costs of obeying the law while waiting for it to be adjudicated unconstitutional.
    Based on these findings, the Court held that suits may be brought to enjoin state officials from enforcing unconstitutional laws in the United States District Courts, which have the power to enjoin those officials from enforcing such laws.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_parte_Young

    I am still trying to see what her angle is, but as of so far her little 23 page response is ridiculous….I will post it tomorrow, but I am really dumbfounded at how ridiculously inept it really seems to be……
    There is also the actual case she cites regarding jurisdiction which only compromises her position….. If you guys see something that I am missing in these cases let me know….As of right now it is, non punitive as of Smith, non ex post facto per smith and residency or presence restrictions do not apply to me since I am not on parole and she claims I do not stipulate what ordinances or statutes I am referring to, which I do cite many of them, no jurisdiction over federal laws or other state statutes or ordinances (which I concede), but she never actually stipulates IML. In short>>>no bill or attainder, no involuntary servitude. no ex post facto, cruel punishment, no subject matter jurisdiction but seems to only be referring to these claims. Like I said I will post tomorrow….

  48. mike r

    I am so glad that I am Pro Se…I really don’t believe any of these attorneys have the competence, or the desire or drive to succeed. I am very pleased with the response. Absolutely no argument against any of the major issues and barely makes any kind of case against the issues that she is contesting..What a joke man……I really hope people are grateful for what I am doing because it is getting a little expensive and time consuming. But hey, not nearly the thousands upon thousands that it would cost with a derelict lawyer right?/??? I hope Janice and all these other orgs are taking notice and following my case because I am going to show them the power of the US citizenry when it comes to access the courts for redress…..Law degree be damned…..I am a fighter and am not going to sit back and be ridiculed and fall into self deprecation and allow “OUR” government to control my destiny…..Ain’t going to happen……Went to Men’s Warehouse and bought me some really nice and expensive custom fit suits..Got a great deal on black Friday…LMAO…Got to look the part right……I can’t wait to post the response tomorrow for yu guys to see and respond to, especially since you helped get it where it is, with absolutely “NOOOOOOO HELP”!!!!! from any orgs or so called legal experts or wanna be civil rights leaders……………. I have to go to Fed Ex and digitize it and you will be able to see it…….

    • mike r

      I have to refute my own comment…My Heartfelt thanks to Janice et el and to Will, Robert, and Derek over at Sosen for without this platform to connect and collaborate and the incredibly articulate abilities of those at Sosen and all the help I received I could not have done this……At least not in the masterful way that it has transpired…….Don’t get me wrong..I have humility, I can just recognize beauty and art when I see it, or in this case, write or read it……

    • JM of Wi.

      (Mike r)
      Nice to see your progress, and hear your positive energy.I’m glad you are keeping us updated on your motion. Your months of work have brought together a great deal of data. (Imagine what an attorney’s team would cost for the final draft). Note that if you post the opposition’s response, you will probably get a host of chatter and discussion and help. Remember that anyone including the opposition can see it on this forum. If someone detects a weakness or problem in your case, and identifies it here it may not help.
      Again, congrats.

    • AJ

      @mike r:
      A couple random thoughts to get out before they slip from my head:
      1. Save some $. Instead of FedEx, just take pictures of the document pages, and post the images. Free!
      2. Keep in mind that ex post facto is generally a violation by the Executive Branch; Bill of Attainder is generally a violation by the Legislative Branch. With that in mind, they may be claiming the Gov and AG cannot answer the BoA complaint. To my knowledge, you cannot name the Legislature (or its officials) in a lawsuit. Maybe you need to add “State of California” (or similar) as a defendant? With the AG as the State’s chief LEO, it will still land on his desk, but it would perhaps broaden his area of responsibility to defend the State’s actions, versus just the Executive Branch’s.

      • AJ

        Disregard my suggestion to naming CA generically…sovereign immunity prevents it.

  49. mike r

    Hey Chris, Nice to see a comment from you.. I haven’t been on here as much lately but the times that I have been I haven’t been seeing much of you lately….Well, just in time as you can see from my comments, right? Look forward to see what you think about this response…..

    • Chris F (@Mike R)

      Hi Mike R!

      With the holidays and kids in school, I’ve lost most of the free time I had to be on here and do research. I’ve been checking in mostly to keep an eye on your posts about your case. I’m glad there is progress.

      My main concern, and the problem with pro-se, is these finer points about jurisdiction and who to sue and how the wrong combination can somehow send you back to square one. It looks like some of your best arguments are still in the right place though, so something should win. You would think Pro-se would allow some help by the court in amending the case to be challenging the right people.

      I look forward to reading the AG’s brief.

      As for the AG saying California is not liable for things like IML and other things outside California’s control, that is not actually true. California is the Gatekeeper of the California registry and they participate in sending that list to the Federal Government for the sole purpose of whatever actions or restrictions the Federal Government deems needed against someone so dangerous that they need to be on “the list”. If California didn’t violate your Substantive Due Process and Equal Protection rights by including you on that list, you would not be subjected to the Federal restrictions and restrictions by the other states and even cities. It would not be practical to sue every city in the country for protecting themselves from such a presently dangerous individual to be included on “the list” when California is well aware of what them putting you on “the list” means and them providing “the list” to the Feds. California is in complete control of who is affected by IML in their state.

      I am glad to see AJ is still very active and on point with great articles to reference!

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.
  • We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
  • 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
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  
 

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

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