ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly MtgsJuly 14 – Phone (AUDIO),
August 11 – San Diego, September 15 – Berkeley, October 6 – West Sacramento, October 20 – Los Angeles [details]

Conference Videos Online

General News

General Comments July 2018

Comments that are not specific to a certain post should go here, for the month of July 2018. Contributions should relate to the cause and goals of this organization and please, keep it courteous and civil.

Join the discussion

  1. AnotherAnon

    Hi everyone. I need some advice on housing in California. I’ve been in one place for almost 20 years and the landlord died. Now I have to move. Do any of you have experience navigating the background check and other issues that may sway a renter of a room, house or apartment? My registry listing does not include an address, zip code only, but I don’t know if that makes any difference to renters. It appears there is a chance I could end up homeless for a while, which could be very much a hassle. Tips welcome!

    Thanks.

    • Matt

      My suggestion, for what it’s worth, is: Buy an RV. The odds of you being able to find a place that will take you are slim to begin with. If one does take you, it will likely be a slum. And you’re likely to get abused/harassed by your neighbors, your landlord, and the police. If you buy an RV, you have a little more freedom. If you rent a space in a park, and something bad happens, you can move and find another location. Basically, I am suggesting that you become a nomad. It’s not ideal. But being able to move on an hour’s notice is not all bad. Good luck.

      • Gralphr

        That’s not true. I live in riverside/moreno valley and lived in decent housing. Now I live in vegas and live in decent housing. Yes, you will face discrimination but you will be able to find housing.

      • AnotherAnon

        Matt, what you suggest is going transient. Is that what you did? It is like the strictest parole or probation and is designed to fail.

        https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN&sectionNum=290.011

        • Matt

          I did live in an RV for a while, until I was able to find a more suitable situation. But the difference with me is I was not in a park. I was lucky enough to have a friend with land. The friend allowed me to stay on that land, which was otherwise vacant. It was very rural and nobody bothered me except for the cops. You’re correct about the amount of hoops one must jump through with this option. But the person who was asking said he had been in one place for 20 years. Maybe I missed his point, but I got the impression that time was of the essence. And I personally would try to make sure I had a roof over my head and some mobility/freedom, if the alternative was outright homelessness. For a temporary solution, I thought it was a reasonable suggestion.

      • AnotherAnon

        However, this could conflict with the constitunal right to travel.

        http://www.uslawbooks.com/travel/travelcites.htm

    • Sunny

      @AnotherAnon – California state law makes it illegal to use the registry (Megan’s Law website) to discriminate against registrants in housing and many other aspects of life. If a landlord refused to rent to you based on the registry, they could face significant penalties:

      https://www.meganslaw.ca.gov/About_Penalties.aspx

      http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=290.46.&lawCode=PEN

      Depending on the age of your conviction, your criminal record may be clear. California civil code 1786 prohibits background checks from reporting convictions that are older than 7 years:

      http://lawprojectla.org/fcraviolations.html

      If your conviction is older than 7 years, I don’t believe there’s any legal method a potential landlord could use to find out about your record and then use it to justify denying you housing. In any case, be sure that you document your communications with landlords and if you’re denied, ask for a written statement of reasons for the denial.

      The JobsForFelons website has some California-based resources for housing assistance as well:

      https://www.jobsforfelonshub.com/housing-for-felons/california/
      https://www.jobsforfelonshub.com/reentry-programs/california-reentry-programs/

      • AnotherAnon

        Good call, Sunny!

        California’s Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act (Civil Code §1786) and the California Consumer Credit Reporting Agency Act (Civil Code §1785) provide added protection when it comes to criminal records by making it unlawful for a consumer reporting agency to disclose criminal history that is more than seven years old.

        http://www.recordgone.com/articles/criminal_record_renting_California.htm

        California Code, Civil Code – CIV § 1786.18

        (7) Records of arrest, indictment, information, misdemeanor complaint, or conviction of a crime that, from the date of disposition, release, or parole, antedate the report by more than seven years.

        https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/civil-code/civ-sect-1786-18.html

        So I’m way in the clear on that issue. Thanks for the heads up.

        Matt, frankly, I might prefer the nomad life if possible, but it is not possible at present.

        Thanks for the comments.

        • Lake County

          Well the real question is, will the landlord Google your name? If so, your registration and photo will pop up. Sure the law says they can’t discriminate because of the old crime, however landlords do all the time. I’ve never heard of a registrant suing a landlord or potential landlord for using this info against a registrant. And I doubt any landlord will write you a letter saying you were denied housing for this reason. A landlord is under no obligation to put anything in writing. And if you get an apartment, everyone will wonder why the cops are showing up at your door for compliance checks. Choose your new place very carefully. A house out of everyone’s view is always best. If you can find a place with a locking front gate that would be perfect for added protection from harassment by neighbors and cops. Basically, beware if you move to a new area with aggressive compliance checks.

        • AnotherAnon

          Lake County, the law requires much when a landlord does background checks and requires a lot be put in writing. But they could lie, of course, and not reveal having done a Google search. But if qualified in all other respects, they could have to explain themselves if challenged. My problem will be that rent should be no more than about a third of income. So a landlord will most often have that excuse and a undisclosed Google search could be the straw that broke the camel’s back.

          https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/using-consumer-reports-what-landlords-need-know

    • someone who cares

      Another Anon ~ Not every landlord does a background check. I would stick to owners of a condo on Craigslist or other rental sites. Most just want to do a credit check, and if you have prove that you lived at the same place for 20 years, paying rent, that is what they are mostly concerned about. We offered our own credit report, and it showed no bad credit. That is all they wanted. A background check costs money, and a lot of landlord don’t want to pay for that, and they are only concerned with a credit check. Condos are just as affordable as apartments.

      • Lake County

        I agree. Including a copy of your credit report will likely keep the landlord from looking further.

      • AnotherAnon

        Thanks for the info, someone, but condos appears to be expensive.

      • AnotherAnon

        Thanks for the info, someone. Craigslist says I could afford a condo. 🙂

    • WTF?

      Whete are you located?

  2. Sunny

    I had some success getting my photo removed from mugshots.com. Yesterday Amazon AWS (mugshots.com webhost) informed me they had deleted the photo of me following a DMCA complaint I filed. My situation may be somewhat unique because I do in fact own the copyright of the photo they had posted (in Maine, registrants are required to provide their own photo to law enforcement rather than being photographed by police).

    Amazon AWS has not yet responded to my general abuse complaint against mugshots.com regarding the California charges brought against the owners for extortion. I would encourage all of you to file your own abuse complaints with Amazon AWS regarding mugshots.com:
    Use the form here: https://aws.amazon.com/forms/report-abuse
    Or email here: abuse@amazonaws.com

    Also, if you see other such websites, the major credit card companies (Visa, MC, Amex, Discover, PayPal) will cease doing business with them if you report that they are charging people fees to remove negative information like mugshots.

    • Lake County

      That’s amazing that Maine is too lazy to take their own photos. You sure found a great loophole. Congratulations!

    • Ali

      @Sunny I am not on mugshots.com but I am on bustedmugshots.com… Can you share what you have said to dcma complaint and abuse@amazonaws.com?

      • Sunny

        @Ali – this is my email to Amazon AWS and their response:

        ——————————————–

        To whom it may concern,

        This is a demand for removal of copyrighted content pursuant to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).

        The copyrighted material, of which I am the sole copyright owner, is a photo of me visible at the following URLs:
        [list of URLs]

        I have a good-faith belief that the disputed use is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law. I am the sole copyright owner and I do not / did not authorize the aforementioned use of this photo on mugshots.com. I took this photo with my camera and it is a photo of myself.

        Under penalty of perjury, I state that the above information in this DMCA notice is accurate and that I am the sole copyright owner.

        [my name and address]

        --------------------------------------------

        Hello,

        We have received your report about alleged posting, hosting, or distribution of unlicensed copyright protected material on Amazon Web Services. We have completed an initial investigation of the issue and learned that the activity you reported originated from a user of our network. While the IP address of the material may indicate that the network is ours, the user is actually the one controlling the allegedly infringing material.

        We take reports of copyright infringement very seriously. We have taken appropriate action in response to your complaint to remove or disable access to the material and to notify the user who posted the material of your complaint. If the user sends us a counter-notice, we will forward such counter-notice to you with additional instructions.

        Thank you for alerting us to this issue.

    • Nicholas Maietta

      Keep in mind that DMCA complaints are a matter of public record and are published in a national database. You can see some of them here: https://lumendatabase.org/notices/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&term=mugshots.com.

  3. Don’t tread on me

    There are 900,000 of us and 535 congressmen. It boggles the mind that they have so much power to implement a system this complex. For every win we get it seems they add 20 more levels of complexity. Even if we defeat IML the other countries will continue this witch hunt. I wish I could find a shred of anything to be optimistic about.

    • Matt

      In 2015, there were more than 115,000 homeless people in California. More homeless than RSO’s. All the “lawmakers” acknowledge that there is a “homeless crisis” and do absolutely nothing about it. Have you heard any “lawmakers” acknowledge that there is a “RSO crisis”? Nope; and you never will. They will do nothing, absolutely nothing, unless they are forced to.

    • Chris F

      I think the Packingham SCOTUS decision and comments in it as well as Gorsuch being on the bench are the beginning of the tide turning.

      I think it’s time to stop playing whack-a-mole on many of the issues and use them cumulatively as a way to attack the lack of due process that puts people on such a horrible list. Any one thing a judge can say isn’t enough of a burden on it’s own “for the sake of the children”, but when you take everything at once, and how it varies by state and even city, the entire scheme becomes too unconstitutional to ignore.

      I think Janice mentioned last year that she would entertain a proper lawsuit targeting the core of the registry, but she would need the right clients with the best stories because the courts have shown they won’t rule in our favor based on just potential hardships, they need specific examples.

      • AJ

        I think the Packingham SCOTUS decision and comments in it as well as Gorsuch being on the bench are the beginning of the tide turning.
        —–
        With Kennedy leaving, all the experts say Roberts is the new swing vote (funny side note: I accidentally type “bot” at first…). So what happens if/when a case lands before the Court, attacking his Price Club concept? Does he recuse (bad for us, with a 4-4 result)? Does he stick to his guns (bad for us)? Or does he realize everything has gone batsh!t crazy since 2003 and votes on the merits, i.e. all the liberty interests being stolen from us? I would hope he’s rational and reasonable enough to do the last, but fear the first two.
        =====
        “too unconstitutional to ignore”
        —–
        A sad, but accurate, phrase. Unconstitutional should be a binary equation, but for some reason it’s a continuum.
        =====
        Re your other post, that SCOTUS case was Chastleton v. Sinclair (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/264/543/). It’s been used a number of times for various reasons, not just the changing facts element. FYI, I sent it to ACLU-CO for the Rankin case. I forget the exact wording of the reply, but the attorney indicated it would be helpful. Let’s hope!

  4. Concerned citizen

    Two things:

    -Has anyone here gone through with an expungement? I’m eligible for one and I am going to get rolling on that. I have letters of recommendation from former professors and supervisors and I was squeaky clean during probation. Problem is, the crime was violent and the public defender that I talked to said that expungements aren’t granted often. Thoughts?

    -I’m moving forward with putting a complaint through with Department of Fair Housing and Employment. A potential employer offered me a job and then pulled it due to using the Sex Offender List ( I have this in black and white in an email). I also never got a copy of a background check or a reason for denial. I was just kinda ghosted. Has anybody gone through with this process? I’m not holding my breath, but might as well try, right?

    • Ron S

      Concerned citizen, what state are you in? I am in California and was convicted when I was 22 of 288/664 basically the old internet sting trick. I was able to get the expungement because I’m california it’s allowed on attempts but not actual commission of a crime. It was a new loophole back then but it still exists. You should know however that in my state an expungement doesn’t relieve me of my duty to register so it’s not super helpful.

      • Concerned Citizen

        I was convicted and live in California. I was sentenced to county jail and my crime is eligible for expungement.

        I wouldn’t say that expungement is useless. It’s something to help with background checks and it doesn’t take much money to do. Let’s be real, most of us can’t get off the registry anyways because of current law (Governor’s Pardon to get off) or new 2021 law (I’m placed under tier 3 as the law is written now; even tiers 1 and 2 don’t drop off automatically as they have to apply).

        • Ron s

          You’re right it’s not useless. I was being a little too negative. It’s hard to stay cheery sometimes in our position unfortunately. I would encourage you to take any step possible to get the expungement. It’s cheap and it’s fast. Mine took a couple weeks and no challenges came from the court. I think even though it doesn’t get yiuniff the registry, it is a step in the right direction and can only improve chances for employment as well as open legal doors in the future. In my opinion, the state should work on removing citizens from the registry after expungement. The current system of no relief goes directly against the definition of expungement. Some day that may change and we’ll be in a better position. Good luck with your case.

        • NPS

          I’ve done the reduction to misdemeanor and expungement. I also did it without an attorney (Pro Per). It was granted. I checked off all the appropriate boxes, had a personal statement, a letter from my former probation officer supporting the expungement, as well as character references from friends, family, neighbors, colleagues, etc.

          I don’t know of any RC who has been denied expungement. If a person successfully completed probation and met all criteria for the expungement, the judge will grant it. @NewPerson can probably explain this much better than me.

          I think it also might depend on the county. Orange County likes to pride itself as tough on crime, so I’m not sure about the success rate. Although I was adjudicated in OC, I moved to San Francisco and had my entire case transferred (including probation). The SFDA contacted OCDA for their opinion. Of course, OCDA recommended they deny my petition. Ultimately, the judge put more weight on SF probation’s recommendation to grant the expungement.

        • mch

          I received record clearance in California by 1203.4 four years ago. I had a public defender help with it and I didn’t have to show up in court! The clearance is really a small stepping stone in the right direction, not really helpful in my situation.

          Has anybody been granted removal from the registry or has anyone had their felony reduced to a misdemeanor? I’m in California so anything is worth a try!

        • New Person

          @ Concerned Citizen,

          If you are eligible for expungement and successfully completed probation, then you are “granted” 1203.4 expungement. The judge or DA cannot reject it because it is by law that you are granted 1203.4 upon successfully completing probation.

          I had an appeal lawyer state that to me when I filed. The DA vehemently opposed, but the judge had to grant it because it is law.

          Now, felony reduction is a different beast (17b). Although 17b reads like a checklist, I’ve been told by many lawyers that it is a petition. That doesn’t make sense. But you do have two factors going for you if you earned a 1203.4:

          17(b) When a crime is punishable, in the discretion of the court, either by imprisonment in the state prison or imprisonment in a county jail under the provisions of subdivision (h) of Section 1170, or by fine or imprisonment in the county jail, it is a misdemeanor for all purposes under the following circumstances:

          (1) After a judgment imposing a punishment other than imprisonment in the state prison or imprisonment in a county jail under the provisions of subdivision (h) of Section 1170.

          (3) When the court grants probation to a defendant without imposition of sentence and at the time of granting probation, or on application of the defendant or probation officer thereafter, the court declares the offense to be a misdemeanor.

          ======

          Since you successfully completed probation, then you can never be sent to state prison. That’s factor 1. Since you can’t get sent to prison, then your charge isn’t a felony.

          Factor 2 seem far more straight forward. Using intuitive English, applying “thereafter” implies you have successfully completed probation. Thus, upon application, the courts will “grant the offense to be a misdemeanor”.

          To me, if you fit into factor 2, then there really isn’t a need for a petition if you follow the rule of law set forth in 17b(3), let alone 17b(1).

          By logic, you don’t need to petition for 17b, but rather check off whatever option you fulfill.

      • Mr. D

        @mch – I had my 288c reduced to a misdemeanor in 2003 and then vacated/dismissed in 2005 via 1203.4 and while I still have to register (for three more years) I am not on the public registry.

    • AO

      In California we don’t really have a true expungment, but rather a setting aside of your guilty plea and dismissal of the conviction. While most still refer to is as expungment, there are legal differences. That being said, CA dismissal (code 1203.4) is somewhat black and white. Either your core charges qualify for it and you didn’t have problems while on probation, or it’s a no go. It’s technically not really up to discretion under normal circumstances. Look at the no-go charges in the code and see if yours are there. If they’re not, it should be little more than filling out the paperwork. If they are, then more legal work might need to be done.

  5. Another Anon

    Given all the time they asked for, why in the hell can’t the DOJ assign tiers starting Jan 1, 2021? Or before!!! This is from the Attorney General office:

    When does SB 384 take effect?

    The new tier-based sex offender registration system takes effect on January 1, 2021. At that time, the
    CA DOJ will be determining the tier statuses of registrants.

    On or after July 1, 2021, tier one and two registrants who meet their mandatory minimum requirements may petition the superior court in their county of residence to request termination from the sex offender registry. On or before January 1, 2022, the CA DOJ shall make information available to the public via the Megan’s Law Website in accordance with SB 384.

    The current lifetime sex offender registration laws will stay in effect until December 31, 2020.

    https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/csor/registrant-faqs.pdf

    • AnotherAnon

      What this means is that the DOJ WILL NOT OBEY OR ENFORCE THE LAW UNTIL JAN 1, 2022 !!!!!!!!!!!!!

      Are you pissed yet?

      • AnoterAnon

        I’m wrong. July 1, 2021 is written into the law. So about 3 years from now we can starting filing our petitions. It’s bullshit the DOJ needed that much time.

  6. Kari

    Hi Group,

    any word about the IML challenge from Janice? I thought the court date had passed or very close to being heard.

    • E

      First hearing was rescheduled from June to tomorrow, July 9. This is a hearing on the govt’s Motion to dismiss.

    • David

      @ Kari: If you type “IML” into the Search Box (just scroll down – it’s located just below where you would type in your comments – and just above the “Donate” section), it will show all the articles about IML, ACSOL’s lawsuit, etc.

  7. bobbie

    Another federal lawsuit has been filed in Texas. This is also challenging the registry. At This time two federal lawsuits are in two separate federal courts.

    • Steveo

      I’m in Texas Bobbie. Do you have a link to that suit? I’d like to read the arguments they are making.

      • Major Henderson

        Yes. Tell me about the Texas case. I am currently seeking to file a challenge myself, but so far haven’t found an attorney willing to do it. They all are only interested in working on cases to remove you from the registry.

  8. Bobby

    Well hello everyone,

    I was finally able to get a hold of Mrs Aukerman at the Michigan ACLU concerning the Class Action Lawsuit, and what is going on with it. I was actually able to get a response and my questions answered.

    I know it was filed on June 28th around 3:45pm, and this is what else she said as well

    We are glad to report that we have indeed filed the class action.  We do not have the ability to keep every single person the registry – there are over 40,000 – updated about the case.  We will work on updating our website with more information. The court will hear argument on the class action, and whether to certify a class in August.  My guess is that we will have a decision sometime by late fall.
    Best,
    Miraim

    So does anyone know what this means exactly, I mean will we finally have a decision where Michigan will finally have to do their job and fix the stupid registry like they were ordered to do months ago or will it be a few more years for a final decision. She also said to pay close attention to their website, and the local news. What does she mean by certify? I also know it was filed in the Eastern District Court, but I can’t find anything on it as of yet. So if they don’t certify, does that mean were back to the drawing board again.

    I always thought Michigan was out of options and had to comply with the 6th Circuit ruling especially after SCOTUS denied review. If anyone can put this in laymen’s terms I would appreciate it. Thank you.

    • Bill

      Thanks for the update,I think they certify is saying more then one in the same boat, and have been done wrong by the laws. Hopefully with the Doe v Snyder case, etc.., it might move faster!

    • AnotherAnon

      Certify means a class action (as distinguished from only an individual) is indeed appropriate and legally justified.

      http://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/personal-injury/class-action-lawsuit.html

      • Bobby

        Thanks for the link, I guess my question is now, since we here in Michigan have already won, Does v Snyder can they actually still deny the Class Action Lawsuit, or is this Class Action Lawsuit just to make sure and force the state to finally make the changes they were ordered to make in the first place.

  9. TR

    I heard that there’s a candidate running against Chris Smith for the US Congress NJ 4th District, name Josh Welle, would it be a good idea to inform him about the IML that Chris Smith passed?

    • TS

      @TR

      Going against the IML as an election platform isn’t going to win any votes but could ensure his own defeat.

      Rep Smith needs to be defeated on other issues while hoping no one else picks up the IML torch from him to further it.

  10. TS

    There is a new Paul Dubbeling/NCRSOL/NARSOL filing on the case out of NC for those who followed that case (@AJ specifically). It has grown yet was streamlined interestingly enough.

    https://narsol.org/2018/07/narsol-streamlines-original-lawsuit-ncrsol-files-new-lawsuit/

    • AJ

      @TS:
      Thanks for the heads up. The filings are certainly easier to read than the prior iteration. I found it odd how little, if any, supporting facts were used. Hopefully these cases move along now, instead of languishing for no reason as before. (This is what sucks about Federal cases…they take yeeeaars just to creep along.)

      • TS

        @AJ

        No prob. The NC case is interesting overall and the new triumphant of cases instead of one adds to the intrigue. The Judge’s possible thinking or lack thereof is something to wonder based upon the opinion piece provided.

  11. WTF?

    I am putting forth a scenario.

    You find a boat crew that is willing to smuggle you offshore for an agreed upon amount. From what I understand and have researched there are respectable, trustworthy people out there. Once an overseas destination is reached, you simply live your life. Yes it is not for everyone, but could it be worse than being in constant depression and fear of retaliation?
    I read that there are over 500,000 fugitives with warrants at any time in U.S. Are they really going to put effort into looking for a misdomeanor failure to register. I would wager once overseas, you can contact and tell them you are off the continent and won’t be returning. I look at the vast # of illegal immigrants here that live fairly good lives. Honestly , with a little effort, how hard could it be?

    • C

      Sometimes I wish I’d hopped on a plane and shacked up with one of my European pen pals when I paroled. That was 1994 and doing so then would have been a breeze compared to today when the laws have become like a noose and I’ve put down deep roots in the way of a beautiful wife, kids and business. My advice to anyone with nothing keeping them in the USA: Leave now and don’t look back.

      • WTF?

        Totally agree with leaving. The world is a big place and so many adventures to be had. Don’t let the materialism and greed of American society define your path. Finding inner peace is the most important thing. The absence if it is what put most of us in this situation.

    • NY won't let go

      Not sure which state you’re currently registering, but I’ve never heard of a misdemeanor failure to register. Michigan and NY only seem to have the felony option. In which case they would get you extradited pretty quickly and afterwards trapping you in the US permanently.

      I no longer live in the US but I have a severe fear of traveling because the whole passport revocation thing going on in the US. I’ve got a trip later in the year for work and visiting family, will see how it goes since I’m not passing through the US

  12. E

    @ AJ and others: Brett Kavanaugh… thoughts or analysis? I was hoping the MI guy would get it; maybe he was influenced by Does v. Snyder

    • Chris F

      While I can’t find direct evidence to support that he would be sympathetic to sex offenders, I do see many examples where he supports following the US Constitution even when it is uncomfortable and not popular. So I think there is hope here.

      One quote I found is:

      the courts must enforce those constitutional rights even when they have “controversial public safety implications.”

      To find the context of that quote, and read more about his decisions, I would go here where I found that and read it all:

      http://reason.com/volokh

      It also looks like he believes in separation of powers and only using Strict Scrutiny when something appears to violate a protected right or liberty. I’m not seeing much we would have to fear with this guy.

      I’m not sure if that web site tries to swing things one way or the other, but they have gotten enough awards and give specific and easily checked citations, so I don’t think any of it is “fake news”.

    • AJ

      @E:
      For the most part, I’m going to let all the scholars, legal geeks, and talking heads pare things down a bit. The guy has written some 300 Opinions, and I sure am not the one to pick through them and figure him out!

      That said, I second Chris F’s thoughts. With the names having come through the Federalist Society, Kavanaugh has been “vetted” as being one who believes in limited government and will be more of an originalist, a follower of Madison, and probably one who believes in federalism and sovereignty of the States.

      All in all, I don’t think it’s a harmful selection for us; I just don’t have a clue as to whether it’s a helpful one.

      I, too, would have liked Kethledge (6th Circuit), but Trump early on said he wanted someone who had come out of Yale or Harvard. Kethledge is a Michigan grad, so I didn’t see his having much traction.

    • David

      ⭕ @ E: Check out the Cato Institute’s podcasts. They have a couple podcasts that specifically address Kavanaugh and his judicial approach, beliefs, etc. It seems that he is not afraid to buck popular sentiment and oppose bad laws if that is what the Constitution indicates. ⭕

      • David

        Especially listen to the CATO Daily Podcast for 7/10/2018 “Brett Kavanaigh nominated….”: “Judge Kavanaugh has shown himself to be one of the foremost defenders of the Constitutional separation of powers and really a bulwark against overweening and over aggressive government. He’s very aggressive in enforcing constitutional strictures against aggressive exercise of government power.”

      • David Kennerly, The Government-Driven Life

        However, in another Cato Podcast, the guest, Matthew Feeney, discusses Kavanaugh’s opinion in Klayman v. Obama vis-a-vis the Fourth Amendment. Kavanaugh: “Government’s program for bulk collection of telephony metadata serves a critically important special need—preventing terrorist attacks on the United States. In my view, that critical national security need outweighs the impact on privacy occasioned by this program.” Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) and Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) have expressed their concern/alarm with his nomination to the Supreme Court. https://www.cato.org/multimedia/cato-daily-podcast/kavanaugh-nsa-surveillance

        Also, our friend Walter Olson, also of Cato, has this: https://www.cato.org/multimedia/cato-daily-podcast/what-brett-kavanaughs-court-record-doesnt-show

  13. David Kennerly, The Government-Driven Life

    Regarding the Brett Kavanaugh nomination to the Supreme Court. No doubt many of us are madly Googling his name and “sex offender” or some variation thereon to try to divine his thoughts in our regard right now. From the Wall Street Journal is this, possibly germane, but inevitably confusing, factoid: “John Doe VIII v. Exxon Mobil Corp. (2011): Fifteen Indonesian villagers sued Exxon Mobil, claiming that local security forces hired by Exxon during natural-gas extraction work within the country committed murder, torture, sexual assault and other acts against the villagers. The panel ruled the villagers could bring a claim against Exxon under a 1789 law called the Alien Tort Statute.

    Judge Kavanaugh disagreed, ruling that the law didn’t extend to claims relating to events that happened in other nations. He wrote:

    “Here, the sparse text of the ATS does not support application of the law to conduct in foreign lands. The ATS refers to conduct committed in “violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States.” To be sure, such conduct can occur world-wide. But as the Supreme Court has explained, the mere fact that statutory language could plausibly apply to extraterritorial conduct does not suffice to overcome the presumption against extraterritoriality. Otherwise, most statutes, including most federal criminal laws, would apply extraterritorially and cover conduct occurring anywhere in the world.” So, the question I have is “Are ANY U.S. laws against sex offenses committed outside of the U.S. by U.S. persons Constitutionally enforceable?” This extra-territorial claim on the actions of U.S. Citizens is certainly one of the most disturbing mission-creeps we have seen in recent decades and, to date, these prosecutions have been blithely accepted by the judiciary. Possibly encouraging in another, ex post facto, case: “Hamdan v. U.S. (2012): The D.C. Circuit, in an opinion by Judge Kavanaugh, tossed out a military tribunal’s conviction against Salim Hamdan, a former driver for Osama bin Laden. Judge Kavanaugh wrote that the charge of providing material support for terrorism wasn’t made a crime under U.S. law until well after Mr. Hamdan was detained by the U.S. in 2001. Judge Kavanaugh wrote:

    Because we read the Military Commissions Act not to retroactively punish new crimes, and because material support for terrorism was not a pre-existing war crime…Hamdan’s conviction for material support for terrorism cannot stand.”

    • David Kennerly, The Government-Driven Life

      And now the not very encouraging opinion from Kavanaugh:
      “KAVANAUGH, Circuit Judge, dissenting:

      Malenya, then a 41-year-old man, attempted to have sex with someone he knew to be 14. Malenya’s attempt was thwarted only because the 14-year-old’s mother fortuitously intercepted explicit text messages Malenya sent to the 14-year-old. For his conduct, Malenya ultimately pled guilty and received a relatively short prison sentence of one year and a day in prison, followed by three years of supervised release with certain special conditions attached. On appeal, Malenya objects to the special conditions imposed by the District Court and asks that they be vacated. The majority opinion vacates the special conditions. With one exception, I would affirm the special conditions. I therefore respectfully dissent.” https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11428655276217748633&q=736+F.3d+554+&hl=en&as_sdt=4,130&as_vis=1

      • Chris F

        Thanks for that David. Good find.

        I read the entire opinion and his dissent and I am only slightly annoyed by it. I don’t think it demonstrates much more than his dislike for people getting off lighter than they bargained for. I am glad that he at least agreed that a penile plethysmograph test was not a reasonable condition.

        He makes some good arguments why the other special conditions may be relevant to this case and kind of excuses the court for not detailing why each condition was needed for this particular individual. He points out that blanket rejection of all special conditions given to sex offenders would mean thousands of already decided cases like this would be called into question. I think it shows he lacks the guts to confront a bad policy. I just hope that his lack of guts in this instance is more because he thinks the guy got off extremely lightly and shouldn’t be crying about 3 years of restrictions that if he didn’t like he could bring them back to the court individually if the probation officer was unreasonable on any of them. Justice Kavanaugh knew the restrictions were not mandatory but could be tailored to the individual by probation to be compliant with conditions being tailored to the individual and only as restrictive as necessary.

        So I’m just a little disappointed, but this case probably isn’t a good example. I know this guy’s restrictions are way easier than even the least dangerous offender in Texas would ever get. If the conditions were mandatory without adjustment by probation or for a much longer period, then I would think this guy has it out for sex offenders if he thought them ok.

      • AJ

        Thanks for those finds, David. I read the Dissent, and I was pleasantly surprised by Kavanaugh’s assessment of things. Based on law and precedents in place, his Dissent was reasonable and rational. Will he be willing to overturn some of those laws and precedents? I guess we’ll have to find out.

        I was heartened, too, by his statements about counseling and therapy helping to reduce recidivism. Assuming he’s confirmed, I foresee those words coming back to him if/when a case makes it to SCOTUS. (Indeed, I see a few uses for those words.)

        I, too, am glad he saw the “peter-meter” as a bridge too far. That’s both a 4th and 5th Amendment issue, IMO.

        • E

          Wow. I just laughed out loud there, AJ.

        • David Kennerly, The Government-Driven Life

          The correct terms (since I coined them) are “bonometer” or “hardometer.” Either are acceptable in common usage. 🙂 I found the device to be incredibly easy to screw with, no pun intended. Like pulling back a rubber band to propel a spitball. I was told by the “technician” that my results were “interesting” and never heard about it again. Also, the visual “stimulus” material was, frankly, ridiculously unappealing. I told them that their collection left much to be desired.

          Further of Brett Kavanaugh, from Nick Gillespie at Reason: “What Should Libertarians Fear Most from SCOTUS Pick Brett Kavanaugh?: Podcast
          Jonathan Adler says he’s “supremely qualified,” an originalist, and a critic of the administrative state. But he’s a cipher when it comes to defendants’ rights.” http://reason.com/blog/2018/07/10/jonathan-adler-podcast?utm_medium=email

        • AJ

          Bonograph (rhymes with phonograph)?

        • David Kennerly, The Government-Driven Life

          AJ, in support of your guarded optimism, this from Reason’s Jacob Sullum whose judgment I respect and with whom I know you’re also familiar:
          “Another Surprisingly Subversive Justice – Unlike the man who nominated him, Brett Kavanaugh understands the importance of an independent judiciary.” Who knows? Maybe, just maybe, the Trump Presidency will afford us an incredibly ironic but fortuitous SCOTUS legacy! Hey, I’ll take it from wherever we can get it!
          https://reason.com/archives/2018/07/11/another-surprisingly-subversive-justice?utm_medium=email

        • AJ

          @David Kennerly:
          Thanks for that Reason URL. It sounds like “Kav” may be a blessing. There were two items from this piece I liked: 1) Kav has a problem with someone being convicted of a law they didn’t know exists. So, at least to some extent, he does believe that ignorance of the law *is* an excuse. This could clearly come in handy for traveling RCs. 2) Kav apparently does not like Chevron Deference, calling it “a judicially orchestrated shift of power from Congress to the Executive Branch.” Bingo! This is also good news.

          My guarded optimism is growing. Sounds like he and Gorsuch might stir the stare decisis pot a bit. I can see these guys hammering away at strengthening the division among the branches (good bye Chevron, hello Gundy) and returning citizens’ rights to the 4th Amendment. They both seem to get that the Framers were incredibly skeptical of government and wrote things to the advantage of the citizen over the state*…something that’s been lost over the years.

          *When the Constitution was written, every single citizen, whether poor and “nobody” or wealthy and well-placed, was equally oppressed and abused by a common enemy (the king). We’ve lost that. Now the wealthy and well-placed ARE the enemy.

  14. E

    I wish I was concerned for no reason, but I’ll bet checking airline manifests might be next. If that’s the case (“We don’t serve your kind here”) then the IML restrictions don’t matter anyway unless you leave by boat!

    This guy was acquitted! But who cares. Let’s ruin his life anyway.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5935373/Woman-sues-United-Airlines-claiming-drunken-passenger-sexually-assaulted-her.html

  15. David Kennerly, The Government-Driven Life

    Just received a SCAM CALL from “Alameda County Sheriff’s Department” 510-926-4104 x 4 “Deputy Thomas Starling” of the “sex offender unit.”

    Immediately, he wanted to ask me questions confirming my identity before he would tell me what it was about. Since I don’t live in Alameda County but in SF, this was even more bizarre. I refused to answer any of his questions and said that I would confirm his identity and call him back. I asked for his phone number which he provided (including the X4 extension) and then hung-up.

    I called the actual Alameda County Sheriff’s Department to ask about his name and phone number (which had also appeared on caller id) and the staffer said that they were running a scam and didn’t seem to be particularly concerned. He did say that they had been unable to locate or identify the individuals behind the scam and said that, most likely, they were calling from out-of-state. He recommended ignoring them.

    The phone number is answered by an unconvincing synthesized voice identifying it as “The County Sheriff’s Department” with no reference to any particular county. Also, “If this is an emergency, hang-up and call 911 immediately.” Yeah, real convincing. Shall we all call them?

    • For Data tracking purposes

      @David Kennerly, The Government-Driven Life –

      Have you informed the folks at NARSOL of this scam call? They are tracking them across the country (https://narsol.org/2018/07/those-on-sex-offender-registries-targeted-for-telephone-scams/).

      • David Kennerly, The Government-Driven Life

        I have reported it to NARSOL. There is a phone conference which they are hosting on these scams, the details of which are:

        “NARSOL in Action along with Registry Matters podcasts will be holding a nationwide conference call on Thursday, July 19, beginning at 6:00 pm eastern time to discuss the various monetary scams targeting registered citizens which have been making their way around the United States. We plan to remain live for three hours with the final hour to be an abbreviated session of Can They Do that? Some have fallen victim to the scams and have paid as much as $2000.00 to scammers claiming to be law enforcement calling about non-existent warrants.

        We will have Lori Hamilton from Oklahoma on along with other NARSOL affiliate leaders and state advocates. In addition, we are inviting the other two advocacy organizations to send a representative to join us with the hope of collaborating with them on this vital issue. We will take phone calls from those who have either been victims of the scammers or know the details of such attempts. The goals are: (1) to provide potential victims with advice on recognizing scam attempts and helping to identify the culprits; (2) to assist law enforcement in apprehension; and (3) increasing public awareness which we hope will elevate the importance of apprehending the perpetrators.

        Although it is not mandatory, we ask that you sign up so that we have an idea how many will be attending the call. The phone number is 641.715.3660, followed by 957605#. You may call in directly with a telephone or, if you have a speaker and microphone or a headset with a mic, you may access the call through your computer and follow the on-screen directions for inputting the number and the code.

        We also are going to Live Stream the call on You Tube. There won’t be any video, just an audio stream, so you can try this if you’d rather not call in. You can access it through your computer or use your Roku or ChromeCast and have the call played over your TV. “

  16. mike r

    Watch Chris lets see if anyone gets what i am stating….
    Look I am going to give anyone on the registry that is either low risk, male female, low static 99 score, hell whether your young old or for so many other reasons a slam dunk to kill the registry as-applied to you and all those similarly situated individuals across the state. I would have already jumped on it f I was not in Federal court right now…

    You know I do not know if the other attorneys used these RFAs in any of their cases because this is behind the scenes and are not filed but I bet they do not. To stupid. And of course they do not use the judicial notice in any of the cases with the only exception (that I am aware of) being the attorneys in the Taylor residency restrictions case. And guess what????They won!!!!!!!!!
    https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/2015/s206143.html

    If you have not read that case it is a must I think. It is what prompted me to take action because of the language used about the unreasonable, arbitrary, and oppressive official actions, and the reports or references to reports that are very similar to the ones that I requested judicial notice of and how the singled out a subclass of offenders. Like I stated before they would have to rule the same way if I brought this in state court or they would be basically overturning their ruling in Taylor……..Same type of reports stating the same thing, and just as they considered the parolees in San Diego county a subclass of offenders they would have to consider low risk offenders a subclass of offenders. That is what blew my mind most about that case is that they created their own subclass of offenders and claimed the law was unconstitutional and had no rational basis only for that subclass. You know what I am saying?? Out of all the parolees in the state of CA they singled out a group based solely on location, kind of like how Chris has always been saying that we are a protective class; this is how I think we hit them with it. If they can single out a group based solely on location then it only goes to figure and reason they would have to do the same thing dependent upon any number of factors, i.e. low to high risk, static 99 score, male female, young old, date of convictions, etc… They cannot rule one way and then turn around and rule the opposite just because the issue or challenge is about a different statute…That would be classic violation of equal protection and like I stated it would basically be overturning Taylor………Make sense??…Slam dunk easy peasy……

    • mike r

      I am trying to think of a way I can use that in federal court. A case would have to come before the courts first that gives the people in whatever subclass relief before I could say it’s an equal protection violation in my case. Anyways I have challenged it all so it does not really matter and although the CA holds no precedent value I have used as persuasive. I think I will maybe pursue this further though and like Chris stated, I believe it was Chris, that somehow we can be a subclass just as those guys were in San Diego. All I hope is Judge Mendez plays his judicial role and sticks to his constitutional values and obligations which I think he will by reading about him.

  17. mike r

    Oh BTW, for those of you whom are not on paper you enjoy more than what the court stated in Taylor concerning parolees “albeit limited constitutional protection” You have FULL CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION………..Could you just imagine with all the reports that I have provided and with you being off paper? It would be beyond overruling Taylor’s decision but it would be overruling the reasoning behind that ruling. No way could they get away with it…..To blatant of a equal protection violation..I really hope people are taking in what I am saying because I have seriously just provided the ticket you need……….I also took time away from my physics class to state it. But whatever…..:)

  18. someone who cares

    MCH ~ Here is how I understand the expungement law in California. If you were sentenced to Jail and not Prison and received Probation and not Parole, upon completion of probation (if there were no violations of probation), the judge HAS to grant the PC1203.4 (some offenses are excluded, though). Even with a violation, it is still possible to get the case expunged, but it might be up to the discretion of the judge at that point. If the charge is a wobbler, it is up to the judge to grant the reduction from a felony to a misdemeanor. If not reduced, he still has to grant the request for expungement. It is the law. We went through record gone and they did everything. No character letters needed. Now, the PC1203.4 does not relieve from the duty to register, only a COR will do that, and I think, you would have to have your SO offenses expunged before applying for a COR, so it is definitely best to obtain the PC1203.4 as soon as you are off probation. You don’t have to wait. Do it the minute you are off probation. With the tiered registry coming, they will no longer have an option for a COR, so it might be best to obtain the COR (at least try) before the tiered registry since removal from the registry is not automatic, which I believe is a bunch of crap. What good does it do if we still have to apply to be removed and will most likely be denied. Hopefully, there will be some changes before the tiered registry goes into effect. The whole reason for it was to reduce the ever-growing list. Correct me if I am mistaken on the PC1203.4…but that is what I have learned.

    • Matthew

      I am going through Recordgone right now. The important thing to do is get as much cleared as possible. It will set you up for any type of changes that come. The whole thing is to prepare yourself for the best outcome possible. Right now, we are all registering for life. However, laws are changing and there is more pressure to change things in the future. If there is an open door to reduce, expunge or whatever take it. If you do not, it may go away. If it goes away that door will close. Think of the better picture rather than what it doesn’t do.

      • WTF?

        I have been waiting since Feb. For my reduction through RBeG. At final stage now. Papers filed with court. I guess next thing is to ask for M.L. removal. Then get removed from as many Background checks and online “most wanted” as possible. STRESS!

        • matthew

          Are you going to attend the hearing? I know its optional! Good luck!

        • WTF?

          Will not be attending. Don’t want or need the anxiety. They told me via email that often the decision in cases like mine are mafe without a hearing. The clerk simply informs attorney of judgement.

  19. mike r

    Insanity…:(

  20. Feeling Hopefull

    Would have preferred somone from 6th circut, but feel Trump will soon have another pick . The Supreme court will be more constitutional as its written.

  21. GUNDY VS US

    Date has been set!

    Gundy v. United States (to be argued Oct. 2, 2018): Whether the federal Sex Offender Notification and Registration Act improperly delegates to the U.S. attorney general the authority to decide whether the act’s requirements should apply to sex offenders who were convicted before the law was passed.

    • TS

      Interesting it is set after Kennedy has retired and the nominee has not been confirmed (with a potential big fight to do so at that).

      • AJ

        @TS:
        I don’t read a thing into that. I think they’re merely filling their calendar from front to back. Also, they probably want it early in the calendar because of the gravity of the question. Were I them, I’d want to have the full October Term to work through it, too!

        They just better have the 9th Justice seated in time. A 4-4 split on such a huge issue would not be good.

        • TS

          @AJ

          It is the potential stalemate that is eyebrow raising more than anything, but will watch and wait to see. A full term to consider it is also best on such a serious topic. BTW, had to look up Chevron Deference to understand the concept. Be nice to see that kicked to the curb for better policy making.

    • AnotherAnon

      Congress delegated it to the DOJ and the DOJ delegated on one woman who pretty much crafted the guidelines my herself.

      Ms. ROGERS:

      The SMART office had no staff besides myself and
      a detailee from the U.S. Attorney’s Office until January of 2008. On
      my own I was implementing SORNA, providing national training,
      and sorting technical assistance and, with the help of Office of
      Legal Policy, writing the proposed guidelines. They went out for
      public comment for 71 days during the summer of 2007. They were
      complete and went into review through the Department of Justice
      for the final guidelines in February of——
      Mr. GOHMERT
      . Why were you so shorthanded all that time?
      Ms. ROGERS
      . I had no staffing FTEs.
      Mr. GOHMERT
      . You were shorthanded because you didn’t have
      staffing. Yeah, I might have guessed that. But why did you have
      no staffing?
      Ms. ROGERS
      There were no available slots to hire anyone into.
      There was no funding.

      https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/search/pagedetails.action?granuleId=CHRG-111hhrg47923&packageId=CHRG-111hhrg47923

    • AJ

      There are lots on Gundy’s side because it is a case affecting the bedrock of our constitutional system. Don’t confuse that strong alignment of parties as saying anything about RCs or SORNA. That it has to do with SORNA is but a minor detail. (Based on the breadth and depth of amici saying there’s a problem here, I’m putting my money on Gundy.)

      What I wonder is if this case will also mortally wound Chevron Deference…which Justices Thomas, Alito (for once I agree with him) and Gorsuch outright hate, and which the new guy also probably feels to be extra-constitutional. Roberts is hard to read, but appears to lean towards weakening Chevron. Heck, even Kagan has had some thoughts about limiting Chevron.

      Finding for Gundy and hacking away at Chevron would (*gasp*) force Congress to do its job and write actual laws (clearly), not just ideas to be then pawned off to the “fourth branch.” Goodness, they may have to cut down on their junkets and lobbyist-sponsored golf outings and spend some time at work.

      • AnotherAnon

        True, but there were always some who were disturbed by the registry on constitutional grounds. That doesn’t mean they liked the horrid news stories, but the registry bandwagon was the loudest and it prevailed. See “Making the Case for Megan’s Law: A Study in Legislative Rhetoric.” It has interesting citations, too.

        https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ilj/vol76/iss2/2/?

  22. Chris F

    I guess I am a little confused how a Gundy victory works for us exactly.

    Yes, SORNA illegally gave the AG the job to define the rules that both incorrectly allowed it to be retro-active and (as many forget) also allowed it to re-define the common term “convicted” to also mean “not convicted” in cases where someone plead guilty or no contest in exchange for deferred adjudication and had no conviction on record.

    But, since the actual sex offender laws are based on each State’s implementation of SORNA created by their actual legislators, the State’s laws didn’t delegate any authority and would stand, right? Can’t you pretty much remove and ignore the entire federal SORNA since it is no more than a suggestion to the states and the states can use as much of it as they want to?

    • AJ

      @Chris F:
      I guess I am a little confused how a Gundy victory works for us exactly.
      —–
      For the most part, I’m with you on the relevance and benefit of Gundy. As you well know, the RC element of the case is but a detail to the case. It may well be a short-term win, depending on what Congress does in reaction. Regardless the outcome, you’re right that it doesn’t harm any of the State schemes in any way. But perhaps it has influence. Allow me to speculate wildly…

      Where I think Gundy may help is it throws a monkey wrench in the works. What sized wrench and where it falls into the machinery is the question. If the whole statute is struck, as proposed by at least one of the amici, then the Feds have a huge mess on their hands–and I’m skeptical Congress could or would focus themselves enough to do it all over again. IMO, too much attention, info, and data–not to mention court victories–are out there now showing the lies and follies upon which AWA is based for a roll-call vote to work. Even if just the portions assigning (“delegate” is a misnomer here) duties to the AG are struck, it’s a win for us. Also, with IML hanging off AWA’s provisions, what comes of it if AWA is struck entirely? If AWA is not severable, perhaps IML gets castrated (sorry, I couldn’t resist).

      I believe there are some States that are complying with AWA simply because of the money to be lost otherwise. A part of me feels that once the ring through the nose known as Byrne grants is untethered from the whim of the AG, some States may shift stances and tactics. If there’s no risk of losing money, some States may start looking to what’s working in other States, purely to reduce costs. What that ends up being and how it looks, who knows. I feel that having States look to each other for cheaper, more effective ways to run things (assuming it will never go away) can only be helpful on some level.

      And if nothing else, my old mantra applies: I’ll take any win, in any way, at any level, at any time.

      • AJ

        BTW, there’s another curious case SCOTUS will hear next Term, Gamble v. US (http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/gamble-v-united-states/). The case is about dual sovereignty and double jeopardy. (Dual sovereignty is what allows both a State and the Feds to charge someone for the same offense.) The Question SCOTUS accepted is: [w]hether the Court should overrule the “separate sovereigns” exception to the Double Jeopardy Clause.” For the life of me, I cannot see any reason why SCOTUS accepted this other than to overturn–apparently at least 4 Justices have a problem with status quo (and there’s no way in h3ll Alito is one of them!). The only thing I can think is it’s another step by SCOTUS to rein in the much-abused Commerce Clause (a problem SCOTUS itself greatly aided), which is what Congress typically uses to federalize laws from the State level.

    • CR

      True, a Gundy win will not directly affect state sex offender laws.

      The most important aspect of Gundy is not about sex offenders or SORNA, per se. It’s about Congress delegating its law-making authority to the executive branch, which often means that some low-level administrative bureaucracy with no direct accountability to the people will end up writing the laws that only Congress has authority to write. Gundy is just the vehicle to address this issue. If a win for Gundy curtails this practice, then it is a win for everyone who believes that government should function the way the Constitution dictates.

      It could have the practical effect of eliminating, perhaps only temporarily, a federal law and accompanying regulations that indirectly affect us, inasmuch as federal SORNA influences state sex-offender laws. I doubt this influence is limited to SORNA-compliant states, as compliance is just a matter of the degree to which a state’s laws conform to the federal law. Eliminating that conforming influence could mean greater diversity in state laws, which might benefit some registrants.

      • David

        @ CR: There are a couple very good Cato Institute podcasts this week discussing the new Supreme Court Justice nominee Kavanaugh and his opposition to the delegation of authority. The podcasts are interesting, well done and well worth listening to.

        • CR

          Thanks, David. I’ll look for them. I figure the more Congress can be slowed down by making them write the laws themselves, the better.

    • TS

      So folks can follow along at home, I have included this which one can see where the authority trails goes back to SORNA 2006 (through the USCs referenced below) and the those who commented with objection to the delegation of such authority to the AG by Congress where it was believed to be questionable:

      Fed Register, Jan 2011, with the final guidelines for SORNA supplement implementation –

      https://www.smart.gov/pdfs/SORNAFinalSuppGuidelines01_11_11.pdf

      Pg 2 or pg 1631, depending on how you read it, middle of column c of the page under the subsection Summary of Comments on the Proposed Supplemental Guidelines

      “Some commenters criticized changes made in these supplemental guidelines as an inappropriate or impermissible exercise of legislative power by the Attorney General, and urged that such changes could properly be made only by Congress. However, SORNA expressly affords the Attorney General authority
      to expand the range of required registration information and to create exceptions to the required disclosure of registration information. See 42 U.S.C. 16914(a)(7), (b)(8), 16918(b)(4), (c)(4),
      16921(b).

      SORNA further charges the Attorney General with responsibility for issuing guidelines and regulations to interpret and implement SORNA and for determining whether jurisdictions have substantially implemented SORNA in their programs. See 42 U.S.C. 16912(b), 16925. These authorities
      adequately support the measures adopted in these supplemental guidelines.”

      I would like to see the legislative v executive branch principle restored via a Gundy win where the AG does not have this authority to carte blanche have a catchall statement or ability as seen in 42 U.S.C. 16914(a)(7) “Any other information required by the AG”.

      I’d also like to see some collateral sweeping be done too to null and void those directives, etc that have been done under this method. Heck, if it takes (or guts – neuter perhaps) whole laws with it, resets things, and causes legislative chaos (er, I mean, a lot more work), just make sure it is a big enough broom to do so.

      A full SCOTUS bench to review this come October I believe is really best due to the gravity of the topic and its implications, nothing less.

  23. someone who cares

    I found this article and thought it was very true in how it describes the hardship not only for the actual registrant but also their family members, friends or neighbors. If you don’t want to read through this whole article, you can focus on the tables they provided that show how the registry effects the individual in their day to day life, years or decades after their offense.

    http://www.cjcj.org/uploads/cjcj/documents/frenzel_et_al_collateral_consequences_final_formatted.pdf

    This is why the registry needs to be abolished all together. The families need to stand up, not just the registrants. We all suffer the same.

    • Tim Moore

      Not just stand up, one by one to be shot down one by one, but get together in small groups, come up with strategies, give each a membership with one vote per person, those groups get together with other groups. That is what is happening now, except for the one person one vote, and whatever mechanisms to get the average registrant active aren’t working too well. But maybe that just takes time.

  24. David Kennerly, The Government-Driven Life

    “The Power of Prosecutors: An Overview” A video from the ACLU.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5jeoY4QB58

  25. WTF?

    Man arrested in Indiana for a 40 yr old child molested and murdered. Evrrybody better be prepared for another set of laws, because this is all it takes to get law makers going again.

    • AnotherAnon

      I don’t think this one calls for panic. Instead, there will be a sense of relief at catching him at last and a pat on the back for doing so. I think these cold case busts work a hell of a lot better as a deterrent than the registries, which is why we should be able to include CODIS dna searches in filings for cert of rehabilitation, etc. “Look, your honor, our dna is not connected to any cold cases, CODIS says.”

      • WTF?

        I go out and feel like the movie” Minority Report”. Seems like the powers that be are “going to catch you before you commit the crime!”. Like once you look at a pic, it’s only a matter of time before you turn into Jeffrey Dahmer and go off. Not even the most hardened criminal can relate to the stress and depression caused by having your every move in life accounted for.

        • Matt

          WTF: I would like to tell you that I can actually almost “feel” the agony in your posts. I understand where you’re at. Or at least I think I do. I’m not going to give you any pep-talks about how it will all get better because the reality is, it probably won’t. We are all expected to pay for whatever we did for eternity; even after death. Remember several months ago when a guy who was killed in a train wreck just happened to be a RSO, and they bashed him in the press after he died? To expect anything from anybody in terms of “doing the right thing” is a waste of energy. Janice, Chance, and their friends are doing the best they can. But keep in mind, they have been handed a shit-sandwich. There is only so much they can do. And we all put ourselves in this position to begin with. So what can we do? I have all the same stories as everybody else. Most days, I keep a pretty good attitude. Sometimes I throw a giant pity party for myself. It all depends on the situation. My offense was relatively insignificant compared to many of the stories I read about here. But it was treated like the crime of the century because of who I was in my community. Everybody knew me. I was respected. Because that was the case, I made local and national headlines a few times. Overcoming that has been impossible. Since I learned that nobody will give a RSO a second chance, I chose to get mad and fight back. I fight every day. I lose about 60% of the time. But when you realize that about 99.5% of all people would prefer to see us all hung, drawn and quartered in the town square, a 40% success rate is pretty good in my opinion. In terms of your community, your elected officials, and many of your friends and family, realize that nobody is going to help you. Even if they want to, they won’t take the risk. (Especially politicians.) You have to get in the fight. We are limited in what we can do. I fully acknowledge that. Where we live, where we travel, the kind of work we are allowed to do, the kind of social events we can attend, everything……It’s all limited. But I choose to throw it in their faces and tell them to F-Off. I have been fired from multiple jobs. I out-perform all of my coworkers every time. I try really, really hard to be a team player and help others up. Then somebody torpedoes me. It has happened more times than I can remember. For me, the only way that works is self employment. Even that has its pitfalls, but at least you won’t be sabotaged by a coworker. We can’t safely travel abroad. Okay, Murica is a huge country. Find somewhere to travel/vacay in this country. When somebody slams you, fight back. (How you do that is up to you. I was sent to prison for something I didn’t do. I’m more than happy to go back for something I did actually do; like punching some ass-hat in the face who really, really had it coming. I’m not suggesting violence here. I absolutely am suggesting that we all stand up for ourselves and get in the fight.) The people who control us know that the overwhelming majority of RSO’s cower in the corner and hope it all goes away. Because somehow, some way, some day, somebody in a position of power will realize that they have been treating us wrong, and will take steps to correct a major injustice. Not going to happen. Not now; not ever. You have to make a decision for yourself about how you want the rest of your life to go. We are all oppressed. We are all targets. We are all constantly scrutinized, whether we deserve to be or not. That’s the reality. What we choose to do with that reality is entirely up to us. At some point you made a decision or two that got you here today. So did I. So did all the rest of us. I did my time. I paid heavily. So did everyone who loves me. I choose to March on. I choose to fight back. I choose to fight these no good, rotten sons of bitches every single time I get the chance. When Janice tells us to Show up, speak up, etc., she is right. I do it in a slightly different way because of my specific circumstances. Everybody knew who I was before I got in trouble. And they sure as hell know who I am now. don’t back down. Get up and fight for what you want. Whatever that may be. I’m not trying to offend you. I can read the gloom and doom in your posts. I get it. My advice, for what it’s worth: Get mad and fight back. Cheers!

  26. TS

    Given the growth of our country and the number of cases being filed, this (article below) is probably long overdue to keep up with the current pace. I don’t know if 27 is the right number but I surely know that 9 is too small all things considered. When 8, 000 are filed and 80 only accepted, there’s something to be said for it. However, the opposing argument is how much frivolousness is going to be decided upon the doesn’t need to be decided upon.

    The Supreme Court Doesn’t Need 9 Justices. It Needs 27

    http://amp.timeinc.net/time/5338689/supreme-court-packing

  27. AnotherAnon

    Just sayin’.

    § 13663.
    Ineligibility of dangerous sex offenders for admission to public housing
    (a)
    In general

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an owner of federally assisted housing shall prohibit admission to such housing for any household that includes any individual who is subject to a lifetime registration requirement under a State sex offender registration program.

  28. TS

    Facial recognition at airports has been discussed here recently. I found this article below from a society perspective that should inform people…and probably scare them at the same time.

    How Facial Recognition Could Tear Us Apart

    Will the new tech create a safer society — or a dystopian panopticon?

    https://medium.com/s/futurehuman/how-facial-recognition-tech-could-tear-us-apart-c4486c1ee9c4

  29. NY Level1

    JUSTICE!!!!

    Skelos GUILTY!!!

    Have fun you lying cheating hypocrite stole 10 years of my life. They do horrible things to you in Protective Custody where you’ll be going.
    https://nypost.com/2018/07/17/dean-skelos-son-found-guilty-on-all-counts-in-corruption-retrial/

    • R M

      @NY Level 1: You seem just a bit exuberant. I totally get it as I despise corrupt governments as our own.

  30. Cameron

    Facial recognition is used in the several countries already, especially in the Philippines. I know an immigration official ‘friend’ who told me that once a passenger arrives or departs the airports immigration counter, your face is automatically scanned as you walk by. This camera is linked up with INTERPOL’s I-24/7 system and searches for sex offenders. Your green notice or “C” notice is loaded into the system and can be seen by any country that has access; it also active upto 5 years.

  31. David Kennerly, The Government-Driven Life

    “ASSESSING THE REAL RISK OF SEXUALLY VIOLENT PREDATORS: DOCTOR PADILLA’S DANGEROUS DATA” Tamara Rice Lave, Professor of Law, University of Miami and Franklin E. Zimring, William G. Simon Professor of Law, University California of Berkeley School of Law. American Criminal Law Review, Vol. 55, June 25, 2018

    ABSTRACT [download for complete paper, below]
    “This Article uses internal memoranda and emails to describe the efforts of the
    California Department of Mental Health to suppress a serious and well-designed
    study that showed just 6.5% of untreated sexually violent predators were arrested
    for a new sex crime within 4.8 years of release from a locked mental facility. The
    Article begins by historically situating sexually violent predator laws and then
    explains the constitutionally critical role that prospective sexual dangerousness
    plays in justifying these laws. The Article next explains how the U.S. Supreme
    Court and the highest state courts have allowed these laws to exist without requiring
    any proof of actual danger. It then describes the California study and reconciles
    its findings with those of a well-known Washington study by explaining the
    preventive effects of increasing age. Finally, the Article explains how these results
    undermine the justification for indeterminate lifetime commitment of sex offenders.”
    >
    A quote:

    “The ironic result of allowing state governments to make up their own theories of prospective sexual danger and never to test their hunches goes beyond the wasteful and unjust incarceration of elderly men with histories of sex offenses. Detailed and careful empirical study could provide much better evidence of the age and other characteristics of persons who have significant offending risks. For that reason, we urge the Bureau of Justice Statistics to resurrect and continue the Padilla study with what would now be a significant follow-up period. Until such research is conducted, we will never know whether the true legacy of Kansas v. Hendricks includes not just unjust confinement but also an allocation of limited resources with no focus on populations of maximum danger. Justice and community safety demand the truth.”

    Here is a link to the entire paper:

    https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3202538

    • Static-99 Inconsistencies (Relax, only an over 500% exaggeration.)

      Interesting, David.

      So even for UNTREATED people given the “SVP” designation, their actual recidivism is at 6.5% within 4.8 years.

      Yet the Static-99 estimated these same people to be 37% to 38%. In other words, this is an egregious overestimation of over 500%. Again, the Static-99 overestimated recidivism at over 500%! See pg. 727 [“Later, looking back on the study, Padilla testified: ‘we were surprised by the recidivism rates. We expected the recidivism rates to be thirty-seven, thirty-eight percent. Much higher [which] would be consistent with . . . what the Static 99 [score] was showing.’”]

      So how much do the Static “tests” overestimate for non-SVP’s??? Another reason why Karl Hanson is secretive with his “static” data. Also, probably one reason to why CASOMB, DOJ, and SARATSO are trying to pass off a recent 10-year “study” that is written by Karl Hanson, Hanson’s PhD student from Carleton University, as well as three attorneys from the DOJ as “science.” Hanson and DOJ will never let true scientists, those with a concern for truth, have unbridled access to Karl Hanson’s data. Access to data is required by the APA Code of Ethics. But because Hanson isn’t a licensed psychologist in the United States, there has been question to whether he is even bound by APA Code of Ethics. (APA Ethics Code, Section 8.14, requires psychologists to furnish data, after their research results are published, to “other competent professionals who seek to verify the substantive claims through reanalysis.”)

      There is a good chance that the Static-99R is absolute, overhyped, junk “science.” The “revised” version only adjusts for age at release (*not current age*). Too strange that CASOMB is intent to impose the Static-99R on *all* sex offenders, when there have been question to its applicability to even SVP’s.

      I’m sure the SVP industry isn’t happy about this very recent paper released two days ago.

      APA Ethics Code, Section 8.14: http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/index.aspx?item=11

      Karl Hanson’s “Science” Failed Daubert Standard: http://karenfranklin.com/files/Perren-Ruling-Static99-RRASOR.pdf

      Open your eyes!! Open your minds!! There’s a reason why much of the Static-99R’s data is top secret!! We’re being duped again!!

  32. David Kennerly, The Government-Driven Life

    “Convicted Sex Offenders: Serving Full Sentences Rather Than Getting Out Early on Parole” By choice, apparently. Parole must really be hell in Arkansas. I’m assuming that it also has something to do with anticipated homelessness. “We have more people going flat now in prison than coming out so they’re not on paper,” said Detective Paul Newell.

    Detective Newell says many sex offenders are eligible for parole after serving 1/6 of their time in jail, but now many of them are choosing to serve their full sentence.

    “So they don’t have to deal with probation parole. When someone is on probation and parole they have a warrant search waiver so we can go into their house and search and do what we have to do than if there out on probation and parole they don’t have that search waiver on file,” Det. Newell said.

    https://www.nwahomepage.com/news/fox-24/convicted-sex-offenders-serving-full-sentences-rather-than-getting-out-early-on-parole-1/1308391868

  33. AnotherAnon

    Cany anyone explain this?

    CHAPTER 5.5. Sex Offenders [290 – 294] ( Chapter 5.5 heading added by Stats. 2006, Ch. 337, Sec. 10. )

    290.021.
    Except as otherwise provided by law, the statements, photographs, and fingerprints required by the Act shall not be open to inspection by the public or by any person other than a regularly employed peace officer or other law enforcement officer.

    (Added by Stats. 2007, Ch. 579, Sec. 29. Effective October 13, 2007.)

    https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=290.021.&lawCode=PEN

    For example, is the city-data.com use provided by law? If so, which section grants city-data use?

  34. AnotherAnon

    If anyone replied to my comment and I didn’t reply, it is only because after a thread is active for a while I can’t follow who is talking to who.

  35. R M

    Where I went to prison in NJ it was next to impossible for sex offenders to get parole. Of the 21 months I was imprisoned, I saw 1 get paroled and that wasn’t me. Maybe because at the that time in NJ, sex offenders, even if maxed out, were placed on CSL, which has a statute that requires supervision “as if on parole”. Even today, “they” keep telling me I’m on parole, I respond, nope, I’m, on CSL.

  36. WTF?

    Can anyone answer this..

    Are you truly ever off the national registry?
    Can you honestly travel without the stress of worrying if you are going to be pulled out of line or refused entry.
    Can the dreaded green notice be sent out even after you have jumped through every hoop, crawled through the rotting garbage of the judicial system, and climbed out of the hole that is the registry life.

    • AJ

      @WTF?:
      Can the dreaded green notice be sent out even after you have jumped through every hoop…
      —–
      Yes. The Feds can, will, and do send LE notices to other countries if, when and as they see fit.
      =====
      On a completely different note, I stumbled across a humorous, yet sadly accurate, definition of “LEO”: Legally Entitled to Oppress.

    • CR

      @AO, the national registry is just the sum of the state registries. It’s not a separate registry, so yes, you can be truly off the national registry when you come off of all state registries you may be on. Of course, some states don’t even remove people when they die, so people registered in those states are screwed (even more than the rest of us).

      Getting off the registry in one state doesn’t mean you won’t be subject to registration laws in another state, or that you won’t be required to register again some time in the future when the laws of your state change to sweep you up again. After all, as long as registration is not deemed punishment, there is no bar to retroactive application in most states. In a few, the state constitution bars it, but some states ignore that, or make an exception, as Texas does.

      Our criminal records will not disappear, so even if you aren’t required to register in any jurisdiction and aren’t subject to the provisions of IML, the government can still send a green notice or other notification about you to any country they wish.

      • WTF?

        So after 10 yrs of persecution, struggling to earn a living, begging to be removed, and MAYBE having a judge that grants your request, you get that dreaded scarlet letter off your passport.
        Now you have a opportunity to move to a place where you can afford to survive, be at least content if not happy, and some random prick can send a notice and derail your life.
        This made my next decision much easier,
        Thx.

  37. R M

    Man who can’t walk 8 feet man not approved to move nursing facilities.

    https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=sex+offender&sp=EgIIA0IECAESAA%253D%253D

    Here’s my comments to the city of Green Bay, Wisconsin:

    55 nursing homes in Green Bay wouldn’t accept him because he is a sex offender. You’re worried that he won’t get out of his room or the facility, he can’t even walk more than 8 feet. You do not even know what threat this guy poses.
    This guy shouldn’t even be on any watch list as he’s not ambulatory. Your responsibility is to protect the community? He can’t walk! If the children visiting wander into his alarmed room, where was their adult supervision? OMG, you all are so engrossed with the myths and hysteria that laws and media has created, that you ignore the well being of this man.
    The prosecutor says “It could happen”… anything can from ANYBODY. In fact, 95+% of new sex crimes are NOT by registered sex offenders. So what if “..he isn’t mentally… [or physically] incompetent? You don’t even know what he did, for crying out loud. That prosecutor is disillusioned.
    Has he recommitted in his present facility?
    He was ultimately not approved to move nursing facilities (4? board members and 3 participants) decided this fate. Again, I state, 95+% of new sex crimes are NOT by registered sex offenders, especially this guy who can’t even walk 8 feet.
    What costs do you spend in “protecting” children when many other crimes do more harm to children?

  38. NY Level1

    Hello NY won’t let go!
    Yes your situation is terrible. NY prosecutors do not like being challenged and if you are Level 2 it is for life.
    Yes, you would need money, be in a program for rehab and show some other benefits but in the last 5 years the NYS politicians are gaining votes as you know by making our lives unbearable.

    I have seen one man reduced but he worked with the probation department and slimy so called mandated sex offender treatment ‘therapists’ plus a lawyer to pull it off. The probation department used him to give lectures and talks so some deal was done.

    Be consoled that the man who did this to us is now going to jail, like Wiener etc
    https://www.nysenate.gov/newsroom/in-the-news/dean-g-skelos/senate-acts-sex-offender-legislation

    • NY won't let go

      I know one case where a man was from Pennsylvania moved to New York for work and got placed as a level two and then moved back out and he was able to be removed through court order. His case got separated from the doe v O’Donnell one but like myself his offense was from out of State. If I could find a pro Bono lawyer it would be great but there are a severe lack of those in the world 😅 especially in NY. Even the one I paid 5 grand when I was there couldn’t help lower my level

    • David

      😡 I wish this lawmaker and his son lengthy prison sentences. Let them receive, in equal measure, all the suffering his legislation brings to others. 😡

  39. Michael

    My wife is attempting to inlist for active duty in the army and we are trying to figure out the best places for her to pick for after basic to be posted both national and international. Anyone with military regulation experience would be greatly appreciated.

    • steve

      The North Pole…

      • michael w

        She is going in for cook so options are open as far where she can be posted but I’m not trying to go somewhere that will try to keep me on their list after we relocate and I have been using the internet since the 80s so I don’t want to risk the whole failure to list all my past identifiers, I can’t remember where I put my keys and sunglasses half the time how am I suppose to remember thirty years of user/login info. It is my hope that 1) she can get a Germany post, there is something like 15 army bases, but I have to clear up my passport to go (I think) before I could go do to past child support problems. these are the quandaries I attempting to answer, if anyone has useful information for me that would be appreciated.

    • NY won't let go

      Europe, anywhere outside of the US

  40. AJ

    The Appellee Brief from Millard’s legal team finally got posted: https://ufile.io/miiv0. I have yet to read it (59 pages), having just downloaded it.

    It was originally due 7/16, but they were granted a delay until 7/18. They must have submitted it after hours, since it’s shown as posted early morning on 7/19.

    • AJ

      Update: I just finished reading the Millard brief, and I’m less than impressed. Perhaps it’s merely an opening salvo; perhaps the original ruling speaks loud enough. I found it a dry, somewhat difficult read, with little extra “oomph” beyond what came out of the District ruling. To think they needed a couple months’ delay to craft this document makes me shake my head–especially with the typos present throughout.

      Note to Chris F: prepare to cringe as they address Procedural Due Process.

      What’s sad is this case started in September 2013, and is still dragging on. Assuming a decision this year and SCOTUS accepting, the earliest it could be resolved would be sometime in 2019, probably in June. That would mean nearly 6 years of litigation. Ugh.

      • Chris F (@AJ)

        It was dry, but I think it was adequate. I don’t remember if the original complaint went into more detail, or what else could be included from “Friends of the court” additional arguments. Do they consider those also, or do they have to be resubmitted at each level?

        I do like that they bring up about how the sentencing court crafted the punishment and duration but wasn’t permitted to affect the sex offender registration need or duration:

        *****
        SORA unconstitutionally subjects Knight to a ten-year irrebuttable
        presumption based on nothing more than his crime of conviction. § 16-22-113(1)(b).
        At his two sentencing hearings, the district court was permitted to consider all
        relevant factors and evidence in determining the length and conditions of his
        probation and the length of his DOC sentence. The court was not permitted,
        however, to consider any evidence or argument regarding his registration
        requirement, its necessity, or its duration. Absent any individualized consideration,
        SORA simply and categorically erected an irrebuttable presumption that, for ten
        years, Knight was likely to reoffend.
        *****

        I do wish it went further with that, and that other cases would spend more time on this Constitutional violation and even make a full blown “separation of powers” challenge in addition to the Substantive and Procedural Due Process challenges. It isn’t just the punishment and duration that the courts are tasked with during sentencing, but also “protecting the public”. Clearly, legislation is stepping in where it does not belong. When you add in the Packingham SCOTUS comment about the “troubling fact” that burdens continue after court determined government supervision ends, and I think you have a no-brainer win.

        Thanks for the file too AJ! I never would have found it.

        Doesn’t the court at this level just really focus on grave errors of the judge or over-stepping? I hope this doesn’t entail the new set of judges going back over everything and nit picking and saying certain factors of whatever test don’t really push this to punitive or whatever.

        • CR

          “Doesn’t the court at this level just really focus on grave errors of the judge or over-stepping? I hope this doesn’t entail the new set of judges going back over everything and nit picking and saying certain factors of whatever test don’t really push this to punitive or whatever.”

          Judge Matsch ruled that the Colorado SORA act was unconstitutional on 8th amendment grounds. My understanding is that legal decisions of a lower court on questions of law are reviewed “de novo” by the appellate court. A lower-court decision on the constitutionality of a law definitely fits that category, so review should be de novo. In other words, the appeals court will act as though it were considering the question for the first time.

        • AJ

          Backing up what CR said:
          *****
          [T]the four standards of review, arrayed in order of increasing deference to the district court (or, in other words, from the stricter to the more forgiving), include: de novo review (is the decision right?), clearly erroneous review (is the decision wrong?), review for substantial evidence (is the decision unreasonable?), and review for abuse of discretion (is the decision irrational?). (Source: https://www.stradley.com/~/media/Files/ResourcesLanding/Publications/2001/01/Standards%20of%20Appellate%20Review%20in%20the%20Federal%20Cir__/Files/krc-standards/FileAttachment/krc-standards.pdf, PDF-page 8)
          *****

      • David

        Could someone please establish a GoFundMe page for donations in support of the legal costs to defend Colorado Judge Matsch’s ruling??

        • TS

          @David

          You can always send donations to the CO ACLU in the name of the Millard team or to the other attys directly if you want in the name of that case.

        • AJ

          @David:
          Could someone please establish a GoFundMe page for donations in support of the legal costs to defend Colorado Judge Matsch’s ruling??
          —–
          I like TS’s suggestion best, as GFM takes huge percentages from fundraising. But, ummm, why can’t *you* do a GFM page?

    • AnotherAnon

      @AJ This site already lacks a secure connection so someone could be gathering IPs and relating them to plain text posts. That’s why I use a VPN and https everywhere. And a mystery URL is always a no-no for me to click. How did it get to https://ufile.io? Did you download it and upload it there? Is there a link to where you got it?

      Yes. I’m paranoid and Snowden says everyone should be.

      • AJ

        @AnotherAnon:
        How did it get to https://ufile.io? Did you download it and upload it there? Is there a link to where you got it?
        —–
        I got it from PACER, paid for the download, then uploaded it to ufile.io. Feel free to use or ignore it as you wish.
        =====
        I’m paranoid and Snowden says everyone should be.
        —–
        A certain amount of paranoia is healthy. Snowden is a hero, IMO. (And if you haven’t seen “Citizenfour”, I cannot recommend it enough. It’s especially intriguing when you realize it was all before we knew anything about him.)

        • AnotherAnon

          @AJ If you got it from Pacer then that’s good enough. Thanks for the suggestion re: Citizenfour. When it is available on Prime, I’ll check it out. Oliver Stone’s Snowden is worth the time. Another good one for a shift in mood is Philip K. Dick’s Electric Dreams, Episode 10, “Kill All Others,” on Prime.

        • David Kennerly, The Government-Driven Life

          It is a good film but they (either Netflix or Amazon, I don’t remember) seem to have pulled it. “Snowden,” the dramatic film-narrative, is available on Amazon, however, and I recommend it. It stars Joseph Gordon Levitt (remember “Tommy” on 3rd Rock?) who really nails the character.

          The one really interesting aspect about Laura Poitras, who made Citizenfour, is the fact that she gets put through the ‘Secondary Inspection from Hell’ whenever she reenters the U.S. I can relate.

  41. Robert Curtis

    Here’s a message to hold churches accountable to what they preach. I gave it as my new “Message in the Park”…I’m starting a channel called Message in the park…

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nK6O5-3pfKc

  42. AnotherAnon

    Xavier von Erck, the kingpin of Perverted Justice, justified the FBI distributing child porn to catch those who were members of Playpen, the child porn site.

    https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2016/01/27/the-ethics-of-a-child-pornography-sting/investigators-were-justified-in-keeping-a-child-pornography-site-online

    I’ve seen comments wondering if von Erck used child porn as bait himself to nab “predators.”

    The big Playpen case is still winding its way through the judicial system, and it appear the kingpin was wrong.

    6 months for abuser caught in FBI’s Playpen snare
    16 Jun 2017

    https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2017/06/16/6-months-for-abuser-caught-in-fbis-playpen-snare/

  43. Had 'bout enough

    Can anyone tell me the name and city of the man that said sex offenders have an 80% recidivism? (the one from the glossy mag – not scotus) I’m curious to read the article but cant make any headway with search engines. Thanks in advance.

    • AnotherAnon

      Do you remember anything more about the man? Was it this?

      When Junk Science About Sex Offenders Infects the Supreme Court

      By David Feige

      “A few years ago, Ira Ellman, a legal scholar affiliated with the Center for the Study of Law and Society at the University of California, Berkeley, and the researcher Tara Ellman set out to find the source of that 80 percent figure, and what he found shocked him. As it turns out, the court found that number in a brief signed by Solicitor General Ted Olson. The brief cited a Department of Justice manual, which in turn offered only one source for the 80 percent assertion: a Psychology Today article published in 1986.

      “That article was written not by a scientist but by a treatment provider who claimed to be able to essentially cure sex offenders though innovative “aversive therapies” including electric shocks and pumping ammonia into offenders’ noses via nasal cannulas. The article offered no backup data, no scientific control group and no real way to fact-check any of the assertions made to promote the author’s program.”

      https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/12/opinion/when-junk-science-about-sex-offenders-infects-the-supreme-court.html

      • Had 'bout enough

        Yes, that looks to be the one. I was curious of the “source” that Scotus based their findings on. Seems it was not the man, and what he said, so much as the doj manual. Which still came from him.

        Thank you for the info.

    • David Kennerly, The Government-Driven Life

      Robert Longo. He’s always been part of the sex offender treatment industry and, like Finkelwhore, his early proclamations have been deeply embedded in law and policy ever since.

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 refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  • 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 *