ACSOL’s Conference Calls

June 14 Call uploaded – Conference Call Recordings Online
Dial-in number: 1-712-770-8055, Conference Code: 983459, Time: 5 pm PT

Monthly Meetings

Q3: 7/15 in Berkeley [details]

Recent Comments

  • ExpatRFSO June 26, 2017 at 10:27 pm on A look at the potential changes in California’s sex offender registry“Let’s say you are off the registry here in CA, whether it is through a COR or the Tiered Registry letting you off and you want to visit Las Vegas. Do you still have to register with their local PD if you stay longer than 48 hours?” >>Yes, as it’s regulatory. AJ, someone who cares, this exact question (About a CA RC travelling to LV for more than 48 hours) was asked and answered multiple times at the ACSOL Conference. I won't name them by name but according to a panel of lawyers who specialize on this topic, (one a former registered citizen himself) if you are not required to register (i.e. if you get off the registry via this tiered registry) in the state which you reside and you travel to another state to visit (this is important, it's only to visit, NOT reside) you are not required to register as a visitor. This is because the laws governing notification requirements for visitors are dependent upon the required person being a current registrant in the state which they reside, not whether they would be one in the state they are traveling to if they established residency there. Having said that, Las Vegas and the state of Nevada have separate laws for felons in general. That's different and nothing to do with the registry. The list of felonies that require one to register seems pretty narrow, but a very cursory search online showed there are a few sex crimes on that list.
  • Mr. D June 26, 2017 at 10:26 pm on A look at the potential changes in California’s sex offender registryAJ - if your conviction was in the state of California and you receive a COR or relief from the future tiered registry bill you should not have to register when you travel anywhere after you are no longer required to register in the state of California for an original California offense. If you believe otherwise please provide a reference or link.
  • ExpatRFSO June 26, 2017 at 10:10 pm on Successful ACSOL Conference Brought Dignity, Hope and Information to ManyThanks Janice and everyone for their hard work. It was very informative and inspiring to hear how the tides are finally turning from fear, myths and rhetoric to fact based research and solutions.
  • Lovecraft June 26, 2017 at 10:09 pm on SCOTUS: High court won’t hear sex offender caseThe article acts like its about banning registrants from social media, but upon reading it it looks more like he failed to submit his online identifiers assuming that is a law in that state. In any regard, I would think the packingham case could pave the road for a challenge to the online identifers. We all know what the states that impose online identifiers do with them. They pass them along usually for some form of profit to assist companies who ban known registrants from their service (ie facebook), but can extend to other services such as online gaming and any other site that deems registrants unworthy of their goods or services. Without getting online identifier laws taken off the books the Packingham case seems like a hollow victory.
  • Tired Of Hiding June 26, 2017 at 10:04 pm on SCOTUS: High court won’t hear sex offender caseNot surprising considering that they are too busy hearing a case about a baker refusing to make a cake for a gay couple even though federal law made it LEGAL for gays to marry in the United States of America. But make it about religion and that get their attention but blatantly ignoring an issue of constitutional rights of nearly 1 million people they can't be bothered with. Separation of church and state...not in the "In god we trust" country of America! I say fire them all. Get rid of them as they are just a joke. What gives them the right to judge anyone? Pathetic
  • AJ (to mike r & Chris F) June 26, 2017 at 9:20 pm on General Comments June 2017@mike r I'm still picking through the document, but already have some suggestions. I'll post them once I'm all done reading through it. @Chris F Did you see the link I posted for an opinion by Jeffrey Kahn, re: International Travel and the Constitution? It has some good legal references, even though it is about the No Fly List (I was going to just type NFL, but thought that may be confusing!) and not IML. I figure if Mike is going to toss the whole bowl of spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks, IML may as well be included. --AJ
  • AJ June 26, 2017 at 9:11 pm on WI: Wearing a GPS monitoring bracelet is not punishment, court saysSo let's get this straight...it's unconstitutional (4th Amendment) for LE to attach a GPS tracker to someone's vehicle without a warrant, and cannot exceed said warrant (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Jones_(2012)), but they can be attached to a human being and it's fine. Does anyone else see how screwed up things are here? There are some judges who have zero knowledge of constitutional law, and apparently don't care to seek any guidance on it. I'd think this person in WI could drop the Jones opinion on the table during appeal and win handily. --AJ
  • AJ June 26, 2017 at 9:05 pm on A look at the potential changes in California’s sex offender registry@someone who cares "Let’s say you are off the registry here in CA, whether it is through a COR or the Tiered Registry letting you off and you want to visit Las Vegas. Do you still have to register with their local PD if you stay longer than 48 hours?" >>Yes, as it's regulatory. "It is just too ridiculous to even enforce any of the rules, and hopefully, all this will crumble soon." >>Those who create(d) these laws don't give a crap how complex it is for the (former) RC. --AJ
  • AJ June 26, 2017 at 9:01 pm on A look at the potential changes in California’s sex offender registry@Someone who cares "So, what happens if the tiered registry goes in effect and a person gets off in 10 years but then moves to a life time state? He or she can’t possibly be required to start registering again?" Since it's considered regulatory, s/he will have to comply with the regulations in the new state. It's just one more way those states with onerous registration requirements try to keep RCs, current or former, away. Were registries deemed some form of punishment, any change to the original registration would be blatantly unconstitutional (double jeopardy, due process, and/or Full Faith and Credit). --AJ
  • AJ June 26, 2017 at 8:52 pm on SCOTUS Symposium: Packingham and Fact-Checking the Supreme CourtPackingham, both the case and the man himself, has done more for our cause than any other recent activity that I can recall. It has brought the discussion plainly into major media, and the truths are being told. Hopefully we can build on this with a nice 7-2 (Alito, Thomas..tho he seems to be sliding towards more and more civil liberties) on Snyder in the next term! I think if/when the scores of restrictions on residency and presence are taken away due to being punitive, the "fun" of the registry will fade and funding with it. I really think that's where we're headed, thankfully. I'm not confident enough yet to believe registries will ever go away or be non-public, though. --AJ
  • AJ June 26, 2017 at 8:37 pm on NC: Facts about the sex offender registry"In fact, the list of restrictions for offenders can be complex, Wright said. She keeps large legal volumes that she constantly refers to in order to be certain about various situations. >>The county's expert cannot keep things straight without repeatedly consulting "large legal volumes," and yet they expect us to toe the line exactly. "“'If I’m what’s between a child and an offender, I’m willing to do the best I can,” she said. “And there are 200 people in this building to help me.' "Wright said one reason she goes to see the offenders, even when they aren’t at home, is to let them know they’re being watched. That keeps them on their p’s and q’s. "She said she went by one offender’s home and saw him mowing the grass. Later, she called him and said, 'I see you mowed the yard.' That let him know he had better keep his nose clean." >>This lady has a way higher view of herself and her influence than she probably actually has. If she told me she saw I'd mowed the yard, I'd probably say, "yeah, it was getting long." "The possibility of freedom should be incentive enough to obey the rules." >>Well at least they admit we're not actually free, despite having completed all court requirements. I think this article was trying to help 'soften' the image of RCs, but all I see is a miserably presented failure. --AJ
  • Steve June 26, 2017 at 8:35 pm on A look at the potential changes in California’s sex offender registryHe would be tier 2. 2026 would be 20 year mark unless parole is different then probation.
  • 4sensiblepolicies June 26, 2017 at 7:53 pm on WI: Wearing a GPS monitoring bracelet is not punishment, court saysSounds simple enough. If it isn't punishment, then it is simply a civil remedy. Therefore they could attach a GPS for any myriad of reasons - such as for owing the government money. It should stand to reason that the government would want to know where you are if you owe them money. Without a doubt, however, it won't pass the stink test if they start applying gps in to non-sex offender applications. Suddenly it will become punitive again. And if it is punishment for one group, it is punishment for the other - even if the court doesn't care for that group and wants to play loose with the Constitution.
  • David Kennerly, One-Man Thought Crime Wave June 26, 2017 at 7:33 pm on General Comments June 2017"I have a hard time believing Laura Poitras, or any journalist, is being subjected to Encase-level forensic examination. " They certainly are doing that level of examination. That's why they seize computers rather than simply going through them at the border. In her case, they are looking for everything they believe that she is doing which, in their minds, includes giving aid and comfort to the enemy as well as establishing a network of activists, sources and journalists.
  • David Kennerly, One-Man Thought Crime Wave June 26, 2017 at 7:20 pm on The Sex Offender: the 21st Century WitchClassical studies are entirely at odds with prevailing notions of "decency." The Greeks and the Romans left a great deal of pottery, sculpture and mosaics to jar the sensibilities of the thoroughly modern neo-puritan and which attest to their discordance with a contemporary cast of mind. The evidence can be found in abundance in the world's greatest museums for all to see. A stroll through Herculaneum or Pompeii is enough to bring confident notions of the universalism of our moral standards crashing down amongst the ruins, themselves. It is a very great irony that laws now in force proscribe many of these pieces although there has not yet been an attempt to enforce them in this domain. This would be to bring those laws into the starkest of relief and would, therefore, challenge their legitimacy. Censorship is forever the need for silence in the face of the manifestly obvious.
  • Robert R. June 26, 2017 at 6:46 pm on Successful ACSOL Conference Brought Dignity, Hope and Information to ManyThe conference was truly a gift of the highest caliber. I came away with so much.
  • Confused SO wife June 26, 2017 at 6:44 pm on A look at the potential changes in California’s sex offender registrySo, my husband and I live in CA and are wondering how exactly are they tiering registered citizens? My husbands offense is 288 (a) Lewd and Lescivious acts with a child under 14. He was convicted in 1999 and released in 2006. He completed parole in 2009. I am asking because I noticed he doesn't have a risk assessment score on Megan's Law and some registered citizens do. Is that what they would use to determine this?
  • someone who cares June 26, 2017 at 6:08 pm on A look at the potential changes in California’s sex offender registryAnother problem with different rules and regulations that nobody is able to comprehend is this. Let's say you are off the registry here in CA, whether it is through a COR or the Tiered Registry letting you off and you want to visit Las Vegas. Do you still have to register with their local PD if you stay longer than 48 hours? It is just too ridiculous to even enforce any of the rules, and hopefully, all this will crumble soon. It's time!
  • John4 June 26, 2017 at 4:53 pm on WI: Wearing a GPS monitoring bracelet is not punishment, court saysHey folks here's a good story regarding GPS. http://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/supreme-court/2014/a-94-11.html
  • Chris F June 26, 2017 at 4:31 pm on General Comments June 2017Looks like Trump got a partial win. SCOTUS says they can start banning only those that don't have a family or job interest in coming to the US. Luckily, that means most of the plaintiffs can keep traveleing. The rest of the SCOTUS review will be decided in the Fall. Someone will have to explain how we won't have everything figured out by Fall for Trump to still need his 90 travel ban. How many blocks of 90 days does he need exactly?
  • Someone who cares June 26, 2017 at 4:28 pm on A look at the potential changes in California’s sex offender registryThe rules for registering in each state are so convoluted and most attorneys won't even know. So, what happens if the tiered registry goes in effect and a person gets off in 10 years but then moves to a life time state? He or she can't possibly be required to start registering again? This becomes way too confusing for anyone, including LE and lawyers. Also, other states may have different criteria for the various Tiers and someone might be a Tier 1 in CA but a Tier 2 in another State. Who can keep track of all this? Impossible!
  • Edie June 26, 2017 at 3:00 pm on WI: Wearing a GPS monitoring bracelet is not punishment, court saysWho or what entity makes the decisions on GPS manufacturers? Is it the CA S.O. Mgmt Board? With all of the current technology, especially out of the silicon valley, can't we find a more reasonable device that doesn't have the scarlet letter factor attached, if the darn things must be worn? Getting rid of them altogether, or at least requiring only on a case by case basis, seems in order....
  • AlexO June 26, 2017 at 2:34 pm on NC: Facts about the sex offender registryReading all the articles on this website has taught me that no matter how oppressive most of us see the laws regarding RC's here in CA, its seems like most, if not all, other states seem to have far worse restrictions. Unlike most of these other states, we at least have very few rules affecting us once we're off supervision. Some of these other states seems like a complete nightmare, always. I can't believe how bad things really are. How are all these things still legal?
  • ds June 26, 2017 at 2:24 pm on Finally, some clearer thinking on sex offendersHe is a Her...
  • TXSO4Life June 26, 2017 at 2:01 pm on SCOTUS Symposium: Packingham and Fact-Checking the Supreme CourtI am glad so called "sex offender recidivism" myth is gaining some attentions lately based on Samuel Alito latest misleading statement in the packingham case. Great job on WaPo for posting that info!
  • mike r June 26, 2017 at 1:05 pm on General Comments June 2017Right on Chris I would be happy to see what kind of conclusion you can come up and would definitely consider it and your observations as well.....I am also looking into the Obama mandate to see how it relates because like I said it is the only mandated regulation that actually compels a person to do something and not regulate actual activity..The following is just one example that I have pulled from the case so far go feel free to read it at the following link.. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/06/29/us/29healthcare-scotus-docs.html Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority. Congress already possesses expansive power to regulate what people do. Upholding the Affordable Care Act under the Commerce Clause would give Congress the same license to regulate what people do not do. The Framers knew the difference between doing something and doing nothing. They gave Congress the power to regulate commerce, not to compel it. Ignoring that distinction would undermine the principle that the Federal Government is a government of limited and enumerated powers. The individual mandate thus cannot be sustained under Congress’s power to “regulate Commerce.” Pp. 16–27. Even though they are talking about commerce I believe the same would hold true for any government actions...still researching this for the involuntary servitude argument......Fell free to comment on this.
  • ReadyToFight June 26, 2017 at 11:59 am on NC: Facts about the sex offender registryI couldn't get through this one w/o getting a lil choked up. I'll never understand how anyone could justify the registry let alone a life sentence on it. I wasn't out of high school long when my life was taken away. The amount of trouble I was in over a mistake was news to me and terrifying every step of the way. The nightmare never ends. For what? At the time there wasn't much info about the Registry but I hope today the school system does more to educate those walking out into the world of adults. "The possibility of freedom should be incentive enough to obey the rules". We in CA have no incentive to follow the rules of an unjust system.
  • Chris F (To Mike R) June 26, 2017 at 10:57 am on General Comments June 2017@Mike R I finished reading the entire motion. I really like it. One mistake I noticed. Do a search for this line because you list it twice in a row: "the fear that the legislature, in seeking to pander to an inflamed popular constituency" I haven't read AJ's article yet that explains filing Pro-Se. I was wondering though, would it make more sense for your conclusion to be shorter, and more in your own words than repeating or bringing up too many legal points? Since you are Pro-Se, I am hoping that in that format you are allowed to simply state your problems and in your words why they seem wrong, and allow the judge to bring up arguments you may have missed, or that they feel is more relevant. Again, I don't even know if you are allowed to do that, but I would think so. I would be happy to help try to write a convincing conclusion for you to look at, if that is even possible to do in a pro-se motion. It would sum up how this started, how its original intent was de-railed by politicians, press, and judges, and how it now ruins your life in any city you wish to pass through yet without a single day in court to fairly assess dangerousness. It would conclude with how the entire sex offender scheme can be removed, and we still have in place the safety protections needed for the public.
  • Chris F June 26, 2017 at 10:46 am on General Comments June 2017@New Person Ok, so, Trump asks his staff "How can I legally ban Muslims from entering this country" and they find Obama's list of 7 countries. They tell him "place a temporary ban on just those, and you'll have your butt covered because that's Obama's list, not yours". Great. Sounds fine then. It's been much longer than the 90 days he said he needed. Where is his progress and why does he still need another 90 days? Is it ok if we give him the 90 days and then keep extending that 90 days? It's obvious that is the intent, or we would see SOME progress on this by now. The experts have no idea what would make the current vetting process better, and Trump isn't pointing out what is broken or what needs fixing or research. He just wants to complete his campaign promise to ban some amount of Muslims, or at least slow them down as long as he can legally figure out a way to do so. Why is this something we should agree with?
  • David June 26, 2017 at 9:55 am on WI: Wearing a GPS monitoring bracelet is not punishment, court saysDo I understand correctly: it will cause public stigma, restricts physical activity, can cause physical pain (chaffing and blisters), but it is NOT punishment?? Perhaps SCOTUS could apply the "duck test": it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, ..... etc!
  • AJ June 26, 2017 at 8:01 am on General Comments June 2017As I said, the judiciary typically yields on immigration to the other two branches: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/06/26/supreme-court-to-hear-trump-appeal-travel-ban-block.html https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/16-1436_l6hc.pdf It sounds like if an immigrant has some sort of tie to the U.S., they are not to be banned, but anyone with no ties (read: refugees) can be. As I expected and posited...and again offering no opinion one way or another. --AJ
  • AJ June 26, 2017 at 7:59 am on General Comments June 2017Re: Kennedy retiring, here's a decent op-ed from Sunday night. Hopefully he's right (we'll find out by day's end, probably.) http://abovethelaw.com/2017/06/no-justice-anthony-m-kennedy-is-not-retiring-tomorrow/?rf=1 --AJ
  • Jorge June 26, 2017 at 6:58 am on WI: Wearing a GPS monitoring bracelet is not punishment, court saysIf it's not punishment, then why is it attached to probation statutes ? At least here in Florida, a probation sentence IS a punishment and every condition attached to it (including GPS) is indeed part of the punishment. I remember reading that in the Florida penal codes and statutes when I was still in jail years ago and was about to begin my probation sentence with the mandatory electronic shackle attached (been done with that for a while by the way). But, that was even quoted/stated by a few judges in tiny fine print when reading the FL penal code statutes. It seems like they want to move -little by little- all the probation conditions(legal punishment) towards a lifetime post-probation sentence (illegal punishment). A county here in Florida suggested the State do pass something similar about 2 years ago or so and the idea just evaporated once it reached the Capital. Can't have your cake and eat it too. Not as long as we have a constitution. Even if you get away with it and it is applied. At some point sooner or later, it will be struck down. Clearly unconstitutional.
  • David June 26, 2017 at 6:58 am on General Comments June 2017Thanks for the helpful info!
  • Nicholas Maietta June 26, 2017 at 4:55 am on WI: Wearing a GPS monitoring bracelet is not punishment, court saysI have full GPS devices the size of a thumbnail which can run for days on a single lightweight and small battery, internet connected and cost $60. Cellular data costs around $4 per month across all carriers. No buying powers or contracts needed and more functional than GPS bracelet manufacturers advertise theirs. Again, why do they have to be charged constantly, bulky and locked to 1 cellular network? It's a massive scam that benefits only the manufacturers who played on predictor panic and continued the fearmongering until they got what they wanted. Luckily the days of instilling fear with the public about sex offenders.. those days are numbered. Once SCOTUS solves some big headaches, it's like gay rights.. suddenly sex offenders are no big deal and the focus will have to go somewhere else.
  • Nondescript June 26, 2017 at 1:16 am on General Comments June 2017They seem to be particularly obsessed with phone numbers during these compliance checks too. There is nothing in 290 about a phone number being required information and who would want to have a telephone conversation with these people anyways?
  • Gralph June 25, 2017 at 11:21 pm on Finally, some clearer thinking on sex offendersMy question is how would this affect people who have lifetime registry due to 290? It doesn't make sense to keep said people at lifetime registration if it has been 20 years and they have stayed crime free. In my personal situation, I'm under 290 which means life in California, but have been out for 10 years without probation or parole, eventually married which I have been raising my own children and a couple of step children for the past 8 years, obtained a Bachelors degree and generally work in a professional field (IT), yet I still carry the SVP label due to the alleged victims age? If so, something doesn't seem right...............
  • Timmr June 25, 2017 at 11:21 pm on WI: Wearing a GPS monitoring bracelet is not punishment, court saysYes, I'm convinced, their brains stopped at the amoeba stage. Why isn't it easier to win this?
  • Timmr June 25, 2017 at 11:01 pm on General Comments June 2017Legislative reaponse? As I have said, local response, per me at least, was to try to get me to register within two weeks after I bought a car. Why? Beats me. Aren't we all proling the streets looking for victims (sarcasm). As if we are we would tell them what vehicle we are doing it in? C'mon, do they have the brains of an amoeba? They are interpreting changing vehicles like an address change.
  • Timmr, June 25, 2017 at 10:47 pm on The Sex Offender: the 21st Century WitchSo shall I contact my senator. Thank you.
  • Timmr, June 25, 2017 at 9:33 pm on General Comments June 2017The compliance officers keep asking me if my vehicles are still the same as registered. They want you here to register new vehicles with them within two weeks. It is something they use to hope to catch you on during the compliance checks. I haven't found anything in 290 that mentions registering vehicles more than your annual or quarterly obligation. I deduce they are simply trying to entrap me. It is laughable. If anyone knows me, it would be rediculous to assume I am driving around looking for victims. Please, can some lawyer challenge this nonsense.
  • Lovecraft June 25, 2017 at 9:18 pm on WI: Wearing a GPS monitoring bracelet is not punishment, court saysVery good point AJ. Even though getting this ruling overturned should be a slam dunk, if the statement about not needing to be registered was brought up vs using gps in a court setting Im sure they would quickly abandon the notion about gps not being punishment. Oh what a delicious morsel this would be along with the packingham verdict for a likely doe v synder showdown in the scotus.
  • AJ June 25, 2017 at 8:11 pm on WI: Wearing a GPS monitoring bracelet is not punishment, court saysWhy do they also make him register, if they can see what he's doing all the time anyway? The GPS "radio collar" cuts out the "middle man" of a member of the public telling on him. Registering serves little additional purpose beyond humiliation and shaming. They're simply trying to give him public shaming as a bonus. But no, that would be punitive, so that absolutely cannot be it.... --AJ
  • AJ June 25, 2017 at 8:04 pm on A look at the potential changes in California’s sex offender registry@Andy020 Since you cannot afford any attorney, I suggest you try hitting up one (or more) for a free 30-minute consult. You can take knowledge gleaned from one and use it as part of your, "here's what I understand things to be," discussion with any subsequent one. I am not an attorney, nor am I a CA resident, but you definitely need to get it resolved. Any proactive action on your part will be better than the State's reaction if/when they discover you. Personally, I'd high-tail it back to WA where I'm clean and free, if that's a possibility. --AJ
  • AJ June 25, 2017 at 7:51 pm on TN: The plea deal _____ didn’t take in Vanderbilt rape case, and why@Mr. Rant Very good point. I'm sure someone will explain it away as the judge misspeaking (does he get to "correct the record" like politicians?) or using colloquial speech. No, the judge let slip what is the wink-and-nod truth: punishment. --AJ
  • Edie June 25, 2017 at 7:26 pm on WI: Wearing a GPS monitoring bracelet is not punishment, court saysIf laws are so damn Draconic that they have to track you, which IS punishment past prison and probation, then at least come up with a device that doesn't produce visual stigmas, prevent engaging in any kind of water sports, let alone a simple bath soak. Locked Apple Watch? Embedded chip? Here in California, guys wear shorts year round. The visual of a monitor further extends the punishment they have already endured, especially if it was prison. This law needs to be challenged. Lawsuits need to happen. Jessica's Law needs to go away. Do you see convicted murderers, arsonists, extortionists, etc. exposing themselves to the public by wearing ankle monitors??? Let's challenge this, people!!
  • Andy020 June 25, 2017 at 6:23 pm on A look at the potential changes in California’s sex offender registryI moved to Cali from Washington 2 years ago.. I was no longer required to register there (20 years passed).. and now I see i'm in trouble.. I haven't registered here, in fact, I didn't even consider the laws would be different are there any provisions in the new law about relocating to CA? can't find any. I really feel I need an attorney, but can't afford one
  • AlexO June 25, 2017 at 5:05 pm on WI: Wearing a GPS monitoring bracelet is not punishment, court saysIf it doesn't allow you to live life in a manner of a normal citizen, it's punishment. Period. I don't care what the court rules. I 110% guarantee that anyone on the receiving end, including these judges that rule to the contrary, would think otherwise. This needs to get to SCOTUS.
  • newby June 25, 2017 at 4:54 pm on WI: Wearing a GPS monitoring bracelet is not punishment, court saysBecause they can.....
  • This helps the public protection how? June 25, 2017 at 4:16 pm on WI: Wearing a GPS monitoring bracelet is not punishment, court saysIs there an app for that? Meaning, can you in real time in public as a member of the public find an RC wearing a GPS anklet (their words) and make sure you and yours run away from them? Sounds like this is for LE only so they can ask where you were at such and such day and time (which they would know supposedly) because I don't see how they can protect the public in real time. Would be funny to see one of them start to talk into it like a Dick Tracy watch from back in the day. This is unconstitutional at its core.
  • Yep, this ship is listing and Mr. Rant has it right June 25, 2017 at 4:04 pm on TN: The plea deal _____ didn’t take in Vanderbilt rape case, and whyI second what Mr. Rant says about the judge's specific wording on life sentence in his commentary. From the Free Dictionary - Life Sentence (life′ sen′tence), n. a sentence condemning a convicted felon to spend the rest of life in prison. And prison is only used in punishments, never anything less when tied to a court system or a regulatory scheme. (Mic drop)
  • C L A R K June 25, 2017 at 4:04 pm on IL: Rankings considered for sex offendersRight right rankings... Like college football or the WBC rankings.... Who's number one...Who's number one.!!?!! Idiots . Question is Who is the number one Un-,Constitutional state...Who's #1 Who's #1...!!?!! Idiots.
  • T June 25, 2017 at 3:57 pm on WI: Wearing a GPS monitoring bracelet is not punishment, court saysWhy does the court really need the GPS system, if what they claim to do is not punishment?
  • Makes no sense in AR June 25, 2017 at 3:54 pm on AR: Disabled Little Rock man released from sex-offender listSo, AR state examiners judge on their own merits and thinking without consulting the professional who has been on the case for two decades. Smart, really smart by AR state government. Nothing like a little job security there for AR state employees. Must be listed by reason of mental disease or defect? Heck, that is a lot of AR by that admission alone. This is a messed up situation for that man in that state. Let him back into college to finish his degree.
  • Timmr, June 25, 2017 at 3:36 pm on General Comments June 2017That's only if you want a first time license or if you have to reapply because you changed your business type or want to add a classification, then for sure it is like starting over with current requirements. You renew your license every two years, I believe, if you have one, just paying the fee and updating address, business owners, officers, insurance. I am thinking Doug is asking about if one already have a license that renews. Can they revoke a license previously granted, even though, when granted, the offense wasn't considered a grounds for denial, but now it can be. Is that correct, Doug? I don't remember, but I don't think they used to ask if you had a conviction of any sort, just if you had a conviction for something "construction related." I don't think anyone would have been lying in many cases, saying their sex offense was not construction related. Lately, it seems this "moral tupitude" wording has gotten into the requirements, which is a higher bar to jump over. Seems silly just to be able to fix a leak in a roof or plant a tree professionally.
  • Timmr, June 25, 2017 at 3:04 pm on The Sex Offender: the 21st Century WitchI don't remember that part, but what a great show that was so long ago. It was a different time when that tv series was aired. I don't think PBS could show something like that today. Pun intended, it bared the corruption of the first Roman emperors. Today they would have to have a disclaimer that the content would upset a viewer, the references to incest, beastiality and pedophilia be redacted, and the breasts blurred out. If they didn't clean up their shows, extreme social conservatives like Sessions would be cutting what little funding for public television there is left or maybe prosecuting the producers. Just realised that is what happened. Next will they clean up Shakespeare? Defund those dirty old humanities, Jeff's eyes and ears are hurting. Oh my!
  • Mr. Rant June 25, 2017 at 1:33 pm on TN: The plea deal _____ didn’t take in Vanderbilt rape case, and whyWhen a judge states, as part of the court record, that registration is "a life sentence", that constitutes prima facie evidence that proves the punitive aspect of the registry, and should be used by other legal entities in ANY registration case from now on forward.
  • AJ June 25, 2017 at 12:10 pm on TN: The plea deal _____ didn’t take in Vanderbilt rape case, and whySo the defendant rolls the dice on getting 5 more years, purely in the hope of completely avoiding becoming a Price Club member. And the one thing the State won't relent on is the membership. If he's such a risk, wouldn't they want him in prison longer? But no, the most important thing to the State is not rehabilitation or restitution (read: prison), it was retribution. They are willing to come down on punishment, but not on regulation? Boy, if that doesn't show what the Price Club is really all about, I don't know what does. A teen in IL kills himself over the prospect of the Price Club. A young man now takes 5 more years in jail as a consequence of trying to avoid the Price Club. Please, please, please, SCOTUS, set this ship right! You sent it listing, you can right it. --AJ
  • AJ June 25, 2017 at 12:05 pm on WI: Wearing a GPS monitoring bracelet is not punishment, court saysThis shouldn't take too long for a reasonable court to strike it as unconstitutional--once he's off parole/probation. I guess he's such a risk that we need to track him for life, but no problem letting him roam. This paranoia is absolutely ridiculous. Apparently, as long as the legislature says it's not punishment, it's not punishment. This country is such a mess. One of these days we'll manage to make everyone and everything perfect, I'm sure. That certainly seems to be what our culture thinks possible. The op-ed was a bit circumspect in it's point, but the author does seem to think this is a bridge too far. Thanks to God these voices are speaking up more and more! --AJ
  • 4sensiblepolicies June 25, 2017 at 12:02 pm on The Sex Offender: the 21st Century WitchThat's sort of a tough one to get my head around. Makes it sound like everything is preordained and cannot be stopped or changed. Might as well give up, because if God decides to put the next hitler into office, there's nothing that can be done to stop it. If indeed that is the case, I'd think that advocacy groups such as this one is completely a waste of time. I more subscribe to the notion that we get bad politicians like chris smith because ego, hubris, and greed are their drivers - not God.
  • Follow up on seventy-seven times of forgiveness June 25, 2017 at 11:11 am on The Sex Offender: the 21st Century Witchto fedup, It could be a brother (or sister) in Christ, in blood or just overall because the concept is forgiveness seventy-seven times of the transgressor by the transgressed.
  • Mary June 25, 2017 at 10:56 am on ACSOL Monthly Meetings Q3 2017Hello, do we need to register to attended the meeting?
  • AJ June 25, 2017 at 8:35 am on General Comments June 2017@David Kennerly "[N]ot to belabor this...discussion too much." I'd say for most on this board, you and I crossed this point already. 🙂 I have a hard time believing Laura Poitras, or any journalist, is being subjected to Encase-level forensic examination. Will CBP and other LEAs exploit legal gaps? Of course, thus the reason for this app functionality. I wholly agree it's an end-around on the Constitution. Sadly, it's neither the first nor the last. Yes, encryption such as PGP is a good answer. Unfortunately, or police-state has gotten to the point that just using encryption and/or disk-wiping software is used in court of intent to evade discovery by LE. I guess were it me who was worried and traveling, I would at the very minimum have a laptop with an encrypted SSD with TRIM and garbage collection enabled. I'd do a bit more, but it's beyond sharing here. Some say DHS has figured out how to carve the slack space of SSDs, others say they haven't due to proprietary schemes the manufacturers use. I figure anyone with unlimited money (read: USG) can and will reverse-engineer the chips and drives, and never say a peep. As to the jailing for failing to release the key, I'm totally with you! I think it's a horrible violation of the Constitution. Obviously courts disagree, using the "foregone conclusion" exception to the Fifth. (I say if it's a foregone conclusion, then no need for me to comply! 🙂 Go ahead and put me on trial.) They also have the much-abused All Writs Act in their corner. It's all just more chips taken off rights, liberties and privacy. The founding concepts of keeping an abusive government in check and protecting the minority from the "mob" majority are gone. Now, it's the government has the right to see what's going on to (try to) prevent a crime, and majority should always rule. The scariest part is that even judges have no problem doing a civil end-around on the Constitution: "The court, for its part, is bypassing arguments over the Fifth Amendment altogether, arguing that courts have the authority to hold persons in contempt, without a trial: 'Civil contempt orders are intended to be coercive or compensatory in nature, and do not require… a jury trial.'" --AJ, a disgusted, libertarian (small L) citizen of Amerika.
  • AJ June 25, 2017 at 7:57 am on General Comments June 2017@Nondescript Thank you. You answered exactly what I was asking. As enacted, the current requirements do absolutely nothing as we all know. Of course the legislative response if they discover this fact will be to tighten the requirements. More than anything, hopefully it can help point to the fact that these myriad hurdles and hoops do nothing. Since they have no effect one way or the other, they can never achieve the stated legislative purpose, setting them up for failing even rational basis review. (Fingers crossed!) --AJ
  • Amen June 25, 2017 at 7:37 am on The Sex Offender: the 21st Century WitchI would like to add to New Person's post: Luke 23:34 34Then Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.” And they divided up His garments by casting lots. I will admit, some days, it is easier said than done....
  • fedup June 25, 2017 at 7:22 am on The Sex Offender: the 21st Century WitchThat would more likely refer to the person transgressed forgiving the transgressor, but also by brother it means fellow believer not actual siblings
  • fedup June 25, 2017 at 7:20 am on The Sex Offender: the 21st Century WitchGod's law IS the law. Anyone in authority is there because of God. So when you look at Romans 13, its accurate
  • Nondescript June 25, 2017 at 12:17 am on General Comments June 2017California registrants are required to register with the police every vehicle that is registered in their name AND any other vehicle that is "regularly" driven by them . (The word regularly is actually written in the statute) Regular means a constant pattern, frequently, repeatedly, continually periodically, constantly , perpetually , or on numerous occasions. ( Purposefully ambiguous.) And yes, because there is no requirement to immediately update a vehicle, you could be driving grandmas car for 11 months of the year, but if you stop driving it and decide you're never going to drive it again prior to your annual registration - It would seem to be legally non disclosable. That, and the fact that you've already registered your own car with the police surveillance state anyways, basically makes vehicle disclosure irrelevant and ridiculous.
  • David Kennerly, One-Man Thought Crime Wave June 24, 2017 at 11:59 pm on General Comments June 2017Well, not to belabor this slightly esoteric discussion too much but, for people doing serious investigative work, like Laura Poitras, who has been searched at the U.S. border dozens of times and had her equipment seized and held for examination, then serious encryption (not Bitlocker) is absolutely essential. Further, the hold-in-jail issue for not providing passcodes is not yet settled law although a couple of judges have asserted this authority. We have not yet heard the final word on this highly dubious assertion of authority and clear violation of the right to not testify against yourself. Also, if you're using encryption correctly, then the cloud will not offer any advantages to the spies as you will be end-to-end protected which will mean its also safe in the cloud (even if not advisable) or anywhere else the data travels. All of this takes on a completely different cast when travelling internationally. The U.K. can, and will, compel you to give up your passphrase and, no doubt, many other countries will, too. In those cases, and for anyone with the responsibility to, say, protect their journalistic sources and work product, then the best option is to upload the encrypted data somewhere before crossing borders and scrub the hard drive of your computer or the equivalent in memory cards on devices. One thing: the U.S. government puts memos in Immigration computers when it wants to get data off of someone's devices when travelling as kind of a standing order. The F.B.I., say or ICE. Very sneaky. An end-run around search warrants.
  • Son of Liberty Child of Freedom June 24, 2017 at 11:50 pm on The Sex Offender: the 21st Century WitchHR 1761 is headed to the Senate for consideration. There is still time to reach out to the Senate to Stop it from becoming the Law of the Land. I speak Truth As Yehovah Lives, so should we
  • Rich fox June 24, 2017 at 10:41 pm on Senate Committee Passes Tiered Registry Bill (SB 421)Lifetime anything is foolish,once a registrant has finished probation that name should be removed from the list the bad ones to watch out for never get off probation
  • AJ June 24, 2017 at 9:10 pm on General Comments June 2017@David Kennerly Are forensics to that level happening at a border check point? I've got to say that if you're in a situation where they're running Encase on your devices, they're probably also launching warrants at cloud hosts, etc., and not having the data on this or that device will be rendered moot by said warrants and activity. But for the somewhat cursory "unlock your devices and let us scan through it" type stuff from CBP or similar, you're probably good. The idea of the feature is not to smuggle state documents (or contraband material) through the border, it's to keep private data private. If you've had or carry the former on your device, particularly internationally, you're running some significant risk. As to encryption, yes it does work. And failure to turn over the key can keep you in jail for contempt. (https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2016/04/28/suspect-who-wont-decrypt-hard-drives-jailed-indefinitely/) At any rate, it seems to be a useful tool for those who wish to travel internationally without some nosy border cop poking into things one prefers to be kept secure and/or private. --AJ
  • David Kennerly, One-Man Thought Crime Wave June 24, 2017 at 7:20 pm on General Comments June 2017Well, I was thinking of forensics since they have the capability to apply it to your device using something like Encase. I would be concerned if it doesn't scrub the data to the point of irretrievability. I wouldn't say it's moot, I would say that it requires more effort and knowledge to secure your privacy. Encryption does work.
  • AJ June 24, 2017 at 7:01 pm on General Comments June 2017@Lake County, CA I get the whole pointlessness of it and running the registration. You're more furthering my point and question, not answering it. Does CA require you to register all vehicles you operate, regardless of ownership? That's the situation that is the head-scratcher. If I use it only intermittently, when is the standard reached of "operating"? My State also posts the vehicle info I supply them on the ML website. I guess some Mrs. Kravitz (http://bewitched.wikia.com/wiki/Gladys_Kravitz) is going to memorize all the vehicle data on the site and know right away that she should call the boys in blue about me. I'm not asking the value of it to LE, I'm asking what anyone else has run into as to the "operating" or "using" or "driving" or whatever their particular state laws say. My State seems unconstitutionally vague; I'm guessing others are, and possibly more so. --AJ
  • j June 24, 2017 at 6:56 pm on General Comments June 2017They would count it 3 days in a calendar in MN, it doesnt have to be all at once at least thats how I understand it from Illinois Law, they only list the plates and color here, the same with houses if i cleaned a house more then 3 times in a year id have to register it, but now they are telling me when i open my LLC. they just want me to report the LLC not all my customers houses. Im going to double check with the BCA on this one though before I do it, heard that from the sheriffs dept.
  • AJ June 24, 2017 at 6:49 pm on General Comments June 2017@David Kennerly Yeah, I've been watching those Kennedy rumors for some time. They seem to have fired up more this weekend. We may even find out as soon as Monday. Most say he will either go soon, or stay one more year, tops. Maybe he will decide to stay on to decide Snyder in our favor! http://thehill.com/homenews/news/339314-kennedy-considering-retiring-from-supreme-court-reports --AJ
  • AJ June 24, 2017 at 6:42 pm on General Comments June 2017@David Kennerly If you read down into the back-and-forth comments, your concerns and thoughts are addressed. Nothing indicating anything is left on the device, and cannot be restored in any way (excepting forensics, of course). The data only gets put back on once you disable the travel mode on the website. So unless they are really digging into you, you're good to go and you can feel safe giving them whatever passwords they wish--you've made all the data benign. (If they ARE digging that deep into you, it's moot to try to hide it.) --AJ
  • Lake County, CA June 24, 2017 at 6:41 pm on General Comments June 2017Here's the best answer from their website, they will evaluate you on a case by case basis. I would hire an attorney to help you. For rehabilitation evaluation, pursuant to the California Code of Regulations §869, CSLB is generally looking for three (3) years to have passed after a misdemeanor conviction and seven (7) years to have passed after a felony conviction, without further violations of law. These timeframes are calculated from the applicant’s date of release from incarceration or from the end of probation if no time was served and are subject to reduction or extension based on several factors, including the nature of the applicant’s conviction history as a whole. In addition, any type of conviction could be considered substantially related to the qualifications or duties of a contractor when evaluated in the context of the applicant’s entire conviction record. You are required to attach a statement disclosing all pleas/convictions, including violated law sections, and thoroughly explain the acts or circumstances which resulted in the plea/conviction. In addition, the following information must be included for each plea/conviction: date of the plea/conviction, county and state where the violation took place, name of the court, court case number, sentence imposed, jail/prison term served, terms and conditions of parole or probation, parole or probation completion dates, and parole agent/probation officer names and phone numbers. Failure to accurately report any and all disclosable convictions is falsification of your application and is grounds for denial. If your application is denied, you will be prevented from filing another application for a minimum of one (1) year, and up to a maximum of five (5) years.
  • newby June 24, 2017 at 6:06 pm on Finally, some clearer thinking on sex offendersI was convicted of an internet crime in cali, put on probation, and no internet restrictions while on probation of any kind..
  • Lake County, CA June 24, 2017 at 5:56 pm on General Comments June 2017Registering our vehicles is pointless, because when they run our license plate, they also run a check on the registered owner and the computer has us flagged as a 290 registrant. The only time vehicle information would be helpful for them is if the vehicle was not registered to you. But the entire policy of registering our vehicles with law enforcement is pointless unless we were required to register any vehicle we were going to drive prior to driving a vehicle. If that were the case, we couldn't even drive a drunk friend's car from a bar.
  • David Kennerly, One-Man Thought Crime Wave June 24, 2017 at 5:21 pm on General Comments June 2017Not to worry everyone but I'm a bit concerned about the rumors of Justice Kennedy's impending retirement. And just when we got him into shape...
  • David Kennerly, One-Man Thought Crime Wave June 24, 2017 at 5:14 pm on General Comments June 2017There is also the concept of 'internal exile' in which a person is forbidden from leaving a place. That is what IML does and is also the effect of many states' onerous registration laws for visitors.
  • David Kennerly, One-Man Thought Crime Wave June 24, 2017 at 5:10 pm on The Sex Offender: the 21st Century WitchIt really started with papyrus. Anyone who has watched the old "I Claudius" series might remember Emperor Tiberius receiving a gift of lewd images from his nephew Caligula drawn on papyrus.
  • David Kennerly, One-Man Thought Crime Wave June 24, 2017 at 5:07 pm on General Comments June 2017That is very cool! It's important that it actually removes the data from your devices (although I would check further that it is not retrievable) because many countries, including the U.K., can demand that you provide them with passwords for data on your devices. Of course, the U.S. has successfully done this, too and at least several people have been jailed pending their willingness to supply passwords. This will also need further review by SCOTUS.
  • David Kennerly, One-Man Thought Crime Wave June 24, 2017 at 5:00 pm on General Comments June 2017I've never encountered any level of scrutiny on tour buses in Europe or anywhere else, for that matter. If you're crossing borders on a train, however, immigration officers often jump on board at some point to look at passports. Yes, even between Schengen countries. But they're not likely to see into your past as they have always, in my experience, never been able to electronically scan the passport.
  • Doug June 24, 2017 at 3:41 pm on General Comments June 2017Does any one know the California Contractors license boards , polcey on registered people ? Are we not allowed to get a license ? Are our old licences revoked if they find out about our conviction ? Is there a time limit after conviction that the contractors license is revoked. I'm not about to ask the license board.
  • AJ June 24, 2017 at 2:50 pm on General Comments June 2017And lawmakers think *we're* who need watching? How about members of the NJ State Police? Sounds like we need a registry for that. http://jezebel.com/state-troopers-turned-off-recording-devices-while-haras-1796040046 --AJ
  • New Person June 24, 2017 at 1:39 pm on The Sex Offender: the 21st Century WitchHere is my only rebuttal: ============================= The Parable of the Unmerciful Servant 21 Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, “Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother who sins against me? Up to seven times?” 22 Jesus answered, “I tell you, not just seven times, but seventy-seven times! -Matthew 18:21-22 =============================
  • AJ June 24, 2017 at 1:27 pm on General Comments June 2017@Lake County, CA Ok, so in CA you could drive another vehicle from the moment you walked out of registration, then cease using it sometime before registering again and be good? Even if you can go a two weeks, or a month, or 60 days driving an unregistered vehicle, it shoots a hole in any validity claim as to registering vehicles. That seems like a hole large enough to...well, drive a car through! 🙂 I guess someone who's going to do something bad only does it with registered vehicles. This would seem to be yet another example of a law that doesn't do what it claims to achieve, which a rational judiciary would then strike down. (There I go being rational again....) --AJ
  • Lake County, CA June 24, 2017 at 12:29 pm on General Comments June 2017In CA, you only have to provide updated vehicle information during your regular times of registration. But if you are on probation or parole, you should do whatever probation or parole instructs you to do.
  • David June 24, 2017 at 11:44 am on General Comments June 2017Question about travel: Have any of you, my fellow Registered Citizens, used a tour bus in Europe? I ask because I know that cruises can be very problematic for registered citizens but I wasn't sure about tour bus groups in Europe.
  • David June 24, 2017 at 11:30 am on Consideration of AB 558 Postponed IndefinitelyFriendly, I agree! Let's keep this momentum rolling forward. "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice."!!!! 👍
  • David June 24, 2017 at 11:25 am on Consideration of AB 558 Postponed IndefinitelyThank you, Janice. I was wondering about the remaining legislative processes.
  • Harry June 24, 2017 at 11:23 am on Finally, some clearer thinking on sex offendersShort layman answer, no. There have been some efforts to do that, however, it have been stop. There is a possibility some on parole or probation may have restrictions.
  • James June 24, 2017 at 11:17 am on Finally, some clearer thinking on sex offendersDear Edie: That would be an incorrect assumption re California...if you are off probation and parole, as everyone eventually is, there is no restriction as to social media or notification....I think they, the b*stards....lol, tried it once, but the CA courts quickly overturned the statute. I remember being worried about this at some point in time....but that was a while ago. Best Wishes, James
  • AJ June 24, 2017 at 11:04 am on General Comments June 2017I recall there being a discussion some time back about CBP doing searches when one is reentering the country. I know it's an issue before SCOTUS, or will be soon. Anyway, I happened to be looking for secure password systems, and stumbled across something ANY international traveler may wish to use: https://blog.agilebits.com/2017/05/18/introducing-travel-mode-protect-your-data-when-crossing-borders/ Pretty cool. --AJ
  • Chris F June 24, 2017 at 11:03 am on General Comments June 2017I can't wait to hear how that goes! It's not like the ACLU would be making kids more apt to get molested. The opposite. Ridding the world of the registry would improve the likelihood of people re-integrating with society and the money wasted on registration and prosecuting registration violations could be spent on true help to victims and prevention.
  • AJ June 24, 2017 at 11:02 am on Finally, some clearer thinking on sex offenders@Edie How? The moment you raise Packingham with the D.A. or judge. (I'd say a LEO, too, but they don't care about laws that go against what they want.) When? Immediately. --AJ
  • Edie June 24, 2017 at 9:48 am on Finally, some clearer thinking on sex offendersHow and when will the SCOTUS ruling in North Carolina affect R.C.'s in other states, particularly in California? Am I correct to assume that they're currently banned from all social media in CA?
  • AJ June 24, 2017 at 9:17 am on The Sex Offender: the 21st Century WitchIt's good to see yet another editorial out there for our cause and for rational thinking. And don't forget, the more we click on these stories and editorials, the higher they move in search results. 😉 I found one paragraph in there comical, in a sad way, and decided to edit it in the interest of satire: Sessions pointed an accusing finger at “the [horseless carriage] revolution” as the prime cause of the new sex crisis. “It has given pedophiles new ways to find and exploit children,” he insisted. Going further, he asserted, “Because of [the horseless carriage], no place is safe for our kids — not even our homes or schools. Any child with access to a [bicycle] is vulnerable to predators.” He added, “the [invention of talking pictures] has made it easier than ever for pedophiles to produce child pornography and share this filth with countless others.” I'm sure this could even be pushed back to Roman times, when Sessions was just a lad, to make a similar example. The more things change,... (though one would hope we'd at some point learn from history). --AJ
  • New Person June 24, 2017 at 9:07 am on General Comments June 2017Mike R, I sent this online, but it didn't show up. So I'm trying this again. Involuntary Servitude…. I am entitled to relief because.. a) involuntary servitude is prohibited, unless to punish a crime. b) registration scheme was deemed a regulatory scheme in 2003 c) once an individual completes the punishment supervisory term, then that individual is considered a free person that no longer needs to continue to serve the state d) registration imposes services upon an individual to continue to serve the state after the completion of their supervisory term, which includes serving the state by monthly check-ins with authority. e) there is no registration system imposed for any other group of former convicts under the same penalties f) there are four traditional factors in determining involuntary servitude: 1) contract done in free will, 2) compensation, 3) term, and 4) domineered. f1) registration was attached to a penal code, but it was deemed not punishment, which presents an oddity to the end purpose of registration. f2a) there is no compensation for being on the registry, yet under a supervisory term and if one completes it successfully, then that individual regains their freedom. f2b) because there is no compensation and the involuntary servitude is not to punish a crime, then this trait ventures into slavery upon a free person and slavery is prohibited under the Constitution. f3) in California, the term is a lifetime term upon a free person, which is an extreme contractual term that all courts would strike down as the lifetime term is directly defined until one dies f4) a free person cannot walk away from this lifetime term as they will be hunted down, punished, and returned to service for a lifetime. g) registration removes the liberty of walking away from a service, job as a free citizen =============================== I don't know if you want to add more to your pallet, but maybe you should include California Constitution Article 1: SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy. I want to specify that "pursuing and obtaining... privacy" is an "inalienable right". This right cannot be taken away from a free California Citizen. a) inalienable right to pursue and obtain privacy means the state cannot take away the ability to get and have privacy b/c it is a right, not a privilege b) after the completion of any and all punishments due to a conviction, one is deemed to be a free California citizen once again. c) registration is the dissemination of an individual's private information d) registration exposes a free citizen's private information e) the lifetime term is inherent to negation of the pursuit of privacy, which includes the negation of obtaining privacy. f) California has taken away my right as a free California citizen to pursue and obtain privacy after the completion of my penalties due to a conviction by excluding registrants from the removal of all penalties and disabilities stemming from the conviction under 1203.4. (Again, right to pursue and obtain privacy is a right, not a privilege b/c due to the specific language "inalienable right".)
  • New Person June 24, 2017 at 8:59 am on General Comments June 2017AJ, Great find on Black's definition of banishment. That should be used in all states to repel any and all presence and living restrictions. I'm curious if that can extend to employment? Employment is set up in an edifice. And edifice is a place. For example, one is banning a person from working at this location b/c that individual is a registrant. Whether it is for 15 minutes or eight hours, it is a specified period of time that a free person (who is a registrant) is banned whereas other free persons are not.
  • 1984 June 24, 2017 at 8:49 am on The Sex Offender: the 21st Century WitchAs soon as our law writers start reciting religious anything everyone is in trouble. Law needs to be measured and justified.
  • AJ (to mike r) June 24, 2017 at 8:37 am on General Comments June 2017@mike r Just in case you haven't found this resource: http://www.caed.uscourts.gov/caednew/index.cfm/cmecf-e-filing/representing-yourself-pro-se-litigant/ That should help you avoid things getting tossed on a technicality. The "Pro Se Packet" seems like a very helpful guide. --AJ
  • T June 24, 2017 at 8:10 am on The Sex Offender: the 21st Century WitchAnother useless law being passed, just because people want more protection and safety of their family and children, and because people are brainwashed by the myth that registrants reoffend at a high rate. This will not protect families and children, it will destroy them, and people have got to wake up.
  • AJ June 24, 2017 at 7:56 am on General Comments June 2017Here's some food for thought, courtesy of Black's Law Dictionary online (http://thelawdictionary.org/article/pillory-unusual-types-corporal-punishment/) regarding a form of corporal punishment, the pillory: "The pillory was designed to humiliate offenders. Typically, the offender's hands and head were locked in place and he or she was often put in a public place, such as a market square. Passersby would view the pillory as a form of public entertainment and would often do their best to humiliate the offender, such as by throwing rotten produce and other items at him or her. While the pillory was primarily designed to humiliate petty criminals, sometimes passersby would throw stones and bricks, which could lead to permanent injury and even death." The "market square" is now the Internet (as Packingham even now says), and the "rotten produce" is now signs posted (as in AR), special ID cards and/or driver licenses, etc. Even the last phrase about permanent injury and death has already been well documented by various vigilante events around the country. Pure and simple, we're being pilloried. Punished. That same URL has other corporal punishments listed, too. Though they seem to somewhat apply (esp branding and cropping), what got me was that they imposed lifetime, readily discernible identification of the person for a past offense. Again, sounds familiar. Also courtesy of Black's (http://thelawdictionary.org/banishment/) is the definition of banishment: "A punishment inflicted upon criminals, by compelling them to quit a city, place, or country for a specified period of time, or for life. See Cooper v. Telfair, 4 Dall. 14, 1 L. Ed. 721; People v. Potter, 1 Park. Cr. R. (N. Y.) 54. It is inflicted principally upon political offenders, 'transportation' being the word used to express a similar punishment of ordinary criminals. Banishment, however, merely forbids the return of the person banished before the expiration of the sentence, while transportation involves the idea of deprivation of liberty after the convict arrives at the place to which he has been carried. Rap. & L." It sure seems a residency and/or presence restriction compels me, "to quit a...place...for a specified period of time, or for life." These definitions, coupled with the Packingham ruling, sure make it seem a case could easily be won in pretty much any court in the land (ok, not FL or LA), not just Federal or SCOTUS domains. An opposing party in the suit would probably try to quote Smith, which I think would actually work in our favor. As we all know, Smith was upheld because none of these items were part of the scheme; they are now integral. So go ahead, Mr./Ms. Attorney General, please bring up Smith so we can all agree the State has gone well past what SCOTUS reviewed there. --AJ
  • AJ, ex CA June 24, 2017 at 7:03 am on Finally, some clearer thinking on sex offenders@ds The link 1984 provided has all the answers you need, and even clearly spells out the age difference exception that applies in such situations. From the document: "Florida’s 'Romeo and Juliet' law does not make it legal for an 18 year-old to have a sexual relationship with a 15 year-old; however, it does provide a mechanism for the offender to petition or make a motion to the court to remove the requirement to register as a sexual offender if certain criteria are met." "Most notably, the victim must be at least 14 years-old,9 the offender no more than 4 years older than the victim at the time of the offense, and the victim must have consented to the sexual conduct. Qualifying offenses for consideration of registration relief by the court fall under the following statutes: s. 794.011, F.S. (sexual battery); s. 800.04. F.S. (lewd or lascivious offenses committed upon or in the presence of persons less than 16 years of age); s. 827.071, F.S.11 (sexual performance by a child); or s. 847.0135(5), F.S.12 (certain computer transmissions prohibited)." The client and his attorney will need to weigh the pros and cons. --AJ
  • AJ, ex CA June 24, 2017 at 6:50 am on General Comments June 2017@J Interesting that you can hop and skip to a different car every 72 hours and be okay. What happens if you happen to drive a car again, say a week later? Or do you have to keep a list of VINs that have been driven? 🙂 (Not that crazy of an idea for you, actually. Snap a picture, which can automatically timestamp too.) The arrangement J is allowed is interesting, and makes me wonder about my own state. Within 3 business days, I'm required to register any vehicle that is "owned or operated." I've often wondered about the situation where I'm done operating a vehicle before I must register it. The question is, at what point does it become "operated"? If I drive my aunt's car once, then never again, must I report still report it within 3 business days? The law would seem to say so. Can I drive my son's car once, then not for a month or two, then drive it again and be okay? If I didn't expect to have driven it again and do, and then decide to register it "to be safe," am I guilty of not registering it within 3 business days of the first event? Nowhere does the State define how frequently one must use a vehicle for it to qualify as "operated." They also require me to let them know when I cease owning or operating a vehicle. So maybe they want me to tell them my start and stop dates and times, which both occurred prior to the 3-day window? "Hi Mr. LEO, I'm stopping by to let you know I test drove, i.e. operated, five cars at a dealership yesterday. Where are the forms for me to complete so you can enter that info into a computer for no helpful or rational reason?" I don't expect anyone here to have the answers, and I don't think LEOs, or even attorneys, can answer correctly...which is exactly the problem and my point. It's impossible for a reasonable person (or me, for that matter) to know when or if one is violating the law, which automatically makes it unconstitutionally vague. --AJ
  • mike r June 24, 2017 at 1:11 am on General Comments June 2017glad to see you guys riding this out .I know it's extremely arduous and time consuming and I appreciate all your help....I am going to try talking to ACLU again now that they got a bunch of money to fight Trump here in Cali...they are supposed to of opened a new chapter or office up here in Sacramento so I'll get on it Monday see what happens...
  • mike r June 24, 2017 at 1:05 am on General Comments June 2017yeah I'm going to beef up the involuntary servitude argument..I will research the closest regulatory mandate that is even close to relevant which is the obama health care mandates in a free person..that is the only reg. that compels a free citizen to a government mandate that isn't connected to some kind of licensing or permitting process and I am going to push the issue that mandate comes nowhere close to the registry since there is no threat of imprisonment for failing to comply..if there was such a consequence for non compliance for healthcare mandate it would have never have passed constitutional scrutiny....I believe this is a strong argument that I have to resesrch more...
  • Harry June 23, 2017 at 9:47 pm on Consideration of AB 558 Postponed IndefinitelyWhen truth is sent, even after the fact, it still educate.
  • Distraught grad student June 23, 2017 at 9:42 pm on IL: Rankings considered for sex offenders@AJ Guess it hit me kinda hard because it is what I'm currently trying to get my PhD in before all my world starting falling apart
  • 1984 June 23, 2017 at 8:59 pm on Finally, some clearer thinking on sex offendersYou can look up a document at (www.flsenate.gov/PublishedContent/Session/2012/InterimReports/2012-214cj.pdf) to read about Florida's Romeo and Juliet law. The choice can only be made with his attorney.
  • AJ, ex CA June 23, 2017 at 8:00 pm on IL: Rankings considered for sex offenders@Distraught Grad Student LOL, no kidding. But I guess I prefer that over some stereotyped image of a creepy guy in a trenchcoat, standing by his van, parked near the swings. --AJ
  • AJ, ex CA June 23, 2017 at 7:57 pm on Justice Alito’s misleading claim about sex offender rearrestsGorsuch so far has shown his strong belief in a law applying as written and, if written poorly, the legislature--not the judiciary--being where change is to be made. (This isn't surprising, given his ruling against the freezing truck driver.) Hopefully he is as willing to take judicial activity back from the legislature as he is to keeping legislating out of the courtroom. I think that can only play in our favor. --AJ
  • Timmr, June 23, 2017 at 7:18 pm on Hearing Dates Set for AB 558 and SB 421Thank you. And back at you, I enjoy your well reasoned, spiritually punctuated well metered enhancement of biblical and other iconic judicial references, composed in a way I can inadequately describe as poetic, humorous, respectful, down to earth footnoted rhapsodies I think Americans forgot how to compose after Mark Twain died. The meme is to speak safely and shackle that which might offend, even if true unto what we know by adding 1+1 to be 2. Thank goodness we are still free to emancipate the voices within us.
  • ds June 23, 2017 at 6:36 pm on Finally, some clearer thinking on sex offendersIn my world in Florida 🙁 there a case that a 19yr had sex with a 15yr old consensual sex the prosecutor is offering probation but must register as a sex offender. I think this is total BS. I think this should go to trial and ask the jury to side this case. What do you guys think???
  • Janice Bellucci June 23, 2017 at 6:32 pm on Consideration of AB 558 Postponed IndefinitelyThere are 3 steps to be taken in the Assembly before SB 421 goes to the Governor. First, the bill must be heard by the Public Safety Committee. If the Committee passes the bill, it goes to the Appropriations Committee. The final step is a vote on the floor of the Assembly. The deadline for all 3 actions is September 15.
  • Harry June 23, 2017 at 6:10 pm on Successful ACSOL Conference Brought Dignity, Hope and Information to ManyEven though I could not attend, like the monthly meetings because I work weekends. I whole heartily support these gatherings, as I have been to one it does provide tremendous support and real community.
  • Lake County, CA June 23, 2017 at 5:45 pm on Hearing Dates Set for AB 558 and SB 421I just wanted to re-post this as written by pgm111 since this is a better place to post this. Thanks pgm111, I will use this (with some changes) to send my letters. It is always best to customize all cut and paste letters just a little. Lake County, CA added note: (Send to each public safety member above, if one of these members is in your district, you can email or call them also. I also suggest you put "Public Safety Committee" (with Chair/Vice Chair title if appropriate) on the address label of each letter as that will increase the chances that they will consider (read) you letter since it is policy in State and Federal government not to read or respond to letters from anyone not directly in their district). Normally when politicians receive letters from non-constituents, they look up your address and forward it to your representatives office. June 23, 2017 Great news! Now it is time for a full court press to make SB 421 a reality. Below is a copy and paste of my letter to California senators. Reginald Byron Jones-Sawyer, Sr. Capitol Office, Room 2117 P.O. Box 942849, Sacramento, CA 94249-0059 Re: SB 421 – Tiered Registry Bill Dear Chairman Jones-Sawyer, I strongly urge you to vote YES on Senate Bill 421. Here is why: 1. According to the California Depart of Corrections and Rehabilitation, the recidivism rate for sex offenders is 0.8% over a five year time scale. 2. 95% of all sex crimes are committed by family members, teachers, coaches and clergy – not people on the sex offender registry. 3. The current registry scheme provides public with false sense of security and does not serve the interests of protecting the public. 4. A tiered registry system would actually increase public safety and make more efficient use of scarce law enforcement resources It is now time to reform California’s archaic sex offender registry. A yes vote on SB 421 will help achieve that laudable goal. Thank you. Full Name Street address City, CA ZIP
  • Timmr, June 23, 2017 at 5:42 pm on Successful ACSOL Conference Brought Dignity, Hope and Information to ManyMy wife and I enjoyed this conference immensely. The venue was great, beautiful building. Mr. Dubin's lecture was particularly enlightening for me. I could recognize some of the social phobias Nick posseses in myself. What the heck, didn't expect anything like that. It went way beyond law talk. Unfortunately, I couldn't attend the second day, but it was still worth it.
  • T June 23, 2017 at 5:38 pm on Justice Alito’s misleading claim about sex offender rearrestsI say keep up with the fight against those that distort information and hold them accountable for their malicious intent against American citizens that are registrants that have already paid their debt to society. The only reason why they succeeded was because we did nothing to stop them, didn't speak out, and persevere through the fight against misinformation, and propaganda against registered citizens. Edmund Burke said "the only thing necessary for triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing ".
  • J June 23, 2017 at 5:30 pm on General Comments June 2017Like to elaborate on the last post missed something. They said I'd be ok as long as I dont drive the same car after 72 hours then I'd have to register it, I woulnt drive a car more then 2 days on purpose had 70 some cars to drive, I should of drove them all more then 2 days just to keep registering it and unregister it, I didn't want to cause problems though
  • T June 23, 2017 at 5:27 pm on Finally, some clearer thinking on sex offendersI say keep up with the fight against those that distort information and hold them accountable for their malicious content against American citizens.
  • mike r June 23, 2017 at 5:08 pm on General Comments June 2017yep it's all in there..every suggestion all you guys made are in there....I am very happy with what we as a team have accomplished and I believe I am ready to file...I want to see what the opposition has to throw at me with their answer so I know what I need to concentrate on refute. what I am going to pound home is that I have completed all of my sentencing phases and am supposed to be a free citizen, judges are the only ones that can determine punishments based on individual basis not the legislative branch, the false statistics and misrepresentation of the facts to the court, bill of attainder, all of it.....I will not let anyfalsehoods slide by like all these attorneys...I got A's in both my public speech clases the last couple semesters so I think I am ready.....I already to the federal courthouse and talked to the clerk and I am looking forward to arguing this in front of a judge....
  • AlexO June 23, 2017 at 5:06 pm on Successful ACSOL Conference Brought Dignity, Hope and Information to ManyIf karma is a thing, you're just about due for that Power Ball jackpot.
  • j June 23, 2017 at 4:53 pm on General Comments June 2017this is an Illinois case original never had probation just registration, he isn't worried about me at all, i thought they were trying to set me up at first, I clean houses and work at a carlot i should of registered everything just for general practice lol, i would of been there twice a day wasting the program funds. *faceplant* How i was cleaning residential houses is beyond me btw i should of never been there lol, the 3rd month he asked me if i had a case i said to, he said dont tell me what it is i dont want to know lol. takes alot of courage to forgive this, it messed up my relationship with my gf, and it makes me really angry, when i see these couples go thru the same things that me and her went thru the last 8 years. ive avoided doing anything except working.I cant see myself letting this go after im done with the registration, this shouldn't even be in existence. thanks for the responses everyone
  • Janice Bellucci June 23, 2017 at 4:52 pm on Successful ACSOL Conference Brought Dignity, Hope and Information to ManyThe purpose of the ACSOL conference was to provide information and hope to registrants, family members and supporters. After 10 months of planning, we believe we achieved that purpose. Thanks to all who participated in the conference at every level -- planning, speaking, volunteering, etc.! The ACSOL team came together to produce what at least one person has described as a flawless event.
  • lovewillprevail June 23, 2017 at 3:51 pm on General Comments June 2017My advice to you is to what AJ stated, document everything. And always document when not staying at a certain residence. Something I did while on probation. And since you have only 2 years left and your detective has your back, at this point, as much as you want to, don't make any waves. Wait until you are off probation to fight back against anyone. Just fight back before the statute of limitations runs out. And I suggest once off probation, to let go what you can so you will not be angry and bitter and instead focus on your future. I have been in a very similar situation. A friend of mine (who had a mole in the police department) told me they were planning to plant drugs either in my car or house. Rather than do that, they called a contact at the county sheriff's department who with the probation department threatened to file false charges against me to put me in prison, threatened harm to my children who lived with their mother, and threatened to illegally release to the public details about my crime. Well, the sheriff department followed through with two of these things and thank god no harm to my children. Then I was kicked out of my treatment group and then kicked out of another treatment group I was told to attend by probation. I passed a polygraph I had done nothing wrong but a warrant was put out for my arrest. But after the probation department admitted to the judge they told the treatment groups to kick me out and that they had manufactured the probation violations hoping to put me in prison, the judge let me change treatment providers and complete probation. The sgt I registered with even stated I was his model registrant and he never did anything to bother me, never coming to my house, though he sent officers to my house one night to make sure I still lived there since the place appeared empty since I had not mowed in awhile and I had covered the front windows with plastic making it hard to see into the house. He told me just to move the garbage can around, plant flowers or mow more often so I know you still live there when I drive by. This fall I have to hire an attorney to get the illegally disclosed public crime information issue resolved. I also had the city administrator (who was an ex chief of police) stalk everyone who came to and left my house. Since I lived 300 feet from the city limits, I just went directly out of town and never went into town for nothing for awhile. And I put a small piece of paper at the top of the door and powder at the bottom of the door. Every day when I came home from work, I would open the door slowly and do my checks. If it was obvious the police had entered, the plan was for my friend and some of his friends to search the house, for them to put the drugs in a plastic bag and for me to wear gloves and immediately take it to my parents house in another local city until I could take it to the FBI the following day. But, they never did plant the drugs, just do what I stated in the above paragraph. People in the community offered me security equipment and money to watch the police, but I turned it down as the police would just tear up the equipment. This was about 10 years ago before all the newest tech and places to stay. I had to turn down places to stay as I was required to tell the police where I was if not staying at home. The police at the direction of either the mayor or the next city administrator broke into my house, stole multiple items with my DNA, vandalized the place and stole other items, all costing me about $1,000, which I later got back when I added that to the sale price of my place to the developer, who was in bed with city council, with them all admitting they got bribes. There was a rumor they were going to plant things with my name and DNA in the park. But, after I heard rumors of the drug planting, I made sure there was not one thing in my house with my name and no pictures of me or anyone I knew in the house, so there was nothing with my name in my house when they broke into my house. Luckily I knew someone who had connections at the FBI so that person went and explained what was going on and the FBI offered protection, but I refused. I never asked that person to go to the FBI. And luckily the FBI was investigating county and city governmental crimes in the area during the time the police broke into my house, so I went to the FBI and explained in summary what happened I was asked to come back with details, the reasons why and all evidence. Since I was still on deferred probation which could be revoked at any time, and one of the politicians possibly involved had power over my judge, I did not follow up for fear of being revoked. But, my intention was just to tell the local city and police I had gone to the FBI and that they were interested in what was going on. I just told the city they had gone too far this time and to leave me alone. After that, I never had any more problems with the city or police. In fact, I ran into the chief of police more than once at a bar and he tried to buddy up with me and buy me and my dates drinks. So I got free drinks (no alcohal) and my dates both times got free drinks. I counted more than 50 low level and felony crimes committed by people in government against me (and let's not count all the unconstitutional probation and state requirements). But I did nothing as I against anyone at the advice of my attorney for of revocation. And I was reading the bible at the time, and just decided to forgive everyone and move on. God has taken care of me. I figured if I am doing nothing wrong, God will take care of me. And now that I am off probation, I don't have time to go after any of these people and I let the statute of limitations expire. I am focusing on my future goals and the current relationships in my life.
  • AlexO June 23, 2017 at 3:46 pm on Finally, some clearer thinking on sex offendersOur rehab consular who first spent a decade working as a consular at the local jail told me that back in the day before the internet, if someone wanted to look up a registered citizen they'd need to fill out official forms stating their reason, get approved, then sent to non-public system where they'd be watched to make sure that's the only data they were collecting was approved kind, AND they'd have a limited amount of time to collect it. No sitting around for hours messing around on the system. Now any Joe-Blow can do a quick Google search to get a million hits because all those third party websites leaching official info as extortion are perfectly legal.
  • living the lie June 23, 2017 at 3:09 pm on Finally, some clearer thinking on sex offendersIt looks as though things are heading back to where (slowly) they were before certain people ignited the frenzy of knee-jerk reaction feel good laws that have done nothing positive for anyone, much less lived up to their stated purpose. I'm talking about when the registry was non public. Since it has become public politicians have used the sex offender panic as a tactic to push many useless laws effecting hundreds of thousands of people every time a single crime was committed by an individual, and many times laws have been passed seemingly just because, even though there was no demonstrable need for the law. What has been happening is large numbers of people have been punished over and over again for the acts of a single person. The results have been dead people after they have served their time because someone decided to troll the registry for a registered citizen to assault because they felt they had not been punished long enough or hard enough. Destroyed lives of wives, husbands, mothers, fathers and blameless children, as well as the astronomical and ever increasing cost to the taxpayers for something that does nothing aside from the above mentioned results. I challenge anyone to do a google search to see if one documented case exists where someone has been saved by the registry or any associated laws or if there is one documented case where the registry or any associated laws have prevented one single sex crime. I'll tell you the search results ahead of time; you will come up with a big fat zero. This monster needs to go back to being non public.
  • SCOTUS SAVE US NOW June 23, 2017 at 2:52 pm on OK: Lawmaker Seeks Change After Sex Offender Gets Out of Prison, Moves Next Door to VictimYoure statement he should just move is part of the problem. Why fight for any rights. Just give up. No, most likely he went to the only home he could find and the only place that would take him. She's 21, she can move if shes that uncomfortable.
  • SCOTUS SAVE US NOW June 23, 2017 at 2:43 pm on OK: Lawmaker Seeks Change After Sex Offender Gets Out of Prison, Moves Next Door to Victim@AlexO I to am sorry for what you went through. And sometimes morality and the law aren't the same (actually they rarely are). But your brother if he killed him would be wrong, your mother could move, everyone has that right. including the right to be a piece of shit and move next door if the restraining order is no longer in effect. I feel bad for this woman who was abused because she was abused. I do not feel bad because she chooses to remain next door after he moved in there because most likely he had no money or ability to live any where else. I believe in 2nd chances and forgiveness. He deserves both.
  • Chris F (to Mike R) June 23, 2017 at 2:40 pm on General Comments June 2017@Mike R Before I read the entire motion, there are some things I hope you are pointing out in multiple sections, especially under Bill of Attainder, Equal Protection, Involuntary Servitude, and Substantive Due Process. Please repeatedly include the fact that Sex Offender Registration restrictions continue after your adjudicated sentence, parole, or supervision has successfully ended, and that none of those restrictions suffered as a registrant were deemed necessary or appropriate to your circumstances during the sentencing phase of a trial where both sides have the constitutional right to be heard before punishment, rehabilitation methods, or restrictions to protect public safety are placed on the defendant by a competent judge. If you don't have it already, you may want to quote and reference the latest from the Packingham SCOTUS case as well where the Court noted the “troubling fact” that the North Carolina law imposed severe restrictions on persons “who have already served their sentence and are no longer subject to the supervision of the criminal justice system.”
  • Chris F (to Mike R) June 23, 2017 at 2:17 pm on General Comments June 2017@Mike R Holy crap! That's over 32,000 words and fills 45 pages in Word. That's impressive, and will take me some time to read! I won't get much of a chance over the weekend, so I hope you don't need to file too quickly.
  • AJ, ex CA June 23, 2017 at 2:17 pm on General Comments June 2017Given he's on a 10-year limit, it's not CA or FL, that's for sure! Given he raised no issue that appears state-specific, I don't know that it much matters. --AJ
  • AJ, ex CA June 23, 2017 at 2:11 pm on General Comments June 2017@mike r I've copied-and-pasted your entire motion into a Word document. I've read a good deal of it, but need to read all of it yet. I do have some suggestions, which I'll try to get done over the weekend or so. I've even figured out a way to get you an edited copy anonymously. 😉 --AJ
  • Nondescript June 23, 2017 at 2:00 pm on OK: Lawmaker Seeks Change After Sex Offender Gets Out of Prison, Moves Next Door to VictimYou raise an interesting point. How many people in this country have restraining orders against their neighbors? I have 3 sets of neighbors that live next door to each other just on my street alone ( property line disputes, harassment , fist fights etc) It is more common than we think. In no such case has a judge ordered anyone to move from their home- they just can't have contact with each other. I didn't realize that the victim in this story was 21 but I suspect that she has already obtained or attempted to obtain a no contact order. To force this man from his home just because she and her family don't like him being in such close proximity to her however, is a line most judges would not cross . That's probably why they are involving legislators. Regardless, the victim is an adult now- it is her choice to remain a victim forever or heal and forgive. If she can't do either then she should move.
  • AJ, ex CA June 23, 2017 at 1:42 pm on General Comments June 2017@J Sounds like the detective is also biding the last couple years until he's free from having to monitor someone who's not a problem! Good for you, but still be wary of any LEO. Any. Without making a big deal about it, you could maybe innocently ask the detective what happened to those people who made false claims to the police about you. I wouldn't go beyond that, but definitely would write down what he says, as well as having the time and date. Any conversation with him, I would document. Not to trap him in anything, but to establish a pattern which shows that you document things. In other words, the many pages of benign documentation will bolster the strength and validity of any crucial documentation. You're in the homestretch, time to CYA as much as possible! --AJ
  • AJ, ex CA June 23, 2017 at 1:34 pm on Finally, some clearer thinking on sex offendersA decent, level-headed op-ed from the LA Times. Good to see. They had also urged President Obama to veto IML. Too bad he didn't listen. 🙁 Hopefully more major media pick up on this and keep espousing the proper statistics and information, not the soundly debunked 80%. --AJ
  • mike r June 23, 2017 at 12:55 pm on General Comments June 2017Alright I finished my motion and believe it is ready to file... http://mllkeys20112011.wixsite.com/mysite check it out see if there is anything I should change or add....
  • Lake County, CA June 23, 2017 at 12:43 pm on General Comments June 2017What state are you in? You should always let us know what state you are in if you want a proper answer.
  • j June 23, 2017 at 12:26 pm on General Comments June 2017k thx was thinking about the documentation also, was going to buy a night vision game camera and point it at my house. just to show when i leave and get home, ive made it this far on luck with this registration. this would be the 2nd time someone tried to get me to jail, the first person they threatened to break in my car and put drugs in there and call the cops, because my brother broke up with her:/ the detective helped me get a restraining order on her
  • jo June 23, 2017 at 12:07 pm on Tiered Registry Bill Released from Senate Appropriations CommitteeJanice is too 🙂
  • AJ, ex CA June 23, 2017 at 12:01 pm on OK: Lawmaker Seeks Change After Sex Offender Gets Out of Prison, Moves Next Door to Victim@AlexO First, I am very much saddened to learn of the dreadful household you, your mother, and brother suffered. Hopefully that evil creature is paying or has paid for his actions. All I can say is that without knowing all the facts surrounding the case, none of us can make a judgment as to what's right. Some say the 21-year-old can and should move. What if she can't? What if she is caregiver for disabled parents? What if she's disabled in some way? Some say he should not be allowed to live there. What if he's the caregiver for his mother? Should his mother suffer because of all this, too? Nobody should be forced to move for anyone else...which is again something pretty much everyone on this board has said. Is the man being a cad? We. Don't. Know. Is it harming the woman (no longer a girl, mind you)? Obviously. Have any of them tried any other alternatives besides turning to the government to "fix" everything for them? We. Don't. Know. With so much unknown, none of us can really say what the "right" answer is here. Some distance between the two would certainly be helpful, that much is obvious. But what if that just isn't feasible due to other circumstances? I try to avoid judgment without having all the facts....kind of what I'd like others to do if/when they find out my RC status. Kind of what I'd like the State and its laws to do. --AJ
  • AlexO June 23, 2017 at 11:54 am on Successful ACSOL Conference Brought Dignity, Hope and Information to ManyThank you all so, so much for everything you're doing to help all registered citizens regain their humanity and the ability to live normal lives once again. The world needs more people like you.
  • AJ, ex CA June 23, 2017 at 11:53 am on General Comments June 2017@J I would say that since you suffered no harm, I'd just walk away. I would, however, keep notes of the days in question, as well as the date and time and gist of the conversation with the detective. Just a CYA. As a boss of mine used to say about documentation (which nobody liked doing): "none of it matters...until it does." I became diligent about documentation thereafter, and it saved my and my employer some serious problems. --AJ
  • AJ, ex CA June 23, 2017 at 11:50 am on SCOTUS Rules Justly in Packingham Case@Lovecraft Thanks for the WRAL article. It's a nice piece, with a proper smackdown on NC politicos. --AJ
  • AJ, ex CA June 23, 2017 at 11:45 am on General Comments June 2017@Chris F It's a topic that will not die. I still maintain that regardless of any shenanigans associated with it, SCOTUS will rule in the Administration's favor for reasons I've previously stated. That is not an opinion from me one way or the other as to the propriety, and I will not give one. It's simply a statement of courts traditionally ceding immigration to the legislative and executive branches, as well as expatriate non-citizens not having Constitutional standing. It's probably not a whole lot different than the wet-feet, dry-feet policy regarding Cubans. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wet_feet,_dry_feet_policy) Here's a thought for the sake of argument: what if instead of a ban (i.e. 0 allowed in), it's limited to 1, or 10, or 12 allowed? Is it okay then? What is the "proper" number? Next time I'll find a source that includes abortion or some other safe topic... 😉 --AJ
  • J June 23, 2017 at 11:36 am on General Comments June 2017I'm not on parole or probation, but me and my detective are on good terms he has known me 8 years, he told me he has my back if i ever need help that ive done everything right with them, he always goes the extra step for me when I do need help. pretty sure its the city because the city kicked me out for the case 8 years ago, and none of the city residence know me but i can visit anytime i want,and i have my secondary address there. I have 2 more years out of the 10 left to be done, doing my best not to let it restart, ready to fight this thing but waiting till i'm off till i do, i've been quiet the last 8 years, been paying attention to this site constantly thought
  • AJ, ex CA June 23, 2017 at 11:32 am on OK: Lawmaker Seeks Change After Sex Offender Gets Out of Prison, Moves Next Door to Victim@SCOTUS SAVE US NOW You seconded my thoughts, so I'm unsure why you replied as you did to my post. But, how dare you make a delicate young snowflake of just 21 leave home...what a cruel thought! --AJ, who successfully left home after graduating HS a year early at barely 17
  • USA June 23, 2017 at 11:17 am on A look at the potential changes in California’s sex offender registryMike I believe you can petition the court to have your Level 3 reduced to a Level 2 if your crime free for a certain number of years. Good luck! Stay positive
  • Friendly Advice June 23, 2017 at 11:12 am on Consideration of AB 558 Postponed IndefinitelyThis is great news! I'm glad I sent my letters in regardless. There is a lot of recent positivity in very common negative aspect in all of our lives [The Registry]. Let's continue to communicate and work together on this - all of us. Your current tier level doesn't matter - we're gaining traction by working together. 10 years ago I never would have thought any of this would be possible - but it's happening. Please keep sharing your stories, experiences, wins, and losses. Everyone on this board matters and is very important.
  • Chris F June 23, 2017 at 11:00 am on General Comments June 2017This sounds like a detective making stuff up to test you and trap you. Are you still on probation/parole? If not, you don't need to answer any questions from anyone. Unless they try to charge you for failing to update registration with proof that you resided somewhere else over whatever period your state says you have to update registration, then tell them to quit harassing you or you'll sue. I'm not a lawyer, so this is just my opinion.
  • Tirednotbeaten June 23, 2017 at 10:41 am on Tiered Registry Bill Released from Senate Appropriations CommitteeJanet, Thank you most kindly for your leadership and efforts. You are a real-life hero! I agree the online posting isn't affected until July of 2019. But from what I read you can start petitioning for relief from registration in 2018 if you meet the minimum registration period. Am I misreading this? "290.5. (a) (1) A person who is required to register pursuant to Section 290 and who is a tier one or tier two offender may file a petition in the superior court in the county in which he or she is registered for termination from the sex offender registry at the expiration of his or her mandated minimum registration period. period, except that petitions filed in 2018 and 2019 shall not be filed until on or after the person’s birthday following the expiration of the mandated minimum registration period. The petition shall contain proof of the person’s current registration as a sex offender."
  • AlexO June 23, 2017 at 10:31 am on OK: Lawmaker Seeks Change After Sex Offender Gets Out of Prison, Moves Next Door to VictimIt's a matter of being victimized again in a physical sense. My stepfather was a very abusive alcoholic. He'd mentally abuse me and beat my younger brother constantly. When he was two, he whipped him so hard with a belt that the buckle flew off. He was two! And he nearly killed my mother on my 10th birthday had he not been so drunk that he missed her head by inches with the claw-end of a hammer, lodging it in a wall behind her; I nearly buried one of the bottles in his skull when he passed out that day. Now, over 25 years later, I still shiver thinking about those days. And I know my mother would hate it were he to move in next door to her. And my brother might actually kill him if he were to move in next door to his family. No one gets to give victims a time window to "get over it" and "feel safe". You guys are right that a blanket law would do more harm than good in the long run. But this man needs to do the right thing and fall on his own sword if he's really repentant for what he did. If that means living under the bridge, than that's what it is. He isn't a Registered Citizen because of sexting as a teen, taking a piss in the park, or streaking. He abused this child. And now he's re-victimizing her all over again. He may have the right to live there, but that doesn't make it right. Sometimes we need to be better people beyond the law. What he's doing is going to result in making it worse for everyone else that has to register in the state.
  • j June 23, 2017 at 10:25 am on General Comments June 2017Just wondering, I had some people lie to a detective and said I was staying in a city that I wasent, luckly im in a small town my neighbors see me daily, the detective called me and asked if i was staying there he doesnt believe the person and said nothing should come out of this. Im thinking its the city council in the city, is it possible to sue them for the false accusation or is this something i should just leave be?
  • AlexO June 23, 2017 at 10:16 am on Consideration of AB 558 Postponed IndefinitelyYou mean I wrote and sent all those letters for nothing? 😛 That's great news! Now to SB 421. Does anyone know if there are more rounds of voting after this, or is it going to the governor's desk, if it passes now?
  • TG June 23, 2017 at 10:10 am on Consideration of AB 558 Postponed IndefinitelyThis has been hanging over my head like the Sword of Damocles since its inception. My life has been hell, with virtually every second constant worry. Could it be true that this bill is really gone? The last time Quirk-Silva did this, she brought it back in a revised form.
  • Son of Liberty Child of Freedom June 23, 2017 at 9:57 am on Home Compliance Checks@ randy j summers, The questions you put forth, I would say are not completely off Topic and do merit a answer by the many persons who dwell in the same position as You & Yours. I would argue the questions you put forth will shed Light upon UnKnown or UnSeen violations & abuses by Big Government agents at all levels that can serve in the Interest of Justice for those who have been Mistreated & Abused who now find themselves Innocent yet Guilty by Association! ~~~~---<<>>---~~~~ An "Association Fallacy" is an informal "Inductive Fallacy of the hasty-generalization or red-herring type and which asserts, by "Irrelevant Association" and often by appeal to emotion, that: Qualities of one thing are inherently qualities of another. Two types of Association Fallacies are sometimes referred to as: Guilt by Association and Honor by Association - aka The Hallo Effect. ---~~~<<>>~~~--- "I would like to know more about probation rules and guidelines / cans & cants for them . My wife is on probation & I am not , can they search our entire property & or residence & out buildings without a warrant/ They have no written consent from myself? really would like to hear from somebody," ------- ------ ------- The recent ruling by SCOTUS, I would say has captured this forums attention and would explain the lack of responses by those who walk upon the Paths that You & Yours find yourselves on. ~~~~~<<>>~~~~~ I encourage you to address: Nondescript, Lake County, Timmr, mike r, someone who cares, Drummer, & HOOKSCAR with true insight directly to assist You & Yours as they are True Gentlemen & Gentlewomen. I speak a True Song As Yehovah Lives, so should we
  • Lovecraft June 23, 2017 at 9:32 am on SCOTUS Rules Justly in Packingham CaseHere is one last article from wral (out of Raleigh, NC) For those who aren't familiar with them, they tend to be a very conservative group. This is an excellent opinion from their parent company, capitol broadcasting company (cbc). They really take it to the NC legislature about how they play politics in NC. http://www.wral.com/editorial-supreme-court-again-to-n-c-don-t-play-politics-with-the-constitution-/16775043/ ***please do not copy and paste full articles. Moderator***
  • New Person June 23, 2017 at 8:58 am on General Comments June 2017The seven countries were the seven identified under the OBAMA ADMIN!!! How you fail to omit such information is stupendously erroneous on your part. Don't be misleading like Alito. Here, Trump is specifically identifying the seven countries to temporarily ban that the previous administration put under watch of a terrorist threat country. Trump isn't banning all Muslims here. That's what he said on the campaign, but that's not what's on legal documentation for the law. Again, either deal with facts or you're dealing with fear. You can't be dealing with fact for registrants and deal with fear in a temporary banning on 7 terrorist countries. =============================== Because the truth is…It’s a ban on specific countries to disguise its real intent of being a ban on as many Muslims as he can get away with that doesn’t hurt Trump’s past business deals. “The Government has pointed to no evidence that any alien from any of the countries named in the Order has perpetrated a terrorist attack in the United States,” the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said. =============================== But they've perpetrated attacks upon other soil not on their own. So why not increase the vetting process? Anyhow, it's a temporary 90-day ban. That's it. They're not Americans being banned. It's people we don't know, but would like to know. We don't want a blanket, open arms to all from those seven countries. You're quite reactionary than preventative in your actions. That's like you behaving like Justice Roberts implying all these things that could go wrong with the registry is all conjecture b/c it hasn't happened yet. There's nothing wrong with what Trump wants to do. Do I agree with it? I think he could be working on a vetting system right now. I don't know if he needs the temporary ban. If we're allowing refugees and others we don't have a background into this country from those seven countries that produce terrorists (again identified under the OBAMA ADMIN), then we have to vet those already in the USA as well as those that want into the USA. I see what they're trying to do. You.... I see what you're trying to do too. This isn't a lifetime ban on all Muslims. Please, stick to the facts. This is a 90-day temporary ban on people from those specific seven countries. And it is important for all to make sure Trump abide by it as well. But there's no need to be hyperbolic with farcical statements. You can look online. Every publication will state what was presented to the court: a temporary 90-day ban on seven countries. Where inside what was presented to the court that it banned all Muslims forever? Where?
  • Chris F June 23, 2017 at 8:49 am on General Comments June 2017LOL! Oh come on, it's a good topic that relates to how Politicians hide their prejudiced intent under seemingly good intentions. Muslims or Sex Offenders. or... "First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Socialist."
  • pgm111 June 23, 2017 at 8:01 am on Consideration of AB 558 Postponed IndefinitelyGreat news! Now it is time for a full court press to make SB 421 a reality. Below is a copy and paste of my letter to California senators. Reginald Byron Jones-Sawyer, Sr. Capitol Office, Room 2117 P.O. Box 942849, Sacramento, CA 94249-0059 Re: SB 421 - Tiered Registry Bill Dear Chairman Jones-Sawyer, I strongly urge you to vote YES on Senate Bill 421. Here is why: 1. According to the California Depart of Corrections and Rehabilitation, the recidivism rate for sex offenders is 0.8% over a five year time scale. 2. 95% of all sex crimes are committed by family members, teachers, coaches and clergy – not people on the sex offender registry. 3. The current registry scheme provides public with false sense of security and does not serve the interests of protecting the public. 4. A tiered registry system would actually increase public safety and make more efficient use of scarce law enforcement resources It is now time to reform California's archaic sex offender registry. A yes vote on SB 421 will help achieve that laudable goal. Thank you. Full Name Street address City, CA ZIP
  • living the lie June 23, 2017 at 7:34 am on OK: Lawmaker Seeks Change After Sex Offender Gets Out of Prison, Moves Next Door to VictimWhat you say is so true Will A
  • living the lie June 23, 2017 at 7:31 am on Consideration of AB 558 Postponed IndefinitelyGood news indeed ! I really doubt Sharon Quirk Silva had an attack of honesty; more likely her un necessary bill doesn't look good in light of the tiered registry bill. I have to wonder if anyone ever asked her what happened to make her bill necessary. Did someone excluded from the web site commit a heinous crime? Or did someone excluded from the web site register a day late? Or do those low level victims of the state simply exist and are they some sort of threat in her eyes? I never did hear of a justifiable reason for her to introduce her bill.
  • Timmr, June 23, 2017 at 7:23 am on OK: Lawmaker Seeks Change After Sex Offender Gets Out of Prison, Moves Next Door to VictimYes, and with residency restrictions and lack of employment opportunities, his options for places to live are limited. Remove those barriers, the story is different. Apparently, part of the family has forgiving him, his mother. Doesn't she matter? Anyway, it is amazing how families can manipulate the carceral state to satisfy their divisions, and the state (politicians) must cater to them at the expense of others.
  • Chris F June 23, 2017 at 7:18 am on General Comments June 2017"Do you start trying to fix the leak first or do you stop the source providing the leak first?". Well, in this case, to fix the leak they turned off the water to the neighbor's house instead of the one with the leak. Because the truth is...It's a ban on specific countries to disguise its real intent of being a ban on as many Muslims as he can get away with that doesn't hurt Trump's past business deals. “The Government has pointed to no evidence that any alien from any of the countries named in the Order has perpetrated a terrorist attack in the United States,” the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said. Just like Sex Offender residency restrictions are disguised as policies to protect children, the real intent is to ban sex offenders from their city. In both cases, all you have to do is look at original intent. Trump specifically said he wanted a Muslim ban and asked his staff how to do it legally. That's a fact. They don't even ban the counties that most terrorists come from! The ban does not include Saudi Arabia, Egypt or the United Arab Emirates - all countries with which Mr Trump did business and from where the 9/11 plane hijackers came. If you look at sex offender residency restrictions original intent, there are some great quotes on Oncefallen's site. The original intent is to keep sex offenders out, and force them to other cities until they set up the same restrictions, ending in an escalation of the distance until it's a total ban. It is not to protect children, like they write in the laws. So...back to Muslim bans...The Muslim countries already go through a lengthy and hard vetting process. Experts don't know what else could possibly be done, and Trump hasn't said one thing about that. He is going to sit and wait until he gets his ban put through, and then task the Departments of State and Homeland Security with figuring out what more can be done. Why hasn't he asked them yet after all this time since the first attempt at a ban??? There is nothing but shady stuff going on here. Let's recap the Trump part in this: 1) He specifically asked his team how to legally ban Muslims to pass constitutional muster...he did not ask how to improve security or vetting. Banning that specific list of countries is what they came up with. 2) He doesn't have to wait for the ban to start improving the vetting process, but he is, because otherwise he won't need a ban in place because the work will have already been done that is the entire reason for a ban. 3) He purposely excluded the countries he has done business with that just happen to be where ALL the 9-11 hijackers came from! Sorry...my BS alarm won't stop going off on this charade...
  • AJ, ex CA June 23, 2017 at 6:54 am on General Comments June 2017Ok, so my original post used the Trump EO issue to highlight the change and erosion of rights. Despite my desire to keep it off the EO topic, it's obviously gone there. I apologize for starting that ball rolling and for not being wiser in my choice of links. --AJ
  • Mike June 23, 2017 at 6:32 am on A look at the potential changes in California’s sex offender registry"This would also include people who are considered not to reoffend...." Does this also include a Level III offender who has not commented a crime for 10, 15 or 20 years??
  • SCOTUS SAVE US NOW June 23, 2017 at 6:31 am on OK: Lawmaker Seeks Change After Sex Offender Gets Out of Prison, Moves Next Door to VictimI hear what you are saying about him being selfish, but what if there is no place else for him to live. No one will take him in, he can't find a job, and he has limited options because he's no longer eligible for housing assistance from the federal government. She's 21, should get a job, and if she's uncomfortable is capable of moving. Furthermore, someone who vicitimizes a 7yo is awful but a grown woman should be able to avoid him. Just my 2 cents
  • SCOTUS SAVE US NOW June 23, 2017 at 6:28 am on OK: Lawmaker Seeks Change After Sex Offender Gets Out of Prison, Moves Next Door to Victimi would say she had a limited window to feel safe. Most states restraining orders do not last "forever" but are for a set window of time. In NY they are 2 to 5 years and they require the person requesting it to prove that they are still in danger from the person. What this man did is awful and wrong, but odds of him victimizing her again as she is not a child any more are minimal. Just my 2 cents
  • Son of Liberty Child of Freedom June 23, 2017 at 1:05 am on Hearing Dates Set for AB 558 and SB 421@ Timmr It appears your statement: "I suppose they would have to go back and reconcile the two somehow" Has come to fruition and your prediction has became a Truth. I must say it's enjoyable to be illuminated by your reasoned Foresight & educated Vision. I speak a True song As Yehovah Lives, so should we
  • Son of Liberty Child of Freedom June 22, 2017 at 11:55 pm on Consideration of AB 558 Postponed IndefinitelyAs I have stated in the Past, I say so again today: In this Match for Our Rights & Titles as Citizens gifted to us from The Most High, Surprizes can Be Expected. Therefore we must continue to be Vigilante for any Obstacles that may be laid before our Path. I Speak a True Song As Yehovah Lives, so should we
  • John4 June 22, 2017 at 11:43 pm on Consideration of AB 558 Postponed IndefinitelyAbsoluty wonderful!!! This bill iff passed could of potential had a horrible impact of my life.
  • Joe123 June 22, 2017 at 11:41 pm on Consideration of AB 558 Postponed IndefinitelyAll of everyone's work and efforts make a difference!
  • Nondescript June 22, 2017 at 11:02 pm on Consideration of AB 558 Postponed IndefinitelyNot surprising. Lawsuits and injunctive relief were a certainty if this had passed and been made retroactive. Sometimes I think these bills are written as leverage . Like I'll drop my bill and vote for yours if you get behind my other one.
  • Timmr, June 22, 2017 at 10:54 pm on OK: Lawmaker Seeks Change After Sex Offender Gets Out of Prison, Moves Next Door to Victim“It should be a commonsense fix to add ‘or within so many feet of the victim’s residence’ to existing law.” That is not a common sense thing to do to bring one more law on the books that keeps all families even willing families from living together or near each other in peace. This family may not know ways to restore family harmony, but many more have. Former victims and former offenders learn to confront and empower each other that way, in spirit of love and community. About time for restorative justice. If California leads in any way, let it lead in a new way. Finland used to be the most incarcerated country in Europe. They were like us now, a punative solution to everything. Now it and the other Scandinavian countries have turned 180 degrees and the crime rate has dropped as has prison spending. That is what human networks talking and using evidence and courage can do. Stop thinking linearly. Let the family confront this man in a healing and supervised setting or if needed get a restraining order, but don't make another on size fits all punative law, based on one high profile situation.
  • Les Mis Life June 22, 2017 at 10:11 pm on MN: Even Sex Offenders Have Constitutional RightsOutcome will be interesting. Currently, Minnesota has this commitment program and only level 3 offenders are publicly outed. If this is overturned, does the public outcry demand that ALL offenders are then put on a publicly available database/website?
  • New Person June 22, 2017 at 9:17 pm on General Comments June 2017It's not just an immigration process, now is it? It's for anyone willing to travel from those places. Again, this admin is saying we don't have a proper vetting process. Currently, anyone can come in. The 90 days halts it. That's when they can probably start doing more research on all people wanting to come from those 7 countries, which the Obama admin had originally denoted as terrorist threats to the US. An analogy is there a leak. Do you start trying to fix the leak first or do you stop the source providing the leak first? For a kitchen sink, you shut off the valve underneath temporarily. Once you've addressed the problem, then you can turn valve back on again to test it. If it work, then great. If not, then you turn the valve off again. For a toilet issue, you have to shut off the main valve, which is located by the sidewalk. Go buy the materials to fix or replace. Make sure it's the correct size and connectors. If not, then it's another trip to the store. Once everything is fixed, then turn the water main back on. If nothing leaks, then you've been reassured it is fixed. It's a temporary ban with the sole purpose of setting up a vetting system. It's not a lifetime ban on one religion. That's what I'm trying to correct here.
  • David Kennerly, One-Man Thought Crime Wave June 22, 2017 at 7:56 pm on SCOTUS Rules Justly in Packingham CaseAnd how much you want to bet that many of those scouring the Internet looking for CP are protesting a bit too ostentatiously about how "traumatizing" the experience is?
  • David Kennerly, One-Man Thought Crime Wave June 22, 2017 at 7:52 pm on Justice Alito’s misleading claim about sex offender rearrestsGang-bangers. They're the ones who cross over into rape with some frequency. But guess what? They were (are?) systematically EXCLUDED for consideration as "sexually violent predators" for the purposes of sex offender civil commitment. They just get out of prison, no worries about indefinite (but mostly lifetime) interment at California State Hospital, Coalinga. I came into possession of a letter written by CSH administrators some years ago (from Mike St. Martin) saying precisely that in explaining their guidelines for "admission." And don't get me started on what California (or any state as well as the federal government) considers to be "sexual violence." Think: "victim under 14." That's it! That's "sexual violence" and those performing the act are then called "sexual predators," too. Let me add one more thing while I'm on the topic of re-engineering the English language. When I was a kid (back in the 1960's), age-of-consent violations were referred to as "statutory rape." That "statutory" ALWAYS accompanied the word "rape" and it was understood that it was a matter of transgressing age-of-consent laws without any imputation of forceful rape unless it actually WAS forceful rape. No longer, now the word "rape" is thrown around very liberally and uncritically. Think about it, when was the last time you even heard the term "statutory rape" used? Certainly not to describe any of us. No, we're "rapists."
  • ReadyToFight June 22, 2017 at 7:52 pm on OK: Lawmaker Seeks Change After Sex Offender Gets Out of Prison, Moves Next Door to Victim@AJ- I didn't mention anything about rights. He's living where he's living because he has the right to. What I AM saying is that the guy, regardless of the situation is playing with fire and has put himself and his victim as well as all their family members in a terrible situation. I think if a State is going to set us up to fail at life, then they should have programs to aid in stability not keep pushing ppl out into the streets to live under a bridge. But just the fact that this guy has to carry with him the label of sex offender will ensure that he and his victim will relive the experience every single day. And yes I feel really bad for the girl. I also think there should be no course of action by LE as they do not get to cherry pick who does and does not have rights.
  • David Kennerly, One-Man Thought Crime Wave June 22, 2017 at 7:34 pm on OK: Lawmaker Seeks Change After Sex Offender Gets Out of Prison, Moves Next Door to VictimOh, his MOTHER lives next door and that's why he moved there. So it's not like he's stalking her. Well, to hell with them then, he has every right. She can move if she wants.
  • Robert R. June 22, 2017 at 7:25 pm on Consideration of AB 558 Postponed IndefinitelyExcellent!!!! This bill would have caused more harm!
  • Roger June 22, 2017 at 7:21 pm on Consideration of AB 558 Postponed IndefinitelyThanks for all your hard work calling and writing! Together we have an impact. Now let's call and write to support SB 421 tiered registry. I love seeing the anti-registrant pendulum start to reverse direction!
  • Nondescript June 22, 2017 at 7:12 pm on OK: Lawmaker Seeks Change After Sex Offender Gets Out of Prison, Moves Next Door to VictimUnless it is a part of sentencing, a temporary or permanent restraining order is civil matter- not criminal. And it requires a hearing where both parties can have their say with a judge. Why this family is trying to lobby the legislators to change a law to apply to everybody when they could have immediately filed an order of restraint and probably obtained it ( especially if the victim is still a minor) makes this story very fishy to me. A law that says that you must stay a certain distance from your victim forever doesn't take into account registrants who went on to marry their "victims" , an incestuous relationship or inappropriate contact between siblings or someone who ran naked across a football field with potentially hundreds of unknown "victims". Will it still be enforceable if someone is relieved of their duty to register? Is every crime victim afforded the same piece of mind? A slippery slope indeed...
  • Lee June 22, 2017 at 7:06 pm on Survey – International Travel after IMLFor those that want to travel to U.S Virgin Islands. I want to share this post from tripadvisor - https://www.tripadvisor.com/ShowTopic-g147400-i171-k10591421-Re_entry_to_the_U_S_from_St_Thomas_DACA_Recipient-U_S_Virgin_Islands.html Looks like you have to go through immigration while exiting from USVI. Meaning, you have to hand in your passport and they will run it on the computer. I wonder if they are going to see everything and then question you like you were coming from International trip into USA as opposed to just custom formality of goods, etc. Anyone has experience with traveling to USVI as RSO? I cannot seem to find any information about one's experience online. I am just concerned if they are making any huge deal or cause any issues. @AJ - thank you for the link. The article is so vague about how many days needed to register in USVI as a visitor, but it does mention alot about 3 days.
  • AJ, ex CA June 22, 2017 at 6:50 pm on OK: Lawmaker Seeks Change After Sex Offender Gets Out of Prison, Moves Next Door to Victim@Ready To Fight "She was 7 years old!" And now she's 21, living in her parents' home next door. So she has the right to continue to live at home with her mother and father, but he doesn't have a right to move back home with his mother? It's a horrible situation all the way around, especially since it's all within one family, but where do you draw the line on whose rights are "more important"? What if his mother needs him for care giving because nobody else will do it? As we all have said, once our debt to society is paid, we should not be put under any extra burden--and nor should he. That the State failed the victim is not his fault, and it certainly doesn't mean he must automatically surrender his rights. Should he? I would were it me, but I don't have all the facts surrounding *why* he's living there. --AJ
  • Nicholas Maietta June 22, 2017 at 6:45 pm on Consideration of AB 558 Postponed IndefinitelyFantastic! Woohoo!!!!!
  • David June 22, 2017 at 6:42 pm on Consideration of AB 558 Postponed IndefinitelyExcellent!!! (And letters and phone calls were not wasted. I'm just guessing here, but members of the Senate Public Safety Committee may have told the Bill's author that they were hearing a lot opposition from constituents.)
  • AJ, ex CA June 22, 2017 at 6:11 pm on Justice Alito’s misleading claim about sex offender rearrests@Michael I cannot find any reference to his having rolled eyes at Obama. He's done plenty of eye-rolling, and other rude things, to others, but his action towards Obama was to mouth "not true" back to him during a SOTU address. Tradition has SCOTUS sitting stone-faced and not clapping at SOTUs, for fear of showing partiality or political ideology. Apparently Alito doesn't care about that. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2013/06/justice_samuel_alito_why_he_s_so_rude.html Alito really seems to be a jerk and also perhaps a misogynist (http://www.salon.com/2013/06/25/justice_alito_mocks_female_justices_while_on_the_bench/). He certainly doesn't put forth a good example of how a Supreme Court Justice should act. --AJ
  • Distraught Grad Student June 22, 2017 at 6:06 pm on IL: Rankings considered for sex offenders@commenter1 Weird choice of a background picture for their start page...guess all SO's must be computer programmers?
  • AJ, ex CA June 22, 2017 at 6:04 pm on Justice Alito’s misleading claim about sex offender rearrests@TXSO4Life I think you're reading a bit too much into Gorsuch joining Thomas and Alito on one case, and his writing a separate, concurring opinion in which Thomas joined for the other. The cases were 9-0 and 7-2 (Breyer, Kagan), so it's not like he "sided" with either Alito or Thomas in any sort of opposition or dissent. Instead, the three simply saw different aspects to the case, but came to the same conclusion as to judgment. Big deal, it happens all the time. As David Kennerly points out, Gorsuch is libertarian-minded, a boon to our cause. He also seems to have a healthy suspicion of government, its power, and its overreach in exercising that power. That said, when a law is properly enacted (read: Constitutional to him), he will rule it to the letter, and as written (see: the case of the fired truck driver). In other words, he doesn't legislate from the bench. --AJ
  • Will A June 22, 2017 at 5:28 pm on OK: Lawmaker Seeks Change After Sex Offender Gets Out of Prison, Moves Next Door to VictimIf he had only beaten her nearly to death then this would not even be a news story. The only reason this is is because it involves sex. Any person in this sort of situation should be allowed to attempt to get a restraining order and that's all. Nothing else.
  • David Kennerly, One-Man Thought Crime Wave June 22, 2017 at 4:59 pm on OK: Lawmaker Seeks Change After Sex Offender Gets Out of Prison, Moves Next Door to VictimI would be surprised if a restraining order is not in his future. He's obnoxious, yes but he has rights (theoretically).
  • David Kennerly, One-Man Thought Crime Wave June 22, 2017 at 4:55 pm on Justice Alito’s misleading claim about sex offender rearrestsI see nothing in today's decisions, or in any of his past judicial decisions (with which I am familiar), for that matter, that would lead me to believe that Gorsuch will be against us in Snider. I don't even see a particular animus towards defendants in criminal matters. We do know that he has libertarian inclinations, which is excellent for us, but we are just going to have to wait to see to what extent there may be socially conservative impulses that come into play. He is largely untested in sex offender cases but shows promise in criminal justice generally.
  • 1984 June 22, 2017 at 4:55 pm on Justice Alito’s misleading claim about sex offender rearrestsI wonder how many other people with convictions such as drugs, robbery and other non-sex crimes do cross-over into a sex crime. I have never seen that data. Perhaps it is low perhaps not. But once convicted of a sex crime nothing else matters when it comes to statistics. The data appears massaged and skewed. Oh, I almost forgot it becomes political.
  • AJ, ex CA June 22, 2017 at 4:53 pm on SCOTUS Rules Justly in Packingham CaseBased on the strong wording of the Court's opinion in Packingham, I think not only is Snyder going to be heard, but they it to head off the mass of suits that are percolating throughout the country and headed their way. I'm hopeful SCOTUS will take the "long way around" on Snyder and address the punishment items themselves, and not just rule on the ex post facto issue. They go somewhat hand-in-hand, but I'd prefer the situation that hits the scheme (punishment items), not just the amendments to the scheme (ex post facto). IOW, strike down the punishments themselves, and the the ex post facto argument is also resolved. Maybe, just maybe, SCOTUS will use Snyder to bring the registry back to "just" a Price Club membership. Ideally, but I think a bridge too far, they will say the blanket, public registry is not sufficiently specific or tailored narrowly enough given the burdens and harms it places on people who have paid their debts to society. --AJ
  • AJ, ex CA June 22, 2017 at 4:32 pm on SCOTUS Rules Justly in Packingham CaseI wonder how many NC cops are now free of desk duty scouring FB (I'm sure they never did any personal FB activities while "fighting crime" in this manner) and can go out and actually do law enforcement activities that help society. Unfortunately, they will probably just buttress the compliance-check jackboots. --AJ
  • AJ, ex CA June 22, 2017 at 4:22 pm on OK: Lawmaker Seeks Change After Sex Offender Gets Out of Prison, Moves Next Door to VictimI think everyone has hit on points that make sense, and I agree in part with each. If he has completed all sentencing requirements, he is free to live as and where he wishes, within the RC constraints. He's certainly being selfish and hurtful living where he is, but he's exercising the exact freedom of movement and residency we all complain we're not getting. Perhaps a risk-assessment back when he was under control of the state would have been helpful. If deemed a risk, he could have had longer post-release supervision attached--including staying away from the victim and routine risk assessments to ensure effective therapy and counseling. I'm guessing that wasn't done, so the victim suffers. If he becomes a problem towards the victim, or anyone, yes of course a restraining order is proper, but not until or unless he shows harassing or harmful intent. What if this is the only place he can find to live? Would you prefer he be made homeless? That again is something many have railed about on here...but it's okay in this case? Don't get me wrong, I have complete empathy for the victim, but how far do her rights extend? I posit they extend just as far as his, yours and mine do: as far as possible until they restrict someone else's. That's a very, very fuzzy and grey line. Again, I agree that he's probably not thinking about her, but perhaps it's his only option. Only he knows. --AJ
  • USA June 22, 2017 at 4:20 pm on A look at the potential changes in California’s sex offender registryThis is a wonderful article! I can't even imagine where California would be if Janice and her organization didn't exist! We would be banned from living in certain areas, banned from beaches/parks/libraries and who knows what else? I can't even imagine how many lawsuits have been filed. Now, we have an opportunity to finally see the light at the end of the tunnel!
  • TXSO4Life June 22, 2017 at 4:16 pm on Justice Alito’s misleading claim about sex offender rearrests"Of importance, the troubling fact that the law imposes severe restrictions on persons who already have served their sentence and are no longer subject to the supervision of the criminal justice system IS ALSO NOT AN ISSUE BEFORE THE COURT (but pending)” This statement by Justice Kennedy (with my emphasis) could signal his feeling toward the pending issues on Snider case. I foresee a 5-4 decision on snider case with Neil Gorsuch against us. There were two opinions released by scotus today (Thursday) with Gorsuch siding with Alito and Clarence Thomas. Tell me what ya think!
  • ReadyToFight June 22, 2017 at 3:40 pm on OK: Lawmaker Seeks Change After Sex Offender Gets Out of Prison, Moves Next Door to VictimShe was 7 years old! She should not have to live in a constant state of anxiety and fear. Feelings we as SO all know Too well. And yes, to banish is unacceptable, but the dude assaulted a little girl and has no business living next door to her. That's not right either. IMO
  • Lake County, CA June 22, 2017 at 3:39 pm on General Comments June 2017Why does Trump still need the 90 day ban to refurbish the immigration process? He's had 150 days now to make any changes he wanted. If this was a real problem that just needed 90 days to fix, then it would have been fixed already. What, he can't make changes without stopping immigration? Something smells about this whole temporary ban.
  • AlexO June 22, 2017 at 3:20 pm on OK: Lawmaker Seeks Change After Sex Offender Gets Out of Prison, Moves Next Door to VictimDepends. A restraining order would accomplish the same thing and there isn't too much argument about those. Unlike the general registry and fear-mongering about SO's, this is something very direct with the victim herself saying she has an issue, regardless of his registration status. I mean, if it wasn't a sex offense and instead he beat her, would you still say she has no stance to feel safe?
  • SCOTUS SAVE US NOW June 22, 2017 at 2:27 pm on OK: Lawmaker Seeks Change After Sex Offender Gets Out of Prison, Moves Next Door to VictimSadly you are all wrong. Once this man has finished his parole/probation he should be allowed to live ANYWHERE he pleases. Heck he could move in upstairs from her if her parents would rent him a room and he was off parole and probation. Banishment is punishment and you cannot and should not legally be able to continue to punish forever. Furthermore, the man lives with his Mother. Should he not be allowed to visit his mother because it is next door? slippery slope
  • David Kennerly, One-Man Thought Crime Wave June 22, 2017 at 2:22 pm on SCOTUS Rules Justly in Packingham CaseThis, from the ever-news-scouring Bill Dobbs on the North Carolina victory: A U.S. Supreme Court win! In a unanimous ruling the court struck down North Carolina’s law banning registrants from social media as unconstitutional; individuals on the sex offense registry have First Amendment rights. The North Carolina law makes it a felony for registrants to simply "access” social media sites that allow under-18-year-olds to post such as Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn—which means banishment from sites that are virtual town squares for many millions of people. No actual online wrongdoing is required for conviction; a reporter opined that reading Donald Trump’s tweets would be a crime. Reports say one thousand prosecutions have been brought using this statute. Lester Packingham fought back, challenging his conviction and the law and he won. He and thousands of North Carolina registrants will benefit from the Supreme Court’s decision. Similar laws in other states are now under legal scrutiny. Stay tuned – the politicians are already talking about tweaking the law. This court decision makes it harder for the government to interfere with social media access, now the fight turns to the corporations which control large online platforms. Kudos and congratulations to Lester Packingham and his lawyers, David T. Goldberg of Stanford University Law School’s Supreme Court Litigation Clinic and North Carolina Public Defender Glenn Gerding. Appreciation also goes to Eugene Volokh and David Post, a long list of lawyers, individuals and organizations who brought attention to this matter and supported it before the Supreme Court; the amicus briefs are linked below. Have a look at USA Today’s report and a news story out of North Carolina. Wayne Logan, a law professor and pioneering legal scholar on registry issues, has a terrific analysis for Collateral Consequences Resource Center of the decision including insight about how the court handled the pernicious issue of recidivism statistics. The Supreme Court’s decision is linked at the end of this post. -Bill Dobbs, The Dobbs Wire USA Today | June 19, 2017 Supreme Court says sex offenders can access social media By Richard Wolf Excerpts: Social networking websites have become such an important source of information that even sex offenders should not be barred from social media, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday. The justices said a North Carolina law that made it a felony for sex offenders to access sites such as Facebook, Snapchat and LinkedIn violated the First Amendment. Although North Carolina's law goes further than most states, Packingham's victory represents a ringing defense of free speech rights for some of the nation's most reviled citizens — the estimated 850,000 registered sex offenders. Kennedy called the case "one of the first this court has taken to address the relationship between the First Amendment and the modern Internet." "To foreclose access to social media altogether is to prevent the user from engaging in the legitimate exercise of First Amendment rights," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote. "Even convicted criminals — and in some instances, especially convicted criminals — might receive legitimate benefits from these means for access to the world of ideas, in particular if they seek to reform and to pursue lawful and rewarding lives." It didn't help state officials that their case focused on Lester Packingham, whose sex crime in 2002 resulted only in two years of supervised probation, but who was arrested eight years later for celebrating the dismissal of a parking ticket with a Facebook post that began "Man God is Good!" MORE: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/06/19/supreme-court-says-sex-offenders-can-access-social-media/103006410/ News & Observer (Raleigh, NC) | June 19, 2017 US Supreme Court strikes down NC sex offender social media ban By Anne Blythe Excerpts: The U.S. Supreme Court has overturned a North Carolina law prohibiting registered sex offenders from using Facebook or other social networking sites that minors can join. In North Carolina, where 14,268 people are entered in the N.C. Sex Offender and Public Protection Registry database, civil liberty organizations have paid close attention to Packingham’s case. Glenn Gerding, the Chapel Hill attorney who represented Packingham, argued several years ago that the law as written could make it difficult for a registered offender to engage in routine Internet activity, such as a Google search. The 2008 restriction was part of a legislative package that Roy Cooper, the state Attorney General at the time, advocated for many years. Cooper was elected governor last fall. The 2008 legislative package came about at a time that state attorneys general across the nation were raising concerns about social media sites such as Facebook and Myspace, hoping to protect users from sexual predators using the networks. Many states have laws that require sex offenders to provide information about their internet use to authorities. States also limit internet use as a condition of parole or probation. Louisiana has a law similar to North Carolina's, but unlike the N.C. law just struck down, Louisiana’s applies only to people convicted of sex crimes with children, according to a document filed in Supreme Court. MORE: http://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/crime/article156928489.html Collateral Consequences Resource Center | June 20, 2017 SCOTUS invalidates law criminalizing sex offender access to social media By Wayne Logan Excerpts: Whereas in multiple prior decisions the Court characterized the governmental interest in combatting sexual offending against children as very significant, and invoked dramatic rhetoric of recidivism risk of sex offenders as a whole as “frightening and high” and the like, Justice Kennedy’s opinion for the Court refrained from such language; it simply emphasized the seriousness of preventing sexual offenses directed at children. The absence of such inflammatory rhetoric about recidivism risk perhaps reflects awareness of recent scholarship making clear that inflated empirical assessments of risk, repeatedly invoked as justification by courts and legislatures to justify expansive and often draconian sex offender-related policies, are well off the mark. (Indeed, it is worth noting that Justice Kennedy himself has used such language in the past.) Second, and no less important, is language in Packingham suggesting a possible softening of the Court’s customary unequivocal backing of laws imposing harsh sanctions on convicted sex offenders, which the Court acknowledged as numbering among the array of collateral consequences experienced by individuals. Also, it must be acknowledged that while Justice Kennedy’s opinion was joined by four colleagues (Justice Gorsuch did not take part), the three-member concurrence authored by Justice Alito (joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Thomas) contains some of the hyperbolic recidivism-related rhetoric found in prior opinions. MORE: http://ccresourcecenter.org/2017/06/20/scotus-invalidates-law-criminalizing-sex-offender-access-to-social-media/ Packingham v. North Carolina U.S. Supreme Court, No. 15-1194 Decision issued June 19, 2017: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-1194_08l1.pdf Oral argument – Feb. 27, 2017 – archived audio and transcript: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2016/15-1194 Legal briefs: http://www.americanbar.org/publications/preview_home/2016_2017_briefs/15-1194.html
  • AB June 22, 2017 at 1:41 pm on Hearing Dates Set for AB 558 and SB 421Please call the Senators today and voice opposition to AB558! It'll take just a few minutes, it's the easiest thing to do. Please call and send letters TODAY if you haven't done so! Please help us fight this bill.
  • commenter1 June 22, 2017 at 1:20 pm on IL: Rankings considered for sex offendersHere's the task force website if you want to see what's being proposed: https://soortf.icjia.cloud/
  • mike r June 22, 2017 at 1:03 pm on General Comments June 2017Help me out people...I need conclusions to both the bill of attainder/separation of powers argument and the involuntary servitude argument.. I need them to be very specific such as the following... Unreasonable, arbitrary, oppressive official action... 192. I am entitled to relief because, a) The registration scheme is unreasonable in that it subjects me to a lifetime of registration when I have a less than one percent re-offense rate, b) it has not been confirmed that I pose a cognizable risk high enough to justify my inclusion on the registry, c) the registration scheme is completely arbitrary since it applies to me when I do not pose a risk for re-offense any higher than the ordinary public, d) the registration scheme achieves no legislative objectives and actually exacerbates my risk for re-offense, e) the registration scheme is oppressive because I cannot leave my house without fear of being attacked which has already occurred, f) I cannot find meaningful employment because of my inclusion on a public registry, g) I am severely restricted or completely banned in what occupations I may pursue because of the exclusion zones, h) I cannot buy new vehicles because my property will be vandalized, which has already happened in my current location, i) I cannot move into homes that are in affluent neighborhoods because most HOA’s will not allow ex-sex-offenders to move into their neighborhoods, j) I cannot buy a home without fearing that I will be forced to move because of some retroactive law that gets passed against ex-sex-offenders or for fear that my property will be vandalized or even destroyed by vigilantes. so..... Bill of Attainder... I am entitled to relief because.. a) b) c) ect..... Involuntary Servitude/Slavery.... I am entitled to relief because.. a) b) c) ect....
  • Chris F June 22, 2017 at 12:46 pm on OK: Lawmaker Seeks Change After Sex Offender Gets Out of Prison, Moves Next Door to VictimAs much as this guy shouldn't be next door, it's the wrong path to have Legislature deal with this. This should have been dealt with by the Judge, during the sentencing phase. A judge can protect public safety past your term of jail or probation or parole as long as it is narrowly tailored. There could also be a restraining order demanding he keep a certain distance that could be put into affect now by a Judge. Everything doesn't need legislature involved. What happens to the victims that got over something and want to be around a relative if the lawmakers ban that for all?
  • David Kennerly, One-Man Thought Crime Wave June 22, 2017 at 12:25 pm on MN: Even Sex Offenders Have Constitutional RightsThis is extremely encouraging and I'm excited for the possibility of this reaching SCOTUS. It is also very exciting for the fact that CATO and the Reason Foundation have written an amicus brief that we should also read. I've been waiting for them (and lobbying them) to get more involved in SO issues and finally, they are. California's own Coalinga State Hospital is just as nightmarish except that it has released about 300 people (some to prison, it should be said). The reoffense rate of those released? Mike St. Martin (a "Hosprisoner") and his assistants there tell me that it is less than 4%. Mind you, these are people who have been classified as "sexually violent predators." They will get me a report soon with all of the data which they have been painstakingly collecting for years. The Hospital's Executive Director, Brandon Price, has a high school education (only), is a former truck driver and makes $145K/year. They are losing personnel in droves because no one wants to work there. The actual ( but NOT published) costs to house "patients" there is now $250K/year/per patient! Does this mean that they eat well and live in the lap of luxury? Uh, no. The food is absolutely horrendous and sparse and, in some ways, living conditions are worse than prison. Ironically - as they are a "hospital" - health care is at crisis levels with many, many unnecessary deaths and CSH owes many millions (believed to be 21) to local community doctors, hospitals and clinics who now refuse to provide further treatment. A "lucky" few who are so dangerously ill, such as a man with tongue cancer, have been sent as far away as San Francisco for treatment because everyone else closer realizes that they won't be paid. A few other patients have been allowed to consult with doctors very far away via Skype to treat them for things like melanoma which has killed six men in the last several years. One very big problem has been that the doctors speak very little English. Also, how does a dermatologist rely upon a Skype image to adequately view skin and to tell the difference between melanoma or something else? Contract psychiatrists and psychologists cost the institution between $300K and $700K EACH per year! More to come...
  • New Person June 22, 2017 at 12:24 pm on General Comments June 2017=============================== So according to this, Trump should be able to ban Muslims from coming here? =============================== What Trump says and what is in the written request are two different things. It's a temporary ban from seven specific countries until there is a better form of vetting people from those countries. Those seven countries are the same seven countries that President Obama identified as a terrorist threat. I hope this ends this discussion about "banning Muslims" when it temporarily bans seven countries. A 90-day temporary ban. B/c what you're doing is expanding those seven countries to the world... or saying a few bad apples makes all apples bad... or the most dangerous registrant makes all registrants dangerous.
  • New Person June 22, 2017 at 11:59 am on A look at the potential changes in California’s sex offender registryshhhh.... fear only works with fewer facts, if any. remember, it's the story that matters more.
  • 1984 June 22, 2017 at 11:59 am on OK: Lawmaker Seeks Change After Sex Offender Gets Out of Prison, Moves Next Door to VictimFor him to next door to his victim is selfish and stupid. If no therapeutic work has been done between them, he needs to leave. It would be the right thing to do. He is re-victimizing his victim with his actions. Does not matter if he can legally be there it is being human. Sell the property and get another. Don't get me wrong I am into our rights but please. This situation will only cause some idiot law writer to come up with something that will hurt more RSOs. Cost tax payers lots of money. This law writer (will not mention his name) is after publicity. It can be heard in his statements.
  • New Person June 22, 2017 at 11:56 am on Justice Alito’s misleading claim about sex offender rearrestsIt's a chess game. The counter to the Kennedy's opinion is to say, "We still need the registry for free persons b/c they're monsters. I have these stats to prove how dangerous they are." But Janice long ago debunked on how the SCOTUS can be wrong from time to time in a 2013 SO Conference. So it'll be a showdown when Snyder comes up. I think Snyder case uses Dr Ira and Tara Ellman's research work as well. Ira made a comment about Alito and his use of social science, alluding to how incorrect that source was and is as well as outdated data. Any restriction "... on persons who already have served their sentence and are no longer subject to the supervision of the criminal justice system ..." reflects involuntary servitude. One sees restriction and another sees service to the state, but it's the same thing b/c it is an imposition of time and liberty upon a free person. The only way involuntary servitude (compelled service) is possible is if it is to punish a crime. Welp, it's not to punish a crime as it was deemed regulatory. But it's not an all encompassing civic duty placed among all free peoples. So it's now a specific group made to serve the state as a free person.
  • New Person June 22, 2017 at 11:40 am on Justice Alito’s misleading claim about sex offender rearrestsAlito had two citations to his quote. That's where WaPo's Michelle Lee took Alito and his sources to the woodshed.
  • New Person June 22, 2017 at 11:37 am on MN: Even Sex Offenders Have Constitutional RightsWasn't this the case where a judge ruled it unconstitutional and the state overridden his decision? That stat of only one person got off of the program and only through fighting through the courts is ample proof of how disingenuous the program is. On a tangent, that's what I want to know about California and how many registrants are off the lifetime registry. How many have applied and been denied the CoR. These stats are important as they run parallel to MN stat of only one person being let out of CC. If the stats show that registrants aren't coming off as well as being denied, then it paints a picture for all to see. It paints a very terrible story, just like the one being described in this case.
  • Son of Liberty Child of Freedom June 22, 2017 at 11:31 am on SCOTUS Rules Justly in Packingham Case@ AlexO I posit new knowledge for your consideration: Motivated Numeracy and Enlightened Self-Government Why does public conflict over societal risks persist in the face of compelling and widely accessible scientific evidence? Here are three alternative answers: 1. The “Science Comprehension Thesis” (SCT), which identifies defects in the public’s knowledge and reasoning capacities as the source of such controversies; 2. The “Identity-protective Cognition Thesis” (ICT), which treats cultural conflict as disabling the faculties that members of the public use to make sense of decision-relevant science. 3. The simple answer may be - Cognitive-Bias http://www.datascienceassn.org/sites/default/files/Science%20Comprehension%20Thesis.pdf http://www.datascienceassn.org/tags/cognitive-bias I speak a True song As Yehovah Lives, so should we
  • AlexO June 22, 2017 at 11:10 am on OK: Lawmaker Seeks Change After Sex Offender Gets Out of Prison, Moves Next Door to VictimI actually agree with this move. This is no different than a battered wife having her abusive husband moving in next door to her. The victims should not be placed in this situation. Besides, it seems awful strange that the only place for this person to live is right next door? Though I'd prefer a clarification that the person could not take up a new residency near their victim rather then simply not being able to live next to their victim. Difference being that a person shouldn't be forced out of their home because the victim moved in close to them, similarly how people shouldn't lose their homes because the city build a "pocket park" and suddenly the person is out of compliance through no fault oftheir own.
  • AlexO June 22, 2017 at 11:04 am on MN: Even Sex Offenders Have Constitutional RightsThat's insane. I really hope SCOTUS takes this up. This is no different than sending someone to prison without an exit date nor any effort to obtain one through evaluation.
  • AlexO June 22, 2017 at 10:54 am on IL: Rankings considered for sex offendersNice to see that more and more states are finally coming to terms that what they're doing isn't doing anything other than sure as hell sucking up a ton of time and money.
  • AlexO June 22, 2017 at 10:52 am on SCOTUS Rules Justly in Packingham CaseThe really frustrating thing for me when it comes to facts in general is that the government seems to always be incredibly hesitant to even want to hear any facts to the contrary of any policy that's in place. Just think of the insane struggle of getting women the right to vote (lots of very false facts presented as to why they shouldn't, including "your wife's vote will cancel out yours"), segregation, interracial marriage, same sex marriage, climate change, etc. And I think its because the government, much like your drunk uncle, hates to admit they were wrong. And unlike any of those other issues that didn't involve any crime (well, no crime outside of people being criminals for trying to do all those things), sex offenders have actually done something wrong. So to admit that what the system has done in terms of "saving the children" was wrong, is a monumental pill to swallow for them.
  • AlexO June 22, 2017 at 10:46 am on A look at the potential changes in California’s sex offender registryHer story was short on details and big on fear. What was that person convicted off? Was it molesting young children or streaking at the ball game? Was he just released or was the conviction 30 years old?
  • Son of Liberty Child of Freedom June 22, 2017 at 10:16 am on MN: Even Sex Offenders Have Constitutional RightsI venture to expose Truth, in revealing a hypocritical reality at odds with the lawmaking body’s Patently False Claims. While this Court’s, [SCOTUS] case law holds out the possibility that a SOCC scheme could in theory qualify as punitive or criminal rather than civil, this case puts that principle to the test. Despite assurances that the judiciary will not deem laws “civil” simply because legislatures so characterize them, the extent of deference now offered to legislatures—particularly in light of Hendricks—saps judicial authority and presages further sweeping exercises of governmental power. The Eighth Circuit’s opinion below, which simply ignores the district court’s finding that the MSOP is punitive, clinches legislative free rein. See Logan, supra, at 1268 (“American legislatures today are pressing the envelope of the criminal-civil distinction like never before— enacting post-confinement sanctions that betray a shrewd awareness of the importance of the ‘criminal’ label.”); Alan M. Dershowitz, Preventative Confinement: A Suggested Framework for Constitutional Analysis, 51 Tex. L. Rev. 1277, 1296 (1973) (“By attaching this label [of the term Civil], The state has successfully denied defendants almost every important safeguard required in criminal trials. Invocation of this talismanic word has erased a veritable bill of rights.”). If any SOCC scheme is punitive, Minnesota’s is. In addition: If Truth be told, by extending this Logic & Reasoned Thought all Registry Laws Schemes are irrebuttably Punitive. I Speak a True song As Yehovah Lives, so should we
  • Chris F June 22, 2017 at 9:26 am on Justice Alito’s misleading claim about sex offender rearrestsThat was my first impression after reading the minority opinion as well. The concerns he felt needed it's own brief were either already covered by the majority brief, or completely irrelevant to this case or common sense. His only real reason to express a separate opinion was so he could leave off this part: “Of importance, the troubling fact that the law imposes severe restrictions on persons who already have served their sentence and are no longer subject to the supervision of the criminal justice system is also not an issue before the Court.” and so he could add this useless jab from McKune V Lile instead: Repeat sex offenders pose an especially grave risk to children. “When convicted sex offenders reenter society, they are much more likely than any other type of offender to be rearrested for a new rape or sexual assault.” He is pathetic and needs to be embarrassed publicly into retiring.
  • AJ, ex CA June 22, 2017 at 9:18 am on General Comments June 2017@Chris F I prefaced my post trying to avoid the hot-button issue of Trump's ban: "[s]pecific subject matter aside." What was of interest to me was the rest of the op-ed about rights and how they're viewed. But, to your point, immigration has long been viewed by SCOTUS as a national security and/or foreign policy issue, and have yielded to the other branches. With that in mind, I would say SCOTUS will rule in favor of the Administration. I'm not giving any opinion as to the wisdom of either outcome, I'm simply looking at precedent. For a related, though dated, reference, see: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2001/09/do_noncitizens_have_constitutional_rights.html "[T]he government is charged with protecting its citizens and the people in the other countries do not have protections of our constitution until they become a US Citizen." The Constitution in some places does give rights to anyone within the borders, the Fifth and Sixth readily come to mind. In some places it gives rights to a "person" and others to a "citizen." https://www.nlg.org/category/publications/kyr/ (This is a good guide for ANYone to have, read and know.) Given U.S. citizens don't even have Fourth Amendment rights until cleared through Immigration, I don't see how a non-citizen can have a First Amendment right outside the national borders. The case that may help with all this is where CBP shot and killed a Mexican national on the Mexican side of the border. http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/02/20/516275461/high-court-to-hear-arguments-in-case-of-mexican-boy-killed-in-cross-border-shoot I think whatever SCOTUS rules will open up a can of worms. I'm sure Alito will have some draconian resolution to it all. --AJ P.S. How is it I have a responsibility to follow U.S. Law when outside the country (IRS, anyone?), but I don't have rights? That truly seems to be a price of/for citizenship...
  • AJ, ex CA June 22, 2017 at 8:53 am on Justice Alito’s misleading claim about sex offender rearrestsI just finished reading the Packingham opinion, and Alito really appears to be a complete idiot. I don't say that due to his being against my situation, but because of his flawed thoughts. Alito: "[T]his language is bound to be interpreted by some to mean that the States are largely powerless to restrict even the most dangerous sexual predators from visiting any internet sites, including, for example, teenage dating sites and sites designed to permit minors to discuss personal problems with their peers." >>Maybe he should have read the Court's opinion. Kennedy: "[I]t can be assumed that the First Amendment permits a State to enact specific, narrowly tailored laws that prohibit a sex offender from engaging in conduct that often presages a sexual crime, like contacting a minor or using a website to gather information about a minor." Alito: "Repeat sex offenders pose an especially grave risk to children." >>This may or may not be so, but Packingham was not a repeat sex offender. Nice straw man argument, Alito. Had the State to enacted a law against repeat offenders that was specific and narrowly tailored, it would probably have withstood scrutiny. Alito: "An abuser can create a false profile that misrepresents the abuser’s age and gender. The abuser can lure the minor into engaging in sexual conversations, sending explicit photos, or even meeting in person. And an abuser can use a child’s location posts on the internet to determine the pattern of the child’s day-to-day activities—and even the child’s location at a given moment." >>Yep, and the "abuser" he dreams up could well be someone planning their first offense, or their fiftieth. I guess we just better ban everyone from all social media. Also, burglars can, and do, use a person's "location posts on the internet to determine the pattern of [] day-to-day activities" in order to rob them. Alito: "Because protecting children from abuse is a compelling state interest and sex offenders can (and do) use the internet to engage in such abuse, it is legitimate and entirely reasonable for States to try to stop abuse from occurring before it happens." >>Again, burglars use FB and other social media to find out when people are away on vacation so they can find easy targets. Does J. Alito suggest we ban burglars and thieves as well? Alito: "May a State preclude an adult previously convicted of molesting children from visiting a dating site for teenagers? Or a site where minors communicate with each other about personal problems?" >>Yes, you moron. Read your colleagues' opinion and you will find they said the State can indeed do this! (Kennedy, supra) Alito: "[I]t is easier for parents to monitor the physical locations that their children visit and the individuals with whom they speak in person than it is to monitor their internet use." >>It's also easier to monitor them physically than seeing what they get in the U.S. Mail. Prison is easier to monitor than parole/probation, too, yet we as a society do it. That it's more difficult doesn't mean we automatically shift the burden or responsibility off the parent and to the State. As the old saying goes, "difficult doesn't mean impossible." I guess in this situation, Mr. Ultra-conservative thinks the State should indeed be a nanny. Alito: "[I]f it is true, as the Court believes, that 'we cannot appreciate yet' the 'full dimensions and vast potential' of 'the Cyber Age,' [] we should proceed circumspectly, taking one step at a time." >> Kennedy: "This case is one of the first this Court has taken to address the relationship between the First Amendment and the modern Internet. As a result, the Court must exercise extreme caution before suggesting that the First Amendment provides scant protection for access to vast networks in that medium." >> Me: "[E]xcercise extreme caution" sure sounds like one is "proceed[ing] circumspectly." I guess Alito would prefer a severe clamp-down on the First Amendment, then slowly give some back. Given the above, as well as his half-joking comment during oral arguments about the dark ages of 2003, I'd wager Alito is not a fan of the Cyber Age. --AJ
  • No, not the truth! June 22, 2017 at 8:21 am on A look at the potential changes in California’s sex offender registryNo, they can't handle the truth and will order a code red!
  • Chris F June 22, 2017 at 8:13 am on General Comments June 2017So according to this, Trump should be able to ban Muslims from coming here? That may be true, as the government is charged with protecting its citizens and the people in the other countries do not have protections of our constitution until they become a US Citizen. However, since Trump is targeting a specific group and was on record asking his advisers how he can legally discriminate against them and keep them out, I think that makes this a Bill of Attainder issue even though it is against non citizens. We know he isn't really protecting us with his actions and only playing into people's fears. He is also affecting the US Citizens that want to have family come here, thus it does affect life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness to some citizens.
  • AJ, ex CA June 22, 2017 at 8:08 am on General Comments June 2017@Lake County, CA It's not at all about LE, though I can see how my writing may have led to that conclusion. It's just about my being a more private, cautious person. I will say that if/when someone has a question or problem concerning their situation, they should indeed reveal the state. Again, a worthy idea. --AJ
  • AJ, ex CA June 22, 2017 at 8:02 am on IL: Rankings considered for sex offendersWow, it sounds as though IL may be going from one of the most oppressive, to one of the more reasonable states regarding RCs. If "ranking" equates to "risk assessment," they may be on to something. Mind you, that still doesn't change its being wholly unpalatable. --AJ
  • Chris F (@ New Person) June 22, 2017 at 7:42 am on IL: Supreme Court asked to review McLean County sex offender issueSorry, I hadn't been back to this post to see responses. I don't see how sentence 1 and 2 contradict. I merely pointed out that the items may make it more likely SCOTUS sees it as punishment, but that it wasn't guaranteed. The examples SCOTUS gave as clues to what they think are punishment weren't explained further to include what weight any single item had or even how many items were needed to tip the bar to being punishment. They may very well be way more than enough to be punishment now. My point was that their mere list wasn't a definitive precedent and only examples of what they may consider. A definitive list that could be precedent would be something like the Mendoza-Martinez that SCOTUS specifically listed as the recipe for how they determine if something is punishment. We are really almost on the same page on this one, it's just I believe its a slight exaggeration to say the examples provided set any precedent to cite and claim something punitive instead of just using the existing Mendoza test. They are great to quote and bolster that case though.
  • Look at all of those potential RC's.... June 22, 2017 at 7:37 am on General Comments June 2017Most US teens have sex by 18 http://www.msn.com/en-us/health/wellness/most-us-teens-have-sex-by-18-but-pregnancies-down-cdc-study/ar-BBD0ZQW?OCID=ansmsnnews11 If you are in CA, then of course, there is a large amount of potential RCs if the teens have intercourse before 18, which is against CA law as stated here numerous times. What is needed are some politician's teens caught so things can be rethought in the Sunshine state. Biology, biology, biology... Sure other states too in the union could rethink things....
  • Harry June 22, 2017 at 5:39 am on Justice Alito’s misleading claim about sex offender rearrestsThe Bushes and many other GOP swamp rats are as un-American as the Clintons and the Obamas, IMO.
  • Harry June 22, 2017 at 5:35 am on A look at the potential changes in California’s sex offender registrySent KFI another email, Mot and ask them if they want the truth on the air?
  • Nondescript June 22, 2017 at 1:56 am on A look at the potential changes in California’s sex offender registryIt seems odd to me that this Moulton person is the only real vocal opponent to the tiered registry. Even those couple of people they paraded out to oppose the bill in the safety committee were weak at best, and the usually spirited Mark Klaas kind of just threw in the towel. Can they not find anyone to passionately articulate an opposing argument? I thought there would be enormous opposition to the removal of 90 percent of "sex fiends" from public disclosure. They sure are controlling the narrative quite well. Regarding the interview, when Ms Moulton admitted that perhaps teen sexters should not be subject to the harshness of the registry, her solution was that, that is something that should be fixed that through legislation. Considering her advocacy for children, has SHE done anything to get that changed? Lobbied the law makers perhaps? My best guess would be NO. I also think her sex offender baby sitter story that was articulated with a strange tone in the inflection in her voice was dubious at best. Her worries about the potential dwindling public registry shows where her true concern lies. It doesn`t matter whether someone is dangerous or not, because just like the rest of the pathologically curious public, they have been programmed to feel entitled to know everything about everyone. If there was a way to find out every trifling detail about all our neighbors and work colleagues with the click of a button- most people would use it. The fear about ones safety is just an delusory excuse- it is really a fear of the unknown which makes people feel at dis-ease with themselves. But alas, there are poor souls entering the system everyday as new registrants. There will be plenty to be had of new facades , tattoo locations , and aliases to make the public feel better about themselves in short order.
  • Lake County, CA June 22, 2017 at 1:24 am on General Comments June 2017I understand some might not want to disclose current state. But if cops were interested in our location, they could just read all our past posts and figure it out.
  • T June 22, 2017 at 1:13 am on Justice Alito’s misleading claim about sex offender rearrestsThe belief that "sex offenders reoffend at a high rate" is nothing more than a fallacious argument that is used for political manipulation and to convince people of the danger of sexual crimes and how dangerous registrants are and therefore controversial laws get passed.
  • Joe June 22, 2017 at 12:01 am on A look at the potential changes in California’s sex offender registryNot a surprise. You can listen to Erin Runnion's "interview" here. Facts are NOT her friend. John and Ken are. https://www.facebook.com/TheJoyfulChildFoundation (partway down the page)
  • C June 21, 2017 at 11:20 pm on General Comments June 2017Probation is not a concern. Great time to buy - interest rates super low. Good luck!
  • New Person June 21, 2017 at 11:00 pm on A look at the potential changes in California’s sex offender registry================================ Erin Runnion talk about AB421 and making her false point that the tiered registration will unleash all sex offenders on the public. ================================ Ummm... I hate to break this news, but every registrant not under custody (and some under parole/probation) are already part of the public. Ask Frank Lindsay how long he's been on the registry and part of the public. It's quite an asinine thought stating "sex offenders will be unleash upon the public" when we've already been part of the public. But seriously, they going to unleash under 1% recidivists onto the public! That's from the CASOMB's report. Is that a scary thought? (a rhetorical, sarcastic thought) Should email KFI a question: Once you've paid your dues to society, should be forced to continue to serve the state? Also, have them define what's is an "inalienable right".
  • G4Change June 21, 2017 at 10:40 pm on Justice Alito’s misleading claim about sex offender rearrestsSamuel Alito...the stench of the George W. Bush presidency lingers on!
  • New Person June 21, 2017 at 10:40 pm on General Comments June 2017From the article: ============================================= We need to dispel the constitutional myth. We the people do not have “constitutional rights.” We have unalienable rights. The latter are far, far superior. If we had only privileges, then the government could act on whim and grant or restrict our privileges. Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444798/ninth-circuit-travel-ban-decision-rests-fundamental-misunderstanding-constitution ============================================= See, this is the point I was making with the California constitution and the inalienable right to obtain and pursue privacy. The registry takes that all away! Obtaining privacy is not a privilege, it's an inalienable right. That means the government cannot take that way from its citizens. The registry takes away privacy as well as takes away the process to pursue it with its "lifetime term" as if privacy was a privilege. In California, it's not a privilege - it's a right that cannot be abridged. This is why I don't understand why Ca registrant lawyers (ACLU) doesn't want to defend California citizens when it's written clearly in the California Constitution! Out of all states, California actually states obtaining and pursuing privacy is an inalienable right. It's constitution negates the removal of privacy (as a free person), which is what the registry is.
  • Son of Liberty Child of Freedom June 21, 2017 at 10:39 pm on Justice Alito’s misleading claim about sex offender rearrests@commenter1 I take it your curiosity has been peaked & you may have wondered - So what do SCOTUS clerks actually do? Answers given by the Law Clerks are revealing: Something similar to what federal court clerks do. Primarily, their role is to sift through the thousands of petitions and mark the cases worthy of being granted time. “It's the most basic task, and the constant thing that you do – during the summer it's practically your only task.” The petitions that lawyers write very cleverly argue why their cases should be granted; the clerk's job is “to screen out those that are legitimate and write bench memos on what we [Law Clerks] think about the case.” On top of this, there's “preparing your Justice for argument and conference. You learn very quickly how to handle yourself beyond just thinking 'wow, these people are brilliant!' You learn critical thinking and the big picture, and a sense of professionalism where it would be easy to strongly disagree with folks.” As term progresses, clerks move “to the fun part.” Assisting with opinion-drafting is a process that can vary between Justices. “Sometimes the Justice just wants to talk through an issue, so having a personality that won't be a distraction here is really beneficial,” says one former clerk. Another enjoyed the close interaction when producing documents: “We helped a lot with the drafting but ultimately every word that appeared in writing was the Justice's. The best learning experience was going back and forth on a piece of writing and seeing it changing.” In addition: Being at the heart of such a profound process gives you tremendous insights, something that BigLaw recognizes by offering eye-popping SCOTUS clerkship bonuses. “Reading and attending oral arguments is the best imaginable lesson by example you can have on being a good lawyer,” a former clerk says. “The practice of law has always been an apprenticeship – you learn best by example. You're privileged to see how your Justice writes out an argument, but you also see what kind of things persuade them. That alone is so beneficial in terms of your own perspective and in terms of knowing what persuades judges for when you go into private practice yourself.” “Even if you didn't learn how to write or earn a dime during the year, it would be worth it to see a branch of government working.” Equally – and altruistically –“you're performing a public service. The issue at the heart of everything is 'what's the right answer, and how can we put it out there in the most persuasive way?'” After their year at the elbow of a Supreme Court Justice, the 36 are in incredibly high demand. “You get letters from firms as soon as you start,” explains one. “It's up to you and your Justice when you start to interview at firms – usually it's in June or July. The level of aggression varies, but generally there's a two-week period where you get taken to lunch by everyone. It's a fairly ego-boosting process, as they're all so nice to you!” Ultimately, most “assume they'll go into BigLaw – there are loads of student loans to pay off, and the signing bonuses available go some way to making a dent in them.” But not everyone's head is turned by gold: “It can be a real dilemma for some clerks, who'd prefer to go to a public interest group or go be a professor.” And what of those bonuses? The latest round of SCOTUS clerks received golden hellos of $280,000 or more from their BigLaw firms (in addition to an approx $185,000 base salary) on arrival as third-year associates. I speak Truth As Yehovah Lives, so should we
  • AJ, ex CA June 21, 2017 at 8:03 pm on General Comments June 2017Specific subject matter aside, this op-ed makes some good observations about how things are supposed to be regarding rights versus where they are. I particularly like the point that we don't have constitutional rights, we have *inalienable* rights. Also, that the Government doesn't grant us (we, the people) anything, rather we (the people) give limited power to the Government. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444798/ninth-circuit-travel-ban-decision-rests-fundamental-misunderstanding-constitution --AJ
  • AJ, ex CA June 21, 2017 at 7:59 pm on General Comments June 2017@Chris F "Now, to just figure out how to get a case challenging the entire thing before them!" The only one I've stumbled upon that's even close is the IL case (Pepitone). Problem there is that Pepitone is not an RC, so though presence and/or residency restrictions could get knocked down, it would have no effect on the registration burdens. It wold definitely attack the issue of how, "the law imposes severe restrictions on persons who already have served their sentence and are no longer subject to the supervision of the criminal justice system." --AJ
  • AJ, ex CA June 21, 2017 at 7:53 pm on General Comments June 2017@Lake County, CA A worthy suggestion, but not all of us wish to have our resident state identified. I know I don't. My state is out in fly-over land, and aside from having to register, they leave me alone. Also, given my focus is on national issues, my state of residence is irrelevant. I usually run with the premise that, unless stated, the post is about CA. --AJ
  • David Kennerly, Thought Crime Wave June 21, 2017 at 7:45 pm on Justice Alito’s misleading claim about sex offender rearrestsHis clerks will have read it and will have placed it on his desk.
  • Michael June 21, 2017 at 7:40 pm on Justice Alito’s misleading claim about sex offender rearrestsHe did roll his eyes at Obama...
  • AJ June 21, 2017 at 6:58 pm on General Comments June 2017I stumbled across an interesting essay regarding the constitutionality of the No Fly List. I found so many gems in it, I'm thinking about opening a jewelry store! Many of the precedents cited could apply not only to IML, but to some state RC laws as well. It's a long, sometimes tough, read, but worth it. http://www.uclalawreview.org/international-travel-and-the-constitution/ --AJ
  • JohnDoeUtah June 21, 2017 at 6:52 pm on Justice Alito’s misleading claim about sex offender rearrestsMy guess is Alito sees himself and the Court as the finders-of-fact, regardless of what evidence may actually say. The Court has already weighed the evidence and determined in Smith v. Doe what the facts are: that sex offenders are recidivist that must be punished perpetually. Because the decision has already been made and that fact verified by the fact-finders, the inquiry is over, and he will state it as fact forever.
  • David June 21, 2017 at 6:48 pm on Hearing Dates Set for AB 558 and SB 421I mailed my "Please oppose AB 558." letters to the Senate Public Safety Committee members today and I phoned each of them as well. I encourage everyone to do the same. Please everyone: let's overwhelm them with an avalanche of letters and calls! We've done it before let's do it again!
  • Timmr June 21, 2017 at 6:14 pm on General Comments June 2017I am looking for someone who is good at building things, like decks, patios, retaining walls and the like. I need some help.
  • AJ June 21, 2017 at 6:06 pm on Justice Alito’s misleading claim about sex offender rearrestsAlito seems to me to be the cranky old man in the neighborhood who yells at kids who go on his lawn, still has a VCR (with a flashing 12:00 AM), and wishes "they" would all go back where "they" came from. What a complete slam on another country and its citizenry. Can you imagine the uproar if anyone in Congress or the White House made such a statement? --AJ
  • AJ June 21, 2017 at 5:56 pm on Justice Alito’s misleading claim about sex offender rearrestsI may just be reading tea leaves, but I see significance in Kennedy being assigned to write this opinion. I optimistically see it as the start of one big mea culpa. Please don't retire just yet, Kennedy! --AJ
  • Lake County, CA June 21, 2017 at 5:43 pm on General Comments June 2017I would like to suggest that everyone in this group add the state they live in to the end of the name they post here with. Now that this group has become a national group, it's hard to provide a proper response to questions or comments without knowing what state the poster comes from. I have now added it to the end of my user name so that no one confuses it with the much larger Lake County, FL. Please consider doing this so there will be less confusion when questions are asked or advice is given.
  • Lake County, CA June 21, 2017 at 5:23 pm on Survey – International Travel after IMLThis is an interesting video about airline travel and some ways of crossing boarders without a passport. Worth watching if you want to travel. It also talks about jurisdiction for crimes while traveling. Which Country Are International Airports In? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkCeKc1GTMs&t=318s
  • mike r June 21, 2017 at 5:15 pm on SCOTUS Rules Justly in Packingham CaseWorked your comments in there Chris and this is what I put in there around the false statistic subject... 1. I would think that the court would be seriously upset by the fact that the attorneys for the government not only misrepresented the facts about recidivism rates to the court in McKune using unconfirmed statistics, but they continue to feed the court the false assumptions and keep misrepresenting the actual facts in just about every case brought on sex offender laws, even though they (the attorneys and legislators) know that those assumptions have been thoroughly debunked. Thus, any assertion in this case or future cases by the government concerning facts about sex offender recidivism rates should be suspect and should be thoroughly fact checked by the courts.
  • Harry June 21, 2017 at 5:08 pm on A look at the potential changes in California’s sex offender registryTruth do hurt liars, really bad.
  • ReadyToFight June 21, 2017 at 4:32 pm on Justice Alito’s misleading claim about sex offender rearrests@New Person. Great post! Really puts the offense rates into perspective. So glad to see this stuff in the Wa Post! I hope Janice contacts them and continues the fight to get the truth out to those that need to hear it.
  • New Person June 21, 2017 at 4:26 pm on Justice Alito’s misleading claim about sex offender rearrestsOh wow... I was thinking something else. I liked the "you're not comparing equally" idea. The re-offense rate of your crime should be comparable, not an offense that didn't send you to prison. But what I showed is what I thought the author was suggesting - let's compare sex offense after release upon the whole population that was released. There's a significant difference b/c the context of the population (volume) is now part of the equation.
  • James June 21, 2017 at 4:25 pm on A look at the potential changes in California’s sex offender registryHey, Mot, just a quick shout out of praise for you... That was fast and effective action on your part. Smart. I appreciate it. (not that I am anyone special or anything that you would want thanks from me, but I know who my friends are...so thanks again). Best Wishes, James
  • Mot June 21, 2017 at 3:19 pm on A look at the potential changes in California’s sex offender registryI Emailed KFI and got a reply that they do not WANT Janice on the JohnandKen show guess they are fearful of the truth
  • 1984 June 21, 2017 at 2:51 pm on Justice Alito’s misleading claim about sex offender rearrestsJustice Alito's statement about the Philippines was a para-phrase of the Philippine's president who hates the US and its' military. He wants China's promised money. Any victory in court of any group around the US Constitution is so important. It shows the powers to be have-been eroding people's rights.
  • Cool CA RC June 21, 2017 at 2:40 pm on Justice Alito’s misleading claim about sex offender rearrestshere's the video of this https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/videos/is-justice-alitos-claim-about-sex-offender-rearrests-true/vp-BBCYAlS
  • NY Level1 June 21, 2017 at 2:31 pm on NY: Murphy Lauds Bill That Bans Lifetime Sex Offenders From InternetFor those of you who do not live in New York State let me share my views since I live and pay taxes here. New York State is an area of 54,5560 miles. It has about 19 million inhabitants. New York City is an area of 302 miles. It has a population of 8 .5 million. Deduct New York City from the State and you have 11 million people in area of 55,5258 miles spread across voting Republican, loving Trump, making a living from the huge NYS jail system and rednecks just the same as the trash in other states that run on the sex-offender ticket. New York City politicians don't have to appease the hicks and trash. The City is more liberal and civilized. That's up to Murphy and his pals desperate for votes.
  • JC June 21, 2017 at 2:30 pm on Hearing Dates Set for AB 558 and SB 421If you have not done so please send your letters to the senators in opposition to AB 558! They need to be sent basically by tomorrow to get to the senators on time. Please do so, if you have not and help fight this awful bill!
  • Harry June 21, 2017 at 1:29 pm on Justice Alito’s misleading claim about sex offender rearrestsThe old courthouse oath, "The truth nothing but the truth, so help me God" Apparently truth has no value since God no longer is in the loop.
  • DPH June 21, 2017 at 12:56 pm on Justice Alito’s misleading claim about sex offender rearrestsHe's an uneducated D*$k, he is a Republican that does NOT use the facts nor research back by scientific evidence, not guesswork from the 70's and 60's. He just bring in more fear mongering of ignorance, he's really a Judge on SCOTUS? Nor care about all human life, with his personal opinionated guesses. That are a reminder of unEducated guesswork. Other's like him, in power, yeah. Folks, it's 2017 half way through, not pre-Psychology Today 1971. to pre historic 1955 idealisms. Who voted for this person? JD, yeah. not me.
  • Michael June 21, 2017 at 12:40 pm on Justice Alito’s misleading claim about sex offender rearrestsWas Alito deliberately making a misleading claim? Or, was he making the claim inadvertently out of sheer laziness because he didn't take the time to actually look at the data? ....
  • PJ June 21, 2017 at 12:38 pm on Justice Alito’s misleading claim about sex offender rearrestsYup, that too. They know. They all know.
  • Michael June 21, 2017 at 12:28 pm on Justice Alito’s misleading claim about sex offender rearrests"Sex Offenders are more likely than Drug Dealers to commit another sex crime." That is some funny shit! I bet a toestubber is more likely than non-toestubbers to stub his toe again. The recidivism rate is a measurement of the rate at which offenders commit other crimes. It refers to a person's relapse into criminal behavior, not necessarily the same behavior. Had you read the article, you would have found that the data Alito used compares sex offenders to non-sex offenders. According to data in the 2014 BJS study, the percentage of sex offenders getting rearrested for the same crime is low compared to non-sex offenders. Whether Alito was deliberately being deceptive is a good question everyone should be asking. Because the data clearly shows the sex offenders are less likely to commit another sex offense. ....
  • Mr. Rant June 21, 2017 at 12:19 pm on Justice Alito’s misleading claim about sex offender rearrestsBarring what the justices said, they essentially opined because of this: 1. Smith v Doe, MAIN reason cited was "high recidivism"; since disputed through factual documentation. This high recidivism rate was brought out at that time by attorney for the state, John Roberts, now Chief Justice. 2. The lawyer for Packingham NEVER BROUGHT UP recidivism rates in ANY capacity. My guess is that he felt that he did NOT need to bring it up on the floor, but damn it!! These stats should have been submitted in FOTC briefs. Therefore, the justices had no factual basis for negating this (barring independent research by the justices or their staff). CONCLUSION: EVERY time ANY case is brought up regarding registered sex offenders, our side MUST ALWAYS present ...hell, BOMBARD.... the court with every bit of the multitude of sources that show low recidivism statistics as can be admitted. CASE IN POINT: When my friend had his Internet sting felony expunged in Ohio, the original argument given by the state to deny the expunction was highlighted by the "high recidivism rate for registered sex offenders." My friend's lawyer introduced 17 studies, peer reviews, and DOJ statistics from California, Ohio, and the US DOJ, mostly compiled with the assistance of Will B. of SOSEN. The state could NOT REBUT it, and in fact it was the first known case in which the state, after originally introducing the "high recidivism" argument, actually RECANTED their high recidivist claim DURING COURT, probably a first time it had happened in any sex offender-related case in history. That admission, in fact, broke the back of the state's argument, and the judge ACTUALLY REBUKED the attorney for the state for introducing a non-fact (high recidivism) in court! Astounding. In short, from now on when we (RSO-support community) can get a MAJOR sex offender case before a Supreme Court judge or justices, we MUST CONTACT THAT LAWYER and tell them that we have to prevent the continuing precedence of "high recidivism rate" from perpetuating. IT WORKS EVERY TIME ITS TRIED!! (It must be noted that this Washington Post article was more concerned about disparaging the justices because of the justices' non-progressive political leanings than about caring for registered sex offenders, but I digress.)
  • Video of the topic by WaPo June 21, 2017 at 12:16 pm on Justice Alito’s misleading claim about sex offender rearrestsJust found this video of the same article by WaPo writer who discusses it in her own voice: https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/politics/is-justice-alitos-claim-about-sex-offender-rearrests-true/2017/06/21/5c27310e-5626-11e7-840b-512026319da7_video.html
  • New Person June 21, 2017 at 12:14 pm on Justice Alito’s misleading claim about sex offender rearrestsI think Kennedy already noted the difference in thought from now and when he covered the McKune case by stating that although it's not under scrutiny in this case, why is there supervision on a person who completed their dues to society already?
  • New Person June 21, 2017 at 12:06 pm on Justice Alito’s misleading claim about sex offender rearrestsAfter reading the WaPo, I'm in awe. I had to read the article twice to understand the apples-to-oranges comparison that Alito was trying to disseminate in his opinion. BTW, you have to read carefully on what Alito wrote. He said "When convicted sex offenders reenter society, they are much more likely than any other type of offender to be arrested for a new rape or sexual assault." Is Alito trying to compare registrants with separate other offenders or is his trying to compare registrants against all other types of offender. I looked at the PDF of the one of the citations and it doesn't list anything about the sex crimes for released non-registrants. So I suppose the author used the "registrant vs everyone else" idea since no other links were provided, especially with the descriptors of "grave" and "more than likely to re-offend". ======================== A reason why the WaPo fact checked the opinion of Justice Alito, IMO, is because WaPo hosts the Volokh Conspiracy articles. The Volokh Conspriacy have reviewed sex offender policies before. Therefore, the seed was already planted inside WaPo. And great for them and all registrants! Great job, Michelle Ye Hee Lee, author of the WaPo fact checking on Justice Alito. The quote cites two references: 1. McKune's case of 1983. 2. Kebodeaux's court opinion of 2013, stating that the released sex offenders are four times more likely to be rearrested for a sex crime than a non-sex offender. The author, Lee, uses the statistics from Kebodeaux's court opinion because it is the most recent findings. Also, Lee founded the total pool of sex offenses after release to use as a proper comparison. Alito's rates (different divisor)------------------------ In words: I. registrant sex offense after release / registrant convicts released II. non-registrant sex offense after release / non-registrant convicts released In numbers: I. 517 / 9,691 = 0.0533, or 5.3% II. 3,328 / 262,420 = 0.0126, or 1.3% (rounded up) Total convict pool comparison (same divisor)------------------- In words: I. registrant sex offense after release / total convicts released II. non-registrant sex offense after release / total convicts released In numbers: I. 517 / 272,111 = 0.00189, or 0.19% (rounded up) II. 3,328 / 272,111 = 0.01223, or 1.22% Total Sex Offense comparison (same divisor)------------------- In words: I. registrant sex offense after release / total sex offense conviction II. non-registrant sex offense after release / total sex offense conviction In numbers: I. 517 / 3,845 = 0.1344, or 13.4% II. 3,328 / 3,845 = 0.8655, or 86.6% (rounded up) ========================================= When the WaPo author, Lee, stated the comparison was apples-to-oranges, she really meant it as denominator is different. Because the denominator is not common (the same), then the proper context of comparison is lost. In fact, it can be looked upon as disingenuous how the stat was propagated as it has been proven false by the WaPo author. I showed you specifically the different denominations in both the total convicts released as well as the total sex offense contradicts what Alito is pushing now. Registrants re-offend a 0.19% rate of all convicts when released. Released convict non-registrants have a sex crime rate of 1.22%, more than six times the rate of registrants! MORE THAN SIX TIMES than registrants' rate!!! The author looks at total sex crimes after release, which is 3,845. Registrants have a sex crime rate of 13.4% out of the total sex crimes after release. That does look high until you see the rate of non-registrants. Non-registrants have a sex crime rate of 86.6%. =========================== Context is what is missing in Alito's stat. The rate he used was within a particular category, but not used within the whole. That stat is lacking the context of volume. As you can tell, when not compared to the totality of sex crimes after release, the rate looms high. Yet, when compared upon the same totality, then there is a completely different picture. As a registrant, I want to know specifically what Justice Alito meant. I want to know the numbers. All we have is the citation from a previous court opinion. So we don't have much to infer, but after seeing this article, is it possible that the SCOTUS is being libel to registrants? I want to know if Alito is referring to the 80% recidivism rate. Even Professor Ellman queried the source of Alito to make such a claim. Put a number to this, Alito. Prove yourself correct or be sued for libel. Remember when the courts decided to not use other stats in the Korematsu case to paint Japanese Americans to be dangerous that they needed to be in internment camps?
  • Chris F June 21, 2017 at 12:05 pm on TX: Supreme Court ruling could imperil Texas sex offender rulesI imagine that single comment is probably also why the other 3 Justices had to log a minority opinion that didn’t include that line and instead spouted misleading claims of danger. Luckily, I think Gorsuch will also abide by facts and the US Constitution and give us a 6-3 majority on similar cases. Please don’t let any of the 6 (potentially) on our side vacate SCOTUS before a major case can be heard that strikes at the core registry!
  • Clear your workspace now please... June 21, 2017 at 11:57 am on Justice Alito’s misleading claim about sex offender rearrestsGoing on that premise, then there would be a whole lot of Judges, DAs and others across the country who used the incorrect data in a legal forum that would be canned one way or another, not just SCOTUS employees. The best way to combat this sort of thinking is to provide more data to add to the existing data for more critical thinking to happen. I can see Justice Alito challenging the masses to do just that. I learned a long time ago John Adams said the courts are not about the truth but painting a storyboard for everyone. He stated that when arguing the Amistad trial. If the courts were truly about the truth, whole truth and nothing but the truth, then every detail would be allowed and nothing would be banned from being shown, even if it upsets people (while possibly reliving events). Remember, people cannot handle the truth when given in full color, but only behind rose colored glasses with blinders. JQA said specifically "Well, when I was an attorney, a long time ago, young man, I err... I realized, after much trial and error, that in the courtroom, whoever tells the best story wins."
  • More data needed! June 21, 2017 at 11:41 am on Justice Alito’s misleading claim about sex offender rearrestsMaybe to beat Eugene Volokh to it and his legal beat articles through the WaPo? He has mentioned this issue before in his writings. Anyway, more data from published sources need to be brought up and submitted for the court to consider where the flawed thinking is reviewed!
  • Tunnel vision June 21, 2017 at 11:37 am on Justice Alito’s misleading claim about sex offender rearrestsYeah, tell that to the male missionaries who serve and Filipino men who go back to visit family there. Blinders so big a long tunnel is formed in the vision ahead.
  • Tired Of Hiding June 21, 2017 at 11:10 am on Justice Alito’s misleading claim about sex offender rearrestsIf an employee used incorrect data which was PROVEN FALSE they would be fired for incompetence. Certainly anyone in his position should not make decisions that affect so many lives on DISPROVEN INFO! Q: Why is this not headline news? A: It only affects a "small" marginalized group of people that have been demonized and dehumanized! Until those labelled as "sex offenders" are seen as worthy as living among "good" people this shit will continue to go on. STOP ACCEPTING LIES aka FAKE NEWS AS FACT Mr. Samuel A. Alito Jr. You do not deserve the position you have been LUCKY enough to get as a life time job! SHAME ON YOU!
  • Janice Bellucci June 21, 2017 at 10:24 am on Justice Alito’s misleading claim about sex offender rearrestsPlease remember that Justice Alito stated during oral argument in the Nichols case last year that the only reason men travel to the Philippines is to have sex with children. This statement is just one piece of evidence to confirm that he is not our friend.
  • PJ June 21, 2017 at 10:04 am on Justice Alito’s misleading claim about sex offender rearrestsThe Snyder case will definitely help Kennedy walk it back even more so, because even as the 3 judge panel in Snyder realized and stated, that today's registry scheme is not the same one that was introduced in 2003 when the Smith case was argued before them. A whole different nasty animal has formed in today's registry system as all of us here already know, and I have no doubt the majority of SCOTUS if not all of them for that matter, know this as well. How can anyone have predicted that almost 15 years ago ? Kennedy should lead the way in the opinions for the Snyder case if it comes to that (and hopefully in our favor). If I were him, I would do so myself. It won't make him look weak or wrong about his first decision. But on the contrary, It would make him look wise, just and intelligent. Would gain far more respect than he would think otherwise.
  • AlexO June 21, 2017 at 10:03 am on SCOTUS Rules Justly in Packingham CaseThey can use social media but only on days that don't end in Y.
  • AlexO June 21, 2017 at 9:56 am on A look at the potential changes in California’s sex offender registryWhen viewing the bill on the official site, they actually have an option to see the difference between versions. It's a drop-down box option in the Compare Versions tab. It uses the current bill and compares it to whatever previous versions were available. All the changes are in blue. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB421 The two biggest changes I noticed is that they add a lower time frame for juvenile offenders (5 and 10 instead of 10 and 20 like for adults), and a few revisions involving 647.6. Now if you have multiple convictions at separate times of 647.6, it'll automatically land you into tier 2 (a single conviction is tier 1). They also added 647.6 to the tier 2 internet exclusion portion. It seems to read like 647.6 convictions will still remain on the public site, but Ms. Bellucci replied to this question and said that currently if you're tier 1 you will not be included on the public site. I guess we'll see when it passes, if it remains in the current form.
  • Curiouser June 21, 2017 at 9:55 am on TX: Supreme Court ruling could imperil Texas sex offender ruleslol...damn, I'm starting to love your comments 🙂
  • AlexO June 21, 2017 at 9:47 am on TX: Supreme Court ruling could imperil Texas sex offender rulesThat's probably the single best comment of the entire case as it finally shows a real crack in the system. Even better that its seen by someone who'll potentially have the final word. I'm hoping things blow up from here and will eventually lead to abolishing the entire thing.
  • Son of Liberty Child of Freedom June 21, 2017 at 9:10 am on Justice Alito’s misleading claim about sex offender rearrestsI posit the current Law Clerks serving SCOTUS: OCTOBER TERM 2016 SUPREME COURT CLERK HIRES (as of July 22, 2016) Chief Justice John G. Roberts 1. Thomas S. Burnett (Harvard 2014 / Livingston) 2. Marguerite B. Colson (Yale 2015 / Kavanaugh) 3. Rachel G. Miller-Ziegler (Harvard 2015 / Garland) 4. Conor M. Reardon (Duke 2014 / Cabranes / Chatigny (D. Conn.)) Justice Anthony M. Kennedy 1. Alex Harris (Harvard 2015 / Gorsuch) 2. William Perdue (Yale 2011 / Katzmann / Rakoff (S.D.N.Y.)) 3. J.J. Snidow (Yale 2014 / Kethledge / Thapar (E.D. Ky.)) 4. Thomas Sprankling (Columbia 2012 / Kozinski) Justice Clarence Thomas 1. Andrew N. Ferguson (UVA 2012 / Henderson) 2. Kasdin M. Mitchell (Yale 2012 / W. Pryor) 3. Austin L. Raynor (UVA 2013 / Wilkinson) 4. Jacob T. Spencer (Harvard 2012 / J. Smith / O’Scannlain) Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg 1. Subash S. Iyer (NYU 2013 / Rakoff (S.D.N.Y.) / Katzmann) 2. Hajin Kim (Stanford 2014 / Watford) 3. Beth C. Neitzel (Stanford 2013 /D. Motz (4th Cir.) / Tatel) 4. Parker A. Rider-Longmaid (Penn 2013 / Scirica / Pratter (E.D. Pa.) / Bristow Fellow) Justice Stephen G. Breyer 1. Daniel E. Herz-Roiphe (Yale 2015 / Garland) 2. Denise Lambert Drake (Stanford 2013 / Higginbotham / C. Breyer) 3. Brian M. Richardson (Yale 2011 / Rakoff (S.D.N.Y.) / Katzmann) 4. Rachel G. Shalev (Yale 2014 / Fletcher / Pillard) Justice Samuel Alito 1. Joel Alicea (Harvard 2013 / O’Scannlain) 2. Benjamin J. Cassady (Yale 2013 / Griffith) 3. Nicole C. Frazer (UVA 2015 / Sutton) 4. Alex Potapov (Yale 2008 / S. Williams) Justice Sonia Sotomayor 1. Kirti Datla (NYU 2012 / Thapar (E.D. Ky.) / Sutton ) 2. Alex C. Hemmer (Yale 2014 / Fletcher / Moss (D.D.C.)) 3. Kamaile A.N. Turčan (Hawai’i 2008 / Ezra (D. Haw.) / Clifton) 4. Tiffany Wright (Georgetown 2013 / Lamberth (D.D.C.) / Tatel) Justice Elena Kagan 1. Elizabeth Bewley (Harvard 2015 / Griffith) 2. Gerard Cedrone (Harvard 2014 / Gorsuch) 3. Ben Eidelson (Yale 2014 / Garland) 4. Betsy Henthorne (Georgetown 2014 / G. Woods (S.D.N.Y.) / Srinivasan) Justice John Paul Stevens (retired) 1. Teresa Reed (Stanford 2015 / Millett) Justice David H. Souter (retired): 1. Edwina B. Clarke (Yale 2013 / Reinhardt / Oetken (S.D.N.Y.) / Barron) Justice O’Connor has stopped hiring clerks (why is not clear). As Yehovah Lives, so should we
  • Anonymous Nobody June 21, 2017 at 9:07 am on Hearing Dates Set for AB 558 and SB 421If we had done as I have pushed here for years, and instead of this harsh and I would say unconstitutional (as cruel and unusual punishment for those in tier 1 and even 2, and probably even all the rest) tier bill instead pushed for conforming California law to the federal requirements of who must register and for the minimum times in the federal law, we would not have to deal with the threat of 558 -- because ALL those people threatened by it would not even have to register any more, as the federal government does not require registration for those offenses. (And of course, that would also take them out of the federal IML law, and all the other disabilities of registration.) It could have been a simple and sellable approach, pointing out it would be giving relief only to the lesser offenses whom the public does not even know must register and doesn't care about -- but we don't seem to really want to eliminate registration, even for lesser offenses, we simply want to lessen it a little, or just the time frame, for some, but not too lessened, since we are pushing in the tier bill to make mere misdemenants register for at least 10 years and maybe more -- and that actually INCREASING the time they must register from 7 year to 10 years for some of those offenses that now can stop with a COR after 7 years! In fact, under the tier bill, those who have been able to stop registering because they have a COR at 7 years will now have to start registering again and wait until they reach 10 years of registration -- and that in California -- and then ask for permission to end again, and hope they do not get a challenge. (Just like happened twice before, when relief from registration that was earned and obtained as part of 1203.4 relief was later taken away and people were required to start registering again. Except, those people don't necessarily know that and will find out the hard why by getting arrested at some point. They might have had only a year of registration originally, then the 1203.4 relief -- but under this tier plan, they will have to do 9 more years of registration before they can even ask for relief -- because the tier bill requires you prove registration, not simply show offense-free time from last offense; the tier bill requires that you complete a sentence rather than show good conduct.) We LIKE this, so much so that we are pushing for it -- instead of the much easier and more definitive approach I have proposed here for years and this group has ignored, an approach that would allow us to turn all our guns at the federal government and become a real force for registrants in all the states. We have failed to lead the conversation and point it in the proper direction. We let the prosecutors have complete control of it, and they have done so with gusto and evil intent and design of the bill.
  • Mot June 21, 2017 at 9:05 am on A look at the potential changes in California’s sex offender registryJust listened to KFI John and Ken from yesterday (6/20) and Erin Runnion talk about AB421 and making her false point that the tiered registration will unleash all sex offenders on the public. No mention of the facts about how much it will take to get off the registry. I know there was another call this morning on KFI from Erin and I did not hear it but the same I am sure as last night. Need to get Janice on KFI and bring the true story to the public; probably will not invite her but need to try and get on that station
  • New Person June 21, 2017 at 8:59 am on TX: Supreme Court ruling could imperil Texas sex offender rulesThe state can impose any restriction upon you if you're under custody supervision (prison, parole, or probation). Chris is correct. Peckingham only addresses people not under supervision. Which is why Justice Kennedy made an off comment in the opinion that it was "troubling" to know people who completed their custodial terms are still subject to restrictions as free persons.
  • Lovecraft June 21, 2017 at 8:39 am on Justice Alito’s misleading claim about sex offender rearrestsMisleading and deceptive is far worse than being wrong. It implies they are trying to cover up or hide something, which we all know seems to happen all the time in the legislature, but this is the scotus and they should be held to a higher standard. If the justices can't bury their own personal opinions and be objective then its time for them to go.
  • Son of Liberty Child of Freedom June 21, 2017 at 8:39 am on Justice Alito’s misleading claim about sex offender rearrests@Matt I would suggest seeking out to make contact with the Law Clerks who do much of the research & analysis for Jurist. Current & Past Law Clerks who continue to have personal relationships would also be advised to building rapport with, For example in the year 1996 Ted Cruz was a Law Clerk for the 16th Chief Justice of the United States - William Hubbs Rehnquist. Senator Rafael Ted Cruz published the his book "A Time for Truth" which gives insight into the machinations within the Walls & Echo Chambers of the SCOTUS. I posit the paths that lead to possible internal contacts with the Jurist Mortalship: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_law_clerks_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States http://www.chambers-associate.com/where-to-start/scotus-clerkships http://abovethelaw.com/2016/08/supreme-court-clerk-hiring-watch-an-analysis-of-the-october-term-2016-clerk-class/?rf=1 https://books.google.com/books/about/A_Time_for_Truth.html?id=9LnXoQEACAAJ&hl=en https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Rehnquist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapport I speak a True song As Yehovah Lives, so should we
  • Biol57 June 21, 2017 at 8:26 am on Justice Alito’s misleading claim about sex offender rearrestsThe justices of SCOTUS will get another round of exposure to the true facts about SO recidivism if and when they take on the Does v. Snyder case from the 6th Circuit. It has taken a long time to turn back the tide that Justice Kennedy inadvertently started in Smith v. Doe but it is quite clear that the same Justice who started the trend, is helping walk it back.
  • AJ June 21, 2017 at 8:15 am on Justice Alito’s misleading claim about sex offender rearrestsI think those three justices are often depicted as monkeys covering ears, eyes and mouth. One wouldn't want to come off one's personal biases against offenders while deciding law of the land... --AJ
  • AJ June 21, 2017 at 8:10 am on Justice Alito’s misleading claim about sex offender rearrestsThis piece, from the major "hometown" paper of SCOTUS, is fantastic for our cause. Even if Alito doesn't read it (quite possible), the topic will be unavoidable. It's also going to land right in the laps of every Representative and Senator, not to mention being noticed across the country by other judges, etc. I don't know how or why the WaPo decided to put this out--they even say they don't normally fact-check SCOTUS--but God bless them for doing so. Awesome article, WaPo! --AJ
  • Cool CA RC June 21, 2017 at 8:08 am on Justice Alito’s misleading claim about sex offender rearrestsThis is great! it's on the washingtonpost!
  • Lovecraft June 21, 2017 at 7:41 am on SCOTUS Rules Justly in Packingham CaseWRAL, one of the main news outlets out of Raleigh, NC posted this article about the repeal and a decent 3 minute video. A lady from the nc coalition against sexual assault stated that this law and others like it do nothing and that time and effort should be on treatment not restrictions. At the end of the video the broadcasters said the govenor (roy cooper) was very disappointed and the AG (josh stein) vowed to go back to the drawing board and draft another law that would be consitutional....I cant wait to see it. Im hoping they are just blowing smoke, but who knows. http://www.wral.com/supreme-court-strikes-down-sex-offender-social-media-ban/16770986/
  • Chris F (To AJ) June 21, 2017 at 7:36 am on SCOTUS Rules Justly in Packingham CaseYour points are exactly correct. There is NO restriction placed on Sex Offenders that should pass constitutional muster, because there was no Substantive Due Process involved in our being on the list. Per Connecticut DPS V Doe (2003), the Sex Offender registry makes no judgement that a sex offender is currently dangerous. Therefore, there is no justification for someone on the list to have any liberty interest affected by any law or city ordinance. Anything that gets to SCOTUS should succeed in being won by us as far as restrictions go if challenged under Substantive Due Process or Bill of Attainder. The IML is the same kind of evil as the government notifying Facebook of our email address. Since no determination of dangerousness was done, Facebook has to ban all of us because it can't afford to do the due dilligence on every sex offender that the government failed to do during a fair trail just one time. Other countries get alerted of our sex offender status, and have to ban all of us for the same reasons. The government is facilitating our unconstitutional bans and needs to be stopped. Unless these issues get before SCOTUS, lesser judges will keep ruling against us just because they want to, regardless of what is right.
  • Chris F June 21, 2017 at 7:22 am on TX: Supreme Court ruling could imperil Texas sex offender rulesThe article states: ***** Texas also restricts the websites that offenders released on parole or under mandatory supervision are allowed to use. Robert Hurst, a spokesman for the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, said in a statement that the department is evaluating the impact of the ruling on its “supervision populations.” ***** You say "We are talking about those who not incarcerated or are off probation and parole". You'll need to elaborate on this, because nothing I said is wrong. The Packingham case only affects those off probation or parole that have completed their sentence and does nothing to set a precedent for those incarcerated or out on parole/probation. Like I said, it doesn't affect anything in Texas, because Texas doesn't have rules against Social Media for those off probation or parole that finished their sentence. The article is trying to be news worthy, but isn't unless legislation comes up restricting those on the registry from social media...which to my knowledge living here in Texas, it hasn't done.
  • commenter1 June 21, 2017 at 7:17 am on Justice Alito’s misleading claim about sex offender rearrestsMr. Alito probably reads the Washington Post. If he doesn't read it I'm sure at least one of the other justices reads it and will share the article with him. I would hope that the Supreme Court justices have their own research people on staff who have some background in statistics.
  • Chris F June 21, 2017 at 7:12 am on Justice Alito’s misleading claim about sex offender rearrestsYou may need to read the article. The statement the Justices make isn't false, it's just misleading and deceptive. Sex Offenders are more likely than Drug Dealers to commit another sex crime. Just like Drug Dealers are more likely to commit another drug offense than a sex offender would commit a drug offense. It's just simple logic that didn't need to be in a SCOTUS opinion because the average person mis-reads it to mean more than it says. As the article demonstrates, other than Murderers, sex offenders are least likely to commit another crime, but yes, the few that do may commit a sex crime more often than a bank robber or drug dealer will commit a sex crime after serving their sentence. The only expression that come to mind is "DUH!". The article also tried to get comment from SCOTUS on it, but the reply was "As a matter of policy the Court does not comment on its opinions, which speak for themselves." Yep...that speaks for itself that 3 Justices are easily duped and aren't really understanding what they are reading. That's not a good sign for our system of justice.
  • There is a way to get correct info to them... June 21, 2017 at 6:11 am on Justice Alito’s misleading claim about sex offender rearrestsThere is a long drawn out way to get correct info to SCOTUS I read about a long time ago, but it has to go through several people before it gets to them. Just because the sky is blue and we can tell them why it is blue, they don't necessarily have to believe it is blue.
  • But but but..... June 21, 2017 at 6:07 am on SCOTUS Rules Justly in Packingham CaseI believe one of the three has to support the false data narrative to support his own case from 2003 or else he would undermine it and the Price Club membership requirement, which would ruin his credibility. Carry the error as they said in engineering and math classes so at least the process can be seen even if it is wrong in the end....
  • Matt June 21, 2017 at 3:31 am on Justice Alito’s misleading claim about sex offender rearrestsAgain and again over the years, I have read in reputable articles and research papers that sex offenders have a low rate of recidivism of 5.4%. I am so disturbed and surprised that the Supreme Court can't get their facts correct. When there is an error such as this, is there a way to inform Mr Alito of his error? We point out inaccurate details in article after article every day. Why can we challenge the Supreme Court about their misleading information?
  • robert m June 21, 2017 at 3:21 am on Philippine Bureau of Immigration bans alien sex offenders in the countryYes does anyone know if Malaysia is allowing us in there or not?? anyone one with any info it would be helpful
  • randy j summers June 21, 2017 at 1:17 am on Home Compliance ChecksSorry I got sidetracked. |.
  • randy j summers June 21, 2017 at 1:05 am on Home Compliance ChecksIwould like to know more about probation rules and guidelines / cans & cants for them . My wife is on probation & I am not , can they search our entire property & or residence & out buildings without a warrant/ They have no written consent from myself? really would like to hear from somebody,
  • David Kennerly's Spectral Evidence June 21, 2017 at 12:20 am on A look at the potential changes in California’s sex offender registryI tried to find it online at their site but, no luck. It does appear that it will be available later since there is a four-day delay between the broadcast and its availability as a podcast. Here is the address where it will appear, hopefully, Saturday, but perhaps on Monday: http://www.kabc.com/the-drive-home/ I am concerned about any pressure being exerted to ensure that certain "classes" of "offenders" will never get off the registry. I am keen to hear Scott Weiner speak to that and see how far he is willing to stand on principle. Someone mentioned here an adverse change that had crept into the bill. If someone who has done a side-by-side comparison between the most recent version, as passed in the Senate, and its earlier form, I would appreciate hearing it. Thanks!
  • Son of Liberty Child of Freedom June 20, 2017 at 11:43 pm on SCOTUS Rules Justly in Packingham Casemike r with regard to your statement: "you made my point in your religious tirade that very few could probably follow. I think they will bite on that low hanging fruits and be able to regress to that old institution og blame shifting that you preached about." Yes it is a high probability that SCOTUS will defer to avail themselves of misty mirrors, therefore it is incumbent upon you in the service of True Justice to identify the gaps they expose and you fill them, in that you will be lead to victory with no glory. Pleased to assist you in making your Point - All I ask is you think of me kindly. Now with regard to Religion I have no interest or desire to proselytize any person to any religious belief. I do however not sensor my own self or speech of my own acquired or inherited knowledge from my Forefathers, least would I do so to cater to those who do not feed me, provide me bedding, or look upon me with חֵן (chen) or eyes that demonstrate חָנַן (chanan) as my Father does for me and as I too look upon my sons. I speak a True Song As Yehovah Lives, so should we
  • Son of Liberty Child of Freedom June 20, 2017 at 10:48 pm on Criminal justice leaders seek to end lifetime registry for low-risk sex offenders in California@ New Person I must say you have made a keen observation of the Inherent Weakness of the Human Condition being easily manipulated by the Slight of Hand in the act of Omission of Base Facts of a Issue or Subject. I encourage you to move forward with your Innocuous Project. As Yehovah Lives, so should we
  • t June 20, 2017 at 9:58 pm on TX: Supreme Court ruling could imperil Texas sex offender rulesWrong Chris F, they are talking about those that are still incarcerated, if you are still in custody part of your punishment is restriction. We are talking about those who not incarcerated or are off probation and parole.
  • C June 20, 2017 at 8:53 pm on A look at the potential changes in California’s sex offender registryDid anyone happen to catch Scott Weiner on KABC this afternoon talking to John Phillips and Jillian Barberie? I just caught the tail end when they were summarizing their discussion and making the point that rapists and aggravated children molesters would not be coming off the list. I've heard Barberie frequently rail against RCs, perpetuating the typical myths and ignoring facts. Would love to heard the whole interview.
  • Concerned Registrant June 20, 2017 at 8:14 pm on Traveling Abroad Sucks if You’re an Ex-ConLet me explain. I am in California. I For about 18 years now, whenever I travel internationally, I do so for one or more months. That is too long to be considered a vacation. Every state probably has a different length of time that is considered beyond a vacation limit. In California, I must "register out" of jurisdiction within five days of departure, and when I return I must "register in" within five days.Whatever state you live in, you should determine the details. For me, registering out and then back in has worked out the best because I get official paperwork showing that I am in compliance. The other point was "giving your 21-eday notice does NOT MEAN you have registered out. You still must register out, if that is what you intend to do.
  • living the lie June 20, 2017 at 7:57 pm on SCOTUS Rules Justly in Packingham Case“It is disappointing that three members of the U.S. Supreme Court continue to repeat a myth which has been disproved by decades of research,” stated Bellucci. “That research, including the findings of Dr. Karl Hanson, has overwhelmingly concluded that registrants have a very low rate of re-offense.” Yes; it's very disappointing. But can anyone expect anything less from dishonest people in high places? They completely disregard the truth as if it doesn't exist. If anyone thinks these corrupt people are unaware of the truth/facts then you are fooling yourself. $omeone has gotten to them, and there are plenty of industries related to the "sex offender" lie (I refuse to call it a myth because it is a lie; not a myth) making enough money to buy influence. Only a fool would listen to these people that have sold their soul. One must watch what they do, as this article has done to a certain extent.
  • AJ (mostly to Chris F) June 20, 2017 at 7:46 pm on SCOTUS Rules Justly in Packingham Case@Chris F Thanks for the info and clarification on SORNA. I've never read it, truth be told, as my State exactly mirrors its notification requirements, and I'm not traveling (even domestically) anytime soon. So the Feds are forcing the States to issue blacklists to social media. See http://all4consolaws.org/2017/06/scotus-rules-justly-in-packingham-case/#comment-178416 for a brilliant post from someone near and dear to me about this. 😉 I really don't see how this is any different than the Gov't having the red-scare blacklists or a Bill of Attainder against communists. Hmmm...that BoA argument is sounding better and better. Another angle I thought of as a result of Packingham, beyond the IL case it almost certainly will help, is its effect on presence restrictions. SCOTUS has ruled RCs can "attend" a discussion or linger in the ePublic Square known as Facebook. So how is it the Government (at any level) can prevent me in the physical world from that same activity? Many states bar RCs from parks. What if I wish to have or join a protest, say a sit-in, at the park? What if I wish to protest at City Hall and it's next to a park, or a school, or wherever? I know many laws have the escape of "loitering" (a legal tangle in and of itself) for the RC, but it still seems the law is overly broad and restricting innocent behavior, including First Amendment rights. The Pepitone case in IL will be interesting to say the least, especially in the light of Packingham. --AJ
  • mike r June 20, 2017 at 6:51 pm on SCOTUS Rules Justly in Packingham Caseson of liberty...you made my point in your religious tirade that very few could probably follow. I think they will bite on that low hanging fruits and be able to regress to that old institution og blame shifting that you preached about. Keep it real Son and even though some of your religious references and oratories maybe difficult to follow or even understand sometimes..lol...you give color to these comments sections and I am far from being a religious man but if it makes you feel better and its your way to speak your mind I say go for it... As Yehovah Lives, so should we...lol...
  • David Kennerly, Thought Crime Wave June 20, 2017 at 5:29 pm on Philippine Bureau of Immigration bans alien sex offenders in the countryIs Malaysia allowing Registrants in? I had thought that both Indonesia and Malaysia were not. I could be wrong.
  • Roger June 20, 2017 at 4:48 pm on Criminal justice leaders seek to end lifetime registry for low-risk sex offenders in CaliforniaLTL, You are arguing LOGIC and facts, but those are secondary to the EMOTIONS--primarily fear--driving the public and politicians to make bad registrant laws. It is magical thinking to say that everyone will suddenly see the error of their ways and dump the registry if you can just pile enough facts on their heads. You have to address their fear. Incremental change is how civil rights have always happened in this country and around the world. Idealism without a practical, real-world plan will fail. Come to Sacramento and see how to initiate REAL change by letting politicians see our faces. Just sitting at our computers debating back and forth among ourselves won't do much.
  • AlexO June 20, 2017 at 4:47 pm on TX: Supreme Court ruling could imperil Texas sex offender rulesYou simply say something that sounds plausible. It's not like anyone is going to bother defending the pedo's with facts.
  • PK June 20, 2017 at 4:40 pm on Philippine Bureau of Immigration bans alien sex offenders in the countryMeet him in Malaysia, but don't fly there.
  • Son of Liberty Child of Freedom June 20, 2017 at 3:44 pm on SCOTUS Rules Justly in Packingham Casemike r With regard to your observation: "Son you like that approach huh..lol..gives the court a way out and a scapegoat to pin their mistake on..right?" The ancient ritual of Redeeming oneself by placing debts (sins) upon a scapegoat is a deep rooted Instution that has been Profaned & Abused since time immemorial. I believe SCOTUS as current subscribers to The Institutions of Peer Pressure & High School Politics lack the Obejective Moral Courage to practice True Justice, so they will meander upon the Path of Correct Conduct to the Calling of Heaven & Earth bearing witness to their poor Demeanor in the presence of The True High Court. Should you be grant a audience before their Simple Mortalship, you need be shrewd & cleaver, a strong command of the strengths & weaknesses to your arguments is prerequisite to capture their high condescend gaze. You must Steel your self and be quick to answer with confident repose. I petition The Most High Father in Heaven give you grace. As Yehovah Lives, so should we
  • G4Change June 20, 2017 at 3:41 pm on TX: Supreme Court ruling could imperil Texas sex offender rules"...registered sex offenders disproportionately commit additional sex crimes online...” What the EFF??????? Where do these stupid morons come up with this crap????
  • David Kennerly, Thought Crime Wave June 20, 2017 at 3:32 pm on SCOTUS Rules Justly in Packingham CaseOyez.org is an excellent way to hear oral arguments of all SCOTUS cases, along with real-time captioning. They are available very soon after arguments and provide terrific commentary, too. When I was putting together a study of all SCOTUS cases in which sex offenses and child pornography were at issue, it was invaluable. I was able to break out each case according to the votes of individual justices, whether positive or negative rulings (from my/our standpoint), as well as a rating system of individual justices.
  • lovewillprevail June 20, 2017 at 3:26 pm on SC: ‘Skinhead’ said God told him to kill sex offenders, wanted conviction tossed outGod told me, a registered sex offender, to kill skinheads. But the devil to told me not to kill skinheads. I decided to listen to the devil. We need more love, not hate.
  • mike r June 20, 2017 at 3:20 pm on SCOTUS Rules Justly in Packingham Caseexcellent comment Chris I think I will work your comment into our motion. keep tabs on general comments for updates and more collaboration...I don't see how all these civil rights groups aren't jumping on this because whomever topples the registry is going to be famous and will be cononized in the annals of history...great PR for any civil attorneys....
  • Anthony June 20, 2017 at 3:01 pm on Philippine Bureau of Immigration bans alien sex offenders in the countryThat's good to hear you were there. But others are not that lucky. I left to go to the Philippines and it was a long flight to get there. But unfortunately once I arrived to Manila going through the immigration check point ,I was denied entry and I had to fly back home the same day.
  • Brubaker June 20, 2017 at 2:38 pm on SCOTUS Rules Justly in Packingham CaseI've always said, the automobile license plate for all North Hanoi Carolina should read as their state motto: North Carolina the Un-Constitutional state. Of course, the ruling couldn't be any other way in a free society when the foundation of law is the Constitution. Whewwwwwwwwww
  • AlexO June 20, 2017 at 2:14 pm on TX: Supreme Court ruling could imperil Texas sex offender rulesWhat's the Texas address? I'll send them a dollar to wipe their tears.
  • Chris F June 20, 2017 at 1:59 pm on TX: Supreme Court ruling could imperil Texas sex offender rulesThis doesn't affect anything in Texas. Probation and Parole can restrict anything they want to within reason. I've got this restriction during probation. Anyone is free to challenge it as not related to their crime, but most don't care enough to pay a lawyer to do that. Restrictions on parole or probation aren't supposed to be mandatory to all that committed specific crimes and are supposed to be tailored to the individual but that hardly ever happens and it's hard to afford an attorney to challenge it. The Packingham case doesn't change any of this one way or the other.
  • Really? June 20, 2017 at 1:43 pm on FL: Bill requires moving companies disclose employed sex offendersIt would be so much easier if all these offenders had to wear something on their clothes, like a gold star, so that they could be identified.
  • AlexO June 20, 2017 at 12:56 pm on Hearing Dates Set for AB 558 and SB 421All the letters for and against have been written and sent. Now to keep our fingers crossed things go our way without any further negative amendments. I'm still really leery about that addition of 647.6 clause under Tier 2 internet exclusions as well as giving the court leeway on classifying people beyond their actual penal codes; I have a a felony 311.4 and misdemeanor 647.6 (going in for reduction and engagement soon) with an underage victim who was a stranger, and Static-99 score of 4 (yay for getting a point and a classification bump because at the time I was two years too young) Going by the codes alone, I should be tier 1. But that consideration leeway has me worried I may be placed into tier 2. 10 years is a huge bit of difference between the two, not to mention potentially being listed on the public site or not.
  • David Kennerly, Thought Crime Wave June 20, 2017 at 12:53 pm on SCOTUS Rules Justly in Packingham CaseI think that the day when a market-dominant behemoth, such as Facebook, may come to be considered as a "common carrier" is possibly on the horizon. At that point, as a common-carrier, they would fall afoul of the courts if they were to continue to block membership of such a wide class of people. This will also raise a complex tangle of issues before it is resolved, including, and especially, how it can reasonably control speech (think: terrorist sympathizers). If it were to be seen as a common carrier, I don't think that its corporate structure as a publicly-traded company will be the limiting factor (as opposed to a private firm) but its defacto monopoly status in the marketplace. However, I suspect that its policies on sex offenders will eventually fall by the wayside as a result of shifting social pressure, adverse publicity and, one would hope, common sense. Personally, I can't stand FB while recognizing its ubiquity among most of society. I detest Mark Zuckerberg and, especially, Chris Kelly, who is one of our arch enemies and who went way beyond simply setting FB's policies on "sex offenders." He has been a major contributor to hystericist pressure groups and has played an instrumental role in lobbying for ever more draconian sex laws.
  • Chris F (To Mike R) June 20, 2017 at 12:36 pm on SCOTUS Rules Justly in Packingham Case@Mike R Exactly. I don't think they are blind to all the media attention over the years to all of the restrictions and laws pointing to those on the registry. I think SCOTUS thought they were clear in Connecticut DPS V Doe that the registry was only constitutional as long as it didn't infer dangerousness and was only making public info easier to access. Once you make the first restriction against a registrant (Which Connecticut did the year after the SCOTUS decision) you void that ruling, and violate Substantive Due Process by not having restrictions tailored to the individual during the fair sentence portion of the trial. On top of that, the HUD law against assisting registrants and the IML are national examples of laws proving those on the registry are considered a threat. It really amazes me how we got to such a low point without SCOTUS getting involved again. I'm not sure how it doesn't "shock the conscience" that every one of our 19,354 cities (real number!) is allowed to make laws against anyone based on them simply pleading no contest or guilty to any crime long ago, after serving their time and even many having convictions set aside or deferred and not actually being convicted. In effect, that means anyone that plead to a DUI charge could have to research every city they drive through to determine if they are violating some city ordinance by doing so.
  • Chris F June 20, 2017 at 12:10 pm on A look at the potential changes in California’s sex offender registryUnfortunately, the registry does even more than mentioned above to make things worse and not better. The stigma of potentially being on the registry is now so great that a child molester could be more likely to murder that child than risk being caught by leaving a witness alive. I am the father of two young kids, and as much as I would be devastated if a pervert got his hands on them, I would be infinitely more devastated if he killed one of them just from the fear of our lynch mob society. I don’t think it’s fair for someone else’s desire for vengeance to put others in more harms way and exacerbate the original problem. There is some middle ground between victims rights and the good of society as a whole, and I would prefer it lean more toward society to prevent more victims
  • Chris F (To AJ) June 20, 2017 at 11:56 am on SCOTUS Rules Justly in Packingham Case@AJ It's part of the SORNA requirement that the state registries feed the email and other info to the approved social networking sites. There are strict requirements that the social media cannot use that email or other info for any purpose other than to restrict those people from using their site or somehow protecting minors by some other means.
  • Hiding in Plain Sight June 20, 2017 at 11:18 am on General Comments June 2017Apples and oranges Lake County. That's because the passport identifier is for the customs official in Bum-phk Whateverstan who makes the decision on who he allows entry into a country. IML flags your name on a manifest list for the receiving country. Facial recognition (in this context) is for exit. Not all countries have unlimited and artificial taxpayer dollars to employ these invasive and overbearing methods.
  • PK June 20, 2017 at 10:52 am on SCOTUS Rules Justly in Packingham CaseGood Point.
  • PK June 20, 2017 at 10:50 am on SCOTUS Rules Justly in Packingham CaseSeveral Internet Websites do actually require Commenters to Login via Facebook, and or LinkedIn and Google.
  • Beth June 20, 2017 at 10:19 am on Traveling Abroad Sucks if You’re an Ex-ConAll great info - thanks to everyone who has chimed in so far, it's much appreciated.
  • New Person June 20, 2017 at 10:15 am on IL: Task force seeks consensus on sex offender proposalsOr it can be seen as... It's totes obvee that registrants are bad (hence, no need for review). We can find an expert that supports our claim that registrants are bad. All we need is one to state the worst case scenario and we can tell the public that high recidivism rate is the norm for all registrants b/c the masses never do proper research. Also, remember, their definition of recidivism could be more encompassing than its true definition. Case in point, CASOMB used to include not registering as a re-offense in its recordings. They've amended it recently to not be counted as a re-offense, which is why the recidivism rates have dropped to under 1%. Politicians are devious. Look at where we are now? A review of is different from using projected recidivism rates from an expert. A review is concrete, not a projection. That's why he doesn't want a review. What if it shows less than 1% re-offense rate in his area? That would dispel any recidivist projections. You can't argue with projections b/c they can't be disputed. =========== As for money, this has always been an issue, but insignificant when "fear" is introduced. For a parallel, the CA tiered proposal should save money, but some politicians say it doesn't really save much. Remember, CASOMB already has the recidivism rate below 1%. Why spend any monies on a program where the re-offense rate is under 1%? That makes no sense at all and yet CA is still pushing for more added penalties. Fear supersedes facts and monies. But that fear was made legit by the SCOTUS in the 2003 Smith decision, making all registrants one group who are a public dangers to society. Hence, why there is a need for public safety for monsters with 80% recidivism rates.
  • New Person June 20, 2017 at 10:04 am on SCOTUS Rules Justly in Packingham CaseIt's odd. I think recently I got into a discussion with a couple of people on here that the high recidivism rate was one of the major factors for saying that registration was regulatory. Here, we have three justices stating just that in their own opinion, but that the first amendment rights were trampled upon egregiously that all three justices had to concur with the higher issue - first amendment rights need protecting. Then, Kennedy made an off comment in the opinion that restrictions after paying your dues was "troubling". That's a dig at Justice Roberts. ::: raising shoulders ::: guess I do know how to interpret things as a layman.
  • mike r June 20, 2017 at 10:02 am on SCOTUS Rules Justly in Packingham CaseSon you like that approach huh..lol..gives the court a way out and a scapegoat to pin their mistake on..right? Chris the court did actually casually touched on that subject of "by your logic pretty soon you will have everyone who commits a crime on a list and barred from everywhere " or something to that statement, it just appears to me that scrotus has actually been watching whats happening in the lower courts and they seem perplexed by what they are witnessing and are anticipating, and even encouraging with all their hints, for someone to get the real issues in front of them..They cant come right out and say anything else is unconstitutional unless it is properly in front of them but they have thrown several direct statements on what may work..
  • PJ June 20, 2017 at 9:48 am on SCOTUS Rules Justly in Packingham CaseWhat about Facebook ? Practically every corner of the internet where you are able to blog and speak an opinion requires a Facebook account. They are “publicly” traded and hooked linked to almost every site (id say about 90%) where you are able to leave a comment, opinion and everything talking. Even more so, the news media sites. They hinder my first amendment right to leaving an opinion on an article that was published by the free press news sites. Anonymity is also protected by the U.S constitution and Bill of Rights to protect an unpopular individual from the lynch mob majority in our society.
  • James A June 20, 2017 at 9:44 am on SCOTUS Rules Justly in Packingham CaseRP, you raise a very good point. Facebook bans sex offenders. Their prohibition is based on government compelled speech - our provision of registration information that is then provided to the public.
  • Laguy June 20, 2017 at 9:08 am on A look at the potential changes in California’s sex offender registryThank You Janice!
  • AJ June 20, 2017 at 8:43 am on Traveling Abroad Sucks if You’re an Ex-Con@James Yes, I think he was referring to whatever requirements one's state may have about letting them know if you're going to be gone from your registered addresses for some specified period of time (apparently, 5 days in this case). I haven't been to HK since '93, but agree it's a great place. It's also a good intermediary stop for other destinations that one may have "forgotten" to mention before leaving the US. A flight beyond the initial itinerary which is bought through any number of non-Five-Eyes countries may be prudent. --AJ
  • Son of Liberty Child of Freedom June 20, 2017 at 8:38 am on SCOTUS Rules Justly in Packingham Casemike r, I concur with your approach to Convincingly Argue before SCOTUS. As you well stated: "the solicitor general and other state attorneys have been duping the court and putting forth falsehood stats and purposely misrepresenting the facts to the court and making them look like fools." Make it clear to SCOTUS that they are Victims too and you are Advocating for their good Reputation & Future Legacy. It is key to remember that the Jurist are human beings Not gods from on High, the ugly truth is that they too suffer from the Inherent Weakness of the Human Condition which always inclines humans to defer to make "Intuitive Judgments" in contrast to Reasoned Objective "Probability Judgment" which they personally have proven themselves to have Fallen Pry to, by the fact of their past Unjust Rulings. I Speak Truth As Yehovah Lives, so should we
  • AJ June 20, 2017 at 8:28 am on SCOTUS Rules Justly in Packingham Case@Chris F So FB can scrape the National Registry. To my knowledge, there is not enough data on the NR alone for FB to figure out my email address. Perhaps they grab the NR data, then use their data-mining skills to figure out who's who. Otherwise, it would seem their only avenue would be getting data from the State sites. By using the State sites, and not the NR, the SORNA element wouldn't apply. And technically, there is no National Registry, rather only an amalgamation of State registries. --AJ
  • AJ June 20, 2017 at 8:18 am on SCOTUS Rules Justly in Packingham Case“[W]hen sex offenders reenter society, they are much more likely than any other type of offender to be rearrested for a new rape or sexual assault.” Yup, and jaywalkers are much more likely to jaywalk than speeders; speeders more likely to speed than jaywalkers. People with one tattoo are more likely to get a(nother) tattoo than someone who has none. What a profound sociology item they've stumbled upon for us: the more someone does something, the more likely they are to do it again (even if just once versus zero). Red-light running? Yup. Going two days without changing underwear? Yup. It doesn't matter the item or topic, anytime a human has tried something once, they are more prone to try it again compared to someone who has yet to try it. That is the exact cycle the judicial system seeks to break via retribution, restitution and rehabilitation. IOW, the human has to suffer a severe enough consequence to make it unpalatable to try again. Kinda like getting sick on tequila... 😉 --AJ
  • AJ June 20, 2017 at 8:00 am on SCOTUS Rules Justly in Packingham CaseSo SCOTUS has confirmed that the State, "may not suppress lawful speech as the means to suppress unlawful speech." Isn't that exactly what they're doing by giving FB a list of people? How is it different than if the State gave a list and/or photos to the organizers or operators of a physical public square, who then barred everyone on that list from attending? Collusive activity by the State to abridge one's Free Speech is just as unconstitutional. I also wonder how many (if any) States are violating some sort of Data Practices Act by releasing the information to FB, et al. I have a hard time believing FB continuously and repeatedly files FOIAs with the States to get the data. (Even though it's public data, it doesn't mean it's freely given.) And, as others have pointed out, if FB is gleaning the data from the ML sites, they may well be violating a slew of laws across the country. As to another post someone said about Six Flags banning RCs....how do they know who's an RC and who isn't? As with FB, unless the State is giving them a blacklist or they are scouring the ML sites, there's no way to find out. --AJ P.S. This lawful/unlawful concept seems as if it should also apply to the Pepitone case in IL.
  • Son of Liberty Child of Freedom June 20, 2017 at 7:57 am on SCOTUS Rules Justly in Packingham CaseLake County, You infer correctly the masses "At Large" in a Pure Democratic Style behave & function under the Herd Mentality of Mob Role. This reality is what most persons in the Private & Public sectors attempt to mitigate their exposure to such Caustic & Acidic repercussion, it can not be denied as a Due Diligence to simple human self interest. Therefore we must celebrate individuals of past, present, & the future who step forward and place Self-Interest at a level position with their fellows, The Founding Fathers of Our nation should come to mind as they secured Justice for so many evidenced by the SCOTUS ruling. Even more crucial but even less acknowledged by The Masses who would prefer from a Illogical Unreasoned based emotionally "Intuitive Judgement" Practice & Elevate "Mob Rule" clothed under the term "Pure Democracy" or "Direct Democracy", and if I may state the Ugly Truth has always lead down the path of the "Tyranny of the Majority" since even before Antediluvian times there has only been one Counter to this inherent weakness to the Human Condition. The Counter to the Inherent Weakness to The Human Condition is Objective Morals, in contrast to Subjective Morals which is the default inclination of the Human Ego. The vast plurality of development of Objective Morals has been the Institutions within the Structures of Religion of which with few exemption have been Co-opted or Commandeered by the empowered few with some incite or education beyond the complete lack of interested Populace of being educated who foolishly delegate the efforts of Profound Thought to a few. The Exemptions can be duly note in the documents of the Torah of Moses & later additions that encompass the Tanakh more commonly know by the less recognized Pejorative term Old Testament. these source documents too became Co-opted by the addition of the Institutions of the Oral Law of men & their traditions established predictively by the Majority Positioned political or Populace group Pharisees which in the Hebrew language simply means "the separated ones" who established with the approval of The Roman Empire, rabbinic religion. Despite these obscuring developments the founders of The United States Constitution have produced good Fruit & Produce to this day and therefore it Is our Objective Responsibility to continue to Guard (Shamar) for today and future generations to follow the Paths of Correct Conduct lest we be abandoned by the Creator Most High to the cold hands of Calamity. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_condition https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antediluvian http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Morality https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanakh I speak a True Song As Yehovah Lives, so should we
  • AJ June 20, 2017 at 7:45 am on SCOTUS Rules Justly in Packingham Case@New Person I've definitely become more and more convinced about the involuntary servitude argument, thanks in large part to your information and posts. Thanks! I agree that the phrase, "severe restrictions on persons who already have served their sentence," points strongly to an involuntary servitude or Bill of Attainder claim. Your comment of "it’s so simple, but no one believes involuntary servitude can exist today," rang in my ears, too. Whenever something is deemed impossible or "never" to happen is when it has the best chance of success. "Nobody would ever hide a bunch of soldiers inside a big wooden horse. Let's bring that beauty inside the gates!" --AJ
  • Chris F June 20, 2017 at 7:44 am on SCOTUS Rules Justly in Packingham CaseThat statement may not be false though. It is just misleading and tries to make you think something that isn't written there. Sex offenders that DO recidivate and commit another crime, are more likely to commit a sex offense than a bank robber or drug dealer. Just like a bank robber that commits another crime is more likely to rob a bank then a sex offender. It's just a very deceptively worded sentence that has no place in Judicial opinions and really says nothing about overall Sex Offender recidivism in comparison to other groups recidivism. I guess they should include this in every drug offender's case: "(w)hen drug dealers reenter society, they are much more likely than any other type of offender to be rearrested for a new drug related charge".
  • AJ June 20, 2017 at 7:36 am on SCOTUS Rules Justly in Packingham Case@Lake County Actually, suing in county court is quite often a cheaper, viable option. FB would still need to show up to defend themselves--and expose their legal strategy--or face possible default judgment. Since an RC could limit the damage claim, it could probably even be done pro se in small claims. Even if FB shows, local judges tend to be a little more resistant to some "high falutin'" lawyer running their court room and telling them how things should be. This strategy is not limited to CA RCs, either. In fact, it's often handy to sue a company that operates, but is not based, in one's state. It adds a layer of difficulty for the company, and they often won't even show up. (I know this happens, as I have a direct family member who pursues this against airlines over various things.) If any RCs state laws are similiar to CA's, it may be a ripe suit to be done on the cheap. Hitting FB a bunch of times across the state in multiple courthouses would be even better, as it becomes a bigger headache for them. Can they afford it? Of course, but that doesn't change that they would be at risk of loss in every single case. Would FB prevail? Maybe, but then one files an appeal, perhaps with the help of ACLU or ACSOL or the like. --AJ
  • CYA possibly June 20, 2017 at 7:35 am on General Comments June 2017That is interesting and sounds like a CYA action by them to ensure they could cover themselves from liability by moving people around in seat assignments because they cannot stop you from flying even under IML since they are not agents of the USG (like Best Buy appears to be). How can they get fingerprints and facial photos? I am not providing them. Are they going to mine the internet or DMV databases? I am not giving up my phone boarding pass.
  • Janice Bellucci June 20, 2017 at 7:31 am on A look at the potential changes in California’s sex offender registryThank you, Mot, for writing and sending letters. It is very important to do this in order to stop AB 558 and to pass SB 421. The hearing for AB 558 is next week, June 27, and the hearing for SB 421, is July 11. Please join us in person if you can. It's worth the effort!
  • Chris F (Can not sue Facebook) June 20, 2017 at 7:30 am on SCOTUS Rules Justly in Packingham CaseThis may require more research. While Facebook's actions could fail to adhere to a California law, the SORNA guidelines being federal may over-ride that and provide immunity from civil action. See this part of SORNA: §16915b. Checking system for social networking websites "A civil claim against a social networking website, including any director, officer, employee, parent, contractor, or agent of that social networking website, arising from the use by such website of the National Sex Offender Registry, may not be brought in any Federal or State court."
  • Yeah, don't think so.... June 20, 2017 at 7:25 am on NY: Murphy Lauds Bill That Bans Lifetime Sex Offenders From Internetyeah, he can go hide now because it would not pass muster given the Packingham ruling. They may be able to tailor it for specificity, but a blanket is not going to work.
  • AJ June 20, 2017 at 6:52 am on MO: Woman discovers sex offender using her address for registry, has to fight to remove it@Nicholas Maietta "One thing is for sure: If she was, she’s not anymore." LOL, funny and +1. "Officers even made a visit to her home." She's probably not too fond of compliance checks, either. This whole thing is too comical. Now if only a bunch of AL RCs would list all sorts of addresses as their new SORA law mandates. Total corruption of the database would be wonderful. --AJ
  • AJ June 20, 2017 at 6:50 am on IL: Task force seeks consensus on sex offender proposals“You don’t need a study to tell you the registry is helpful,” said Chambers, citing the need to keep track of those who may look for more victims, including children, if left unmonitored. I think what he meant to say was, "you can't find a study to tell you the registry is helpful." 🙂 What I find odd are his later comments and quotes, which seem incongruous with his first, misguided quote: "Also, expert testimony provided to the task force on recidivism rates for sex offenders should be recognized in future talks on the varying risk posed by offenders, said Chambers. 'There's significant data that shows there are different levels of risk'" Ummm, Mr. Chambers, those experts will rely on studies about the (lack of) value of registries, and "data" come from where? Oh yeah, studies. Also telling to me from this article is the whole thing is straining under its own weight: "Greg Sullivan, executive director of the Illinois Sheriff's Association, questioned...'[w]here is the funding going to come from? I hope we won't take it from what we already need," [] adding the state is already behind in funding the cost of the registry.'" Hate to break it to you, Mr. Sullivan, but tough luck that you have more BS to do than money to cover it. Perhaps if you weren't chasing ghosts via SORA, you'd have a few more $$$ to use elsewhere. Sucks to have to enforce stupid policy, doesn't it buddy? Yeah, I'm really torn-up that you're struggling. --AJ
  • Harry June 20, 2017 at 6:13 am on A look at the potential changes in California’s sex offender registry"...the irony of the registry is that it has the propensity to create and enhance the exact same danger it alleges to protect society from..." Marty this a great talking point that needs to be headlined.
  • RP June 20, 2017 at 4:26 am on SCOTUS Rules Justly in Packingham CaseI wonder what can be done about states thst require you to still give them your account name and email associated with it even if they don't ban you. Then they turn it over the info to the social media site who has a policy banning sex offenders so they delete your account. In effect the state is taking an action they know will bar your free speech. One could take it further and say with facial and name recognition software the online registry could be used by social media to filter out sex offenders and that they state run registry is a tool retarding free speech.
  • former human guinea pig June 20, 2017 at 1:44 am on NY: Polygraph Therapy Faces Scrutiny in Child Porn CaseIf you really want to see egregious use of the polygraph test, look at how Sharper Future uses it.
  • G4Change June 20, 2017 at 1:18 am on A look at the potential changes in California’s sex offender registryGreat job as always, Janice! Also, I have to say that I applaud the journalistic style of KPCC. No yelling. No sensationalizing. No b.s. Sounds like a great radio station.
  • G4Change June 20, 2017 at 12:24 am on SCOTUS Rules Justly in Packingham CaseI totally agree! I think a lawsuit against Facebook (at least as far as California law is concerned) needs to happen!
  • Marty June 19, 2017 at 10:41 pm on A look at the potential changes in California’s sex offender registryExcellent job by Janice presenting the case for lower tier registrants, vigilantism, and the fact that most sex offenses are committed by people not on the registry. Ms. Moulton, with all due respect, dealt with a horrendous tragedy in which her child was murdered; however, she seems to equate all registrants with murderers... obviously an agregious error (and the basis for the Adam Walsh laws). This misinformation needs to be challenged albeit with care so as not to attack the parents of murdered children. The only point I would have liked to hear from Janice, and I'm sure she would have had they given her enough time, is the damage the registry causes by destroying the opportunity for reformed registrants to lead productive, non-offending lives. After all, take away jobs,housing, and support, and you potentially leave at least a few homeless on the streets who may no longer care what they do or who they harm. In short, the irony of the registry is that it has the propensity to create and enhance the exact same danger it alleges to protect society from. Perhaps the next show can give Janice a few more minutes.
  • JC June 19, 2017 at 10:29 pm on Hearing Dates Set for AB 558 and SB 421I'm not the one making speculations, and let's try to not make this about ego. We're all fighting a common enemy, there's no need to try to create unnecessary fears.
  • Steve June 19, 2017 at 9:27 pm on A look at the potential changes in California’s sex offender registryShe is hardly for our cause. Her entire bologna story of having a "weird feeling about a new neighbor" and looking him up only to find hew was on the the list. Then some new people move in and she goes to warn them only finding out he was offering to " baby sit" was total bs. Her ammo is to create fear to enflict more pain on us. I do not feel bad for her at all.
  • Harry June 19, 2017 at 7:58 pm on IL: Task force seeks consensus on sex offender proposalsAnd, at the same time, butchering millions of pre-born children in doctors offices, calling it women health care.
  • The Unforgiven June 19, 2017 at 7:40 pm on Criminal justice leaders seek to end lifetime registry for low-risk sex offenders in CaliforniaComments like the ones you describe make me think of comments I've seen regarding Brock Turner's case. Everyone has been up in arms about the jail time but not seeing the bigger picture of his life is ruined, and being on the registry. He is being punished and didn't really 'get away with' anything.
  • Timmr June 19, 2017 at 6:33 pm on Hearing Dates Set for AB 558 and SB 421I don't know what your expertice is, but you are wasting your words on me, and vice versa.
  • Mot June 19, 2017 at 5:55 pm on A look at the potential changes in California’s sex offender registryHeard Janice on the radio today. So glad to hear what she had to say. The 'opposition' seemed to even be on OUR side in this. Keep up the public exposure of what is needed and how we can all finally get our freedom. Sending my letters on 421 to morrow
  • G4Change June 19, 2017 at 5:19 pm on SCOTUS Rules Justly in Packingham CaseI am very happy and feel blessed by this decision!!! Praise GOD!!! In the meantime, I'd like to invite Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Alito and Justice Thomas to please go back to Neptune or wherever they're from because apparently they haven't a clue about reality! “(w)hen sex offenders reenter society, they are much more likely than any other type of offender to be rearrested for a new rape or sexual assault." Really???? Get your heads out of your a**es!!!!! Despite the ignorance of these 3 justices, I am grateful that they ruled properly!
  • Registry Rage June 19, 2017 at 5:16 pm on IL: Task force seeks consensus on sex offender proposalsThey will say and do anything to protect their cushy pie jobs! Oh and "our children.."
  • New Person June 19, 2017 at 4:55 pm on SCOTUS Rules Justly in Packingham Case=========================== I don’t even see why Alito needed another opinion. =========================== I see it this way: The first amendment cannot be abridged. It's all or nothing. The three separate judges want to say that the states still have the ability to corral sex offenders due to the high recidivism rates. Lo and behold, if they only knew their sources are false and do not come from a verified expert, then those three judges may have to re-think their separate opinions. But this also could be foreshadowing for the Snyder case and we have can see lines draw right now upon the matter. Yet Kennedy denoting service outside of punishment is troubling. Those are virtual shots fired at registration.
  • davidh June 19, 2017 at 4:22 pm on SCOTUS Rules Justly in Packingham Casethis can be true, but so what: "“(w)hen sex offenders reenter society, they are much more likely than any other type of offender to be rearrested for a new rape or sexual assault." The bigger issue looms and that is lower recidivism overall, regardless of what one does when they do reoffend!
  • Nicholas Maietta June 19, 2017 at 4:14 pm on SCOTUS Rules Justly in Packingham CaseI was thinking maybe a formation of a dedicated legal entity for this very purpose. Having the entity sue, not the people. If somehow we lose, it'd be the entity that would lose. We need both tax and business experts on this subject as well.
  • Lake County June 19, 2017 at 4:06 pm on SCOTUS Rules Justly in Packingham CaseYour words are still hard to understand, but I think your comment is correct. It may just be that they are trying to get the uneducated population to not criticize this court for the unanimous decision. ------ If we were really lucky, we will see a Trump Tweet on the court's decision. But that would be really stupid of him, right? lol
  • mike r June 19, 2017 at 4:02 pm on SCOTUS Rules Justly in Packingham CaseAnother thing..I bet when the issue of the recidivism rate falsehoods are brought before the court and are extensively argued that the court might, just might, be a little ticked off that the solicitor general and other state attorneys have been duping the court and putting forth falsehood stats and purposely misrepresenting the facts to the court and making them look like fools. I will be sure to argue that the court should find this deception as a key factor when scrutinizing any future cases involving ex sex offenders...I did like how one of the justices I think is was Ginsberg who stated "these ex sex offenders" in one of her questions was great...I don't think SCROTUS is going to be happy with the government when my case gets in front of them..I will pound home the false statistic claims and will relentlessly force them to justify any and all these laws....This is some great ammo coming out of this opinion....
  • ReadyToFight June 19, 2017 at 4:01 pm on SCOTUS Rules Justly in Packingham CaseThat statement about the reoffense rate really pisses me off! And I hope it pisses the rest of you off too! I want to fire back so damn bad! Ignorance!
  • Cool CA RC June 19, 2017 at 3:59 pm on SCOTUS Rules Justly in Packingham CaseI can go buy a share of Facbook and still can't access it. I would be a part owner way under 1% ownership of facebook but still can't access it.
  • Lake County June 19, 2017 at 3:58 pm on SCOTUS Rules Justly in Packingham CaseI also agree this issue is ripe for a civil suit against Facebook. We would need a gofundme account to gather enough seed money to begin to file a suit. The biggest problem is that Facebook's lawyers will ensure this will cost us a large amount of attorney's fees. We would need an attorney that is willing to get most of their money from Facebook only if we have a win. I never ask you for advice here, but Janice, Chance, any opinions on this issue? Does anyone have any legal opinion as to the reasons why we would not win?
  • Cool CA RC June 19, 2017 at 3:56 pm on SCOTUS Rules Justly in Packingham CaseI agree
  • New Person June 19, 2017 at 3:50 pm on SCOTUS Rules Justly in Packingham Case================================== “Of importance, the troubling fact that the law imposes severe restrictions on persons who already have served their sentence and are no longer subject to the supervision of the criminal justice system is also not an issue before the Court.” ================================== This is why I continue to state "involuntary servitude". It is prohibited unless to punish a crime. You've completed your punitive service to the state, but must continue to serve the state as a free person?! Registration isn't punitive. Like I said, it's so simple, but no one believes involuntary servitude can exist today.
  • PK June 19, 2017 at 3:45 pm on NY: Murphy Lauds Bill That Bans Lifetime Sex Offenders From InternetBut Mr. Murphy was "lauding" the idea of banning Internet access to ANY AND ALL RSO's. You know- I don't like that guy.
  • New Person June 19, 2017 at 3:45 pm on SCOTUS Rules Justly in Packingham CaseAlong with Dr Ira and Tara Ellmans research work that debunks the source that all the courts have been using.
  • mike r June 19, 2017 at 3:43 pm on SCOTUS Rules Justly in Packingham Casewhat i didn't like was the fact that he didn't debunk the other side when they were stating the same old falsehoods about recidivism...
  • Cool CA RC June 19, 2017 at 3:42 pm on SCOTUS Rules Justly in Packingham CaseThey are n o longer a private business.
  • Agamemnon June 19, 2017 at 3:40 pm on SCOTUS Rules Justly in Packingham CaseParole is not optional in CA. Even if you serve your sentence in full, you are still placed in parole upon your release.
  • mike r June 19, 2017 at 3:38 pm on SCOTUS Rules Justly in Packingham Casethat oral argument was really bizarre...how the court kept throwing out hypothetical situations one after the other and asking "would you say that would be unconstitutional or constitutional " and finally when the attorney says to one of those inquiries that it was irrelevant he hit it on the nose...they dont accept hypotheticals from us so why should they get to use them? this was the nest argued case that i have seen for our side and is just a snapshot of what's coming....
  • AlexO June 19, 2017 at 3:33 pm on SCOTUS Rules Justly in Packingham CaseThanks for the link! It was very interesting hearing the argument. The few times I have listened to court arguments, it always strikes me how mellow and unprofessional everything sounds. I mean, when you watch a piece of fiction like this everything is so eloquent and precises. But in reality even those at the very top of the game still always do the "um, ah, ect" that we're always taught in school to avoid. Even the justices!
  • David June 19, 2017 at 3:13 pm on SCOTUS Rules Justly in Packingham CaseCelebrating!!! SCOTUS = "Making America FREE Again!" 😁
  • Michael June 19, 2017 at 3:10 pm on SCOTUS Rules Justly in Packingham CaseShould come as no surprise that Justices Roberts, Alito and Thomas choose to perpetrate a myth. In most all cases, Rightists are the ones pushing this type of legislation. ....
  • Lake County June 19, 2017 at 3:06 pm on SCOTUS Rules Justly in Packingham CaseI doubt it because to get released early on parole, you are agreeing to abide by the strict rules they place upon you. While on parole, you are still serving your prison sentence with just about any restriction they place upon you. Not much different than all the other things you are restricted from while being inside of prison. Parole is a restrictive option that you do not have to agree with. You have the option to complete your prison term and not have these restrictions upon release.
  • AlexO June 19, 2017 at 2:35 pm on SCOTUS Rules Justly in Packingham CaseI do not believe it does. While on supervision you can have almost any amount of restrictions placed on you. This was dealing with the person being off supervision but still having this restriction placed on him.
  • Stephen June 19, 2017 at 2:32 pm on SCOTUS Rules Justly in Packingham CaseIf you Violate Face Books terms of service, they can do more than just kick you off, They can File a Civil suit and Clean out your bank Accounts. What you can do is go after the Politian's that use it for public Speaking. They Must Equally Represent everyone.
  • SCOTUS SAVE US NOW June 19, 2017 at 2:28 pm on NY: Murphy Lauds Bill That Bans Lifetime Sex Offenders From Internethttps://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-1194_08l1.pdf Everyone Email Mr. Murphy this link