Janice's Journal: The Many Wonders of a 4th Circuit Decision
Published Date : December 1, 2016
The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals rendered an important decision yesterday, Does v. Cooper, that is full of many wonders. We can only hope that this wonder-full decision will serve as a guiding light for additional federal courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, in the future.
The greatest wonder of the 4th Circuit’s decision was the Court’s insistence that state laws which prohibited some, but not all, registrants from visiting public and private locations must be based upon empirical evidence if those laws could cover locations where people exercise their First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and religion. Such locations include, for example, public parks, public streets, public buildings, and religious institutions. The Court suggested that empirical evidence in support of such laws could include data, social science or scientific research, and legislative findings.
In fact, the Court strongly rejected the assertions of the State of North Carolina that anecdotes, common sense and logic could replace empirical evidence. The Court’s rejection, in fact, emphasized that “(w)ithout empirical data or other similar credible evidence” the State of North Carolina could not justify that its laws were based upon “the State’s legitimate interest in protecting minors from sexual assault.”
Another wonder of the 4th Circuit’s decision is the Court’s determination that one of the laws at issue was overbroad not because it applied to all of the state’s registrants, but because it applied to a smaller group of registrants who had been convicted of a violent sex offense and/or an offense involving a victim less than 16 years old. The Court noted that not all members of even that group “pose a danger to minors or are likely to pose such a danger”.
A third wonder of the 4th Circuit’s decision is the Court’s determination that another of the laws at issue was unconstitutionally vague because “neither an ordinary citizen nor a law enforcement officer could reasonably determine what activity was criminalized”. This part of the decision focused upon language in the law the prohibited registrants from visiting “any place where minors gather for regularly scheduled educational, recreational, or social programs,” without providing examples of such places or other guidance as to what the law requires.
We celebrate the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals decision and remember fondly a similar decision, People v. Nguyen, in a California state appellate court issued in 2014 that reached a similar conclusion albeit for different reasons. It is that decision which helped us, along with 31 cases filed in federal court, to eliminate virtually all presence restrictions in the State of California.
Our holiday hope is that all states in our great nation will soon follow these precedents and eliminate all laws that restrict where registrants may visit. This is particularly important at a time of year when the existence of such laws punish not only registrants but their loved ones by keeping them apart.
— by Janice Bellucci / all Janice’s Journal entries
Published Opinion
Related
4th Circuit strikes down North Carolina residency/movement restrictions on sex offenders
Comments
pedro
Remember bill Clinton started the registry and Pagans law (and we all know he should be on the registry) and Barack Obama caused the international problem....but we have to remember its honoring the constitution not a party....
steve
Amen brother.
The Constitution Is Dead
All the while my life goes slowly dimmer. Whilst you argue back and forth on this and that here is the truth.
I committed a crime. I paid society and the State for the crime under a contract of law that was my conviction. After my probation and having used that time to improve myself my thinking my heart and having asked GOD to guide me and having committed no further crime I was discharged from probation. A couple of years later I was granted a certificate of rehabilitation and my firearms rights were restored. I lived all the years until 2004 as a responsible person who worked, who loved his family & friends, who respected others. In 2004 I was forced through an unjust arrest for failure to register to a law that did not exist at that time of my conviction to register as a sex offender. Since then I have become mostly a man with ZERO LEGAL representation or VOICE. I walk among you everyday and would protect you and protect the badges I see. But you care not to protect my constitutional rights. I have lost all meaningful income. I have not been to a dentist in 15 years. I have no health insurance. I have only a small group of friends. I have lost and suffered in ways that you take for granted every single day. I have Honor. I have Respect. But the Constitution is DEAD. The land of the free and the brave is an illusion propped up for financial power mongers to steal your inheritance. It is a land full of corruption and political power mongers that do not care for the Nation or THE PEOPLE. Where is the attorney that will represent this man who has worked so hard to rebuild? Where is the attorney that will stand up for my rights? I'll tell you where NO FKN WHERE cause it is a political landmine and not good for your career. The Legal System only works for the rich. The legal system has been designed to destroy those whom failed and committed sexual crime. My crime is so long ago. I rebuilt my life so many times. But the federal government through its bullshit laws with ZERO clinical data and actually flying in direct opposition to the real clinical data wanted to destroy me. While all of you sheep were being deceived via the sex offender registry and its promise to save children the power mongers devalued your real estate, they stole your retirements and devalued your investments. And magically almost ZERO indictments or sentences have come from the grand swindle. While you sheep sit in fear of the pedophile that is lurking in every proverbial bush yet another politician builds a career or improves it at the expense of the fallen. As you have sat mesmerized by the lies and disinformation regarding sex crimes your nation has been all but run into the ground. Large swaths of manufacturing has been exported to other nations. Foreign nationals and companies have bought up large portions of our nation while you drool over the nightly news and its pure biased bullsht.
I have learned much from you. When I asked GOD to save me I gave him permission to use me to see the world through my eyes and so he has. He changed me, healed me so I do not need or ask for your forgiveness. The Lord made me a TIGER and so I live with the spirit of a TIGER. You can put all manner of labels upon me but you can not change me or GOD. I am his child and in the end you will hear my VOICE.
Lord Hear my prayer. Let all those whom hold power and make laws and whom do so against our constitution let them and all their seed suffer. Let those whom swore to uphold the truth only to use a position of power to smite the weak let them feel your wrath. Let my suffering be avenged Lord Hear My Prayer.
USA
Well, I don't think anyone can argue against a tiered system. It's a way out. I think most people (including myself) are concerned about (if they hadn't before) having their info posted on the Megan's Law Website. Furthermore, I hope the 10 year or 20 year requests to terminate Regiatratuon is black and white. I requested a COR some years back and the Judge stated he couldn't find one reason to deny the motion, but it wasn't enough/motion denied? So, this is important.
Brubaker
Our Constitution wins.
Our Constitution is the foundation on this outstanding ruling by the 4th District Court.
Our Constitution has been saying it for over 200 years.
No selfish idiot individual can take credit for that...You idiot.
Anyways,
The license plate motto for n. Carolina: The Unconstitutional state.
abolishtheregistry.com
You're probably were one of the people that said we'd never get to where we are now.
These aren't baby steps we're beginning to see.
Anonymous Nobody
I agree, baby steps. I think this is less than it appears.
Yes, it says they must show real evidence to justify the punishment to registrants. However, it has no automatic issue with the punishment if the lawmakers show a competing concern to justfy the punishment.
But more important, you can get any opinion you want out of this "science," the defense will get their's and the prosecution will produce their's. Under this ruling, as long as the prosecution presents there's, its a go. OK, you could challenge it, but I'm sure the burden of PROOF would be on your side, and all you will have is an opposing opinion -- opinion is all this "science" is going to be, and your opinion will be no better than their opinion, so you will not have met the burden of proof.
So all this ruling says is that you must dress it up as legitimate, but that can just be a costume. Once NC dresses its law is a costume, it will be a go.
Chris F
Al D, I am curious, is the challenge you talk about a "Bill of Attainder" challenge?
It would make sense if it were. All of the evidence you talk about would be more than enough to support that. If the government would spend 1/100th of what it wastes on registration to create a real private database of all crime shared across jurisdictions than we would see more criminals caught and crimes prevented.
All one has to do is look at the motivation behind every addition to what started as a private database to track actual child molesters and you can see that what has been created violates the"Bill of Attainder" clause.
As an example, Mr Lunsford said publicly "I can"t get my hands on the guy that murdered my daughter so I've made it my job to make the rest of these sexual offenders and predators' lives as miserable as I can."*
*http://www.oncefallen.com/quotes.html
David Kennerly
The word "marriage" isn't in the Constitution. Nor is the word "bible" for that matter. The men who crafted the Constitution also, rather brilliantly, included this lovely gem of an Amendment, the Ninth:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
The Constitution was not created as a bulwark for the prejudices of its times but to protect against them.
abolishtheregistry.com
'that marriage is more than just between a man and a woman IS redefining the Constitution'
You couldn't be more wrong. The constitution defined individual liberty. Man twists it to fit their personal agenda. The constitution gives the government zero rights to marriage say so. Most who bark out things like you've said are only showing your ignorance.
American Detained in America
Michael, maybe you forget that deciding that marriage is more than just between a man and a woman IS redefining the Constitution, as, at the time of the original document, the idea of a man and a man being married to each other was considered unconscionable. Anything other than the intended meaning of the Constitution is redefining it.
mike r iscensored
I hope these decisions will encourage janice and team to participate in either assisting others or bringing suit herself in a challenge to the justification for these laws and the panoply of constitutional violations that are occurring because of that lack of justification ....those are the real issues and what I have been saying forever now is now being vindicated by decisions such as this...
abolishtheregistry.com
Here's what people like you either don't get or intentionally disregard dishonestly.
First.. Republican isn't what it used to be nor is conservative. These politicians you call 'republican', simply aren't.
There's a 3rd political group that runs both sides. They are no more liberal or conservative than a chicken is part of an Olympic track team.
Until people come to grips with that, we're going to continue biting at each others ankles and chasing our shadows.
Michael
"Perhaps the more liberal and progressive judges will find the value of factual evidence instead of 'anecdotes, common sense and logic…'"
There is no logic or common sense in your comment. In PA, both a right-leaning and a more recent left-leaning supreme court [D's gained control in 2015] have held in favor of sex offenders in a majority of the most recent cases going back to 2012 [when SORNA was ruled to violate the ex post facto clause of the PA state constitution].
http://all4consolaws.org/tag/pennsylvania/
Not everything has to be Right vs. Left.
....
Michael
Sex offender registries are useless and give nothing more than a false sense of security. According to numbers provided by the National Association of Adult Survivors of Child Sexual Abuse, the vast majority of children who are sexually abused are abused by someone they know - parents, siblings and other family members make up the vast majority of abusers. Friends of the family, babysitters, neighbors and others within the child's circle make up that balance. Strangers account for nighly 20%.
....
Michael
"it’s the conservative mindset not to continue to change or redefine or water down the U.S. Constitution."
That's because they are too busy amending or attempting to amend state constitutions to, e.g., ban same-sex marriage, because laws attempting to do the same do not pass constitutional muster. ;-)
Let's not forget that it was a Republican controlled Congress and a Right-leaning U.S. Supreme Court that ushered in these draconian laws back in the 90's, and they have yet to take their foot off the gas.
....
Punished For Life
@Moderator,
You may share my email address with "Tired of This".
Thank You
Tired of this
Punished, I'd really like to get in touch with you. As a fellow resident of the Silver State (who moved here from CA earlier this year to escape lifetime registration and public disclosure), I've been looking into petitioning, but I keep hearing that one can only petition under the new law that is stayed, but not under the current system. I must be getting inaccurate information. I'd like to possibly contact the firm you hired to discuss this. As it stands, I'm a tier 1, but would be tier 2 if AWA is (hopefully never) implemented, which would negate my main reason for living here. Moderators, can you help? I don't feel comfortable posting my email address here.
abolishtheregistry.com
"However, those who call themselves conservatives have been anything but conservative when it comes to crime and punishment, especially where our cause is concerned."
Exactly.
Matt Duhamel
Thanks for sharing Janice. This is great news. I hope these decisions state wide will help in stopping similar city ordinances. It seems to be that this is the trend: cities passing unconstitutional laws restricting RSO's from public locations. Take for example this story which is very sad:
http://reason.com/blog/2016/11/22/dying-wheelchair-bound-sex-offender-must
American Detained in America
Davidh, I'm a true conservative myself and I don't see the conservative court making "progressive" decisions, but finally making conservative ones. Remember, it's the conservative mindset not to continue to change or redefine or water down the U.S. Constitution, it's a progressive view that it is to be constantly redefined. However, those who call themselves conservatives have been anything but conservative when it comes to crime and punishment, especially where our cause is concerned.
abolishtheregistry.com
Move to Alaska and help me challenge it.
Punished For Life
@Al D.
Your words in this post are so very promising. It's the words that thousands of us have been waiting to hear
for many years now. Life as an RC has been very challenging. My wife and myself have taken the steps to be removed from the chains of the Nevada RC laws.
Living month to month has made the nearly $8K investment just to seek a glimmer of freedom has been
a daunting challenge. I feel deeply for those who cannot afford the process necessary under current law here. Nevada law says if there is a small mistake in the process of petitioning for relief, means the RC must wait another 5 years to start all over again. This prospect is devastation for many.
It appears to me that the new tiered proposal in CA. will offer relief to those with pre-1987 convictions, sounds great on the surface, (what about the rest of RC's?), but until the Federal Courts finally see the evidence you mention, hundreds of thousands in our country will still be in the prison that is the Registry.
How many of us can afford to continue to spend $$$ to petition the courts with a good attorney.
I would love to know the actual income levels of RC's and how many can actually afford the process to gain freedom?
Take the group living under a bridges in Florida? Are they equipped to defend their constitutional rights?
I doubt it.
Thankfully, there is promise that the unconstitutional AWA proposal is being looked at here in Nevada by competent attorney's and that there is at least a State Supreme Court in Nevada willing to look deeper into the possibility that there is a real issue with the proposed law.
Gaining progress in any individual State, is still a small step into the personal hopes of many RC's, that there will be actual freedom sometime in our futures. The Federal Government and lawmakers need to be stopped in their tracks.
@Al D. your post gives me hope that we are getting close.
Thank you and Janice all for the continued efforts.
steve
"the legal challenge is that these laws are unconstitutional in the fact that their “preambles” (the reason, letter, spirit and intent) to enact these laws, are based on scare tactics (to put fear in the public) and false facts about sex offenders, sex offenses, and true recidivism rates. Basically, these laws are premised and enacted on false information and facts, thus, opens the door to constitutional challenges."
We have been saying this for awhile....thanks for the info!
Al D.
Don't get your ganders in your danders just yet! We have Trump as President. We are seeing the effects of racism only based on some idiots perverse thinking that Trump, when he was elected, gave several fringe, radical groups the view that he is Hitler-incarnate. Though the S.O. Restrictions laws are slowly crumbling in many states, some power out there in the politico realms is developing his/her strategy to stop the courts from deciding in our favor in the future. Will their strategy work? Depends on who Trump removes from the bench and who that replacement will be - from District Courts to Court of Appeals on the Federal level. Well, that is the bad news for now. However... there is good news, too... From these decisions we can learn what the enemies are thinking and planning, and plan our litigation challenges (lawsuits) and develop a core legal strategy both for offensive and defensive purposes. It is actually comical that most all States and their local municipalities use the same legal defenses. The most interesting fact of these court cases is that several of the States failed to present credible evidence and empirical studies with credible statistics to show true recidivism rates based on government studies, university studies, psychological clinical studies, or proffer testimony from actual sex offender therapists. Their main support for their positions is the "common sense approach"... "if we restrict those convicted of sex offense from living near us, then we can protect our children". Poorly misaligned, misplaced thinking - a waste of good brain cells! Then, based on that premise, these law grew into a goliath beast of harm, cruelty, and punishment purposely to exact a toll on us as an imaginary, feel-good, retribution of some sort. As the "Megan's Law" took hold throughout the country in each state, each state was enticed by the federal dollars that went with the package; basically... you Mr/Ms State implement these laws and we give you money....Period! There was no historical data in which to use to support the implementation of these laws, because we have not had a "scarlet letter" law on the book for over 100 years, so we all forgot the damage that these laws cause. And, one tid-bit of true facts that were purposely left out when enacting these laws... That most sex crimes are perpetrated by first-time offenders! Now, with that said... In these litigations on our behalf, the most troublesome legal hurdle to get over initially was to get the ACLU backing. They did not want to dance in this arena, initially, because "it was a sex crime" and was taboo to touch or be associated with. But, as you see it now, the ACLU attitude has changed dramatically over the years. Another hurdle was convincing the Courts about the "ex post facto" violations on various levels from viewing these registration laws as punishment, enhancements, and extension of long-expired criminal sentences, to residential boundary and general movement/area visitation restriction municipal ordinances and state statutes, enacted after conviction. Courts are finally applying the ex post facto provision of the constitution correctly now. Believe me, some of the various Court's previous decisions were bizzaro and made absolutely no legally reasoning sense. However, we are slowly overcoming these hurdles with good Court decisions. So, on that note, we are going to end this year with several positive decisions with Courts finally reviewing these archaic, scarlet letter laws under constitutional scrutiny and the dismantling process is starting! We have come a long way since these laws were enacted. The one interesting thing about this, and Attorney, Ms. Janice Berlucci and I, have discussed this... someone is preparing to challenge the constitutionality of these laws in a new, uncharted direction... (actually, we are getting ready to do this in one of the states) ... the legal challenge is that these laws are unconstitutional in the fact that their "preambles" (the reason, letter, spirit and intent) to enact these laws, are based on scare tactics (to put fear in the public) and false facts about sex offenders, sex offenses, and true recidivism rates. Basically, these laws are premised and enacted on false information and facts, thus, opens the door to constitutional challenges. We now have the "empirical data" to show this through many lawsuits brought on our behalf, and most notably, compiled by the efforts of Ms. Berlucci! And... there you have it folks! Lets support ACSOL in its efforts to make this a greater country than even Trump imagined! Al D. (former attorney).
Tobin's Tools 2.0
Oral argument of this case:
http://coop.ca4.uscourts.gov/OAarchive/mp3/16-6026-20160921.mp3
abolishtheregistry.com
Superb comment. I'm of the same mind. I don't find conservative to be bad though, it just means a respect for traditions, small government and fiscal responsibility. Political dbags have perverted it into what it's seen as today. Same goes for liberal as you point out. I feel the urge to correct people when they use the terms seemingly incorrectly but you obviously don't need it. Its just a silly pet peeve of mine, same goes when I see people use "inalienable" instead of unalienable.
For those of us that understand what you've said and know, shorthand isn't bad but for those that don't know, it can reinforcing their ideas of the words. I think we as libertarians have to be careful about that. (Steps off soapbox)
David Kennerly
There is an excellent analysis of Brown written in its aftermath and of the "bill of attainder" doctrine in SCOTUS rulings: "The Supreme Court's Bill of Attainder Doctrine: A Need for Clarification"
It is rather lengthy but provides lots of insight into how it has been interpreted by SCOTUS and possible opportunities for its pursuit in our (hopefully) future challenges. I'm marking it up if anyone wants my highlighted version. This goes for my SCOTUS scorecard piece, too. Send your request to [email protected] .
*** https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwi81pmtn9rQAhWDPiYKHa81BA4QFggbMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fscholarship.law.berkeley.edu%2Fcgi%2Fviewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D2958%26context%3Dcalifornialawreview&usg=AFQjCNHT3EG4RfHi7BtzgC9FHmdnF0Q1tQ&sig2=gNzUEPi8VaiTduV8NdU73w&bvm=bv.139782543,d.eWE ***
David Kennerly
I should add that I AM saying that Justices appointed by Republicans (and who are, themselves, known or believed to be Republicans) have scored lower than those appointed by Democrats. The one exception is (retired) Justice Stevens, who was a Republican appointed by President Ford. His record is as favorable (to our interests) as those of Breyer and Ginsburg.
I'm not saying that I believe that Republicans, as a general rule, are worse than Democrats for our cause. Instead, I am saying, as a factual matter, that these particular Republican appointees to the Supreme Court, with the exception of Stevens, performed worse than these particular Democrat appointees; and I have included all of the Justices from the last thirty-five years in this accounting. We are free to make of that what we will but it is a matter of record.
However, none of the Justices had a perfect record with regard to our interests. I have expressed their scores as numbers of cases favorable/versus numbers of those disfavorable. I wish I could show you the data.
David Kennerly
No problem! I think we all tend to get sloppy with labels sometimes and it is always good to point out when they are being used so. I sometimes use the terms "right" and "left" and "conservative" and "liberal" in ways that I object to as a kind of convenient shorthand that I recognize as problematic and confusing.
My preference is to avoid the use, whenever possible, of, what I call, "derived" ideological labels rather than absolute ones, which have a fixed meaning, without pointing out what they mean on a more fundamental level.
By that I mean many labels evolve to connote something altogether different (derived or evolved meaning) than what they originally meant (original meaning). An example would be the use of the term "liberal." As you know, "liberal" once meant something very different in the U.S. than it does now. It still retains much of that original quality in Europe, for example, (although "liberalism" is an endangered species there) and which also complicates its Trans-Atlantic application.
So I would describe myself as a "classical liberal" although I then often have to explain the difference, depending on the crowd, between that kind of liberal and those who might best be thought of as "progressive liberals." I would greatly prefer to just use the term "liberal" (and sometimes I do, but for effect mostly) but in the interest of differentiating it from a more contemporary interpretation, I have to append the word "classical" (and then wait for them to ask what that means). Of course, "libertarian" is roughly equivalent today to "classical liberal." I have embraced the expanded use by others of the term "progressive" who formerly called themselves "liberal" as it may allow classical liberals to simply go back eventually to calling themselves just "liberals" in the future. Because of that period of time in the early 20th Century in which Progressivism was all the rage (and individual liberty was under assault), "progressive" seems a much better fit for them, too. I don't mean anything good when I say "progressive."
"Conservative" is a bit more complicated for me because there is not really any way in which I am a "conservative" (except in the constrained realm of wanting to "conserve" every Amendment of the Bill of Rights) and I think that its use in libertarian circles is seriously misguided and serves to confuse libertarians and non-libertarians alike and ultimately makes libertarian principles less knowable. For example, if someone truly has libertarian principles in matters of the free market but is socially conservative and wants to use the might of the state to enforce their views of human sexuality upon others, I'm not inclined to call them "libertarian" or to approach their ideology with any degree of generosity. Like "progressives" I don't mean anything good when I say "conservative."
The Supreme Court has certainly been subject to the ebb-and-flow of cultural norms and societal fashion and ideological drift in its rulings has shown that culture does impinge upon its decisions, not just judicial philosophy. That's why we can have a SCOTUS that rules against the rights of gays to engage in private behavior in their bedrooms during one decade and allows them to marry several decades later. This is a problem for us during the past three decades in which our liberties have plummeted but, who knows, may be of benefit to us later. The point is, regardless of judicial philosophy, the Justices do not operate in a cultural vacuum and the zeitgeist of our times very often intrudes into their rulings.
Of course, the Justices must rely upon information to fairly rule but, when that information is bad and invented and pseudo-scientifically or religiously derived, as it has been about us, then the judiciary fails pretty miserably to faithfully discharge its responsibilities, as it did in Bowers v. Hardwick thirty years ago. We can only hope that the ultimate repudiation of that ruling will serve as a model for the trajectory of our own beleaguered cause of justice.
mike r iscensored
another iss ue I need to research better and understand better when it comes to the ex post facto and bill of attainder claim is the fact that during sentencing in june of 2006 the judge stated that I had to register as a sex offender so im not clear on it but it seems on the face that that was part of the punishment that the Court ordered during sentencing...I have to articulate it perfectly in order to relieve me of duty to register as well as all the laws and regulations that were added after my sentencing...
mike r iscensored
civil rights first those are extremely well articulated post on the bill of attainder claim....after I draft that into my motion we might need to come together and corroborate on how to strengthen this argument in full...excellent post....
Civil rights first
As the Supreme Court stated in United States v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437, 85 S.Ct. 1707, 14 L.Ed.2d 484 (1965), "the Bill of Attainder Clause was intended not as a narrow, technical (and therefore soon to be outmoded) prohibition, but rather as an implementation of the separation of powers, a general safeguard against legislative exercise of the judicial function or more simply--trial by legislature." 381 U.S. at 440, 85 S.Ct. at 1710.
abolishtheregistry.com
I might've misread then. I thought you were highlighting their political bends and saying 'liberal" judges leaned more our way and possibly mislabeling them. No offense. You're one of the people I enjoy reading. (Even before you stated you were libertarian) :)
David
Yes, I don't believe the meaning of "inalienable" has been changed.
Civil rights first
These laws that signal out a group or individual are unconstitutional! Everyone should read up on "Bill of Attainder"
Definition: A legislative act that singles out an individual or group for punishment without a trial. The Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3 provides that: "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law will be passed."
How is SORA, AWA, IML, RESIDENCY RESTRICTION or any law that attacks, sets restrictions against sex offenders an easily identifiable group constitutional?
"A bill of attainder is defined by the Supreme Court as a legislative
act which inflicts punishment on named individuals or members of an
easily ascertainable group without a judicial trial.' This definition has
its roots in English common law and parliamentary history. At English
common law attainder was an "inseparable consequence" of a death
sentence imposed by the courts.' The added penalty of attainder pro-
ceeded on the theory that:
when it is ... clear beyond all dispute, that the criminal is no longer
fit to live upon the earth, but is to be exterminated as a monster and
a bane to human society, the law sets a note of infamy upon him...
and takes no farther care of him than barely to see him executed.
He is then called attaint, attinctus, stained or blackened . . . . [B]y
an anticipation of his punishment, he is already dead in law.'
The consequences of attainder were the forefeiture of the attainted
person's real and personal property" and the corruption of his blood,the latter consequence meaning he could not inherit and no one could
inherit from him." The attainted was "wiped out as if he had never
been born."'"
Because acts of Parliament which imposed a death sentence on a
particular individual also carried an attainder, these special statutes were
called acts of attainder. Similar statutes which prescribed a penalty short
of death, such as banishment or loss of office, were called bills of pains
and penalties. The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that the
constitutional proscription of bills of attainder encompasses bills of
pains and penalties, and, unless indicated otherwise, the term bill of
attainder is used in its generic sense in this Comment."
The Supreme Court's Bill of Attainder Doctrine: A Need for Clarification - Berkeley Law Scholarship ...
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D2958%26context%3Dcalifornialawreview&ved=0ahUKEwjOqcnhnNjQAhVNyWMKHbURDwQQFghgMAY&usg=AFQjCNHT3EG4RfHi7BtzgC9FHmdnF0Q1tQ&sig2=b56KNGdmY90jml_q7gg9qQ
David Kennerly
"In order to tally all of that, you’d have to go through each judges personal and political life as well. Just because a person takes on a label doesn’t mean it actually fits them. "
I wasn't attempting to analyze each Justice's "label" or, indeed, to afix one to them or consider the extent to which they identify with any such. I was showing how each, as an individual, and as an appointee by particular presidents, ruled in these cases. Really, the only label I'm attempting to afix to them is how they ruled in each case as well as which President appointed them.
It's very straightforward: how did each individual Justice rule in each case? Judicial philosophy and the particulars of ideology were outside of the scope of this scorecard system. Indeed, I wanted to get past our own prejudices and preconceptions to arrive at the facts of their indisputable rulings. In other words, it was not my purpose to communicate my, or others', impressions and expectations that we might have of them and their presumed politics but to simply show what their relationship was to each case and then to score them based on the totality of these cases and to show these relationships to presidential appointments and their party affiliations.
Joe123
Janice please note! ^ This is a great find for the IML case.
New Person
Then maybe if the California Tiering is pushed through, then we can sue based upon empirical data? We have proof of similar cases such as the People vs Nguyen case in Cali, this NC case, as well as the Michigan decision.
What empirical data was utilized to construct the Tiers? And what exactly did CASOMB do with their empriical data of recidivism for the recent four years - all around 1%, with the latter two years below 1%.
Get a FOIA request on CoR granting and rejections. See if that's in favor of registrants. Regardless, the many scientific research have proven the more years away from the incident, the less likely for re-offense. If this is so, then why even petition to be removed? And why 10 years?
Also, bring up the fact that Tier III have not direct path to privacy, as protected in the California Constitution as it is an inalienable right to obtain privacy.
New Person
If someone can actually post a link to where registration in California was called punishment initially would actually help tremendously.
Why? B/c it sets historical precedent it was acknowledged as punishment.
mike r iscensored
I really hope somebody takes these wins and really runs with em...that's right show us the data in court on a record..that's my new name it's fitting for this site..a lot of people have been saying wheres the evidence
CS
Baby Steps? I don't think so. This court has finally done what I've been complaining about for years; making them justify themselves. The court now asking for Empirical Data is huge. Maybe now is the time to argue the effectiveness on SORNA based on Empirical Data. That would question the basis of the theory (LIE) of high recidivism the registry is built upon. If this were a decision coming out of a Supreme Court we'd all be dancing in the streets.
Where someone takes orders and others give, there has to be justification. They have a burden of proof to meet. If they can't meet it we should be dismantling these laws. I think with this ruling we've begun this very process.
The foundation of the registry is in our crosshairs. I have a lighter at the fuse, thumb on the striker. And I'm anxious like a racehorse!
Margaret Moon
There is empirical evidence that "human sex trafficking" is perpetrated by gangs, not Registrants. The recent study, and there are others, done as a joint effort between the University of San Diego and Pt. Loma Nazarene University is an excellent resource.
Harry
The IML is there now, Eric, we will see what kind of back bone, they have. The 4th Circuit ruling did come in a good time.
David
Note: the Courts repeatedly informed the NC AG that the State must produce empirical evidence.
Big fail, NC AG!! Your cavalier attitude is greatly appreciated! ☺
Harry
Thomas is on CYA show, he is someone is trying to keep a cover on the sexual abuse charges against him, by not supporting RC.
JM of Wi.
Nice to see hope on the horizon.
Happy holidays to all. This is a trying time for most here.
I dream of the politician who runs on the platform of not just upholding the constitution; but getting rid of the financially wasteful registration legislation causing human suffering. --- Maybe next Christmas.
abolishtheregistry.com
In order to tally all of that, you'd have to go through each judges personal and political life as well. Just because a person takes on a label doesn't mean it actually fits them. Scalia was a republican, not conservative in my opinion. Real conservatives have heavy libertarian leanings. Ginsburg while being under a liberal label, is more conservative than Scalia and Thomas act lol
Davidh
i think progressives are afraid of being painted a weak--just as they are in politics--but you're right about conservative judges they've been making all the progress in this area of law
Davidh
The difference is that California has had a registry since 1947 and they're not about to go to zero--so calling for a return to the old is a plus!!
abolishtheregistry.com
The snowball grows! :)
abolishtheregistry.com
There's a move towards the libertarian roots this country was founded upon and it couldn't come too fast in my opinion. A real libertarian may find us just as disgusting as a democrat or republican but they wouldn't support laws to oppress you.
David Kennerly
Ken, as a libertarian, I am outside of the "conservative vs. progressive" (so-called liberal) debate and don't like either of the duopoly choices. But I can tell you, from having carefully tallied the Supreme Court decisions relevant to sexual issues/sex offenderdom from the last thirty-five years that the Republican-appointed/conservative justices scored distinctly lower (from our vantage point) than those appointed by Democrats. There is simply no doubt about it. I scored each justice both for their rulings favorable to us and those which were not for twenty-six different cases. The worst were Scalia and Thomas. The best were Breyer and Ginsburg. It's hard to get much more bedrock conservative than Scalia or Thomas. All of the others, except for Stevens, who was appointed by Ford but who is no longer on the Court, tracked pretty consistently along party lines. It's all in my spreadsheet.
Son of Liberty Child of Freedom
a acronym for "Law Enforcement"
Son of Liberty Child of Freedom
Tired of This, I concur!
Any mandate to "Report or Give a Accounting of oneself" once a person has paid their debt is Indisputably "Involuntary Servitude" a clear form of practicing the "Conquest Ethic" the Antithesis of the US Constitution, and creates Divisions amongst Countrymen a clear abomination in the eyes of The Most High Creator Father in Heaven.
I posit Wisdom from on High given freely to Moses on Sinai.
Proverbs 6:16-19King James Version (KJV)
16 These six things doth the Lord hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:
17 A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,
18 An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,
19 A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.
Proverbs 6:16-19 Young's Literal Translation (YLT)
16 These six hath Jehovah hated, Yea, seven [are] abominations to His soul.
17 Eyes high -- tongues false -- And hands shedding innocent blood --
18 A heart devising thoughts of vanity -- Feet hasting to run to evil --
19 A false witness [who] doth breathe out lies -- And one sending forth contentions between brethren.
Mishle 6:16-19 Orthodox Jewish Bible (OJB)
16 These shesh (six) things doth Hashem hate; indeed, shevah (seven) are an abomination unto His Nefesh;
17 Haughty eyes, a lashon sheker, and hands guilty of shefach dahm naki,
18 A lev that deviseth wicked machshevot (plans), raglayim that are swift in running to ra’ah,
19 An ed sheker that speaketh lies, and he that soweth midanim (contention, strife, discords) among achim.
Proverbs 6:16-19 Complete Jewish Bible (CJB)
16 There are six things Adonai hates,
seven which he detests:
17 a haughty look, a lying tongue,
hands that shed innocent blood,
18 a heart that plots wicked schemes,
feet swift in running to do evil,
19 a false witness who lies with every breath,
and him who sows strife among brothers.
Eric
This is heartening to read. I hope the right case can set the stage for a similar act of courage by the 9th Circuit.
mike r
this decision is great news im so glad they posted its own thread.
ReadyToFight
@Tired of this
I agree with your statement 110%
Timmr
Basing laws on verifiable reality, who ever came up with such a novel concept? Maybe someome has verified whether laws based on verifiable reality in reality, actually, achieve the laws' intent.
Conversely, Santa Claus is real to those who believe.
PK
Could you explain LE?
Ken
Hi Janice,
As a conservative, I believe that more and more conservative judges will see the constitutional rights that all of us understand and applaud. Perhaps the more liberal and progressive judges will find the value of factual evidence instead of "anecdotes, common sense and logic..."
Tired of this
I think the overarching goal should be the elimination of registration, period. If registration was to be LE only, it would be redundant and unnecessary because LE has access to our criminal records anyway. No citizen who is not on probation/parole should have to report to LE in any way, shape, or form ever.
Son of Liberty Child of Freedom
The State of North Carolina has been trespassing on a path most wicked which has created evil. They have no compassion for those who repent of their errors but instead seek to destroy those who seek redemption for themselves and the innocent family member who suffer Unjustly with them.
How manny times was The Most High Father in Heaven moved to forgive them their errors because He had compassion and took pity on them? But these wicked servants refuse to forgive their fellow countrymen.
Hypocrites & Sons of Vipers!!!
Matthew 18:21-35 KJVS
[21] Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times?
[22] Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven.
[23] Therefore is the kingdom of heaven likened unto a certain king, which would take account of his servants.
[24] And when he had begun to reckon, one was brought unto him, which owed him ten thousand talents.
[25] But forasmuch as he had not to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife, and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made.
[26] The servant therefore fell down, and worshipped him, saying, Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay thee all.
[27] Then the lord of that servant was moved with compassion, and loosed him, and forgave him the debt.
[28] But the same servant went out, and found one of his fellowservants, which owed him an hundred pence: and he laid hands on him, and took him by the throat, saying, Pay me that thou owest.
[29] And his fellowservant fell down at his feet, and besought him, saying, Have patience with me, and I will pay thee all.
[30] And he would not: but went and cast him into prison, till he should pay the debt.
[31] So when his fellowservants saw what was done, they were very sorry, and came and told unto their lord all that was done.
[32] Then his lord, after that he had called him, said unto him, O thou wicked servant, I forgave thee all that debt, because thou desiredst me:
[33] Shouldest not thou also have had compassion on thy fellowservant, even as I had pity on thee?
[34] And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him.
[35] So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses.
As Yehovah lives, so should we!
pgm111
Great news and very welcome this holiday season!
Davidh
American detained in America:
I would think so--that's the crux of the issue: their claims are baseless, no data, how can they lump us all together and state officially to the world any of us pose a threat!
What I am finding ironic is that we are seeing the conservative juror's making progressive opinion's, while we filed IML in the "liberal" 9th circuit and nothing is going our way!
" I’m curious if this decision could be used against the IML considering the IML was also passed with no empirical evidence that registered citizens traveling abroad posed a threat."
Davidh
Janice:
I think the net, net of everything is that folks convicted of a sex offense would put up with and find reasonable a registry that was for law enforcement only. i believe we should advocate for what California had in place for half a century before AWA. If it's supposed to be civil and serve law enforcement's purposes then that's what we should get our heads around and fully support that! Abolish any other SO law, keep it simple and useful, and constitutional...
"Our holiday hope is that all states in our great nation will soon follow these precedents and eliminate all laws that restrict where registrants may visit. This is particularly important at a time of year when the existence of such laws punish not only registrants but their loved ones by keeping them apart."
Son of Liberty Child of Freedom
Janice,
Thank you kindly for your overview of the wonders exposed to the light by the Judges of the 4th. Circuit Court. I Give Thanks to The Most High Father in Heaven for the clear Critical Thinking Skills He has given these Judges who now appear to see.
Furthermore I appeal to The Most High in Heaven to bless you as He blessed King Solomon with Divine Wisdom and a Strong Heart. All say amen.
As Yehovah lives, so should we
Empirical Evidence specificity is next
"In fact, the Court strongly rejected the assertions of the State of North Carolina that anecdotes, common sense and logic could replace empirical evidence."
Based upon this statement alone, Research Triangle in NC should be coughing on what the state thought considering they produce empirical evidence using scientific methods to defeat what is thought of as anecdotes, common sense and logic. (The Research Triangle, commonly referred to as simply The Triangle, is a region in the Piedmont of North Carolina in the United States, anchored by North Carolina State University, Duke University, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and the cities of Raleigh and Durham and the town of Chapel Hill. Wikipedia.)
Research = Empirical evidence (aka statistical data)
Next step, provide what are truly worthy empirical evidence generating research methods, e.g. NOT Static-99 solely.
American Detained in America
When I saw that yesterday, I suspected this could be good news for not just NC, but for all registrants nationwide. Thank you for confirming this Janice. I'm curious if this decision could be used against the IML considering the IML was also passed with no empirical evidence that registered citizens traveling abroad posed a threat.
jo
Baby Steps
Janice's Journal: ACSOL Board Faced With “Sophie’s Choice” [updated with Guide to Tiers on Tiered Registry Bill]
Published Date : November 19, 2016
During the five years in which this organization has existed, we have often heard a wish expressed – that registrants in California be treated differently, not the same. That wish was expressed in many variations including that registrants should be treated differently according to their current risk or that registrants should be treated differently according to the offense for which they were convicted.
Those wishes are now nearing reality in the form of a tiered registry bill expected to be introduced in the state legislature early next year. As drafted, the bill would treat registrants differently based upon both their current risk and the offense for which they were convicted by assigning them to tiers that would allow some registrants to automatically be removed from the registry while others could petition for removal after 10 or 20 years. A final group would continue to remain on the registry for their lifetime.
If the proposed tiered registry bill becomes law, more than 10,000 registrants would “immediately” stop registering and about 60,000 registrants would “ultimately” stop registering.
The organization therefore is faced with a “Sophie’s choice”. Do we agree to the “immediate” liberation of more than 10,000 registrants from the punishments inflicted by the registry and the “ultimate” liberation of about 60,000 registrants from the same punishments? Or do we oppose the tiered registry because those who remain on the registry could be viewed as posing a greater risk than they actually do? And if that latter choice is selected, all registrants will continue to suffer from the punishments inflicted by the registry for their lifetime.
The board of directors discussed this topic in depth a week ago during its annual face-to-face meeting. No consensus was reached, however, in part because a copy of the bill was not yet available. Now that the bill has become available, the choice the board must make is even more stark.
The board of directors will meet again on December 8 and in the interim, the opinions of registrants and their families about the bill are being gathered. All opinions expressed prior to the meeting will be considered. The board of directors may or may not make a final decision regarding the bill on December 8, however, to ensure that your opinion is heard by the board of directors, please add your comment to this article before that date.
Thank you.
— by Janice Bellucci
Draft Bill
Guide to Tiers on Tiered Registry Bill
(added on 11/21)
TIER 1 (10 years)
Misdemeanors
Indecent exposure (Pen. Code, § 314(1), (2)); sexual battery (Pen. Code, § 243.4(e)); inveigling/enticing a minor to have sex (Pen. Code, § 266); contacting a minor with intent to expose oneself or engage in lewd or lascivious behavior (Pen. Code, § 288.4(a)); possession of child pornography with intent to distribute, etc. (Pen. Code, § 311, 311.2); hiring a minor to perform prohibited acts (Pen. Code, § 311.4(a)); advertising for sale obscene matter depicting a minor (Pen. Code, § 311.10(a)); trafficking of a minor (Pen. Code, § 236.1(b), (c); possession of child pornography (Pen. Code, § 311.11(a)); annoy/molest a child under 18 (Pen. Code, § 647.6); contributing to the delinquency of a minor (Pen. Code, § 272).
Felonies
Inveigling/enticing a minor to have sex (Pen. Code, § 266); sending harmful matter to a minor (Pen. Code, § 288.2); contacting a minor with intent to commit a specified sexual offense (Pen. Code, § 288.3); contacting a minor with intent to expose oneself or engage in lewd or lascivious behavior (Pen. Code, § 288.4(a)); possession of child pornography with intent to distribute, etc. (Pen. Code, § 311, 311.2); hiring a minor to perform prohibited acts (Pen. Code, § 311.4(a)); advertising for sale obscene matter depicting a minor (Pen. Code, § 311.10(a)); trafficking of a minor (Pen. Code, § 236.1(b), (c); possession of child pornography (Pen. Code, § 311.11(a).)
TIER 2 (20 years)
The following offenses, most of which are serious or violent described in subdivision (c) of section 667.5 or subdivision (c) of section 1192.7:
Assault with intent to commit described sex crimes (Pen. Code, § 220); rape (Pen. Code, § 261); spousal rape with force or violence ; sexual battery (Pen. Code, § 243.4(a), (d)); solicitation of rape (Pen. Code, § 653f, subd. (c)); trafficking a minor (Pen. Code, § 236.1, subds. (b), (c); out-of-state sex offenders required to register in California whose offense is not equivalent to a California registrable offense (Pen. Code, § 290.005).
TIER 3 (Lifetime)
Murder with intent to commit a specified sex offense (Pen. Code, § 187)
Kidnap with intent to commit a specified sex offense (Pen. Code, § 207, 209)
Sexually violent predators (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6600 et seq.)
Sex offenders sentenced to life term (Pen. Code, § 667.71)
Repeat felony child molestation (Pen. Code, § 288(a))
Forcible lewd or lascivious act on a child under 14 (Pen. Code, § 288(b))
Aggravated child molestation (Pen. Code, § 269)
Sex crimes with child age 10 or younger (Pen. Code, § 288.7)
Registered sex offenders who are convicted of a second and violent sex offense
Assault with intent to commit a specified sex offense in the commission of a first degree burglary (Pen. Code, § 220(b))
Offenders with well above average risk level (formerly denominated high risk) on the state static risk assessment instrument (Pen. Code, § 290.04)
Habitual sexual offenders (Pen. Code, § 667.71)
Out-of-state sex offenders in California who have been assessed with well above average risk level on the state static risk assessment instrument (Pen. Code, § 290.04)
Out-of-state sex offenders in California who have ever been civilly committed to a mental hospital in a proceeding equivalent to California’s sexually violent predator proceedings (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6600 et seq.)
Offenders sentenced to 15 or 25 years to life for an offense listed in Section 667.61
Note: All described registrable offenses include any attempt or conspiracy to commit these crimes.
Related
Los Angeles DA to Co-Sponsor Tiered Registry Bill
Read all Janice’s Journals
Comments
Someone who cares
I see more responses that are opposed to a tiered registry. Even those who live in states that currently have the tiered registry advise against it, and that should be our first clue. During the time a tiered registry would be introduced, I can just visualize all the new laws they will try to implement. It could even effect those "lucky" ones who might get off if they introduce new rules, which will be their rules of course. It will give them added ammunition. I am not in favor of this at all. It will also prove to them that a registry is necessary. I'd rather keep fighting to get it abolished all together. There are class action suits, mass action suits, and we are becoming more angry. Enough is enough!
abolishtheregistry.com
Excellent posts by you and Chris F showing the BS that's floated before us.
Chris F
If the judges and prosecutors are anything like in Texas, than only 1/3 of those that meet all the criteria to be removed and have the support of treatment providers will actually get approved. Some judges just don't do it, and some will only consider it for certain nuisance crimes.
Chris Germer
Also, I just wanted to correct myself. The number would not be 10,000 people elevated to Tier III; but rather, there would be about 30,000 people given the Tier III label (which is obviously a lot worse).
So to rebut ExpasRFSO's claim that 30,000 people given the Tier III label is a "small majority," I think you might be mistaken. Because 30,000 Tier III's is not a small number. Neither is 60,000 Tier I's and II's.
Also, to question Janice's claim in the above post, why does she say that "about 60,000 registrants would 'ultimately' stop registering[?]" What is to guarantee that anyone, other than the about 10,000 pre-1987 offenders, will "ultimately stop registering?" If this law truly depends on the discretion of the Courts, and given the endless exemptions and qualifications under this draft, how can you say that 60,000 would "ultimately stop registering?" The reality is that very few of the 60,000 may be granted a petition to terminate registration duties.
We need to be honest about this bill. Because it is being sugarcoated. When in reality, it is going to hurt and a disappoint a lot of people.
Chris Germer
Tiered registry is not good. So I disagree with you 100%. While I respect your position, there are some things you could consider to think about.
For you, it might seem like a "HUGE step in the right direction." But for others, this tiered bill is at the expense of other people's rights. And only one law from CA evolving into a more draconian Adam Walsh Act state (with mandatory 90 day, 6 month, and 12 month registration periods). The proponents of this tiered bill keep failing to recognize that any tiered bill is an "unfunded mandate." And to fund this mandate, the state has a big incentive to switch to Adam Walsh status to secure federal funds to pay for any modification to our current registry.
And we should really be questioning whether a true civil rights organization would advocate for any law that would put thousands of people in a worse position than they were previously. Also, I disagree with your assertion that about 10,000 people who will be elevated to Tier III is a "small majority." 10,000 people is a big number. Neither is the 60,000 Tier II's, whose removal from the registry is far from guaranteed (given the politicization of our courts, as well as the many exceptions and guidelines under the draft that would keep any Tier II from eventually getting off). Also, what is to guarantee CA from extending Tier I and Tier II registration periods in the future, as they recently did in NY state?
Also, for your information, the hypothetical case of "child porn," as well as your other hypothetical case of someone who "flashed someone," has a higher likelihood of falling into Tier III. That is because under the Static-99R, non-contact offenses are scored with greater severity. As are stranger and unrelated victims.
So because scoring high on the Static-99R alone will get someone into Tier III, the last two scenarios that you use in your very own example has the ironic result of very likely arguing against the very position that you offer -- as both would very likely falling into Tier III status (given that they are both non-contacts and tend to have stranger and unrelated victims).
I don't understand how that helps support your position that the tiered registry is supposed to be better?
ExpasRFSO
I have seen many people expressing frustration at ACSOL's position and I just don't understand it. This is a HUGE step in the right direction. That does not by any stretch of the imagination mean ACSOL supports a tiered registry or that they will stop fighting for constitutional registration laws. They naturally prefer it over a lifetime registry for all registered citizens, and rightly so.
If you are of the small majority that fit into tier 3 listed above and you think that a 19 year old who had consensual sex with their 17 year old girlfriend, or a person convicted of looking at child porn, or a person who flashed someone deserves to be treated the same as you, well then you are in the same league as the people who concocted these draconian laws in the first place.
Fed up
Can someone enlighten me as to where I fall on this tiered system.. I can't seem to be able to although I am assuming I'm tier one. Very low static 99 either 0 or 1, can't remember, very low on mandatory SO class.
charged with 288(c)(1) and 288a(b)(1)
No prison. 5 years probation off in 4 years.
Also does "time of completion of the designated tier runs from the date of release from custody" refer to incarceration time only or would that include probation, meaning time starts after release from probation?
Thank you to whomever can answer these questions for me.
Timmr
This is the day. So what's the word from the board: yea, nay or a little of both?
Timmr
Good point, but it looks like it is structured so that even the clinician can not be blamed for an "objective" scoring, if something goes wrong.
Eric
I do not agree with this bill.
BSL
I don't understand the 1987 thing! I was sited for peeing in public type situation only. Nothing before, Nothing after. I never even went to jail. From court I was assigned a probation officer for 1 year and told to check in with the SO to register for life. I did community service and got off of probation in only 6 months because the Judge realized the insignificance in nature of my crime and I followed all the orders promptly. He told me he never saw anyone complete their community service as consistently as me and complete it so fast. I even went to counseling for a couple months and was given a report to hand in stating that I was not at risk to ever offend again. I wanted to put it all in the past after that first 6 months was over but for the last 23 years I've had to feel the shame and register as a SEX OFFENDER. I have been told it is not punitive, however, I live in a small to medium town. I know the Administrators at the local college. I actually have several police officer and sheriff friends that I've made over the years. Most of them don't know anything about it. What if I get pulled over? I wanted to go to college many times and better my situation. But if I register with the campus police, Administration finds out, That person knows me and my family and where I work. They tell one person and I can get fired for being a SEX OFFENDER. When the ordinance was in place for distance restrictions to Parks and Schools with my kids, I would go paranoid that I was going to get in some kind of trouble. Every time see people In the back of my head i'm thinking SEX OFFENDER. SEX OFFENDER. I feel so bad inside and get depressed. I've done nothing to deserve these things! I don't even have parking tickets! I have been held back in my education and many other things because of this. IT IS PUNITIVE!! I feel it every day! I have often thought of offing myself because of it. I would never do that but I've gone down that thought process many times. In conclusion: What did I do that makes me not fall off because I got convicted 1 time for misdemeanor indecent exposure in 1994. Where people that have done much worst but got convicted pre 1987 get to fall of and not have to petition. I'm being selfish because I want a Tiered System as I know I will be able to get this put behind me soon. But if I"m supposed to only spend 10 years and I've almost hit 23 years, why should I have to petition for relief? Why even say that a Tier 1 will be relieved of duty to register after 10 years if that is not really true?
TT
This tiered registration bill is actually worse than the lifetime bill that we now have. Oppose it! Do not support it!
Bruce Ferrell
Static-99/R may ONLY be administered by a licensed mental health professional, trained in it's administration. Mine was done during the too short period of the appellate court ruling on 8th amendment unequal enforcement. The lawyer dawdled and showed up to court with incomplete paperwork so I lost out... But I have a static-99!
Law enforcement likes it because they can blame someone else if something goes wrong.
They're as risk adverse as anyone else these days
Danielle
Perhaps this is one of the last few comments before decisions are made about whether to modify,oppose or endorse this bill.let me remind everyone that the piling on of additional restrictions (sora,megans law,etc) is unconstitutional at both state and federal levels.to use the arguement that it is not punitive cannot hold up any longer. Additional restrictions and laws are ex post facto punishment. California may have a lifetime registration for all sex offenders presently but additional restrictions after ones conviction should not be applied. And its not right to alter registration time into tiers,singling out and changing who will get off in this ammount of years.many registered citizens would not have agreed to a so called plea 'bargain' had they known of these future restrictions as well as the public registry.everyone should get off registration after parole. The police have their own records. Thats enough. California,let your people go.there are other jobs than hounding people with the lowest recidivism rates. Easy money is often not good money.
New Person
Recall, all those fears that it could be punishment were all deemed conjecture by the SCOTUS, including not infringing upon housing and employment.
Well, you are excluded from several employment as a registrant. We have proof that housing is a problem with the re:Taylor case in Cali, but to the letter of the law, Taylor only pertains to parolees.
So everything the SCOTUS deemed conjecture at the time has gone well beyond. All the rules and regulations thereafter never take that into account, only the bending of the rules - it's regulatory, not punishment. Remember, that was just for post cards. Nowadays, you are compelled to go into the police department at least once a year; and for some more than once. Well, now that's crossed into actual service for the state.
Regulation, but not punishment - compelled service due to dominance is prohibited as it's called "involuntary servitude". As stated specifically in both the US and California Constitutions, "Involuntary servitude is prohibited unless to punish a crime." Regulation cannot supersede involuntary servitude as it is stated any compelled service cannot be administered unless to punish a crime.
The collateral damages initiate the bill of Attainder and social death aspects of law.
Also, i found this tidbit in wikipedia:
"
The right of citizens to travel from one state to another was already protected by the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the original, unamended Constitution;[21] even in Scott v. Sandford, the Supreme Court had already ruled that the Clause protected "the right to enter any other State whenever they [citizens] pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at any hour of the day or night without molestation," but no African-American could have this right.[22]
"
Once you're out of punishment custody, then you regain the right to become a citizen again. Well, in Cali, a 1203.4 is supposed to relieve one of all penalties and disabilities because you're considered rehabilitated. The privileges and immunities Clause lies within the 14th amendment. "Without obstruction" is very key here along with "to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at any hour of the day or night without molestation."
According to the 14th amendment, it appears that registration obstructs travel. with a 1203.4, you've actually have more claim as you've legally gained the rights as a citizen again as it's stated within statute "relieved of all penalties and disabilities" (paraphrasing).
There are so many laws on the books that judges and DA's can be fully ignorant of the law. Again, I had to have an appellate lawyer re-affirm that once you've successfully completed registration, that the 1203.4 is automatically awarded to you by law (provided you qualify for 1203.4). The judge in my case was inclined to deny it. The DA in my case petitioned against it. The probation office wrote a recommendation saying I had done everything correct to their satisfaction, but highly recommended against the 1203.4. Odd thing is, the statute removed all three factions from playing any determinant in the 1203.4.
BTW, I presume this will probably be the likely response for any registrant willing to petition off the registry. Do everything correct, but still deemed a monster. Still believe in this tier and petition ruse?
Timmr
If the intent of the law is not met, the registry does not save children, it even harms some, then the negative effects serve no other purpose than to limit the rights of citizens as mere retribution. Retribution is punishment. It is not a quality of regulation.
New Hampshire punitive effect
Can a punitive effect be equaled to being an actual punishment? That is the question a legal someone (e.g. judge, scholar or atty) with authority should answer in a decision no less, but in an interview would be just as helpful.
It has been said the registry is not a punishment and has never been intended to be that way, but only exists for the safety, blah blah blah (you know the song and dance).....Therefore, if it appears that way as a punishment and feels that way as a punishment, tough for you Mr. and Mrs. RC., it is only the collateral effect of it, not the intent. XOXO The Courts
However, can you have an effect without the actual preceding item(s), e.g. a punitive effect without actually implementing punishment? No, you cannot, even without the intent as noted through empirical evidence. For a simple example, you cannot warm a room through a fireplace fire without a source, oxygen and fuel (the 3 things req'd) to provide the warmth without the unintended (positive) lighting effect on the room.
You cannot have safety without unintended consequences (good and bad) that may need to be addressed down the line. If it is a good unintended consequence, you take credit for it and further it if needed. If it is a bad unintended consequence and it negatively impacts the environment, including people, it needs to be addressed for rectification to minimize or do away with the negative impact. How it is seen as negative is always up to debate (big or small) or none possibly. Not everyone will see it as negative; thus, the unintended consequence needs to be addressed. Once you show you can have a punitive (negative) effect without an actual intended punishment in place, you are making the punitive (negative) effect equal to a punishment in the end.
(This is the great debate on a law's letter, intent and spirit.)
someone who cares
Donho ~ What were your steps in getting your felony reduced to a misdemeanor? Did you appear before the judge and did you have letters of support? What else did you provide? We would like to attempt this when off probation. I read that you can either appear in person, have an attorney speak for you, or have the probation officer send the motion in writing. Is that true and has someone gone through his probation officer with this? Thanks in advance for any tips.
donhoh
Although having an attorney will help, you can actually petition the courts for a reduction on your own. I had a Felony 288 registration status for over ten years. I stepped out on faith and believed that my God can do all. Not only did I not pay a dime to submit the paperwork, but was able to persuade the courts to reduce the felony into a misdemeanor based on the "Wobbler."
jd
How can one tell to which tier a person would be designated based on his Static-99 score? I saw a comment on here somewhere that a score of 5 would designate someone as a Tier 1, but a 6 would be a Tier 3. So what is a Tier 2? And where in the bill are these classifications by Static-99 score outlined? Perhaps I overlooked that section.
New Person
So I was browsing the web and encountered this link:
https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2016/mar/31/lifetime-registration-low-level-sex-offenders-found-excessive-unconstitutional-new-hampshire/
Although it founded low level registrants excessive (hey, why can't we use this for California???), but it did comment on Tiers II and Tiers III in its ruling:
"
Specifically, the Court held that requiring “all tier II and tier III offenders be registered for life without regard to whether they pose a current risk to the public” was excessive. As such, the statute had a punitive effect on Doe. It was this provision alone that led the Court to its conclusion that a risk assessment hearing was required.
"
I didn't know NH called registration punitive? The article was published March 31st, 2016.
On another note, I found this article:
https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2016/oct/31/ninth-circuit-finds-arizonas-sex-offender-registration-law-not-ex-post-facto-violation/
The more courts differ in outcomes, the better the chances the SCOTUS will be forced to re-visit this issue.
Glenn
I oppose this bill. If ACSOL decides to support this bill, I will no longer support ACSOL. Period. This organization could decide to look after ALL registrants. Sure, this bill will help 10,000. But it's at the expense of the rights of 30,000 people who will be singled out as Tier III! As a civil rights group, you people should not be doing this! Even though CA is a lifetime state, it still is a lot better than most other states. This tiered system will make it worse for a lot of people. And this bill is a lot worse than the lifetime law we have now. The mere fact that ACSOL seems set in leisurely throwing a bunch of arbitrarily defined Tier IIIs under the bus really has me troubled about the direction of this organization. The fact that corrupt police and law enforcement want a tiered registry should have us estimating what monster a tiered system may eventually evolve to. Since when have the police and sheriff been on our side? Cops don't care about the Constitution. They are not anyone's friends.
Tobin's Tools 2.0
Timmr,
I think you're right. Also, there seems to be a lot of money and powers given to SARATSO (by the Legislature) in deciding that the Static-99R is allegedly an accurate "tool." SARATSO, the CA DOJ, CASOMB, and CDCR has put a lot of investment, political capital, and credibility into making people believe that the Static is accurate. What's troubling is that many (but not all) mental health "experts," too, believe that the Static is an accurate tool. So much so that, at least in this draft bill, it should be used to classify Tier 3's.
What's tragic is that they are all wrong. As you can see with the Karl Hanson/Carleton University/CA DOJ "study," and their over-inclusive definition of "recidivism," they have been so invested in selling the Static-99R that they're willing to manipulate the very definition of "recidivism" in an attempt to induce a predetermined conclusion in trying to show that the Static is credible. To me, it seems a desperate attempt to continue to sell the Static-99R scam.
Think about it. I'm sure there are many people in SARATSO, CASOMB, the CA DOJ, and CDCR who have spent much of their careers bragging about how great the Static scam is. For them to admit that the Static-99R is complete junk pseudo science -- especially at this point -- would make them all look really bad.
This is not about the truth. It's about politics.
Tobin's Tools 2.0
David,
I had problems finding Not Really's quote on the Static-99R scam's Coding Rules. But I did a Google search and apparently it's found on page 7 of the recent (UNPUBLISHED) "study" by the California DOJ, Carleton University, and R. Karl Hanson:
http://www.saratso.org/docs/ThePredictiveValidity_of_Static-99R_forSexualOffenders_inCalifornia-2016v1.pdf
It's a good observation for sure. And I'm afraid the CA DOJ, Hanson, and his manipulative cohorts at Carleton University included "[a]ny recidivism includ[ing] all crimes (sexual, violent, non-violent), as well as all technical offenses (e.g., breach of conditional release), regardless of whether they were sexually motivated" for one reason:
1. To exaggerate the Static-99R scam's accuracy. Without the extra qualifiers, I doubt the DOJ would have been able to come up with figures substantiating the "high risk sex offender" label.
What's sad is that even with the over-inclusive phrase of 'recidivism,' this pseudo study is only examining the Static-99R scam for a period of ONLY five-years.
Good job "Not Really." Good eye. None of us caught this flaw until you pointed it out.
abolishtheregistry.com
The challenge is to do it competently and still get ahead of the rest of the pack before things are whittled down. It's a race to the finish line and unfortunately I'm dragging my body along with two broke legs financially.
It'll be years before I'm ready at this pace. Maybe you will beat me to it. :)
mike r
according to saratso their is supposed to be at least 5 or 6 tiers so there is really no telling what kind of pseudo junk tool they're going to use....and what the heck they cant even find a study or statistical data from the US they are importing this junk pseudo science and statistics from Canada....so they just troll the world to find stats or prediction tools and pick one that fits their needs....not only is this so called tool pseudo science it doesn't even reflect or take into account anything about the US's research, findings, or stats.our experts,especially our statisticts and data here in this country paint a very different picture than Canada's..they relied upon very limited studies that were mostly done years ago and were biased to boost these authors and creators credibility of this junk science...their recidivism rates were dramatically higher in their limited studies then all of our multitudes of studies by independent and even governmental agencies..it seems we should be using our own data and conclusions instead of trolling other countries throwing what they say or have on the proverbial wall here in the US to see of it sticks...
mike r
yeah abolish these people just don't get it...you or I or anyone else for that matter can pound our fist and beat this horse to death and they still wont get it...Hey that fourth circuit ruling though...look out man because its coming....Just like you and I and a few others have stated where is the justification fr these laws???show us the empirical evidence and prove that we pose a significant enough risk to justify the registry, we have more overwhelming evidence that the registry is actually counterproductive then the government can bring in favor of its registry....Ive been right about every issue thats came up about all this crap and I hate to say it but Im telling you IML law suit the way it is and was argued will not prevail, this tiered bill is going to pass and does absolutely nothing for the remaining people except create the real possibility of becoming even bigger targets for these vindictive legislators, but the good news is is that there will be a challenge for the government to prove their case and support it with evidence and not just suppositions..Its coming....
j
So i see a tier 3 288 (a) as a "lifetime" if a person is a repeat offender (BUT) 288 (B ) is the same as ( a ) but by the means of force violence menace or fear, so what if the person had 1 conviction of 288 ( A ) and has already been on registry for 22 years? (since 97) and had no other sex related issues and never been to prison? i ask because i see that tier 3 also has that --forcible lewd or lascivious act on a child under 14-- *288 (B)---- so heres where im confused?? how can a person have 1 single conviction 288 (A) only time in trouble but tier 3 is also putting * (a) and (B) as 1 sentence?? 288 (A) is the intent to *NOW* 288 ( B ) is by means of force,, and court records show there was no force? -from california-
*Janice please*
winding down
Janice, I am about a quarter through all of the comments this issue and your request for comments have generated. They have exhausted me and I am winding down. I am a Female RC. Over 30 years ago I pled n/c to aiding and abetting consensual sodomy involving my "co"-defendant and a 15 year old girl. It was an isolated incident involving a lot of alcohol, and I have no other sex crimes on my record. Annual registration and compliance checks were a burden, but life went on. I was employable. I worked. I grew. I married. I was privileged to help raise my spouses daughter. She became my daughter too. I started my own business and it prospered. Our daughter went on to college. Then the List went public and within a couple of years I lost my business. Then we lost our home. Our new "home" is on wheels, and though it has been in the same place for over a year I'm considered a transient and have to re-register every 30 days or face a felony and prison. My experience is that life is getting a lot worse. Yesterday i went online and read of your Sophies Choice. In so doing I became aware that this bill offers me and my family a ray of hope. I was relieved to read "Alienated"'s spin on the whole topic because it mirrors my own. I hope that you support this bill.
abolishtheregistry.com
Yes you will and you deserve it. That's exactly the kind of goofball thinking that has allowed this country to slip to where it is. The ends justify the means mentality.
I don't care what a person does, they deserve all of their rights back after they have satisfied their punishments. If you don't trust them, then don't let them out.
You give zero incentive for an offender to stop by sticking their faces on a public site. Absolutely assbackwards thinking.
As for the 60,000 "eventually" bit... Bullshit, this is nothing but a trojan horse. They're maneuvering to get ahead of what they see coming.
We're at the initial stages of this shit unraveling. Kansas has spoke up, the 6th and now the 4th.
Already we've had cases, if I'm not mistaken, that trounced lifetime registration so why not go after 290 itself? Why not a direct approach that would help far greater numbers.
ExpatRFSO
I see a lot of push back on this from the people that it won't likely help. It is not perfect, but 10,000 people dropping off instantly, and 60,000 people eventually sounds pretty good to me. Of course I hope that the vast majority of people remaining that don't deserve to, and society is not helped by them being in the registry, shouldn't have to register. I know I'll get slayed by this, but there is no doubt that some people, a small fraction, the worst of the worst who do deserve, and society is helped, by them being on the registry.
anon
According to the draft legislation, I would be off the registry immediately. But I oppose the bill because I simply don't trust the DA or the courts or any politician. The bill is WAY too complicated and there are too man opportunities to screw us.
David Kennerly
Where are you seeing this? Please link.
Timmr
Am I right in saying they, CASOMB, SARATSO, like using the Static because it puts the power to determine the mental proclivities of the ex offender squarely in the hands of law enforcement rather than with a medical professional who has exstensive knowlege of mental health. Am I right, Static-99R can be scored by any law official to determine the possible behavior of an offender? Only a licensed physician was allowed to perform a psycological evaluation, at least before CASOMB.
abolishtheregistry.com
Many more oppose it. You'll always get people who don't bother checking anything and blindly trust, those who don't comprehend everything and the practical applications of it and those that are completely self-focusing.
Gotta "ignore" that and push for what's right.
Mike
This bill is really a wolf in sheep's clothing. I think many here are very astute to have pointed out the Static 99R's use in classifying Tier III's. This is really what this bill is about. A "risk" based registry. In theory "risk" based sounds great. But when it relies on junk science like the Static scams, then I'm afraid it ain't no better than offense based registries. In fact I think this bill is a lot worse than what we have now. As of now, this bill seems completely intended to divide the movement against the registry. CA SOMB manipulation at its best!!
Hope you people don't fall for it. But it seems many have already taken the bait.
Mike
It's a vague phrase to be sure. I'm going to join in saying the Static is a scam. But it is quite troubling that CA SOMB, SARATSO, CDCR, DOJ are so invested into selling the Static 99R as some sort of "scientific" tool when it clearly isn't. I don't think the government really expected the sheep (which is how they often see us) to investigate the shallow statistics behind the Static 99 scam.
JM of Wi.
Since I am from WI. this will not directly affect me. Seeing some movement is nice. It shows me that we are making an impact. i tend to think that something else besides (helping the few registrants) is at the root of this. Obviously all politicians at this point seem to fear aligning with our cause. Getting some parallel language in this bill to aid in our cause may be helpful. Quoting reasons for change because recidivism rates used to fashion previous legislation were proved false etc. may help our cause. Also accepting the static 99 test in this legislation is hurtful. This may be an opportunity to help get this "tool" reformed. ------ Good luck Janice with your decision. As long as I see positive action my support/$ is behind you.
Not Really
To add to my comment, this would seem to violate the purpose of the registry given that the registry's purpose is to help law enforcement track new sex crimes by RCs. Most of the Static-99R, by counting all recidivism, including minor "breaches," goes well beyond that purpose of the registry. Since it measures all risk, including minor breaches, could there be an equal protection issue because it falls into the landscape of all offenders?
Once again, I think taking this to an Administrative Law Judge, since it is civil and not punishment, would be the way to challenge this. ALJs also wouldn't have the confirmation bias baggage of having sentenced someone to life because of a bogus Static-99.
Not Really
Wow on the Static-99R!
"3) Any recidivism included all crimes (sexual, violent, non-violent), as well as all technical offenses (e.g., breach of conditional release), regardless of whether they were sexually motivated."
So to know the far reaches of recidivism, meaning the most common recidivism, we would have to know what a "breach of conditional release" might be, how often it happens, and is it something that would terrify the people if they knew about it.
Anyone know what these breaches might be? Is it possible parole and probation officers can keep control of the high recidivism statistic by violating offenders for mild or petty breaches? What would the statistic be if only re-sex offense were measured?
Chris F
Mike R is right about "a lot of people can’t afford attorneys nor can they effectively argue their case against professional public debaters such as DA and judges…the ability of petitioning the court alone is almost not a reality that most would be able to afford or do on their own... "
Not only that, but even if you get a good attorney, the likelihood of a sex offender getting good representation is low, and the publicly elected judge granting it is even lower. These people have friends and family that won't look kindly on them supporting a sex offender when they can't be 100% certain they won't re-offend and the judges have to get re-elected.
The only way legislation will help get people off the registry is if it is automatic at a particular time or after particular events. Period. Sure, a few minor cases will miraculously get approval to be removed, but the majority will not. Quit kidding yourself that a "day in court" is all you need to show what a great person you have become because it won't matter. I've seen it first hand in Texas. It doesn't work.
Until the right lawyers with the right clients get a good case in front of appointed lifetime judges like SCOTUS the relief to registered citizens won't come.
About Time
Compassion!
While I feel for those that may not get off the list, here is my short story.
My last offence was in 86, in Calif. Since then I have been clean, I have never been in a court for my own doings since then. Since then I have graduated from two Bible Schools, earned a Ph.D, Had my own Bible school. I have been living in same home for 22 years,(out of state) married to the same lady for 32 years, Get this, Pastoring a Church for 22 years. The State I live in has a tiered system and I am not even on it, I called the Police Dept. and they told me that I am not a risk but I have to reg. because it followed me from CA. Thank You Janice and Chance for all you are doing, keep up the good work.
Not Really
"243.4 (a) reduced to a misdemeanor in 2008, 2009 convicted of felony 290 (b) failure to register.
So i have a misdemeanor 243.4 (a) and a felony failure to register 290 (b)"
If you got the felony 290 (b) because 243.4 was a felony, since you got it reduced, I wonder if that makes 290 (b) a wobbler too that can also be reduced. That is because failure to register is only a felony if the underlying offense is a felony. I might be bassakwards but it's worth a look.
Tobin's Tools 2.0
Wow. CASOMB would actually request that a civil rights organization remain "silent" on a bill? That seems disturbing.
BTW, another (in my opinion) very shady organization is the State Authorized Risk Assessment Tool for Sex Offenders Review Committee. Also known as "SARATSO," it consists of unknown representatives from the California Attorney General's Office, California Department of Corrections and REHABILITATION, and the California Department of State Hospitals. SARATSO and CASOMB are who peddles for use of the Static-99R:
http://www.saratso.org/
Concerned
Janice, is it possible you can direct me to an attorney I can hire out in the San Fernando Courthouse area to handle reducing a felony (wobbler) Pc17b to a misdemeanor. I've emailed Chance O several times with the emai address you kindly provided with no answer. Any help in pointing me in the right direction will be greatly appreciated. Many thanks for all your work.
pgm111
Thank you Janice for not being silent!
Civil rights first
Multiple convictions even non contact like indecent exposure can get you set as tier 3 in Washington...
New Person
if you lose your job b/c of this, then you have a reason to sue b/c it negated you employment.
Janice Bellucci
ACSOL is an advocacy organization that conducts lobbying. Therefore, we will have a position on the Tiered Registry Bill and we will share that position with members of the state legislature despite requests by members of the CA Sex Offender Management Board and others to remain silent.
abolishtheregistry.com
To be fair, you've said some things that were seen as the same way. Yes it was a little snippy but id gain a thicker skin and/or give it back to them.
Either way, I usually find the people saying "read it again" to have just not liked what's being said. So yeah, most calling for better reading comprehension are usually the dumbasses that aren't able to think their way outta a brown paper bag. Your mileage may vary.
ONE DAY AT A TIME
It's just you Mike r. It's the way you communicate things.
anon
Here is my unsolicited advice for the board: You should stay neutral. The role of the organization should be to provide as much detailed information about the bill as possible, such as the key dates, the key players, etc. To take a position in favor of the bill implies that you are leaving behind a significant number of registrants. The registry is useless and punitive and supporting a bill the keeps someone on is something of a betrayal to them. On the other hand, the idea of giving 70,000 registrants an offramp is quite alluring. In the end, the strength of the organization is the ability to speak as one. So we cannot just ignore the suffering of any registrant. Additionally, I question the value of our support of a bill. Which legislature will be swayed by our endorsement? I think the board should stay out of the lobbying business and stay in the information business.
mike r
never mind.. this has been a very productive and civil comments section so forget what I said and continue to focus on the topic before this turns into a bash mike r onslaught...lmfao
Question
Ca, thanks for responding. Yes it seems like it is a wobbler, I didn't go 2 prison. My concern of course is this new registry placing me in teir 2 which is Internet disclosure from what I take it, could b wrong though. After well over 20 years of Internet exclusion, all that I worked my tail off will be jeopardized if listed. After reading all comments so far it seems a lot are against this new bill while some are not. I'm forced to go into survival mode for my family ,home and job by doing what I need to do to avoid being plastered on the net and hopefully get this reduce to land in teir 1. And no people I'm not settling, I wish any registry didn't exist, all I can do is donate as I have been and pray for the captives to be set free. Thanks ca!
mike r
man why does everyone have to be so condescending and relatively rude in their comments at least towards me..
"Yes I really did say all of that one just needs to read what’s in print, not what they want to see."
Is it just me or is that statement uncivil and rude..makes me feel like you're insulting my intellect by inferring that I can not read or comprehend what was said..i don't know maybe it's just me but I don't think so..
mike r
I know you did I just wanted to point out that a lot of people can't afford attorneys nor can they effectively argue their case against professional public debaters such as DA and judges...the ability of petitioning the court alone is almost not a reality that most would be able to afford or do on their own little less to be able to successfully debate or prove that you meet all the requirements and don't pose a significant risk to the public...that's all I'm saying...I can pretty safely hypothesis that very very few will ever get relief under this petitioning the court standard outlined in this bill...this can in no way be construed to satisfy the procedural due process that each and every one of us deserve....not saying you stated against anything I just posted I'm just pointing out those factors.
Davidh
Mike R
I didn't mean to nor did I suggest one's day in court couldn't be represented by council, nor did I suggest that the" people " shouldn't have such a high burden to prove one is a risk.
All-in-all I simply stated to eliminate the static 99 and to replace it with a day in court, make falling off the registry at timed intervals automatic, allow folks to petition the court prior to the statutory term limits to either be relieved or reduced in tier status--
Yes I really did say all of that one just needs to read what's in print, not what they want to see.
ca
I thought all misdemeanor offenses were tier 1?????
ca
Just.. me: check if your registrable offense is a wobbler.
look online, check for "wobbler offenses" in CA, if it is, file a petition with the court where you were convicted. good luck!
mike r
no no no ..it should be the government's burden to prove, with clear and convincing evidence standard that someone is a danger to the public....that is the onky way a registry can pass constitutional scrutiny..
we are not professional lawyers or public speakers and I am sure a large number of people would be nervous and unable to articulate their case especially in court room setting..court rooms are very intimidating and like i said the burden of proof should be on the government who are trained public debaters..
the entire judicial system is mired in enequality because the prosecution has way more experience than any public defenders and have and use their endless resources to win their cases..this is also something that someone needs to bring suit and challenge the Courts on this subject..
Davidh
After reading the Ohio's proposal--I personally believe most here would be amenable to the legislation,if, and Ohio appears to put risk in the hands of the judge, they did that for us here. I think with this current legislation everyone has issue with static 99 and statutory placement, without a day in the court.
As with Ohio make falling off the registry automatic at time intervals, provided no new sex offense; allow a person to appear before a judge to express his/her feelings as to why they are not a threat, the DA can still appear to represent the people. The purpose of the appearance would be for the removal prior to the tier expiration date, down grading of tier. no reliance on static 99, totally an impartial juror's discretion.
I know I'd sign up for that!
Davidh
I dont know about engagement but depending on the circumstances one can get COR
Martin
I wholeheartedly agree with M.J.'s comments. Being a registrant myself and having researched the details of the general tiered registry concept vs THIS tiered registry bill, I see irreparable harm in the long term from this wolf in sheep's clothing. I have personally wanted a tiered registry in California for quite a while. This version is dividing our community and will present opportunities to tighten the noose on all registrants. As for those who fall off the registry, you cannot fall off the internet. Several websites have duplicated the information posted by Megan's Law; that will never vanish. Anyone deep searching you (potential employers, savvy new acquaintances, neighbors, etc.) will discover your past via those sites and wayback-like search engines. Understand that retroactive laws against sex offenders have altered the concepts of ex post facto and Constitutional rights; this tiered registry will not protect those who fall off from future changes to laws (that could even re-instate them on a secondary or "lesser" registry - a nice concept for a senator/assembly person hoping to gain future votes).
A fair tiered registry is one that will not add restrictions/punishments for anyone. A fair tiered registry is one that will continue to allow the CoR. A fair tiered registry will not require registrants to spend thousands on additional legal costs to attempt to leave the registry (Isn't getting a CoR costly enough already?). A fair tiered registry will lock out changes that would allow for the eventual re-additions of presence, residency and other restrictions based on the concept of tier-measured danger to society. A fair and appropriate registry (noting the concept of punishment - thank you Michigan) will not exceed any term of punishment (including probation/parole). Make no mistake. We can use a fair tiered registry bill, not THIS sly attempt to upend the progress that bold civil rights champions like Janice have fought so hard to achieve.
Can you make that argument about registry and custody?
Timmr - if you, or anyone, can get a judge to buy into the argument registry is a custody, I say more power to you. Unfortunately, that has been tried and denied in that context with an US AG. In sentiment, you are spot on and correct, but it is not like parole, etc which is considered custody as I read here earlier. If you could get registry is a custody, then I believe you could slide into registry is punishment as is parole, etc is an extension of your punishment because they are custody arrangements. Make sense? Again, your sentiment is spot on and concurred with.
If it has been bought into, then list that decision for all to read!
Timmr
Thank you. My lawyer told me I would be eligible for an expungement in 10 years. That was in 2000. How can they keep changing the rules?
GRR
Would that hold true for expungments also?
GRR
1994... Conviction was in 1988. I was given probation.
I believe the politicians stopped expungments and COR's for 288(a)'s in 1996 or so . I blew it by not applying for a COR immediately after the expungement.
Timmr
I did several searches, defense blogs, government probation offices, etc., and the consensus is that being in custody means being physically held in jail or prison.
Timmr
How or rather when did you get a 288 (a) expunged? I heard that was excluded.
someone who cares
Steve ~ I understand that most of us want the bill to pass or be rejected based on what it will mean to each of us individually. Sure, there were pre-internet people who all of a sudden appeared on the public website when Megan's Law came into effect. It sounds like you are saying that if these people had to go through it, then it is ok for others to endure the same shame if this bill passes. Two wrongs don't make a right. We want to move forward and not backwards. It will be a step backwards for more than twice of the people compared to those who will benefit from it. I can understand that most of us are in it for ourselves, it is human nature and everyone is entitled to their opinion, and I won't judge anyone based on what side they are on. If the bill can be amended to not affect a person's current standing, I would vote for it. If the bill will make it worse for a great majority, I will vote against it. Pretty simple. Those who are not publicly displayed need to remain undisclosed. Those who are displayed should have a chance to petition to be removed eventually. The Static 99R is ridiculous. How can someone who has been crime free for 20 years still score the same because the static questions stay the same? That makes absolutely no sense at all and is actually very embarrassing. Lots of things to be considered!
Timmr aka Tier 2 Humanoid Hazardous Substance
It's a lot of money, but still less than keeping people in prison. The registry is custody on the cheap. Most people would want most of us behind bars for the rest of our lives.
David Kennerly aka “The Human Equivalent of Toxic Waste"
Keep in mind that actual "violence," as most people understand the word, is not necessary to brand us as "sexually violent" or as "predators" within legal frameworks.
"Sexual Violence" has been statutorily redefined for the purpose of further marginalizing and vilifying Registrants and scurrilously misrepresenting them, as well as their capacity for harm, to a credulous public.
Tired of this
This has always struck me as absurd. Many of us in my treatment program in prison (for mostly non-contact offenses) were scrawny, acne-faced, socially awkward, early 20s computer nerds who had never known violence in our lives, at least not outside of video games. To think that the powers that be, and the average registry terrorist, consider us violent criminals blows my mind. Only a person incapable of rational thought would place downloading illegal material on the same plane as physically attacking someone, i.e. the standard definition of violence.
steve
Someone,
As someone who first thought 288 (a) would be tier 3, I would have agreed with you this won't help the majority. But the fact is the majority are 288 (a) and it will give give them all "a chance" to get off the list. Most who have been on pre-internet all have gone through what you are describing, trying to get on with your life then boom you're on the internet. It sucked, and yes there were a ton of fires to put out and it seems like it never ends.
I don't agree with one time non-contact offenders in tier 3. It's going to be up to all of those who get off to be good citizens, which in turn, will hopefully help to get the non-svp tier 3's off.
Not Really
It is possible no one can understand this bill well enough yet to be 100% for or against it. It is too necessary to make assumptions.
Janice Bellucci
Currently, information regarding individuals convicted of misdemeanor offenses as well as a small number of felonies are excluded from publication on the Megan's Law website. According to the draft legislation, information regarding all individuals in Tier 1 would be excluded from publication that website regardless of whether their offense was a misdemeanor or a felony.
Someone who cares
It seems like most of us don't really understand this bill and its potential harm. Some say we are technically all Tier III since we are on lifetime registration but I will strongly have to disagree. About 25,000 registrants are currently not disclosed on the public website. That will change if they were to be classified as Tier III and II and possibly even Tier I. Going back to what would benefit the majority, now we are looking at about 10 000 who might benefit and 25000 who would initially suffer a bigger punishment than they anticipated before they might benefit in 10 or 20 years from now. I say might as laws as we know change for the worse and are applied retroactively. So there will be thousands of formerly excluded refgistrants who will now suffer unemployment , harassment, embarrassment etc when they have lived a more or less quiet life until now? The public will now see them as dangerous people where they were never deemed such before. It just does not look like it will benefit anyone let alone the majority.
not in favor
Tier 3 is so broad I believe a great majority could end up there. Their risk level could be low but the crime accused would put them on tier 3.. We must continue the fight for freedom and constitutional rights restored. Everyone has a right to a life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
"Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" is a well-known phrase in the United States Declaration of Independence. The phrase gives three examples of the "unalienable rights" which the Declaration says have been given to all human beings by their Creator, and which governments are created to protect.
We have all fallen and come short weather we are willing to admit or not. Individuals need to be able to serve their time and move on with their life.
Please ASCOL and all advocate groups do not stand behind this bill.
not in favor
HOOKSCAR
ALL sex offenses are considered "violent".
Matt
I don't understand who would be harmed by passage of a tiered registry. We are all on the registry for life as it is. If some can get off, I am all for it. How dod you determine that 30000 would be advanced into Tier 3 if there currently are no.tiers? Right now we are all Tier 3. The way I read it, only violent offenses would require lifetime regustration, and those deemed high risk. How many is that?
Tobin's Tools 2.0 aka "SARATSO" rhymes with Tabasco (but Isn't as delicious)
At least for 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus proceedings, "in custody" also includes any period on parole, probation, and post-community supervision. So Matt is correct.
pgm111
Sorry Bill Arthur. I have read the bill section again and do NOT see any language that specifically excludes Tier 1 people from public disclosure on the Megan's Law website.
Just for the record, my question is not just about me, but for many of us that are Tier 1 people. To respond to an earlier query, I will never abandon the fight and will always advocate for everyone caught in this wretched system.
I feel like many of our questions in this forum are simply unanswered and we are unable to make a rational, educated assessment of the bill without more information.
Janice,
Can you respond to my question? Are Tier 1 people excluded from public disclosure on the California website? What is the policy now regarding whether one is one public display or not?
pgm111
Thank you Bill Arthur for responding to my question. It is not just about me but for many of us that are Tier 1 people. To respond to an earlier query, I will never abandon the fight and will always advocate for everyone caught in this wretched system.
I feel like many of our questions in this forum are simply unanswered and we are unable to make a rational, educated assessment of the bill without more information.
Nicholas Maietta
I need to update my post with the following:
I no longer support this bill. I am in fact against it now. There are too many risks that this won't do as it's intended to do, which is to give people a path off the registry.
If a person hasn't reoffended in X number of years, especially after several decades, why are they even on the registry anymore? That applies to EVERYONE who's on the registry.
Roger
NPS, human nature is that we want to feel good about ourselves, and the CHEAPEST, most DECISIVE way to do that is to find reasons to consider ourselves better than others.
The irony of you placing yourself at a higher moral level than some of your fellow RCs is that the public considers ALL sex offenders to be monsters who attack random children and who never want to change, no matter what their actual crime was.
YOU are part of that hated group!
No matter what fairy-tale hierarchy you make up to convince yourself you are better than other RCs, the public sees you as part of the RC "herd". The anti-RC laws affect you just as much as the rest of us.
You have VERY FEW allies against these laws. Your fellow RCs and our families and friends are a majority of your allies.
Therefore, deflate your ego, stop being decisive, and work with us for unity.
We are all in this together!
D4Civil rights first
The last sentence was supposed to say:
And there are people being denied green cards for their spouses that possess CoR.
Question
243.4a felony 22 years ago, internet exclusion since. Could b wrong but it Looks like it places me in tier 2, does this mean I'll be on Megan's site? If so That would literally harm so much I've worked for. In fact I'll loose my job. Any clarification would greatly b appreciated.
Civil rights first
Ask anyone who married a foreign national and petitioned for their spouse a green card. And the government simply denies it because they "say" we are a DANGER to that person and the offender must PROVE they are no risk to that person whom they married and most likely knows everything about the offender how easy it is the government to prove we are still a danger. They don't need to.... they just point at our past. And the new people denied green cards for the support that possess CoR.
Civil rights first
You don't know the laws in this state. There is no going back in front of any judge for anything regardless of level nor is there anything like a CoR. Also everything happened at the same time but I was charged separately so yes technically that does make me a repeat offender. However if you knew Washington state and knew what an unranked offense is and that it doesn't require registration maybe you wouldn't be so guick to judge. Also in Washington the county sheriff has the ability to raise a person's level. Which Is what happened to me. The department of corrections set my level at level 2 but when being released the county sheriff arbitrary raised my level because I was releasing to a county of non-conviction.... that was 13 years ago.
You don't know me. But if you feel better attacking me instead of the unconstitutional BS of sora, AWA and IML then I welcome you to contact me directly at my email [email protected]
Bill Arthur
pgm111:
As to being listed on the Internet website, the new draft bill says in 290.45 (a) (1) that it will be based on "information concerning that specific person’s current risk of sexual or violent re-offense, including but not limited to the person’s static, dynamic and violence risk levels on the SARATSO risk tools." So, it sounds like a determination will be made for each individual, and that the Static-99R test will be the guide, more than Tier level. Comments? Janice, any idea?
BSL
THUMBS UP! @Mary Devoy
GRR
Tier 3 in the current proposed California tiered system you can petition the court to become a tier 2. It seems you might be a candidate to become a tier 2.
Timmr
She's got you with that keeping your nose clean thing. Should have done that myself before they arrested me.
GRR
Janice has stated on this site that failure to register is not a sex crime thus, will not be used against you in determining your tier.
I received a expungement reducing a 288(a) to a misdemeanor. Nonetheless, it is my understanding that the draft tier system is based on the original conviction and an expungement wont count.
With this you would be a tier 2
Hopefully, expungements will be taken into consideration when determining our tier level.
Civil rights first
Yes the . Was supposed to be a , but there was the correct amount of zeros
Matt
I think everybody needs to take a very deep breath here folks. Many of the questions on this forum seem to be, "what does this do for me?" (As in, "it's all about me.") Janice has asked for input because she is trying to figure out whether to support this bill, or not, as a whole. For the ENTIRE group of people she is representing. We have a potential move towards the positive here. Maybe not for all, but for many. The real question is, does this bill move the majority of the entire group in a more positive direction, or not? I don't know the answer. And I have read the bill several times. I have concerns about this bill as written. But it's definitely a step in the right direction; for a huge amount of registrants. That said, it feels like it might be an attempt by law enforcement at "divide and conquer." Again, I'm not sure. But everybody should try to take themselves out a step or two and look at what best for the whole group.....not just themselves. And By the way, I would qualify for Tier 1, and be able to apply for release in February of 2018. I'm still not sure this is the right move for the whole group.
Matt
I wouldn't be so sure about that. I have seen many instances where probation (AKA supervised release) is still regarded as "in custody" That needs to be clarified.
David Kennerly aka “The Human Equivalent of Toxic Waste"
By golly. You know, I do believe you've helped me to make up my mind about this tiered registry business. Thanks!
Just..me
ca, can u point me in the right direction on how u went about getting your felony reduced to a misdemeanor. Thanks
judgmental much?
"Morally inferior?" Are you serious?
The fact you support this "tiered" registry should have others thinking whether it is *really* the smart thing to support.
I rarely cite religious material, but: "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her." - John 8:7
abolishtheregistry.com
How you must loathe being on the same website with so many people that are beneath you.
ca
243.4 (a) reduced to a misdemeanor in 2008, 2009 convicted of felony 290 (b) failure to register.
So i have a misdemeanor 243.4 (a) and a felony failure to register 290 (b)?
anybody can help me with what tier level? much appreciated!
YetAlert
Go ahead, support this bill. After contact offenders get to go free and low level non-contacts with a high static-99 replace them on the internet as dangerous ones, address listed, the public may be less inclined to check Megans Law website since it will show low level's and not the 288's or other contact offenders who were let off. At that point, Megan's Law will be acknowledgeably useless. I don't see the registry coming down any other way.
NPS
"You have obviously lived a life of finely calibrated moral rectitude in devotion to a society with which you are in perfect agreement and accord."
Indeed I have.
"Doubtless, you have rightly positioned yourself well above the pedophiles and recidivists who are your moral inferiors and correctly laid at their feet responsibility for your own social misidentification while laying none at those of the priggish neo-puritanical scolds and sadists you count as your peers."
Yes, I have rightly positioned myself above those who have acted on their impulses on a prepubescent child because I certainly have not, nor would I ever. (and my now expunged charge had nothing to do with a child).
Yes, if they are a recidivist, they are morally inferior to the vast majority of those RCs who made one mistake that they never repeated. And which camp do you belong to, David?
"Tell us, how might we correct this wrong that has befallen you and, indeed, how might we become more like you?"
Support the tiered registry. Live your life in spite of the registry. Keep your nose clean. It really isn't that hard.
CS
mike r
May we speak more of this suit for violations of human rights violations under color of law? I would like to sue for monetary damages for every year that the public registry has barred my employment. My yearly pay before taxes at the time of my lay off was $70,000 & I've been under or unemployed almost 10 years. Also would like to sue for pain & suffering due to the counseling I've received. Of course there's the issue of attorney's fees & whatever other fees the court deems necessary. & the thought that they can be held accountable with the prospect of jail time or loss of money
might finally cool their jets. I would like to know more of this process & how to pursue it. mike r, please respond!
Timmr
OK, let's try this again. 60,000 x 1,000 = 60,000,000. Sixty million. Add the zeros as in grade school, Timmr, are you losing your mind? Still less than incarcerating people for long terms and life for sex offenses, which I think is a more worrying trend going on.
Anyway, you brought up a good point. After reading one of the articles provided by David, aka Toxic Waste, Kennerly, I notice that this proposal is really for a lifetime registry with possibility for exiting after either 10 or 20 years for some. It is not technically a tiered registry, as described in the article, meaning except for the pre-1987 convictions, you do not "fall off", as a true tiered system. If not, you might say we have a two tiered registry already, because some are eligible to apply for removal with a CoR, others are not. Like Janice has said, words have meaning. It still may be better than what we have now for some, especially for those excluded from a CoR now. For others, I am worried about the use of actuarials rather than the clinical findings during trial. Doesn't make sense that someone given a suspended sentence, probation, and trusted enough to be amenable to treatment and not punishment, or someone with a misdemeanor or non violent offense, has to get approval to get off the registry after years of no re-offense. I understand why they are making it this way, to be safe, and to assure the legislators that they are not "letting off" dangerous people, it's political to get it passed in a hostile environment for anything looking like it is lenient on former offenders, but inexact words can lead to deceptive meanings.
danielle
Question. If someone was convicted of crimes that the new registration would put them into tier 3- but it was one victim-family member- And their static score was low- would that mean they would be a level 3 ? In other words,is it both the static score And the offense- or one or the other- or is their discretion- like having been off parole for a good number of years?
pgm111
Janice,
Does the proposed bill call for Tier 1 RCs to be off the public website such as New York state? If not, can we push for that provision? What are the chances such a provision can be incorporated into the new law?
David Kennerly
You have obviously lived a life of finely calibrated moral rectitude in devotion to a society with which you are in perfect agreement and accord. Doubtless, you have rightly positioned yourself well above the pedophiles and recidivists who are your moral inferiors and correctly laid at their feet responsibility for your own social misidentification while laying none at those of the priggish neo-puritanical scolds and sadists you count as your peers.
Tell us, how might we correct this wrong that has befallen you and, indeed, how might we become more like you?
Political Prisoner
I was reading the bill and I am confused with the start date for the years. I saw it stated it starts from the release from custody or the end or probation or parole which ever is earliest. I was released from house arrest in July of 2013, but I do not get off of probation until January of 2018. Whish dated would be used to start my counter for a tier release?
Civil rights first
Check your math....
60,000 x 1,000 = 60,000.000
I totally disagree with the whole concept of a registry, the AWA, the IML.
OK... If they want to do this why not set hard time limits. Why not set it up so there is no petition at all.
Tier - 1 = 10 years
Tier - 2 = 15 years
Tier - 3 = 20 years
Why won't they go for this? Because they would lose control.
Washington state has a tiered system and there is no getting off the registry for tiered 3 and what elected official is going to sign off on lowering someone or remove them from the duty to register.... Washington state also has two strikes and you're out...
Fight to abolish not modify.
We have all been fighting to abolish the registry why now would we agree to anything less?????
Daryl Grimes
I'm not taking any sides but non contact offenses score higher on the static, no? The way I see it, the static 99 is a lot like what you hear on an out of range radio. When you try to scan on an out of range radio, what do you hear? Static. Static is pretty much worthless. What if the static is just a sick joke on everyone and that is how the static creators got the name? By listening to an out of range radio? You know, before I committed my crime, I drove across Canada, from Vancouver to Sydney, Nova Scotia and back. There was a lot of AM and FM static through most of Canada. Sometimes, if you were lucky you could tune into a station that was static and it would turn to something. Maybe that is what inspired the Canadian static 99 creators to call it static?
Alert
A bunch of obscene phone calls can put one onto tier 3.
NPS
I guess you need to read and think more critically. From what you've written, it's pretty clear you have not gone back to a judge (post-conviction) to have your record cleared and/or tier lowered. But then again, you committed a second offense so that's out. And that's on you. You blew it. You have no one to blame but yourself. You should've learned to keep your nose clean after your first offense. Whether or not that was not sexually related is irrelevant. You've already demonstrated that you are a recidivist and THAT is why YOU are in a higher tier. And it's those extremely few recidivists, like you, who have made it much harder for the majority of RCs who have had a one and only offense.
M.
Care to enlighten? Not really. Though, without minimizing the obviously wrong nature of my offense, I will tell you that I think 10 years registration is more than enough for what I did. In fact, in most cases, I think 10 years is more than enough for ANYONE but the most incorrigible.
And I also think the Static-99R has it wrong. It has already done too much harm to too many people. And I fear that the Static, as well as other "tools" like it, if not stopped and exposed for what it is (i.e. a very limited tool), has the potential to do even more harm. This bill gives the Static too much power than it deserves.
(BTW, it doesn't take much to score "high-risk" on the Static. Especially if you were young at "release" [i.e., between the ages of 18 to 34] and have a "non-contact offence.")
ocguy
Your response does not apply to this mini discussion. I should have stopped reading after "WOULD be eligible to apply for a CoR in a few years".
This question is about people who already HAVE been granted a CoR, and not only that, one that has them removed from the registry due to their convictions not being excluded for removal in PC 290.5. In other words, people who are (present tense) NOT 290 registrants. That are not going to be added back on. That that is even a point of discussion is disturbing.
The question was, and Janice's answer had to do with putting them BACK on the registry. I would love to hear her further thoughts on this.
It simply must be painfully obvious to anyone with a rudimentary grasp on logic that assessing decade long / lifetime future risk of a single person via a tool that has the word 'static' in its name and that by its own admission only has a shelf life of 10 years is silly. To put it mildly. But then again - logic and reason are out the door in this discussion. So anything is possible.
After 10 years from conviction you would have to be re-tiered according to conviction(s) and possible re-offense alone, disregarding any Static-99 score. Lifetime is not necessarily lifetime. The CoR demonstrates this clearly. At which point you can petition off without the dog and pony show that is the CoR. Cool?
Your anti Static-99 crusade is impressive, oh poster with many names.... for the life of me I cannot imagine a scenario as you describe (non mandatory, non-contact, non 667.5, etc) that does not only result in 290 registration, but also in a high score. Can't be pictures covered under 311, can't be weenie wagging, can't be any conversation (covered under 647.6), can't be meeting, is not touching, not physically abusing (contact) an animal.... care to enlighten?
Civil rights first
Excuse me..... To clarify.... No physical contact is what I meant. As for standing in front of a judge..... I guess you need to read better.... I did do 6 years for what I did and 10 years of probation and I volunteered for sex offender treatment. Yes volunteered.... Not ordered to it not was it a condition of my release. Oh..... Wait also once i heard that my daughter's friend told her friend and that what I did was out..... I took myself to the police station to be arrested..... I still cation all of you from going to a tired system. Once you're at the level 3 good luck getting anyone to sign off on lowering your level and be prepared to do life on the registry.
M.
ocguy,
Not exactly. For example, I am personally eligible for 290 relief through a Certificate of Rehabilitation in a few more years. According to current law, I would be eligible for a Certificate of Rehabilitation 10 years after release into the community. Currently, I am only a few more years from such eligibility.
However, under this proposed bill, I would be placed under Tier 3 solely because of my Static-99R score (otherwise, I'd be placed in Tier 1). It wasn't even a specified offense under 290. It was a lifetime registration order pursuant to the "discretionary" provision of 290.006. It was a felony, non-violent, non-contact, first-time offense. And it seems that others on this board share somewhat similar scenarios.
I have been told by a few attorneys that, at least under current law, I have a good shot. This is because I live in a county with a good record of certificates being granted, have held a full-time job, volunteer for a non-profit, completed counseling, completed my degree, and have lived crime-free (and a parole violation free period) since my first-time arrest.
What's funny is the Static erroneously scores me "high-risk." Yet other risk assessmentS score me "low-risk." It seems some people on here have already expressed their doubt about the validity of the Static-99R. For me, I simply do not trust the Static "developers."
ocguy
Making CoR recipients that qualified for removal register again??? That would even be an item of discussion? Shocking. Two thoughts, here.
1. The people who are eligible to even apply for a CoR would only be in placed in Tiers I and II (many in Tier II would be ineligible for application right off the bat). The people for whom a CoR DID terminate the registration requirement would most likely only be in Tier I. Now there might be some freaky scenarios, but I think such assumption is safe.
Since the minimum of 10 years must have passed from time of conviction (release - not sure) - and that is a minimum by a long while - by the time the CoR can even be applied for, let alone granted, the required time would have been up anyway (10 years for sure Tier I). How could such a person be required to again register?
Is it not safe to assume that anyone who has already obtained a CoR and therewith terminated registration would be subject to less strenuous conditions anyway? However,
2. On page 11, the first paragraph of the proposed 290.5 states "A person required to register under PC 290". "required" - as in presently. Furthermore, a few lines later it states that a Tier I and II Offender may petition off after the prescribed time frames (10/20 years). It also states "The petition must contain proof of the person's current registration as a sex offender".
Since a person who was granted a CoR that terminated registration cannot provide such proof of current registration, such a person would be suspended in some sort of purgatory and would be forever ineligible to petition for removal - after theoretically having been put back on following removal under much, much more stringent requirements. In other words, the registrant with a low level offense at least 10 years ago who lived a life that fulfilled the onerous CoR requirements would become a life time registrant. Just like a Tier III Offender. That is ludicrous.
That is how I read this.
Timmr aka Tier 2 Humanoid Hazardous Substance
Wouldn't the State have a record of who got off the registry? Does the State get a letter from the judge of CoR awarded and it is up to the State to record the fact.
NPS
YES You DID have contact and you DID have victims; you exposed yourself to your stepdaughter and her friend. Seems like the reason you're at a higher tier is due to your unwillingness to own your actions.
Great that you've done well for yourself but until you put yourself in front of a judge and atone for your actions, you will be stuck at your tier.
Janice Bellucci
@Timmr, we have asked for statistics from the CA Dept. of Justice regarding how many people have applied for a CoR and how many people have actually received a CoR. We have been told they do not have such statistics and it makes sense because CoR's are applied for in court and not with the CA Dept. of Justice.
Janice Bellucci
We have been assured that anyone who has been granted a Certificate of Rehabilitation prior to the effective date of the new law will not be assigned a tier and won't be required to register.
Timmr
Thank you. I was mistaken.
how?
Just how can the 10 questions of the Static scam predict future "risk?" Seems a lot like a scam to me.
New Person
Good point.
With the Michigan decision, I think ACSOL should identify how parts of these proposals increase disabilities from where they currently are today. Also, ACSOL should demand the logical reasoning behind the tiering, so as to expose the lack of use of known research done by CASOMB as well as many other research papers along with recent court decisions.
I keep forgetting ACSOL now encompasses all states. Many registrants from other states with tiering and ways off of tiering have chimed in. They don't like it. Texas supposedly gave a way off the registry, but not many are getting off from it. That's akin to our own CoR. With 10,000 registrants that come off the list due to time elapsed by this tiered proposal, it makes you question why are not many off already with the current CoR in place?
It seems California is oblivious to look into this. I mean, I'd volunteer to to run a search on how many registrants have applied for a CoR, how many have been granted and how many have been denied. I want to see facts and patterns about this. Does ACSOL have this information? Did CaRSOL have this info? And how come we registrants do not know the success rates of the CoR?
Civil rights first
I'm in a state that has a tired system.... Don't do this. I have a conviction from 1996 for luring and the state tacked on "with sexual motivation" an unranked sex offense because I bought beer for some minors and asked them if they needed a ride. The state offered me a plea offer that I accepted. Was there any sexual motivation... Hell no but under the advisement of my court appointed attorney I accepted the offer. During this BS I also took a physyco-sexual evaluation. The first thing the therapist said was "if you tell me if a crime i have to report it to the authorities" week this was a problem because there was something I did do but now I couldn't even get help if I wanted it. During this same time I exposed myself to my step daughter and a couple of her girlfriend. Yep you guessed it... One of the girls told a friend and she told her mother and I was arrested again but this time for 1st degree child molestation. This makes me a two time arrested for a sex offense.... No contact ever!!!! No infractions during my 6 years incarceration, no infractions during my 10 years on probation, no new offense since being out of prison for 13 years.... No hope of ever getting off this crap.
So here I am classified a tier 3 with no physical victim ever and no hope of ever getting off. Since my release from incarceration I've obtained my BA in information security and am gainfully employed. I've tried to travel internationally and got to go to Hong Kong last year and Thailand then again to Thailand but the last time I tried to travel the IML got me blacklisted. I say enough and we need to fight to abolish this whole darn thing. If Janice and this civil rights group is been fighting the whole registry scheme on the grounds that it is unconstitutional and constitutes continued punishment, how does a tier system make it any less unconstitutional and any less punishment?
hh
Does anyone know or understand what will happen if you have a certificate of rehabilitation prior to this tier registry going into place?
I've read through this a couple of times and it seems like the act of getting a CoR will change but it doesn't nessasrily mention if you already have one.
For example if you have registered for 15 years and are a tier 2 but have a cor will you automatically get removed or does the cor do nothing for you ?
Not Really
The registry in California got its start because people abhorred sex crimes, and it was all inclusive for life. Some charges, like adult gay sex, have been removed. Most have not. Recent evidence proves the public registry does more harm than good and a police registry could be restored for much less money. I would rather the money be spent on evidence-based prevention where it can actually save children. By the time of registration the harm is done and it is too late.
Timmr
Since ASCOL now represents registered citizens in all states, most of which have tiered registries, I am wondering how its support of this version with its requirement to have DA approval to exit the registry and also the heavy reliance on the Static 99 may look to registrants in other states? Maybe this is what makes it a Sopie's Choice now, when a couple of years ago CARSOL was 100% behind lobbying for a tiered registry in California. This may not be just about getting some people in California off the registry, but how ASCOL is going to represent the interests of all registrants.
NPS
I am in accordance with you, Stanley K. I, too, am tired of the rhetoric among those who feel that even those with more mundane charges should have to continue suffering because their own more serious charges are keeping them on a TIER III. While I disagree with some parts of the bill (the idea of petitioning when we should just fall off or that lifetime registration is still on the table), I welcome the change because I would be a Tier I and off in 3 years. Of course I'm going to applaud anything that benefits me just as those who will be hurt are going to oppose it. But does that mean that once I'm off, I'm going to stop supporting ACSOL? Of course not. There's still work to be done because I'd still be harmed by IML; it's obvious that it still harms former RCs with certificates of rehabilitation. They are still being flagged. AWA still needs to go.
RCs are not a monolithic group. I truly abhor those who have engaged in sexual activity with children (and by child, I mean pre-pubescent). I also find those who've engaged in incest as truly vile. They deserve a lifetime in prison.
Do I think the registry will ever be abolished? I really don't have an answer to that, but I hope it will be. I think the only answer to abolishing it is to have longer prison sentences for those who engage in violent rape of people of all age groups. I think that's why some people like the Stanford swimmer get light sentences because judges know the registry is worse than time spent in jail.
Another R&J case punishment worse than needed...
Your argument about why a person who was 21 while his girl was 17 and 2/3 years old when they were intimate is understandable when compared to others who have done worse, it is slightly irrelevant at this time because the law is written in CA where the age of consent is 18. Period. The fact they pool them together is odd, but that is the law. That does not make it right though necessarily.
If the young lady wanted to help, she should help work to get this guy off of the registry through whatever means possible and work to change the law to where her voice should be strongly heard after she becomes 18 (and a voting member of society) by those in position to make a difference. Romeo and Juliet cases like this should be reviewed upon the younger person becoming 18. Telling those who are younger than 18 they and their voice does not matter is wrong, when we tell them they do matter regardless of the age.
(Makes me wonder if most people under 18 know this CA law. Two underaged individuals could be charged despite consent. CA - the puritanical state! HA!)
HopingForHope
The registration clock does not start at the end of probation. The draft is pretty clear that it begins on the date of release from custody. Big difference.
concerned citizen
Not only does this bill add 667.5 under Tier II, but it also adds 1192.7 under Tier II.
1192.7 offenses are often not as serious if they are not included under 667.5 (i.e. so long as they are not also listed under 667.5). In other words, the "violent" offenses under 667.5 are often not as bad as the "serious" offenses under 1192.7. Yet this bill treats "violent" and "serious" offenses similar.
Violent 667.5 should be placed in Tier II. But the 'serious' offenses under 1192.7 should be placed under Tier I, so long as they also are not listed in 667.5. Because not all 'serious' offenses are 'violent' offenses. IMO, there is a big difference between the two. And this bill is negligent/remiss in pointing out the differences.
So as it is now, in addition to the inclusion of the Static-99 scam, I cannot see the rationale to much of the concepts included in this bill. Therefore, I disagree with this bill as it is written.
concerned citizen
I just hope they take away the Static-99R from Tier 3. The Static shouldn't be used as a sole determinant in deciding registration terms AFTER parole or probation.
Sure, the Static could be used during the first 5 years after release in parole or probation in ONLY determining supervision level. But using it for any period after 5 years and/or using it to determine 10, 20, or lifetime registration duration is completely unacceptable.
The Static-99R "tool" is/was not designed for the purpose that it is being used in this proposed bill.
abolishtheregistry.com
You absolutely do not get it. People shouldn't be registered like sheep no matter what they do. But your bad apples statement is deeper idiocy. You're justifying the registration for hundreds of thousands of people so a few really dangerous can be tracked. But you don't care if its right or just because fuck the guy down the street. Got it.
The registry will be abolished so make sure you stick around so I can rub your nose in it when it happens. :)
NY Leve1
Please where is 'elsewhere'?
Just..me
In regards to the Internet listing of Megan's Site. What does this new tiered bill have to say on that. Will all three tiers have their information disclosed or just tiered 3. Considering one at the moment is excluded from the site based on a none violant index office well over 20yrs ago which will more than likely fall in tiere 1 be placed on the website? I guess I could of easily just ask what tiers will be listed. Thanks for all your comments
Timmr
I was curious, does having a victim who is a stranger count for or against you in this sceme? It is listed as a criteria for placing certain former offenders in either tier II or III.
Timmr
I think you would be tier II if you had only one 288 (a) conviction, with no exact address, just zip code, but it looks like since the registration period starts at the end of probation, it would be 2029 before you can apply to be off.
Timmr
The tiered registry bills sold to us at the ASCOL meetings were the kind where people "fall" off the registry. Fall means with no effort on your part. With this proposal you have to get permission. That could mean some will expend a lot of effort to get off, if their DA can find cause and set the time to appear for a maximum of another five years. The DAs are likely to err on the side of caution, fearing they may let a closet J A Gardner off the registry and get blamed for it when something happens.
NPS
Yes, Kevin, you are missing something. Your charge will put you in Tier II because you only have the single charge. A second, separate charge would put you in Tier III.
New Person
I dunno if Janice's declaration in a SO conference a few years ago where she stated she was gonna get registration repealed a la the internment camp.
but officially, I haven't seen anything on this new ACSOL.
Kevin
Oh my Lord no! I am a currently low risk (static99R = 1) 288(a) offender, convicted 2004, no prior anything, no post anything, got 5 years probation, did no prison time, but I my address is listed. I have no residence restrictions. Trying to make it as a performer is hard enough with people looking me up on the internet. Looking at this, I would be put into a Tier 3 ?!?!?! High risk 90-day reregistration, FLYERS(!!!), etc. etc. Life in my neighborhood would likely become impossible, and where would I go?
This makes it all much worse for me. Am I missing something? I can't even...
Not really
NO, you don't get it. Your "young man at 21-years-old, who had a sexual relationship with a 17-year-old, for whom was four months away from her 18th birthday" example would be different if he was charged with "molesting and annoying a child" because all someone has to do is talk about sex. When a 647a the max was 6 months in jail. What was the max for your charge?
http://www.metnews.com/articles/parr040202.htm
(I normally try to avoid the "my charge is better than your charge" defense because it is so circular and beside the point, but Stanley K. just begged for it.)
CA consent for Romeo & Juliet
Be nice to actually see CA automatically give the option to all R&J registrants for petitioning their release from registry if this bill makes it to law. The law should include as soon as the younger of the two people is 18, the registrant(s) should be able to petition for release so the younger voice can be heard in a court of law with some strength, especially since these are usually consensual relationships. After reading the bassackward CA law for statutory rape, which is where R&J people fall since they are under the CA age of consent (18), it is surprising more people are not charged and prosecuted (including where R&J are both under 18).
Stanley K.
I'm not in any position to educate.
You either get it or you don't.
Huge flaw
That is a huge flaw! Spot on with that...
But what is their entire belief based on? Just the statistics of some test, e.g. Static-99, solely, when there are other tests that can be used in assessment? Ignorance of the real statistics? History? What exactly?
They surely won't look at the actual data published extensively because that works against them. They will probably use the "if it saves just one...." or "these person doesn't fall in this particular percentage, but the other percentage; therefore, we believe...". They will use tools that supports their position, not a neutral stance where fairness is involved and emotion, e.g. SCOTUS Justice Kennedy.
Remember, court justice and laws are not based upon the truth (as they're supposed to be), but the best story used to make something happen, even John Adams knew that in the young years of this country. You can see that by the omitting of true facts or the entire story. You have elected officials who refuse to hear and acknowledge the truth because they "can't handle the truth!" when it opposes their platform. You should never ever expect a DA do ever endorse release for the fear of NIMBY (not in my backyard). If they did endorse, that is political suicide as a DA, but a great money maker if they went to or back to the defense side of the house.
The one thing I would like to see are where the Romeo and Juliet cases could go with these petitions, where there is no real "victim". If Romeo and Juliet are still together years later, will the court see the obviousness of the situation and grant release? What if Romeo and Juliet are not still together but it was consensual then and a parent was against it after finding out, e.g. a parent was pissed, pressed charges and used it as retaliation, and the Juliet says grant release? What would the court and DA do to oppose these particular releases? People forget it was not long ago these types of relationships existed commonly in our country's history (you can find examples for yourself and perhaps already know of some in your own family).
Matt
I suggest that we use the same tactic the legislators have used so successfully: Incrementalism. Meaning, if you take on the entire registry at once, it's almost certain to fail. (I have my doubts about the tiered registry proposal, given what Californians just did with the death penalty vote.) If we chip away at it, bit by bit, we are more likely to positively affect more lives. One thing I noticed that is particularly troubling: Several pages in, the proposal says that registrants who have completed the time period for their tier may petition law enforcement and the courts to be removed from the registry. The presiding law enforcement agency can put up a fight, if they wish, and demonstrate to the court their belief that a registrant must be compelled to stay on the registry for reasons of "public safety". Meaning, it's NOT automatic. You have to ask to be released, and the DA can argue against that release. This is a fatal flaw. I don't know whether it should change how Janice and company should or should not support the bill as written. But it's important that people realize this is not an automatic thing. In my county, the DA will oppose every single attempt at relief. And they may be moderately successful in those attempts.
pgm111
I strongly suggest that the new proposed tiered system also have a feature that Tier 1 registrants NOT be included on the public registry. This is the case in New York and elsewhere. Can this important feature be included in the new legislation? Anyone share my opinion on this matter?
wonderin
Stanley K. wrote: " I’m not running a crusade to abolish the registry; it’s not happening, and I fully understand as there are some bad apples out there. "
So please explain how the registry protects your family from these bad apples? Some of us, who share a different point of view, just might learn something.
kat
I say "Do a Trump"-
"Ask for Everything, the whole enchilada, then negotiate down and get what you really need."
If left as is, Tier III people are viewed as "irredeemable". People do change, incarceration changes people, counseling and treatment changes people. No one's life, past, present or future should be based on the 10 question Static, and that's what the Static does, " portends to predict" what one "might" do in the future. If everyone's past was a future indicator of their future behavior, I'd venture to say we would all be in a bit of trouble.
If left as is, a Tiered Registry Bill such as this III tiered bill gives some people "No Chance" at a normal life despite any changes they may have made over the years. And when all hope is taken away from individuals, they feel they have nothing to lose and then consequences are always tragic.
I suggest taking Tier III off the table completely.
With Tiers I and II, people at least have some hope of getting off the registry.
If you re-offend on Tier II, well, then you'll probably end up back in prison or jail and your whole cycle of initial registration should start over again when you get out. Essentially, you loose the time you've already been on the registry and have to start all over. This would keep chronic offenders "chronically" on the registry.
As far as public safety, the public is no safer no matter what tier someone is on. Tiers are just "labels" just like "sex offender registry" is just a label. No one is "safer" because of it.
Janice, ask for what will benefit all, if we only ask for some, that's all we'll ever get. And to get things changed once a bill is enacted, well, we see how hard that is.
Go for it, your work is much appreciated.
Timmr
Registration length and conditions determined at trial, based on offense and various other mitigating factors, psycological evaluation, amenability to treatment, prior behavior, analysis of whether the registry is effective in reducing recidivism or a means of punishment, that process would truly be treating everyone equally under the Constitution. But this organization feels we all want to be treated differently. So, limiting registration to a parole or probation term, also means everyone would receive a different registration requirement based on individual circumstances surrounding the crime, the sentencing parameters for the offense and potential for rehabilitation, getting punishment after the fact out of the hands of the legislatures and the DA's offices, that sounds fair to me. Which organization is supporting that concept? I hope this one would. It sounds like a real Constitutional position.
R. Barnett
The inclusion of the controversial STATIC "tool" should be enough reason alone to reject this bill. It sets a potentially troubling precedence. Just how is a "high" STATIC-99R score alone adequate reason to place a person as Tier III? It is simply amazing how many "experts" think the static is a validated instrument. Most of the "validation" was done in questionable, limited scope studies with Hanson, Thornton, Helmus, or one of the other STATIC creators. The fact is that the STATIC is sometimes right at the "high risk" label (often in what seems to be mere chance); but it is mostly wrong, especially after 5 yrs. By the way, there are also many recidivists that score "low risk" on the STATIC. But we never see the state or Hanson honestly examine why. Probably because they will verge into the realm of having to admit the STATIC is not all that different from old time pseudoscience. The people at the SARATSO Committee are politically motivated and intellectually dishonest for selling the STATIC hoax.
Not Really
It turns out this can be very complicated and unsettled.
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/what-s-the-relationship-between-proposition-36-proposition-47.html
Robert Curtis
Lawyers won't win IF they would simple petition to have the whole 290 registry placed under probation and parole. Once done with probation and parole the requirement to register would also end. There is a thing called lifetime parole and we still have civil commitment laws. The registry as it is now is a form of informal probation/parole. This way only makes sense. No matter the form of the tiered registry it would be best applied if it was under probation and parole sentencing guidelines. This would also bring discretion back to our courts.
Not Really
As many of you probably know, it is now possible for some sentenced under the Three Strikes law to petition for resentencing under Proposition 36. That involves a hearing that the petition in the draft bill may be modeled on. We don't don't know the details of the burden of proof. Here are the basics worth talking about. This is from capcentral.org.
Case Name: People v. Garcia , District: 6 DCA , Case #: H040765
Opinion Date: 1/26/2016 , DAR #: 918
Case Holding:
The fact that qualified defendants who seek Proposition 36 resentencing are subjected to a risk assessment hearing, while defendants sentenced post-Proposition 36 are not, does not deny equal protection. In 2002, Garcia pled guilty to grand theft, and admitted prior strikes and prior prison terms, in exchange for dismissal of a robbery count and prior serious felony enhancements. He was given a life Three Strikes sentence. In 2013, he petitioned for Proposition 36 resentencing, supporting his request with expert testimony that he did not pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety if released. Based on the court's review of Garcia's criminal history, commitment offense, and poor conduct in prison, it found he remained a public safety risk and denied the petition. Garcia appealed. Held: Affirmed. Proposition 36 amended Penal Code sections 667 and 1170.12 to preclude the imposition of a life Three Strikes sentence unless the current crime is serious or violent, or the prosecution pleads and proves certain factors. It also created a mechanism whereby qualified defendants serving a Three Strikes term may seek resentencing (Pen. Code, § 1170.126). Garcia claimed that defendants sentenced prior to Proposition 36 are similarly situated to defendants sentenced after its passage, and it therefore violates equal protection to subject only the former group of defendants to a risk assessment hearing to qualify for resentencing. A statutory distinction between two groups regarding length of imprisonment is subject to a rational basis review test. With respect to Proposition 36, voters could have concluded that differences between the two groups of defendants warranted a distinction in punishment. There is no equal protection violation (agreeing with People v. Yearwood (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 161).
Section 1170.126 does not create a presumption that a qualified Three Strikes defendant will be resentenced, nor does the Sixth Amendment apply to Propostion 36 resentencing petitions. Garcia also argued that section 1170.126 creates a strong presumption that an eligible petitioner will be resentenced and that the trial court violated his Sixth Amendment rights by denying him a jury trial. The appellate court disagreed. In People v. Superior Court (Kaulick) (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1279, the Second District Court of Appeal concluded that section 1170.126 does not create a presumption in favor of resentencing. Instead, the "unreasonable risk of danger" determination is a hurtle a defendant must overcome to be eligible for sentence reduction. Thus, for defendants sentenced prior to Proposition 36, a Three Strikes life term remained the statutory maximum for Sixth Amendment purposes. The Court of Appeal here agreed with Kaulick. Penal Code section 1170.126's emphasis on the court's duty to evaluate whether resentencing would pose a danger to public safety reflects that a determination on that issue is a prerequisite to resentencing rather than an issue that may constitute a possible rebuttal of a presumption in favor of resentencing.
The trial court properly imposed the burden of proof on the prosecutor at the risk assessment hearing. Garcia focused on a statement made by the trial court to the effect that Garcia had not done anything to prove to the court that he was not a danger, claiming the court improperly saddled him with the burden of proving the absence of unreasonable risk of danger. However, the totality of the trial court's comments reflect it appropriately recognized that the prosecution had the burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence any type of contested issue of fact that might be relevant to the question of risk of unreasonable danger.
Timmr
The update above lists 288 (a) as "repeat felony child molestation". When did that happen? The code I have been reading is "lewd or lascivious acts on a child under 14."
Timmr
Thanks. You too.
Eric
I will fight for justice until I die. This is a civil rights issue.
The registry doesn't reduce crime. It does not make the community safer. It's a jobs program for police, attorneys, therapists, polygraph examiners. Those people know very well that the registry system is a sham but they have mortgages to pay.
MG
I'm for the tier registry. Its not perfect but it is a step in the right direction. As of right now we are stuck on the registry for life, at least with the tier registry there is hope for some to be able to get off. There are definite improvements that can be done, but it's better to have tier registry in place and afterwards fight for more improvements. The process to get yourself off the registry after 10 or 20 years should be a simple and quick process, like just submitting a form and sending it in, and any reason for rejection should have valid reason and just "this person might commit another crime". Tier 3 people should be able to move down tiers as well.
We just have to remember it takes time for change to happen.
I know a lot of you have been talking about CoR but how many people have really gotten a CoR?
Not Really
Tell us what "molested and annoyed a child" means in your mind.
Not Really
Agreed 100% but saying so is not going to convince anyone. The argument has to be something that will convince lawmakers and judges. That's how almost impossible it is, but the information is out there. Our interests would be better served giving all4conlaws all the ammo we can find.
Not that there is anything wrong with venting and in fact that is much healthier than a lot of other possibilities.
Hansen himself once called it art in one of his own Static-99 papers. I just skimmed the 2016 Static-99 handbook and it is so convoluted it could be arbitrary and capricious to use it.
Static-99R Coding Rules Revised, 2016
http://www.static99.org/pdfdocs/Coding_manual_2016_v2.pdf
My bet is that an Administrative Law Judge without all the baggage of bias would find it ridiculous art on its face.
Stanley K.
Too early to say, as this is only a draft, but I will preface this as a promising introduction for those who are lumped-in with people who are potentially very dangerous.
I do sympathize with the arguments surrounding the Static-99 component of the bill. As I never was assigned a score per se, this wouldn't affect me as maybe it will someone else. To be classified as dangerous, remain offensive-free for ten-plus years, and have the system lock you in based on that criteria alone is both damning and frustrating I can imagine.
However, I can't fathom why most individuals on this site expect a young man at 21-years-old, who had a sexual relationship with a 17-year-old, for whom was four months away from her 18th birthday must be classified with individuals who molested and annoyed a child. Doesn't make sense to me. All I can rectify is these individuals know damn well they have a tough road ahead of them, and I offer my full blessings to you all. If you're doing what needs to be done to make yourselves better people, great! If you're one of the ones who are crying and generally being social cancers, good luck to you all, as the registry isn't going away no matter how much you pout and get angry.
I didn't make the laws that put me on the registry but I did break one. I take responsibility for what I've done and continue to do so. If the laws are changing to where I may get some level of relief, fantastic! I'm not running a crusade to abolish the registry; it's not happening, and I fully understand as there are some bad apples out there. I know I'm gonna get some hate back on this one but I've read enough of the divisive comments on this site to finally speak up.
Barring the elimination of the Certificate of Rehabilitation component, I support this legislation. I have no other responsibility to anyone else other than myself and my family. To think I need to keep myself up at night worrying about the guy down the street who violated a child is none of my concern. If this upsets anyone, I get it, as I would probably hate too.
mike r
I myself will continue with my motion no matter what if only to pass it on to someone willing to use it...it appears I'll be a level two so this isn't going to effect how I proceed in court it simply means I'll have to modify my arguments slightly..I'm not even doing it for myself mostly since the registry hasn't had extensive repercussions like it has on others.. I really want to help others who are really suffering....when I win it will open the door for thousands of others....
Harry
No, I will have more freedom to be bold. In my 28 years of registering, I am among those whom had the lease hassles. I have read the horror of many that are or have been going through and especially among the later RCs, thing are really bad. I will be here untilthe day when the registry is abolished.
pgm111
I have a question that pertains to those of us convicted in Federal court. How does the proposed Tier system work for us?
For example, I was convicted in Federal court of Possession of Material Involving The Sexual Exploitation Of Minors, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2252(a)(4)(B).
I remain on Supervised Release and my SARATSO risk level is LOW.
Given the above information on my personal circumstance, does the proposed legislation put me in Tier 1 or Tier 2?
Another question to the many intelligent people on this forum: Given my personal circumstances, where should I move within the United States to minimize the effect of registration?
mike r
happy turkey day people...
pgm111
I will not betray the cause. I will support RC and reformation of the laws until I die.
pgm111
I am beginning to agree with you.
Timmr
Thank you for bringing the Static 99 flaws to our attention. I am grateful. Again, I am not for slogans. I really want sound laws that are fair.
Just..me
I've been on this crazy roller coaster for close to 25 years. I will more than likely fall into a tier 1. Indeed Rodger, if I am removed miraculousy by petitioning I will most certainly support and give as I have been to the cause., "soldiers never leave men behind" thank you Janice and to all those for your delegence.
Roger
I have a hard question for you level 1 and 2 RCs:
If you were to get off the registry, would you leave us level 3 RCs to fight for rights by ourselves? Or would you still be a part of the fight until the registry is someday abolished?
To be honest, I'm afraid to hear your answers, but I am hoping for the best.
Tobin's Tools 2.0
I think calling it even "art" would be giving the Static way too much credit. The Static-99R is neither art or science. It is a scam. A scam I tell you!!
Tobin's Tools 2.0
Apparently the policy researchers in Virginia are a lot more diligent than the CASOMB of California. Having the Static in this bill is one of its most major weaknesses.
Tobin's Tools 2.0
The papers are all within the links that I provide (in .pdf form).
abolishtheregistry.com
Are you having a few wild turkey shots for thanksgiving? You remind me of "Doc" the way you're all over the place. You're inferring things I didn't say, ignoring context like you have comprehension problems so are you posting drunk?
Speaking about my site: I posted a quick pita pizza recipe if you're interested. I have a place for blogs now too so people can talk about their everyday lives. So come over, start a blog, get Turkey day plastered and bitch till you pass out!
abolishtheregistry.com
I knew what he meant.
It's doing exactly what I expected a new site to do.
As for the rest, I made it clear that'd I'd post on both. You made an account didn't you Joe/Jo? Why not pop in and take a look.
As for the lines of "us" bit.. There are only a few here that are a mild annoyance but I don't hold it against them no more than I would an autistic kid that broke one of my drinking glasses.
mjk
288a and 288(a) are apples and oranges. Aside from that, 288a changes a lot depending upon the letter and number in parentheses aftweward. For instance, 288a(b)(2) is oral copulation with a child under 16 years old. 288(a) is lewd acts with a child 14 or younger. The additional information added to this article does not address 288a in its tier assessment, but only addresses 288a in regards to forceable and a victim 14 or under in the footnotes. Reading the bill carefully and paying attention to the age of the victim (14 and under) and/or if violence was deemed to have been used are paramount. You must pay attention to punctuation (commas) and crossreference 187, 667.5 and 1192.7. Decoding the draft revised bill of PC 290 is more like a process of elimination.
Once again, 288a and 288(a) are NOT the same charge. 288a has NOT been changed to 288(a).
288a is a PC all of its own with its own set of subsections in parenthesis.
288(a) is subsection (a) of PC 288, and 288(b) is subsection (b) of 288, etc.
Know the difference. The parenthesis make a big difference in legalese. And, as always, so do the letters that follow.
Not Really
288a and 288(a) are different offenses. 288a is hardly mentioned in the draft bill except in conjunction with other violent crime as listed in Tier 3, like murder (187) in conjunction with oral copulation (288a).
anon
Friends, I wouldn't get too worked up about any of this. We are not going to decide this issue. And Janice isn't going to decide it either. The legislature is. And they really don't want to hear from us. According to the civics books, everyone's voice will be heard in the legislature before a bill is passed. I don't think that applies to us. They are either going to pass it or not and what is good for public safety has almost nothing to do with it. Whether or not it is good for us has absolutely nothing to do with it. What matters is the politics of it. If conservatives get worked up, they will kill it. I'm not very optimistic, but I suppose I will start to get hopeful once we have an author and it has passed out of a committee. Until then, situation normal.
Not Really
Talking to myself. Here is an official rejection of the Static-99:
http://leg2.state.va.us/dls/h&sdocs.nsf/fc86c2b17a1cf388852570f9006f1299/20d0de7a436ff22c85257863004afe71/$FILE/HD5.pdf
Virginia’s Actuarial Risk Assessment Approach Is Flawed 29
Virginia Uses the STATIC-99 to Determine Whether to Proceed in the Risk Assessment Process 30
Actuarial Risk Assessment Instruments Have Some Predictive Value, But Cannot Precisely Predict an Offender’s Actual Risk of Future ReOffense 32
Specifying Actuarial Instrument and Score in Statute Has Contributed to Release of Dangerous Offenders and the Assessment and Commitment of Potentially Lower Risk Offenders 34
Virginia Should Remove the Designation of a Specific Instrument and Threshold Score From the Code of Virginia 39
Timmr
Oooo, wow, is it getting steamy in here?
Bill Arthur
I live in another state, but I believe I would qualify for Tier 1 and I have been registered in my state for more than 10 years after completing probation. Could I move to CA, register in CA, and then effectively be off the registry?
The two prevailing laws seem to be:
From the new draft bill:
(4)(a) Persons required to register pursuant to Section 290.005 shall be placed in the appropriate tier if the offense is assessed as equivalent to a California registrable offense describer in subdivision (c).
And from the referenced current law Section 290.005:
Except as provided in subdivision (c) or (d), any person who, since July 1, 1944, has been, or is hereafter convicted in any other court, including any state, federal, or military court, of any offense that, if committed or attempted in this state, based on the elements of the convicted offense or facts admitted by the person or found true by the trier of fact or stipulated facts in the record of military proceedings, would have been punishable as one or more of the offenses described in subdivision (c) of Section 290, including offenses in which the person was a principal, as defined in Section 31.
The draft bill says Tier 1 must register for 10 years. The question is will my registration in my home state count toward the 10 years? I can't find anything in the law specifying this. It would seem contrary to the logic of the new bill to require me to start a new 10 year registration period.
I certainly don’t want to call anyone’s attention to this apparent oversight in the new draft bill, because the legislature might do what Oregon has done, which is to exclude anyone moving to Oregon from the benefits of Oregon’s lenient law — with the stated purpose of discouraging sex offenders from moving to Oregon.
Timmr
I don't know why ASCOL didn't list it. In the draft bill it is under the 667.5 (c) violent felonies which are in tier II, unless you have a "high" (whatever that means, the norms for the Static 99 keep changing] recidivism prediction under Static 99.
That is another objection to this bill, it doesn't say what is to be done with those who don't have a Static 99 score. Are they going to score us, too?
Joe
“How about the others that are also in California who are off in short times that oppose this bill?”
Huh??? Who – on God’s green earth, or in the Golden State, are you talking about? Who gets off in California? In a short time? In a long time? Ever? Mysteriously or in reality?
Surely a person with your vast knowledge about the subject is aware that everyone in California is a lifer. That goes for the guy who made a rude comment to a teenager riding the bus, as well as for John Albert Gardner. Life, as in life, until your very last breath.
It is over 100,000 individuals who you propose should stay on this list for the rest of their lives, while you presumably will enjoy your new-found freedom next year. That is weird to bring up? I trust you will not turn down de-registration out of principle and solidarity. Tell me you will, and tell me you did, and prepare for a big fat apology from me.
It is over 100,000 individuals who you propose should stay on this list for life while you “propose the entire registry should be abolished”. Where is that “proposal”? Pontificating on this web site without pertinent knowledge in a condescending tone? Buying a domain name, abolishtheregistry.com at godaddy for $10 / year and one-click installing some software that my 12 year old nephew could do in his sleep?
Neither of these are proposals, nor actions, and certainly not achievements. That is weird to bring up?
Am I in the wrong movie???
Joe
He is probably talking about your clever user name.
BTW - how is that web site going? I see you are still hanging around here. By now you should be too busy for the likes of us. No?
Timmr
I beg to differ. America was not built by those who were realistic, but by those who could realize what looks impossible.
Not Really
Well said.
I would only add that the Static-99 in any form is likely to fall before long. There is too much art in it and not enough science.
Timmr
Thank you. I agree with your analysis.
abolishtheregistry.com
You guys are absolutely right. What the hell was I thinking! I'll change my site name to aolishtgeregistryfor100,000.com immediately. Sheesh...
James
I would like to note that this is maybe the first time anyone has asked any of us...what we might think.
This being the case, reactions are strong, years of built up venting is occurring, as might be expected...but Ms. Bulicci must do what she and the board things is best overall. I trust them to think this through, I trust Ms. Bellucci to do what is best.
Further, I sense that we will soon be entering a period of more Law and Order kind of politics....so, I'd like to get something in place before this kind of bad wave crests against us.
Yes, it seems imperative that even Tier III be given a hearing to get off the Registry...but you can't kill the baby because it isn't pretty enough.
Lastly, all I've ever wanted is for an honest chance to petition on my facts, (which certainly were bad enough...though I may still not see them as either unnatural or terrible...a crime to be sure, but not the end of the world either), and if there is an independent review...even by a DA and Judge....at least I get someone to look at it.
We have never had this opportunity!
I thank Janice for at least a partially open window to maybe change my life, and the lives of many others.
Good luck to all.
Best Wishes, James
PS. Do try to get some relief for Tier III individuals, or, suggest a Tier IV...truly SVP's...that is maybe the correct answer.
abolishtheregistry.com
You seem to mysteriously skip over the registry changing my registry times. How about the others that are also in California who are off in short times that oppose this bill? Also it's kind of weird for you to bring up 100,000 I'm supposedly stopping from being released when I'm proposing that the entire registry be abolished. Not very logical of you. "You can't make this stuff up..." That doesn't keep people like you from trying.
Manny
Yes, no kidding... it is called 'taking one for the team'. Except in this case it is tens of thousands taking one for 'Team abolishtheristry.com'.
Har har.
Gerald Cervente
Nicholas Maietta I believe a member here stated they changed the classification of 288a to 288(a)
a violent act.What a bunch of lying pieces of shit,I don't see you in tier 2 but tier 3
with the violent sex offenders,that means you register every 90 days.As another member here said
and I believe hes correct,they will make laws that will effect tier 3 offenders,real bad ones.
I don't know how many people will move into the tier 3,if its say 30,000, it will get the attention of the dirty politicians,your life will hell,those that have families, it most likely will destroy them.
Some people will leave the state,some can't it will be a recipe for heavy violence.
My self I only had one count of 288a in 1982,got 10 months jail time county,5 years probation,in theory if this bill became law,I would get kicked off,I may be wrong as the 288a charge may prevent me from getting kicked off,I may go into the 3 tier along with you.The bill needs to be clear its
intent,I find it totally written in lawyer bullshit.I don't support this bill until all its bad effects are clarified and what category those that have a single charge of 288a go in.
Joe
That is what I thought...
So let me get this straight.... you will get to stop registering after 20 years or less dealing with this. Good for you. Congratulations.
But you want over 100,000 individuals (one hundred thousand - with convictions dating back to the Eisenhower era) to NOT be afforded this very same second chance out of principle (I guess you will gladly sign "off" the registry when your time comes) and, more importantly, so you cannot, at some point in the future, be again required to register.
You really think they should live and die with this burden so you can make a point and be protected in the future. And pontificate here about principles and such.
You cannot make this stuff up...
Nicholas Maietta
Two counts 288(a) from same situation.. I don't see that listed here. Definitely non-violent classification.
Now I am thoroughly confused. Mine doesn't seem to fit into Lifetime, but it's also not listed in 20 year status. If by any luck i'm in 20 year status, then it means I would be off registry in just 3 more years.
mike r
Janice what's your opinion on the issues being discussed here? we've heard very little from your organization about our responses and concerns....please respond to our concerns and really take the time to explain exactly what you and your team really want to happen with the registry and why hasn't anyone challenged the government justification for these laws that were only able to pass their original scrutiny because of misrepresentations of facts...you could actually help us know if we agree or disagree with your policies...these are big questions for me and a lot of others on this site..
HopingforHope
Based on the nearly 300 comments so far, it appears that a majority of respondents are against this draft in its present form. If the Board decided to go ahead and support this and it became law, it is probably safe to assume that among those whose lives would be negatively impacted, many would feel that ACSOL sold them out and they would have a difficult time justifying further contributions to ACSOL. I'm not sure to what extent ACSOL depends on contributions to operate and fund their legal challenges, but I'm assuming it is probably significant. Supporting this draft could become a "cutting the nose to spite the face" kind of situation for the Board, which would not bode well for the future of the organization if it wants to continue fighting the fight. ACSOL is an organization we simply CANNOT afford to lose.
abolishtheregistry.com
Did you miss the part where I was 10 years, bumped to 20 and then moved to get the 15, I'm at now. There's no guarantee that once I'm off that I won't be put back on with the stroke of a legislative pen. That's what not fighting for eradication offers you. Your future, all of our futures are in danger.
As for this bill, it stands as a horrible idea on its own. One seeming step forward and numerous steps back.
Anon
Sorry, I may have it wrong, not sure.
DPH
Would like to review the.."BILL" in detail to see how they come to their conclusions and hope Janice and team will get to revisit the DOCS before it goes into SAC's Senate/House/Gov. Before drafting completes. GOOD LUCK TEAM. Not all clear. Most comments in over some time here.
mike r
Harry you're exactly right..ill repeat what I've said before I'm dumbfounded and it's beyond comprehension that no one has or will challenge the Courts and the government on the exact issue you stated..they conceded defeat without even putting up a real fight...and yes Chris I myself am extreemly worried that when this bill passed,and I say when because it's going to in some form, it's going to open the door and bring a flood of old and new legislation im afraid is going to be aimed at tier two and three offenders and that that legislation will blow thru the process without any chance of being stopped outside of the courts...it will also make it that much harder to prevail in court also because like I've said the government will say it's narrowly tailored only to those still on the registry who by their junk science and false or misrepresented data must pose a significant threat to the public or they wouldn't be on the registry . we will once again become targets for legislators to pass laws with impunity...hate to be pessimistic and cynical but that's reality....
jd
I second M.'s well-articulated, sound argument.
jo
Slow your roll home-skillet. No need to tell me what I do or don't accept mentally or whatever. I am merely stating my opinion. The registry is a mild annoyance to me. Unlike some, I do not allow it to dictate my freedom or happiness. I am resigned to expect it to not go away, would be thrilled if it did but not expecting it to happen. Regardless, I am hopeful it does someday and will always contribute to it's demise with my resources.
I get what I expect because I set my goals and they have nothing to do with the registry. My comment was my opinion and my hope is that other's don't get so focused on it to the point they are cowering in a corner. So what if people know you committed a sex crime? You screwed up. Don't do it again. Move on. You are NOT a sex offender, you committed a sex offense. I stole a candy bar when I was in the 8th grade, doesn't make me a Candy Stealer for life. If people are going to judge you, screw them and find people who won't. Can't find a place to live, find another place. Another job. Move forward as best as you can. That's all.
NPS
Of course it's expensive. That's why we donate to the organization.
The problem with MikeR is that he's pissing on the very organization that has made his life a little bit easier. Without Janice and Co., there would still be residency restrictions, there'd still be presence restrictions, there'd still be the requirement to post signs on Halloween.
Hey, if he thinks he can do much better, then he needs to either put up the funds for his own organization or shut up. Frankly, I'd rather him do the latter. He is far too divisive and too overly critical of those making the effort to combat the registry.
Joe
Considering the strong disapproval of and the condescending tone towards those in favor of a tiered registry... I just noticed this statement by you:
"...I plan on changing my name when this ness is over. Another year! ..."
http://all4consolaws.org/2016/11/oh-proposed-sex-offender-registry-changes-would-be-based-on-risk/#comment-163880
What does that mean? Is this (m)ess over and the registry going to be completely abolished in another year? Are you in a state with a tiered registry that lets you off in another year and you are looking forward to that?
Call me curious Joe...
Davidh
E:
You're right about the federal level the federal government required that all States have a registry and there's where the victory must be won I believe.
Davidh
Tim:
good observation. in addition to that I think it would be wise for ASCOL to send a notice as to why it's specially against it-citing each issue and why. Static 99 is a good example. There is plenty of evidence to prove it's a terrible way to measure and to place RC's in the registry. If people felt like there was a hope one day to be relieved of this process then they may even win the registrant's approval. There are people who need to be followed and we are a rationale group of people with sons, daughter and wives ourselves and capable of selfless opinion.
Chris F
Isn't anyone concerned that these tiers will start a new wave of anti-sex offender legislation aimed mostly at Tier 3?
They will then have the advantage of calling the laws "narrowly tailored" and even Janice won't be able to stop them, and may not even commit the resources to do so.
Yep...the DA knows what he is doing.
He knows that statistically from Texas numbers that judges will only approve of 1/3 of the requests to be removed from the registry (no matter how much any deserve to get off) and that by splitting everyone up into tiers you've divided up the offenders into smaller groups that won't help each other.
Doesn't sound like moving forward, but may get a select few out of their nightmare until they change the rules again.
Harry
There something I do not understand. Why is anyone suing the governances for perpetrations of lies? We have supported facts that RC are far less dangerous than the government is claiming. This tiered registry bill, IML, AWA and just about all RC laws are based on lies. All governing bodies NEED to be HELD ACCOUNTABLE and cut the tree down and dig out roots and stop, just trimming the limbs.
abolishtheregistry.com
So many people don't understand the basis for the registry itself is flawed. In order to pass it, they HAVE to justify the "need" to violate someone's rights. They did so based on public safety by way of high recidivism rates. That was the only way they could get it allowed.
We know that wasn't true. I call it a lie but call it what you like..it's surely continued on a lie.
I WILL challenge that lie...
So we can accept better (this bill isn't that) or focus all of our attention on best.
abolishtheregistry.com
I think your assestnent is unrealistic. Michigan has already shown you that public sentiment matters not to those still worried about constitutional law.
You, however, will get exactly what you expect because you'll accept less... You already have mentally.
mike r
I dont mean to demean or insult anyone but damn I'm frustrated as hellllll with all the bs like go get your lawyers do it yourself and be realistic we don't have a leg to stand on or a chance in helll of winning a real victory for a complete overhaul of the registry simply because it's too big to much money and to many entities suckling off the teet of the scheme...just think about what your saying...if everyone in our countries history conceded defeat with or without ever fighting sometimes to the death for causes others believed would never prevail where do you think our country would be as far as rights are concerned..we would still have slavery,interment camps,segregation of all the races,no womens rights, still under kings rule, etc etc....think hard about what I said...we are Americans just like our predecessors at least I am and I will fight tooth and nail to the death for my god giving rights and it bothers the hellllll out of me hearing all you people including these organizations conceding defeat and refusing to fight for us....their the civil rights leaders,their the ones with the organizations who are supposed to be representing us....screw it I'm done pissing in the wind on here,at least for awhile... I cant stand to read some of these post...some of you people are so pessimistic and so defeated willing to throw in the towel before even putting up a real fight on the real issues... its depressing...go do it yourself then, build your own site then, blah blah blah...pethetic....
Tobin's Tools 2.0
Joe,
Actually, your current age is not even considered in the Static-99R score. Only your "age of release" is factored into scoring. So the Static-99R does NOT at all take into account offense-free years in the community. It assumes that you are the same "risk" as when a person is released from jail or prison. Quite stupid in my opinion.
Which makes the Static-99R even more troubling.
New Person
It would be nice if CASOMB actually utilized contemporary researched facts, but it does not.
When 99% registrants do not re-offend, then what exactly is the point of the LIFETIME registration? When Janice sends a statement that there is clear evidence that 17 years is the max needed for determining recidivism, then why does LIFETIME registration continue to exist in a tiered system that is brought up today, not back in the 2003?
This tiered proposition actually makes things worse for other registrants. The Michigan courts have deemed that enhancement "Ex Post Facto". If ACSOL does support this tiered system, then it is sending a signal that these enhancements are not "Ex Post Facto". All those who propose this bill will abuse the knowledge that ACSOL was in support of this bill, whose head lawyer is also able to speak at the Supreme Court Level. So if Janice is okay with the tiered system and added enhancements, then there is no "there, there" in regards to being unconstitutional.
As of right now, ACSOL has not handprints on this tiered proposal. The creators of this proposal also noted it is set in stone. Should this tiering come to fruition, then ACSOL can use the Michigan defense to reveal enhanced punishment as well as unequal protections - why do some registrants just fall off the registry while others have to petition in court, which is added monetary cost to other registrants.
Again, lost in all this is the fact that there is a 10 year wait for a petition to get off the registry... it's called the Certificate of Rehabilitation, CoR. The problem is the judges and DA are involved in that petition process. We already know there are about 10,000 registrants who will be absolved if their conviction occurred before a specific time, 1987, iirc, which is 30 years in 2017. Ask yourself this question... why are 10,000 registrants who have been clean for over 29 years not awarded the CoR? Yet, under this new system, they are. Although, everyone after them still needs to petition... the exact same way as a CoR?
No. There is something fundamentally mischievous and sinister about this tiered proposal. A 10 year wait is still the standard. The CoR was taken away (which makes no sense b/c that should always be available). Certain registrants will now pop up on Megan's List. Others will be upgraded into tier 3 with no way of relief from the registry.
It is the latter that should mean the most for ACSOL - Alliance for Constitutional SO Laws. Registration is not constitutional. Supporting this tier says, "well... tier 3, we have no alliance for you."
10,000 can be absolved via CoR, but they haven't. Why? That is what everyone should be up in arms about. Also, no petition for them. Under what metric allows the state to do this? Is is an archaic metric? What about contemporary metric used by CASOMB about less than 1% re-offense rates for two consecutive years?
Their censorship without transparency of logic and thought is scary, considering they're dictating to all that this is set in stone.
Tobin's Tools 2.0
Timmr,
You bring up a good analysis that highlights just some of the many flaws to the Static-99R. Here is an actual pdf:
http://jaapl.org/content/jaapl/38/3/400.full.pdf
That analysis, published in a top-tier medical journal, is written by very respected MD and PhDs from respected schools (Duke University School of Medicine, USC Keck School of Medicine, University of Washington). The authors do a good job at mentioning just some of the many flaws to the Static. They call the Static 99 and 99R "dubious" [Apart from the dizzying number of risk scores and qualifications, the validity of the risk scores themselves is dubious, given different definitions of recidivism in the norming samples, lack of clarity in statistical methods, and an overreliance on unpublished manuscripts and presentations to document methods."].
The professors also emphasize that the Static-99R relies on "unpublished" papers. It's cited in the following:
"Of note, both the Static-99 and the Static-99R normative data are based overwhelmingly on unpublished findings. Many are doctoral or master’s theses, with limited details as to who comprised the study sample." At 402.
What's interesting is that the theses papers cited are from L. Maaike Helmus. Leslie Helmus is now one of the "developers" to the Static scam:
http://www.static99.org/board_bios.html#thornton
I think the last sentence of the paper you cite says it best in the very last sentence: "They should reflect reasoned judgments based on an understanding of all elements of a case, not just a small number of risk factors."
Indeed 10 questionable "risk factors" -- risk factors that only take into account your age at release from incarceration (not current age) -- is wholly inadequate. And it should be troubling that the Static-99R, as applied in this bill, may be the sole determinant in classifying people as Tier 3.
This is definitely something that the Static-99R scam was never intended to do!
abolishtheregistry.com
Actually the states can do much. Michigan should be a sign to that. It just takes a lawyer or advocacy group willing to file the suit and do the work.
jo
There is WAAAAAY too much money and way too much public sentiment to ever overthrow the registry. Look I am right there with you on all this, but you have to be realistic.
Timmr
Their goal may be to eventually go to the Supreme Court and challege Smith vs. Doe, but that wouldn't necessarily abolish the registry itself. If won, it would mean the ex post facto laws that came after an individual's sentencing would be invalid. Registration would then become a part of sentencing, not regulation.
In my opinion, if ASCOL supports this bill, they would have a hard time later convincing anyone they were against ex post punishment, unless their support is worded so it is conditional that no new restrictions are placed on any registrant because of this bill.
mikey
ok my offense was in 1989 and took a plea under pc 288a and 288c so im curious because i dont understand all this lingo where would that put me under the tiered registry
ReadyToFight
Good question "E"
Timmr
I haven't seen in their mission statement or in any declarations from the board that ASCOL has the goal of abolishing the registry.
E
Wouldn't the abolishment of the registry happen on a federal level? I still don't understand how this bill affects the goal of abolishing the registry. I was under the impression that at some point the constitutionality of the registry will be fought at the Supreme Court where all the new evidence and restrictions that didn't exist 13 years ago wil be presented. Won't this happen with or without a tiered registry in CA?
Eric
The proposed bill is unjust in a number of ways. Why treat attempts just as harshly as completed crimes? Why is tier 3 for life? Why isn't data the basis of the policy?
But if we object, what options do we have?
Do we have a seat at the table?
I doubt it.
What leverage would we have over the drafters or those voting on the bill?
I think we have to start asking ourselves, What would Karl Rove do if he were in tier 3? What would Saul Alinsky do? There are many ways to influence policymakers.
lad
U say it has "potential" for "relief." But this bill has the potential to open a can of worms as well. This bill is pretty much a double edged sword!! For one, the high static for tier III gives the gov't permission/power in using a really dumb tool to "assess" us and put us in tiers. Giving the static any power like that will create scary precedence. It's like we r asking 4 more problems.
Timmr
Yes, I found the papers critical of the static 99 to be few and far between. But when you made your arguments, you didn't reference where you get your information, so we all can check it out, and see you know what you are talking about.
lad
Sounds expensive NPS but mike does gave a point. Cause if we r donating 2 this organization anyway, why not some one start another that will not just throw the tier II & III under the bus. But then again lets see what happens. To me this bill would be OK if they took the stupid static off tier III. Or maybe at least keep the static only for tier III for people w/ 2 or more separate conviction dates. 1st time offenders who score high on static doesn't deserve tier III if they r non contact. peace!
abolishtheregistry.com
I think the person was referring to the unconstitutionality of the registry itself, which is a sex offender law. So by extension, so would be any bill pertaining to the registry.
Timmr
It's because they have to compare your score to a sample group of offenders to get your percentage of risk. They keep changing that sample group.
http://jaapl.org/content/38/3/400
"Alice In Actuarial-Land: Through the Looking Glass of Changing Static-99 Norms"
lad
HOOKSCAR, I don't blame u for feeling like u do and u have every right 2 feel that way. As a matter of fact I feel the same. I (and sum other people here) am gonna get put in tier III cause of being 1 point too high on the static for 1st time offense. Otherwise looks like we'd be put in tier I for 290.006. Like I said I work, 13 bucks an hr, go to the acsol meetings every 4 months & also donate at least 80 bucks a meeting. So 4 me, it is pretty much a day's hard work after taxes. Do I feel about this bill? yes. Angry? yes. I HOPE there will be CHANGE to this bill. But I don't want to have 2 much expectation like I did in obama. as of now i am not put on megan's website. but should this bill pass the static will be the only reason i am put on the website. I'm gonna brace myself and prepare 4 the worst cause this thing is gonna pass.
David Kennerly
Agreed. Janice solicited us, in entirely good faith, for our ideas and opinions in response to this proposal which was not authored either by her or ACSOL.
We should be reassured if anything, that our views count and that we are participating fully in shaping the direction of this movement.
To distort this into a sign that we are excluded from this process is quite unfair and corrosive to that very spirit of engagement.
This is precisely the sort of thing we should be doing; considering future legislation with a view to how it will affect us individually and as a group. No one else is asking us to do this nor have they ever. Previously, laws were simply imposed upon us without any consideration for how it would impinge upon our lives or serve the interest of justice. That may still happen here but it will not be because of what Janice or ACSOL are doing or failing to do.
Let's try to hold it together, shall we?
lad
From what I've read the static 99 doesn't measure "dangerousness" per se. Not at all in fact. The static is an alleged prediction of RECIDIVISM. This is the problem!! Cause exhibitionism, voyeurism, having underage pictures, burglary fetishes and other no contacts are not the same as violent rapes, child molesting, etc. But the static treats all these crimes equal & lumps them into a dumb number score. Recidivism of someone exposing their ding dong or taking panties from a laundrymat is not the same as recidivism for someone sticking their wang into another person without their adult consent w/ force. Obviously the latter is a lot worse. Which is not all that different than the system we have now because it still lumps all crimes together. Except with the static the guy who exposed his ding dong gets the extra 1 point penalty cause it is no contact. Even if it was a 1st time offense. So all else equal u will have a bunch of non contact offenders w/ higher scores than the violent offenders.
NPS
Based on the criteria in this draft bill...Tier I.
NPS
Re: 290.006
Only if it's considered a "violent offense" as described in 667.5
jo
Janice et al didn't write the legislation, some of the comments here make it sound like she can add and subtract certain provisions. I think you guys should support it. Is it perfect? No. Is the registry constitutional? Debatable. But it is not going away any time soon, and like you said before, baby steps, little victories. Once the law is in place, it will be easier to amend and change, but to get this even to be voted on is a milestone. More attention to our situation. Personally, I love the idea of being able to petition to get off in 2 years time, and that is a heck of a lot better than the prospect of never getting off. So, do we LOVE the bill? No. Is it livable? People, we have not a leg to stand on, so any relief or potential for relief has to be seen as a godsend.
NPS
When ACSOL mentions "Constitutional", it talks about having sex offense laws that are constitutional. I don't think anyone is nor should be arguing that we shouldn't have sex offense laws. If a crime of a sexual nature has been committed, then there should be a punishment that is appropriate and not in violation of the Constitution. That is what this organization is fighting for.
As per this draft bill, and this is a DRAFT, no one from the organization has had any input in this bill. Janice isn't writing it. If this organization decides that they are not going to endorse, it may or may not have an effect on what the legislature will do. They could still pass the tiered registry regardless of ACSOL's dissent, but why place the blame on Janice and Company by withholding donations? Do you actually believe that this organization will cease to exist once the tiered registry is enacted? Don't be so naive.
NPS
Then get your lawyers together and start your own organization.
Katharine
It would probably come down way less that they value ASCOL support and way more that they fear ASCOL lawsuits. While this draft bill has the potential to improve the lives of a few, it also has the potential to worsen the lives of many more. And anyone whose life is made worse may very well have an ex post facto case. Having to report more times a year and/or report more information. Information listed on the internet when none was before. Revocation of possible Certificates of Rehabilitation after 10 years. It all adds up. And with courts beginning to recognize that this is ex post facto punishment, ASCOL could have plenty to work with.
hh
What happens if you are a level 2 or 3 and have already been granted a certificate of rehabilitation ? Do you get off or does the cor mean nothing ?
PIA
Thats a FLAW, WHY should WE pay for #1 a FLAWED test and #2 why should WE PAY at all ?
And even if given for FREE then we are IMPRISONED AGAIN to go do STATE CRAP on our own time (imprisoned again)..
That is what this govt is all about providing FALSE information and this just FEEDS IT more.
A static 99r from 10-20-30 yrs ago is useless bs.
So they are going to RATE someone for level 1-2-3 on a crime that is 10-20+ yrs old ?
yes it would be nice to become a L1 and get off PUBLIC SHAME LIST after 10 yrs or L2 and 20 yrs.
The public thinks like (if your level headed) like a credit report if the debt is OVER XXXX yrs old they dont count it against you much anymore. And the SOL (Stat of Lim) says the NEGATIVE is gone after 7 yrs (and BK after 10)...
Unforgiven citizen
miker, thanks for your insite and sharing clarity to this bill. But did you have to insult people doing there best to help. We all know legislation is written by lawyers for lawerys so its not always easy for the everyday Joe to understand the language as written.
We all feel frustrated from time to time as its difficult to deal with the consquinces of our actions and the pain we caused others because of them. Unfortunately society looks at us with destrust because they belive we have no control of our actions, and to be honest there is a small percent that trully are a danger to society and should be locked up for life. We all know this to be fact. Unforgently we all pay for this irrational fear of soicity’s bogeyman (RSO).
As its said many times here, we need to educate people too the fact we’re not all the same and the odds of the bogeyman taking our children is one in ten million, and registration does not keep them safe.
A tier registration is a start in that direction in my humble openion.
Keep up the hard work, I do look forward to your input and view on the fight to protect the constitutional rights of all RSO and continue to educate people on actual facts about sexual offence crimes and the likelihood to reoffend.
Not Really
Janice,
A high static score assumes a more dangerous person. To balance that, we should have access to any CODIS results. If there are no CODIS hits from outstanding/unsolved crimes, then that could weigh more heavily than a made-up static test. The use of violent/serious crimes in 290 opens the door to this and it should be included in publications.
Static-99 = 6
CODIS hits = 0
Please try to add to the bill the ability to access our CODIS or state database run information so we can include that evidence in petition hearings. How else can we argue we aren't serial killers?
mike r
a tiered registry is still a unconstitutional registry..a ducks a duck no matter what color or species of duck it is it's still a duck...this and Mos organizations have already conceded defeat....they are either to incompetent or are simply unwilling to attempt a real strike against the government...bottom line...
American Detained in America
I'm not sure how many are actually harmed by this when we are already treated as Tier 3 to begin with. There is no such thing as anyone being moved from Tier 1 to Tier 2 currently as there are no tiers as it currently stands, and the only way to move up as I've read it is to commit a new crime.
PK
Well you're the Psychologist Joe why don't you call them to argue your points?
"The STATIC-99R is the standard assessment of historical (static) risk factors for sexual recidivism. However, the manual indicates that, "The STATIC-99 is not applicable to offenders who have had more than 10 years at liberty in the community without a sexual offence..." (Harris et al., page 7). Because Mr. X committed his only sexual offense roughly 16 years ago, I will organize my risk assessment around the 20 criteria of the Sexual Violence Rick-20 (SVR-2), which is a structured professional judgement approach."
lad
Thanks for the good points Joe. For me, the thing that would be my demise is also the static 99. CDCR also gave me a 6 for a .006 offense. Ironically also 1st time non violent. So from tier I to III because of 1 point? I got off parole no violations. Not in trouble since the arrest. Been working for a temp agency, saving, staying outta trouble for 4 yrs after spending a yr in prison. 290.006 has always been the (excuse my language) bastard step child of 290. It was added in 2007. If the politicians wanted to add a 290 offense, they should have added it SPECIFICALLY to 290. Instead 290.006 leaves a standard that relies on either a feeling or thought. But any way sorry for the rant. A lot of us it seems are gonna get screwed by scam/static 99. Risk is not all that better than offense registration. In theory it sounds great. But the reality is risk is gonna go into crime fortune telling and in this case using a really flawed tool, the static. At least offense based is based on something that actually happened.
Davidh
Tobin Tools
that sounds like a good letter to write
to: casomb
from: ASCOL
After review of your proposed legislation, we cant support it in it's current form. It has the same serious flaws that brought us the destructive registries to begin with. Most notable is the use of the static 99 form for the purpose of Assessing one's risk at end of tier-term limits and placement about within the registry: per the included research by our organization, which is a compendium of primary research in the field of associated study the Static 99 fails at minimum to measure risk beyond a 5 year window... etc, etc. Before getting behind this, We would propose a "common sense" approach by those who are stake holders within the process to assess risk based upon the totality of one's life, including to the present time period. etc., etc.,
Davidh
Janice:
Why would someone get a new anything when the anything has expired in its usefulness as some see it to be?? If the static 99 is a 5 year tool max and I'm a 15 year registrant why would I want a new static 99 especially when I've never had one. Per all school of thought, it's a test, in my case anyway, that is invalid!
Joe
With all due respect... that makes no sense. As the name implies, the Static-99 is static. 2 years, 10 years, 20 years, 80 years later most of it is not going to change.
Age at release, priors and victim info (1,4,5,6,8,9,10) are set in concrete, forever and ever. That is 7 out of 10. The biggest swing being age (current).
Regarding the remaining items... as much discussed here, #7 gives a worse score to non-contact offenses than contact offenses. Having a photo of a topless 16 year old she sent herself is a greater risk level than anally raping a toddler? Makes no sense. Is it possible they are talking about these offenses in addition to the instant offense?
Also, #8 gives a worse score for unrelated than related. It makes no sense that someone is considered a greater threat for having a relationship with a willing 16/17 year old unrelated person (with a fake ID, met in a bar, sexually aggressive) or a drunken encounter with another adult in a he said / she said situation, than raping a 5 year old niece / daughter.
I suppose they have the recidivism data to back up their claims? If so, then only for a limited time period. That must not get lost in the shuffle.
http://www.static99.org/pdfdocs/static-99rcodingform.pdf
HOOKSCAR
After reading the proposed bill and the comments, I really think this should not be supported. The name of this organization has the word CONSTITUTIONAL in it. A registry is unconstitutional no matter if it has tiers or not. It is still a registry. Whatever happened to the 17 year assessment CASOMB had in their report? I think everyone that was convicted in the last century should be dropped from the list. I really think that they should practice what they preach, and so should this organization. I donate, but if this is passed, I will not donate again as I will not support and fund my own demise.
PK
I was told by 2 leading psychologists in New York State that the Static 99 is only relevant for a period of 10 years. Since my offense was 16 years ago, neither of them wanted to provide that. I'm working on a downward departure.
wonderin
Obviously, asking for opinions on such a confusing, ambiguous and incomplete proposal raises more questions than answers.
I would prefer to see strategies to eliminate the registry (as it stands) entirely and respectful arguments why they would or would not work.
For instance: In my sentence, I was required to register for life. At the time of my sentence registering entailed only specific requirements and hardships which the judge was aware of.
Those have been changed dramatically without due process which has in effect changed the sentence the judge levied on me and all those like me?
The judges sentenced most of us to a simple notification process to keep law enforcement aware of our location for apprehension or questioning (in case a sexual crime was committed) and consistent with the foundation of the origin of the law.
For the state to arbitrarily increase our sentence with reckless disregard for the consequences to us and our families is clearly a breach of our right to a fair hearing before another court of law; Furthermore, to require us to seek relief from registering by proving we are no longer a threat places the burden of proof upon us instead of the court.
Is it any wonder that most people are wary of the state and their intentions, with this proposed tiered bill?
marie
just adding both convictions was for the same incident. only arrested once.
marie
My son was convicted 261.5c and 261.5d and scored 2 on static 99. Anyone have any clue what tier he would be? Thank you in advance.
Chris F
I can tell you from the statistics in Texas, when left to a judge to decide you are left with only 1/3 getting approved. That is from a group that already has the approval of the sex offender management board to be removed and met all criteria for removal. Only 1/3!
Judges are elected and don't want to risk their career for you. It's just a fact of our current system.
Best of luck though!
Janice Bellucci
It is our understanding that registrants may obtain a new Static-99R score, however, they will have to pay for that service and then provide the necessary documents to CA DOJ.
Davidh
This statute listed under tier 3 is confusing, as no mention of a single conviction is listed any where that I can see:
" Repeat felony child molestation (Pen. Code, § 288(a))"
what tier is one conviction?
Jo
You know what's going to be "fun"? Let's say this passes, you've worked hard to be removed and finally you're off only to find 50+ internet sites that still say you're on the registry and they could care less if it's correct info or not.
Not Really
One thing I need to know about this bill. What about those who were entrapped by Perverted Justice on "To Catch a Predator"? Where will they stand? No, I wasn't one of them, but I hate that!
Not Really
Since my previous comment will likely not get approved, I never spewed that Tier 3s would not have their addresses published. It was my mistake about Tier 2s because I already pointed out they would be like they are now, without addresses posted.
Tobin's Tools 2.0
If I had scored only ONE damn point lower on the Static-99R scam, I'd be in Tier 1... not Tier 3. What baloney!
But even if the Static prerequisite for Tier 3 was removed, I'd still be at odds with my conscience. Sure, I'd hypothetically be placed in Tier 1. But yet there will still be a third of the registry, not a small number by any means (> 30,000 people), stuck at Tier 3 for life. And another group, the Tier 2, in a sort of limbo. Those Tier 2's will be hoping those tiers are never expanded in the event a politically charged crime occurs and/or the whims of legislators dictate for the worsening of laws for those at the upper Tiers. Like in New York, they expanded the registration duration of tiers. What is to guarantee that it will not happen here in California?
It would be completely hypocritical of me to support this bill if it helps me, but yet oppose this bill if it hurts me. Just because it might immensely help one group (i.e. you and/or me), is it right to support it when it is at a great cost of another? Because that is what this bill forces us to do. That's the ethical and strategic dilemma faced here. Sure, 10,000 will be freed. But in the long-term, how is it going to REALLY effect the 90,000+ that remain on the registry?
This bill will either help -or- this bill will backfire. It's really hard to tell which it will do in the long-term. But the fact that it is written by CASOMB and prosecutors -- and is convoluted in verbiage -- MIGHT be indicative of the future traps that lay within this bill. The "unknown knowns," in quoting former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, so to speak.
Should those traps be used against us in the future? Who knows.
This is what troubles me about this bill. As it is, I just want to move on from the past. As with the rest of you, we've learned from our mistakes and just want to move on.
Not Really
Thank you.
Tobin's Tools 2.0
If they can strike the Static requirement, then I would like this bill. Because as it stands, with the Static (I have a "6"), I would be in Tier 3. But without the Static, I would be at Tier 1. Two very stark differences.
All for a felony 290.006 offense (i.e. not specifically listed under 290), first-time, non-contact, with no other criminal record. This does not seem very fair to put so much weight on a very questionable 'instrument' that has only been validated for a 5-year period in California (and is not to be applied for more than 10-years a person has been offense-free in the community).
The Static should only be used in determining parole or probation supervision levels for the first few years following release (i.e. 5 years). But to put so much weight on the Static in using it to determine Tier 3 lifetime level? Will our legislators really allow this to happen when the Static is at complete odds to logic?
Tobin's Tools 2.0
I just wanted to add that the paper by the California Department of Justice, Karl Hanson, and Hanson's Carleton University (a research university that ranks near the bottom of worldwide ranking) only reviews the Static-99R for a 5-year period. It does not go any further than that. Thus, it would seem very premature to rely on the Static for the LIFETIME determination of putting someone into Tier 3. Yet this is what this bill is asking the Legislature to do.
Furthermore, the Static is not designed for application for a person who has remained offense-free in the community for 10 years or more. Another fallacy that really has me wondering: why is the Static going to be used to determine whether someone falls into the lifetime Tier 3 bracket?
Sorry guys. But it makes absolutely no sense.
New Person
That petitioning requirement is double jeopardy.
The DA is trying a person again for the SAME crime. Please denote how they added "criminal or relevant non-criminal behavior" This is Minority Report fiction come to real life.
How is this continued possibility allowed to continue? The fact that one is offense free for their duration is enough evidence.
I will repeat my experience again with judges and DA for my 1203.4 expungement case. My initial attempt was informally denied by the judge as the DA and Probation recommended that I NOT RECEIVE 1203.4 despite me fulfilling all my requirements!
How can I successfully complete all my probation requirements and be NOT RECOMMENDED for 1203.4?
It took an appellate lawyer to inform my lawyer that 1203.4 cannot be denied, but if they did, then it would be appealed by that appellate lawyer to state it is by law that once I successfully complete my probation that I be awarded 1203.4.
The judge, DA, and probation were all against me receiving 1203.4 despite me successfully completing all things required of me.
I DO NOT WANT ANY MORE PEOPLE INVOLVED AFTER MY CONVICTION HAS BEEN LEVIED!!! People (judges, DA, and probation) will still have a personal outlook and only law superseded their biased thoughts and design. I still have the paper work where probation wrote that I not be recommended in my attempt to achieve 1203.4!
Now, conflate that experience with how many people have attempted a CoR and not received it after waiting 10 years is just as bogus!
Tobin's Tools 2.0
That is one of the many flaws to the Static-99R scam. Many of the papers and studies praising the credibility of the Static strangely cite papers made by Karl Hanson, David Thornton, and Leslie Helmus in their admiration of the Static. For those of you who aren't aware, Hanson, Thornton, and Helmus are all "developers" (i.e. they created the Frankenstein) of the Static-99R. So Hanson, Thornton, and Helmus have a vested, conflict-of-interest, interest in praising the damn thing!
The recent paper by Jill Levenson, Melissa Grady, and George Leibowitz is one example of a paper that seems completely oblivious to the bias material cited. I was appalled by this paper, because given the great information Levenson has given to prior date, it seems that she should have known better than to cite ALL FOUR (4/4) papers by the Static-99R's own "developers" (with Hanson in all but one, and Helmus in the other) praising the Static!
Look at the paper, page 18, how Levenson cited "Hanson & Morton-Bourgon, 2009; Hanson & Thornton, 1999; Hanson, Thornton, Helmus, & Babchishin, 2015; Helmus et al., 2012." Hanson in three of the four papers cited (2009, 1999, 2015). Thornton in one of the papers cited (2015). And Helmus in the last paper cited (2012). You can find a copy of the paper in the following link:
http://all4consolaws.org/2016/11/report-recommends-significant-registration-changes/
Again, there is very little evidence in the Static's ACTUAL accuracy after five years. And even the accuracy within the five year period is even more questionable, given the "developers" lack of transparency in releasing the original predicating data for all independent researchers to review.
Further, I guarantee that the CA DOJ and CASOMB will cite the following paper praising the Static-99R:
https://all4consolaws.org/2016/10/california-re-offense-rates-revealed/
But consider the authors of the paper: (1) California Department of Justice; (2) Karl Hanson (again, the 'developer' praising his own work); and (3) a place called Carleton University. What's interesting about Carleton University is that Karl Hanson actually WORKS at Carleton University:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/RKarl_Hanson
So the so-called "studies" praising the Static-99R scam are citing other studies completely smothered and sprayed with 'conflict-of-interest.' At minimum, should this bill pass, it should completely exclude reliance on the Static-99R to determine ANY tier level. The Static-99R is first-degree pseudo science. The Static is not all that different from the precogs in 'The Minority Report.'
Some of us have already discussed many of the flaws to the Static in the following link (refer to comments section):
http://all4consolaws.org/2016/01/sex-offender-rehab-center-moving-to-former-out-of-the-closet-space/
Steve
For the same reason I would have fought this if it didn't go my way, my family, is the same reason I'm going to have to support it. My wife and kids have suffered way to much and deserve a shot at relief. It's all we got right now and I'm willing to taking a chance in front of a judge. That's what I've been asking for for 20 years. I'm hopeful this will eventually help everyone down the line. It's not perfect by any means but what in life is. God bless everyone in this mess.
G4Change
Regarding: Guide to Tiers on Tiered Registry Bill
Can someone please advise. I read through the Guide to the Tiers that was added to this article. Does Tier 1 include all misdemeanors? I didn't see 288 (C) (1) listed anywhere up there. 288 (C) (1) is a wobbler, and I had it reduced to a misdemeanor. So, I'm wondering if that would also be under Tier 1?
Thank you for all of your hard work with all of this!!!
M
Tier 2 and Tier 3 will be published. Look at 290.46(c):
"[...] Tier Two offender as described in subdivision (d)(2) of Section 290, The Department of Justice shall make available to the public via the Internet Web site his or her name and known aliases, a photograph, a physical description, including gender and race, date of birth, the community of residence and Zip Code in which the person resides or the county in which the person is registered as a transient and other information that the Department of Justice deems relevant[.]"
Tier 3 has the added burden of having their address posted!
"Not Really," please take the time to actually read this bill before you start spewing claims that have no validity. You've been incorrect in a lot of your statements.
The mere fact this bill puts so much weight on the Static-99R scam should be troubling in and of itself! A "6" or higher Static, in and of itself, is enough to put someone in the Tier 3 class. Even if the person would have been in Tier 1 had he scored a 5 (i.e. just a point lower).
This bill is insanity! Just giving the Static so much power should be reason enough as not to support this bill.
M
"Not Really,"
You are incorrect. Tier 2 and Tier 3 WILL be published. As for the Static, there will be quite a few that will be put into Tier 3 just because of it.
I, for one, will be placed in Tier 3 because I score 6 on the Static. Otherwise, if I scored just one point less, a "5," I'd be placed in Tier 1 for a my non-contact, first-time felony offense under 290.006.
"6" is such an arbitrary number. And I think too many of us have problems with the Static-99R scam to begin with!
mike r
lets clear this up since this organization is either incompetent or they left out the most common offense on the registry in their assesment of the tiers purposely for some unknown reason..
a simple 288.(a) lewd and lascivious acts with a minor under 14 is a tier two offense....that means if you have this offense and have never reoffended or if you attempted or conspired to commit this offense you will be a tier two...Jesus people the bill is incredibly straight forward and even this organization cant explain it correctly...wowww
Timmr
I have never been scored for the Static 99, so I was wondering at what point in the process a convicted offender is scored, and is that score updated when the actuarial test is later changed? It looks like the Static. 99 has gone through continuous mutation since its inception, with varying accuracy results.
http://forensicpsychologist.blogspot.com/2015/04/static-99-yet-more-bumps-on-rocky.html
Someone could be put in a high risk catagory one year, to maybe be rescored and have a lower risk when the test is updated. So it looks like with this bill you are stuck with the score from whatever incarnation of the test they had at the time.
David
Bill or no bill, I can't help but think that the scum-politicians will simply do a work-around and change the wording of existing laws from "registered sex offender" to "convicted sex offender", so there would be no relief whether one remains on the Registry of not - all laws, regulations and restrictions would still apply. Still subject to IML and Angel Watch bullshit. Still no visiting your kid's school for PTA, softball game or holiday play performance. I'm sorry, but I have no trust in pandering polititicians - while they shake with their right hand, they're stabbing you in the back with their left. Besides, speaking from a strictly selfish perspective, I have no idea what tier/assessed risk level I am, but I don't imagine this will change my life in any way. However..... the simple act of introducing this bill and the discussion (and possibly public interest) it might encourage, could benefit all of us if the public looks at the reasons the bill is being introduced, the facts, the research, etc. .... and the unconstitutional travesty of neverending punishment.
HopingforHope
How would risk level be determined for those of us who never took the Static? Would risk level be assigned strictly on the nature of the offense, or would the passage of time come into play?
Eric
10 years, 20 years, lifetime. Why these numbers? They are arbitrary and not supported by data. Every year on the registry costs the state money and delays a registrant's return to full community membership. How about: 5 years for tier 1, 10 years for tier 2, 15 years for tier 3. Fifteen years without recidivism is a clear indication of new behaviors, a new way of life.
Regardless, the registry itself had not been shown to reduce crime.
Happy, joyous and free
@ThoughtasWeak: hope you are well, it's been a while since we talked on the phone. If I lived out in CA and ACSOL can get the legislature to tweak the bill to fix the flaws, then I would support it. I realize Janice cares about us, as she asked for opinions, and I know she reads them.
Joe123
Janice,
If there is a chance to make the amendments that people have mentioned here, then it makes sense to oppose the current bill, as it will harm more families than it will help. Although this bill seems like a blessing, it may setup a precedent to make it very hard to pass future challenges to this bill. It's basically like the state saying "See, you were fine with the tiered bill, so now you can't complain about it". I would suggest more push back to the state. If the static 99 wasn't designed for use beyond 5-10 years, then it shouldn't be used as the prominent tool to determine risk here. It seems like your team should really look at this bill and see if a potentially better solution could be proposed. If there is any chance that a better solution can be reached, then this bill shouldn't be approved, just for short term gains. However, if this bill will make it easier to propose challenges to the laws in the future, then it should be passed.
Davidh
Just on a further note. yes on tweaks, if the organization agrees to continue to challenge the constitutionality of registries in federal court. If the Org agrees to some form of it then other than federal challenges would be disingenuous.
My read was most objected to static 99 as do I. Along with politicized offices being involved in the releasing from obligation process. With these two items as well as perhaps no ex-post facto on top of what already exists I think it's sell. The latter being moved into tier 3 at the time of passage. Or even perhaps recently convicted, as they knew of these laws, as opposed to a lot of us where these laws didn't exist when we made our deal.
B.Wat
I just had a thought, I've been wondering, what the year 1987 in the draft means. Maybe the ca.doj can't go back any further than 1987, that would make them noncompliant with the law suit Janice filed to bring everyone's information up to date. I didn't think CASMOB would do this out of the goodness of there heart, there has to be another reason!
Davidh
On tweaks, I'd agree. As I said I believe I'd be helped by this, but there is still a lot of scary stuff. i dont think this abolishes once a SO always an SO. Imagine them coming back years down the road and saying you need to register again. While I'd buy in to some tweaks I cant denounce anyone who gets left behind--what's going on here is still wrong!
someone who cares
ANNON ~ Can you elaborated on the "Indecent Exposure" with a prior comment. You mentioned there is no chance to get off the registry? Does that mean it will fall into the Tier III lifetime registration?
Andrej Dixon
Could you please clarify where in the bill you saw that Tier Ones would still remain unpublished?
The bill seemed to remove my previous requirement of being a misdemeanor 647.6(a) (which would likely be a Tier One) as a qualifying code for exclusion from the site.
Thank you in advance.
Andrej Dixon
Janice,
Can you please clarify whether a misdemeanor 647.6(a), with an applied for and granted exclusion from the site, will be published under this bill?
Regardless I do not support this bill, however ANY clarification would help immensely.
Thank you.
Not Really
I still can't find this in the bill. Sorry! Please copy/paste.
Thoughtasweak
I know that Janice values everyone's opinion, if that wasn't true Janice would have decided on her own on what she wanted to do regarding this bill.
There are issues with the bill, everyone can agree with that, but we also have to look at how many people we can also help with the passing of a teired bill.
IF ACSOL can tweak the current bill to address a lot of the concerns of the current version, would you all be in support of the bill?
Janice Bellucci
A Certificate of Rehabilitation terminates the duty to register of some, but not all, people who receive it.
mike r
correct me if I'm wrong but is it to much to ask or expect that any legislation is based on facts and empirical evidence and be reasonable and be reasonably connected to a effective policy..is it to much to ask that a registry,if you must have it, should be reasonable, based on empirical evidence and facts and puts the burden of proof on the government to show that an individual poses a significant risk for re offense and that public safety will be increased if the individual is placed on some kind of registry???I think it is very reasonable....
Not Really
I don't believe Tier 2 is published. I wish everyone would copy/paste where in the bill it applies. Downloading the bill should allow this.
Not Really
Does a Certificate of Rehabilitation relieve the "duty" to register? It doesn't help some other rights, like the right to own a firearm if a felony or some misdemeanors.
Not Really
Incredibly naive?
If the person has completed all the requirements, the petition is automatic unless the DA can prove current dangerousness and that DA must argue the "community safety would be significantly enhanced by the person's continued registration". Isn't a hearing on dangerousness a long sought goal? How is the DA going to prove it? How hard would it be to prove low risk? These are questions that must be answered before knowing if we should be for or against the bill.
(a) (1)`A person required to register under Section 290 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 registration
Tier, pursuant to subdivisions (d) and (e) of Section 290. The petition must contain proof of the
person's current registration as a sex offender.
(2) The petition shall be served on the registering law enforcement agency and the district
attorney in the county where the petition is filed. The registering law enforcement agency shall
report.to the district attorney regarding whether the person has met the requirements for
termination pursuant to subdivision (e) of Section 290. The district attorney shall have the right
to request a hearing on the petition if the petitioner has not fulfilled the requirement of successful
Tier completion described in subdivision (e) of Section 290, or if Community safety would be
significantly enhanced by the person's continued registration, If no hearing is requested, the
petition for termination shall be granted if the court finds the required proof of current
registration is presented in the petition, providing that the registering agency reported that the
person met the requirement for termination pursuant to subdivision (e) of Section 290, there are
no pending charges against the person identified by the registering agency which could extend
the time to complete the Tier or change the person's Tier status, and the person is not in custody or on parole, probation or supervised release.
(3) If the district attorney requests a hearing, he or she shall be entitled to present evidence
regarding whether community safety would he significantly enhanced by requiring continued
registration. In determining whether to order continued registration, the court shall consider:
the nature of the registrable sex offense(s); the age and number of victims; whether any victim
was a stranger at the time of the offense (known to the offender less than 24 hours); criminal
and relevant noncriminal behavior before and after conviction for the registrable offense(s); the
lime period during which the person has not reoffended; successful completion, if any, of a
CASOMB-certified sex offender treatment program; and the person's current risk of sexual or
violent re-offense, including the person's risk scores on SARATSO static, dynamic and violence
risk assessment instruments, if available.
(4) If termination from the registry is denied, the court shall set the time period after which the
person can re-petition for termination, not to exceed five years, based on facts presented at the
hearing.
mike r
one more thing...where is the rational basis or connection between the public notification or registration requirements to online offenders??? other than the Internet indetifier requirements that doesn’t apply retroactively there is absolutely no nexus between registration and public safety...these laws have zero effect on public safety as they are proclaimed to give people notice of who are living in their communities...althouth the entire registration scheme has zero effect on public safety it really has no rationalty when applied to online offenders...I am really disturbed that we were told that we either choose this bill or condone ourselves to a lifetime on the registry....this is NOT our only choice if someone is willing and able to fight and doesn't just give in to defeat without even putting up a real fight .....very disturbing that that is exactly the position of this organization and others....of course non of them have anything to lose right....I'll never concede defeat and will continue to fight for my god giving rights...even though all ohr forefathers and generstions have fought for your rights i guess if your not willing to fight for your rights you must not deserve them....
Not Really
But it is excluded in the bill unless there are two separate convictions:
(3) Tier Three offenders must-register for life
(vi) The person was convicted of subdivisions (a) of Sections 288 in two proceedings brought
and tried separately, or...
That appears to indicate 288(a) is excluded as a violent felony for the purposes of registration. If it were a violent felony under Section 667.5 then only one conviction would be necessary for Tier 3.
Davidh
I would conclude as follows:
I'm becoming almost immune to life changers, so I'm not going to argue my view any longer. In fact, there was a lot of argument I made against this just off other's posts without reading more thoroughly than a scan. Now that I've read it more thoroughly I place myself at a tier 2 with 15 years registration logged.
I honestly dont understand how to conclusively score issues on 99, so I figure that's the only potential snag for me.
i was arguing against this, so now after reading it through I have learned I probably benefit from it. I'd be a hypocrite to change my argument, so I have to end my lobby with pretty much as I've argued for: pass with modification, I think a lot of us fall into this camp!
i also think carsol; could meet their objectives in some way doing so.
Not Really
Same here. When convicted it was possible to get off the registry. That was changed while I was still on probation.
Not Really
It appears there has to be evidence of "current risk of sexual or violent re-offense...."
290.5
(a) (1).Notwithstanding any other provision of law, and except as provided in paragraph (2), any
designated law enforcement entity may provide information to the public about a person required
to register as a sex offender pursuant to Section 290, by whatever means the entity deems
appropriate, when necessary to ensure the public safety based upon information available to the
entity concerning that specific person's current risk of sexual or violent re-offense, including but
not limited to the person's static, dynamic and violence risk levels on the SARATSO risk tools
described in subdivision (D of Section 290.04.
Anon
It also looks like indecent exposure with a prior has no way off the registry because all roads off require ONLY one conviction requiring registration.
For those concerned about stranger victims and the Static-99 these kinds of cases significantly increase the statistical recidivism rate because indecent exposure has a high recidivism rate. This could be an avenue to challenge the reliability of the stranger factor of the Static-99 because these "nuisance" cases exaggerate risk.
mike r
No wonder we cant get any real action if all our warriors have already conceded to defeat....
mike r
I think the following statement is very misleading and and does not reflect the recent decisions in the courts or the possibility that that 60000 would get relief which is very questionable if the Da and Judges have anything to say about it...Your stating that there is no other option and that we ahve to accept ths deal or suffer for ever the unconstitutional regime thats currently in place..
"The organization therefore is faced with a “Sophie’s choice”. Do we agree to the “immediate” liberation of more than 10,000 registrants from the punishments inflicted by the registry and the “ultimate” liberation of about 60,000 registrants from the same punishments? Or do we oppose the tiered registry because those who remain on the registry could be viewed as posing a greater risk than they actually do? And if that latter choice is selected, all registrants will continue to suffer from the punishments inflicted by the registry for their lifetime."..
Those are not in fact our only choices as there are many many others if we can find the will and the resources to fight this, as shown in recent court decisions....
Opposed
I would just like to say one more thing & then I'll rest my case. So I hope I can get my point across with as few words as possible. If this was something that would benefit the few without FURTHER punishing those left behind no matter where I fall into that category it would have my full backing & support. I'm an older registrant now with a family to consider. However, and pay very close attention to this statement, EVERYONE has a family who deals with the registry and all the issues that come with it. Even if we, as registered citizens, do not deserve peace from our pasts then our sons, daughters, wives, husbands, mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers who are innocent and have done nothing wrong certainly do deserve peace from our past. And to further punish us is to punish our families as well. I'm out!
mike r
also I suggest that you notify these civil servants on the record that if they pass this bill and continue to pass any more unconstitutional laws against its citizens that they are do not have personal or proffessional immunity against a suit both criminally or civil monetarily for violations of constitutional rights under color of law...stop playing nice guy and acting from a place of weakness when the ball is in our court...we're in the last quarter with seconds on the clock, we're down two and need that three pointer to either win or lose,make the shot..
mike r
follow the money people...look who realistically will make a lot of money and others who will continue to feed off the teet of the registry...the only way this bill could be rectified is (1)if it didn't raise the level or requirements of anyone currently on or off the registry,(2) if it was automatic removal based on time and the offense ,and if you are a repeat offender or violent based on individualized risk assessments (3)that there would be some kind of guarantee that there would be no legislation in the future targeting individuals that are on or off the registry...even then it still isn't constitutional on either the federal or state side...after all they are on the retreat I don't care what anyone says they are..no one has challenged smith or Connecticut in any meaningful way...those who have challenged it on the periphery have all been pretty much successful lately you even have the courts themselves stating that they only addressed one issue out of a plethora of others that can and should be challenged...helll the California case on residency restrictions is a great resource to show how non effective these laws are and how the legislators are out of control by enacting laws with absolutely no rational basis...I can't even find hardly any case where the courts ruled that a law had no rational basis let alone a unanimous decision on it..use what leverage and momentum that we have and challenge the justification and the constitutionality of these laws on the real issues and come at them from a place of strength and demand all our amendments be included in the bill or we oppose the bill and we'll see you in court....
DPH
104,369 to the CASOMB, changing daily...this could lighten their workload as well as LE Agencies. TIERED.
WantsToHelp
Completely agree!
DPH
Wow, Janice look at how many RC's and others including Family Members responded, the most I've seen all year.
Hope they see that you and the Board has the best interest in all RC's in mind and achieving this long term goal and can be changed for third tier folks in the future for possible amendments.
It is quite an achievement and probably stops the mostly foolish Law Firms mailer sending us false hope for thousands of dollars for nothing but to look at your case (RC individ).
This, even though I may know a few that would be a third tier would make life possible for a larger majority than NOW.
I also noted that the State Of Cali DOJ would take this and not meet their self goal of identifying Calif RC/s Original DATE OF CONV> and save them money by taking so many off possibly to save adding dates to thousands of Calif RC's on the ML Site for AG's site.
Winning the tier system when you step back and overview may be a larger winner stepping FORWARD, not backward. And after reading EVERY Response to the 21st from your post, sadly majority doesn't like it.
Get Ira's response too beside Catherine's. This is a SERIOUS Step for a long life goal for so many here, may NOT affect Nationally, but other State's may take note. THIS IS WAY BETTER THAN CURRENTLY for the VAST MAJORITY and makes common sense to move up and not backwards. Thank YOU and the Board for your Service. Period.
WOW, almost 200 by time of this writ.
mike r
Janice ,,seems the census is absolutely no on this bill...the government is flanking us with air filled tanks and fake troops all the while why they are making precision strikes taking out our best weapons,ie frank Lindsay and the like,, so they can attack head on with virtual impunity....the fact is that Megan’s law is one suit away from being repealed and replaced with a registry only for those who the government can prove thru clear and convincing evidence standard to be a threat to the public....we have had multiple courts saying enough is enough and with the right suit,,on the real issues and theright plantiffs, would indeed be successful..at least try before you help throw us all to the wolfs...
Timmr
I give up. This now seems to me to be a supreme waste of time. The CASOMB said this is set in stone, meaning we are not going to make them change anything in this bill. Sounds like they have gone through a lot of arguing amongst themselves to hammer out this proposal and if you wish to change anything, it will have to be in writing letters to your legislators who may modify this bill. As for the incremental change hoped for in being in favor of this bill, I hope you guys are correct. To me this is just another example of the failed appeasement strategy of the Clinton democrats. You vote for this bill, you are stuck with it and will have to answer for it later, like they did for NAFTA or the crime bill. If that doesn't bother you like it bothers me then fine put your stamp on it.
What we should be doing here nonetheless is confronting those in favor of the registry, at the places were the lies are spread, online and in the face to face conversations. That is how incremental change is really going to happen, when more and more people start seeing the sham this registry is and will start to feel some conseqences for believing in it. People for example don't smoke less now because of government decree, but because they see the damage to their lungs. It is not as easy as putting your name on a ready made bill, or arguing about it in this safe space. Frankly, it scares the hell out of me confronting the pitch fork mobs, but I can't see a way to avoid it.
Tired of this
As someone with a federal conviction myself, it's my understanding you have to follow the registration requirement of whichever state you're in, if it's a non-AWA/SORNA state. I recommend moving to a tier state if you can, which is what I ended up doing.
mjk
I can understand the position of those who support, as I too would likely benefit from its passage. I also understand the concerns and criticisms of those who would not benefit from its passage. Personally, I'm skeptical of any proposed "improvements" to the registry as I am about aerosol sprays that make feces vanish.
In either case, I find it hard to believe that abolishment will ever come from within any particular state, but rather that decision will almost definitely come from the US Supreme Court. Abolishment of the registry & the CASOMB draft bill are not the same issue.
Whether we individually support or oppose this bill, it seems obvious that we are united here in our wish to see the registry completely abolished.
Davidh
Happy, joyous and free:
i agree with every sentiment you shared. Dont go running off to Oregon just yet, however. They are going through precisely the same thing right now. Worst yet, the ASCOL like organization there, which i believe even has a seat at the table support throwing the "few" under the bus for the "many." As you state, this bill is especially flawed as it leads one to believe there are the "many" yet in actuality it's a "few" and the remaining will end up being more severely punished.
Davidh
Rodger with all due respect i believe your argument is flawed:
" However, when a tiered system passes and that does NOT happen, people will see that their fears are proven unjustified, and would be more open to allowing tier 3 RC's to apply for release from the registry." Currently they have the data that indicates we are safe--they have recidivism data. No once 100's are released that isn't going to light a candle of new-found wisdom!
Look to the motives as to why they would do this:
1) they are snaring too many people and its become unmanageable and expensive.
2) we've grown in numbers and made some gains--they see the writing on the wall and now they want to mute and divide us.
3) They would like to get this out of California courts and into the federal courts, and can do so and even gaining financially by going to an AWA compliant state!
4) how can you profess to the absolute ruining of 10,000's of people in support of something that has always been and will continue to be a catastrophic event in this country's history, one that will stand side-by-side historically along with the Japanese internment camps, eugenics: lobotomies and LSD experimentation, along with civil rights, women's suffrage, etc.
steve
I was trying to figure out what happens if you were never given the static 99. In one paragraph of the draft, after explaining the use of static99, it says "if applicable". Seems as though if you were never given it and you are past 10 years it's not going to be factored?
Davidh
As a 288 (a), I strongly agree. if there weren't still yet more ex-post facto and incrementing my status, let the bill pass (maybe). I've never been notified on during my tenure as a 288 (a); I live a quiet life that isn't harassed. I register once a year. How is it that with a stroke of a pen I am suddenly a greater risk that needs notification and greater public scrutiny?????? This bill is contrary to every ideal that this organization has ever espoused, I feel: it's unconstitutional, it's ex-post facto, it's incremental punishment, the list goes on... I'm sorry but no this cant be a goal achieved!
ASCOL getting behind this would be a great betrayal. The Organization should not lose site of its over-arching stated goal of ending registries that have been shown to be wasteful, provides a false sense of security, are unconstitutional, are indeed punishment and banishment.
I felt so much happiness and hope when I saw the great job the ACLU did in Michigan and in that light I'm astonished this organization would settle for one morsel less!
Timmr
In addition to other things, prison is imposed to rehabilitate you, so you can function as a productive citizen. Why do you need an additional full period of monitoring on top of that? If prison or probation were doing what it is supposed to do, your risk would go down. On top of that the risk is so low, the reoffense rate for all types of 290 offenders is low, and basically reaches a rate equal to the general population after 17 years offence free, there is no justification for these long periods of detainment other than they don't want to scare the public and loose their jobs.
Davidh
Sergio:
Which is why we have greater power now to fight them. They are attempting to mute and divide us all over again. We have power in numbers, whether it's our voices, the cost to maintain us, or whatever measurement. We are at peak strength now and should insist on a better deal!
"The registry is unsustainable in terms of the amount of resources that go into it. I’m glad people in government are realizing this. It’s an expensive waste of money that does not protect victims and punishes families that are trying to contribute positively to society."
Stumped
I agree completely I have had my charge expunged this year and received a certificate of rehab as well, why would I have to petition for relief to register if I have been deemed rehabilitated by a judge? It should be automatic that we fall off the registry. On top of this I've been registering for over 20 years and looking at all these penal codes and subsections I don't even understand where I would fit in these tiers???
Happy, joyous and free
I am out on the east coast. I've been to one Texas Voices conference and one National RSOL conference. I've met Janice, Frank, and a whole number of great people. I am gravely concerned with this piece of legislation. I will be succinct in my reply.
1) pushing more people into Tier III is a horrible idea.
2) I agree with many that the DA has extensive power. I do not expect people to be released easily, and it is EXPENSIVE to go that route. How many registrants have the funds to do this? Realistically, this makes it legal while making it extremely difficult to attain. This is by design.
3) removing the ability to get a CoR? It is called "let us make this process more difficult"
4) 1987 dating: In case you haven't done the math, they are willing to drop the people who have been on for a very long time and aren't a problem. Yet they never have to admit that the registry is flawed. It's called reducing the registry by aging out. It's not for our benefit in the long term.
5). I remember discussing the Romeo and Juliet cases five plus years ago. How many R&J supporters left as soon as they started being successful? I am not talking specifically in CA, but across the USA. This is a divide and conquer strategy.
6) I am a cynic by nature and trust government very little. To me, this is a victory for some at the expense of others. I see the main reason for the bill is that Janice is doing an amazing job and being a pain in the ass to those in power. They want us to fight amongst ourselves. They want to dilute our effectiveness. Long term, this will weaken us. A hollow victory because they want us to go away.
I am a lifetime registrant with zero hope where I live. Personally, I want to move to Portland, OR with my fiancée. I've been on the registry for 12+ years. Thank you.
G4Change
I support this bill. I support anything that can remove registration from even some people. I view this as a first step and not a be-all and end-all in this fight. It's not as if this bill will be passed, and then roll credits and that's all folks. Let's take this first step, and then let's continue to fight!
YES, all registries should be abolished. Let's start by abolishing registration for some, and then, eventually (God willing) for all.
Count me in as a supporter of this bill!
Ab
How does this Bill affect those with federal registration requirements? My conviction was for possession of child pornography. After 15 years the federal government no longer will require me to register. Since California has lifetime registration for everyone right now what does that mean if this Bill were to become law? All the state based assessments do not apply in my case or a vast majority of federal cases.
Tobin's Tools 2.0
I printed this bill out and read it over the weekend a few times. I also made some notes and highlights. Nonetheless, here are the things that trouble me about this bill; they are as follows:
(1) Current unpublished offenders will be published if they fall into the Tier 2 or Tier 3 category.
(2) Registration relief through the Certificate of Rehabilitation is removed.
(3) Superseding reliance on the Static-99R. (The Static should be limited to periods while on parole or probation. BUT the Static-99R should NOT be used to determine tier level! Using the Static for any other reason than parole/probation begins to resemble ‘The Minority Report.’ But IF it has to be used, restrict it to only 10-years offense-free in the community. After the 10-year offense-free period, and according to its own 'developers,' the Static is NOT designed for use.)
(4) Also troubling is that this bill puts equal registration penalty to offenses under 667.5 and 1192.7. Tier 2 should be limited only to the violent offenses under 667.5.
(5) And finally, this bill does not distinguish between contact and non-contact offenses. So it is entirely possible for 'non-contact' offenders -- even a first-time offender who has remained offense-free -- to fall into the lifetime Tier 3 classification. (Of course, this would be dependent on whether they score "6" or higher on the Static. But the scoring system is 'dubious' at best... especially after over 5-years offense-free.)
Thank you.
abolishtheregistry.com
Which part? I used terms like "most likely". As for the government remarks, I've seen enough throughout life to make those statements. Most people have, they're just unable to make or believe the connections, for one reason or another.
Mike r, 72FLH, myself and others told everyone what to expect in a tiered registry. The signs are always available, one just needs to open their eyes to see.
It Seems So
It seems that if you are unpublished now, and remain in Tier 1, you will remain unpublished. BUT if you are currently unpublished, and you'd be Tier 2 or Tier 3 in this proposed bill, then you would perversely be published. So this draft bill will (strangely) HURT these people. If this subset of people were not subject to public notification then, why all of a sudden now? IDK about this bill. There are so many injustices to it.
Not Really
I could very well be wrong. Please copy and paste the sections you refer to, then we can search the bill with the text for context.
How many would fall into Tier 1 or 2 and still have a score of 6 on the scale and so end up Tier 3? 0 or more than 0?
Timmr
ASCOL may be able to whittle down the law only if states its objections now. It may look a little ingenuous to give support now to a bill with the intention of undermining it later. That is how it could be interpreted by CASOMB or the legislature.
anon
In general, I support the bill but I can think of several improvements. First, the registry is unAmerican and immoral and should be eliminated. Second, the bill requires RSOs to file a petition to get off the registry. That implies hiring a lawyer which will make the process inaccessible to thousands of RSOs who just cannot afford an attorney. I suppose it is conceivable that the public defender could help, but those offices are generally overworked. I would have gone with something much simpler: misdemeanors get 10 years; felonies 20 years; recidivists 30 years. You can go to court to change your tier for extenuating circumstances. Of course, there is an even simpler solution--to get rid of the registry, but we are not there yet.
NotLikingCA
Do not see this as a Sophie's choice. Improve the lives of 10k immediately and 60k in the future and continue to work to better the lives of those who would stay. Just because you can't get everything you want doesn't mean you shouldn't take some improvements and this is clearly an improvement.
Notgivingup
Well said, I do agree with this. It only makes sense to allow the clock to start ticking at the time of conviction not after your release of prison or probation. 20 years is way to long after your release date. If the bill was written with many of the changes people on this blog have suggested it might get more support.
J
But those that are unpublished Tier 1s would remain unpublished?
Timmr
You're guessing, right? Do you know this?
Notgivingup
Anonymous,
Texas has a deregistration program that was put in place many years ago, it is very limited as who can petition to get off, the main problem is as you stated was the DA’s office and the Judge having to agree. You have to jump through many hoops just to be eligible, eval that cost $2500 or more, filing fees that run into the 100s of dollars then approval from the Sex offender council. Then you have to go to court. Attorney fees that will cost an average of $10,000 to $15,000 and then as you said each county Judge will make their on decision and so far most of the time you are denied even while being a low risk and met ALL criteria to be let off. All this time and money spent to make people richer when most of the lawmakers know you are not going to get off no matter what you do or how you have lived your life since the crime.
You wrote( So either the power of the DA’s opposition must be removed from the draft, or if left in, must be severely reduced. For example, if they do oppose, then they MUST provide reason (ex. maybe you got two DUI’s in the last 5 years). If they can’t provide reason (ex. you were living a clean, offense free life), then they cannot oppose.
I think you need a council to make the final decision and take both the Judge and the DA out completely. This should be state wide and not county by county and once you have met the criteria that is written in law you are allowed off without spending $1000s of dollars that many do not have. This may seem good to some but it is a trap for many. The elected officials/Politicians are NOT doing this from the good of heart, IMO I would not trust Any district attorney or most judges to do the right thing.
Timmr
Copied from California PC 667.5 (c):
"667.5.
(c) For the purpose of this section, "violent felony" shall mean
any of the following:
...
(6) Lewd or lascivious act as defined in subdivision (a) or (b) of
Section 288."
Edna
LOL @ "drain the septic tank in Sacramento." As for this bill: it deserves to be in the septic tank.
WantsToHelp
I don't live in California and this bill would not affect anyone that I personally know. But just based on the experiences that I'm aware of in Texas, I'd be a little hesitant to throw support behind this bill. In Texas, there is a deregistration process that, while completely different on its face, shares many similarities on a practical level and for all intents and purposes, deregistration in Texas is a complete sham. Here it operates as such that first the individual must hurdle all the "exceptions" as to why they cannot apply. (These would be similar to the tier II and III proposals in the California bill). If those hurdles are passed and the person meets the narrow definition of who can apply, then he must have completed a state approved sex offender treatment program for (I believe) a minimum of two years. However, in-prison SOTP does not count, and unless the individual has been through an official program on the outside, his weekly/monthly $$ therapy sessions don't count either. There are also individuals who were released from prison before the State started all the in and/or out treatment programs and mandatory requirements. So someone who went on the list retroactively and has been crime free for 20 years would still have to attend a very expensive treatment program. So, first, there's that expense. The therapist must also sign off that the individual is rehabilitated, which can be a hurdle in and of itself. Then there's the expense of hireing a lawyer. Once all of that has been completed, just as with the California bill, the individual has to go before a judge in the county in which he was convicted and the DA can (and nearly always does) oppose deregistration. The entire decision is entirely in the hands of the judge. And after two years and thousands of dollars, if the judge has no interest in signing off on it, everything that has come before is completely wasted. Most individuals who meet the qualifications and jump through all the hoops are then opposed by the DA and denied by the judge. So, from my perspective, and from having no skin in the game, I look at this bill and think that while it looks good on paper, in any practical sense the only people who MIGHT benefit are those who were convicted prior to 1987 and are SUPPOSEDLY meant to be automatically removed (if/whenever that actually does happen). But for everyone else, it's arbitrary at best, and mostly just false hope. For some people, hope is enough.
The other angle, though, which should be considered is that getting something like this on the law books is pretty damn difficult. However, once it is there, there is always the possiblity that changes can be made and wording tweaked. That is what the advocates in Texas are trying to accomplish now--get the bill that already exists tweaked to make the deregistration program more substantial. It's kind of like, say, the ease with which someone might spend $1 here and $2 there and end up frittering away $100 without really noticing vs. being hit with a $100 purchase. It's easy to say yes to the small things but MUCH harder to overcome the bigger sticker shock. Without a bill like this already on the books, incremental changes are impossible. There's no guarantee that incremental changes would come quickly or even that they'd come at all, but at least the possibility of incremental changes exists. Without a bill like this on the books, no change at all is possible especially because the sticker shock of abolishing the registry all at once is so severe it will never happen. It's true also that incremental changes could go the other direction, however in my humble opinion, the states where this has happened tend to be those in which there's no lobbying or advocacy group available to constantly challenge them, or there are only a few very overworked advocates and volunteers without the backing of lawyers or financial resources.
So... is this a good bill? No, it's horrible, really, as it offers the idea or pretense of hope that will be absolutely meaningless in practicality. It will also, through the shuffling of tiers and risk factors, make life more difficult for quite a number of people.
However, it is also being put forth by one of the few organizations that politicians might listen to and for whom it could POSSIBLY be possible to muster the political will to vote through. And unless SOMETHING, as abhorent as it is, is voted through, then theres's nothing there to work with to start chipping away.
On the flips side to that, those who drafted this bill did not do it because they are friendly to registrants. They did it because even they can see the bloat and waste that the registry has become, and they can see that the current system it is not good public policy and is counter to the mission they have been handed, which is to find pollicies to increase public safety. With that in mind, and understanding that it's going to be a hard sell to get this thing passed to begin with, it's possible that ASCOL opposition MAY cause the bill drafters to consider the issues at play and POSSIBLY give them enough reason to at least CONSIDER altering the wording on SOME of the processes. It would depend, I suppose, on how strongly they want to get the bill passed, and how highly they value ASCOL support.
Bill Arthur
Two questions:
I live in another state, but I believe I would qualify for Tier 1 and I have been registered in my state for more than 10 years after completing probation. Could I move to CA, register in CA, and then effectively be off the registry?
The two prevailing laws seem to be:
From the new draft bill:
(4)(a) Persons required to register pursuant to Section 290.005 shall be placed in the appropriate tier if the offense is assessed as equivalent to a California registrable offense describer in subdivision (c).
And from the referenced current law Section 290.005:
Except as provided in subdivision (c) or (d), any person who, since July 1, 1944, has been, or is hereafter convicted in any other court, including any state, federal, or military court, of any offense that, if committed or attempted in this state, based on the elements of the convicted offense or facts admitted by the person or found true by the trier of fact or stipulated facts in the record of military proceedings, would have been punishable as one or more of the offenses described in subdivision (c) of Section 290, including offenses in which the person was a principal, as defined in Section 31.
The question is will my registration in my home state count toward the 10 years registration in CA? I certainly don't want to call anyone's attention to this apparent deficit in the new draft bill, because the legislature might do what Oregon has done, which is to exclude anyone moving to Oregon from the benefits of Oregon's very lenient law -- with the stated purpose of discouraging sex offenders from moving to Oregon.
Second question -- I would be very interested in hearing what ACSOL board member Catherine Carpenter, Professor, Southwestern Law School feels about the issue of supporting the new bill. I heard Professor Carpenter speak at the Illinois Voices for Reform conference last Friday in Chicago and was enthralled with her passion, reasonableness, persuasiveness, and eloquence. I would say listen to what she thinks before deciding how to proceed.
Also, so many of those posting seem to think that they have something to say about what the government does. Well, you don't. It's ridiculous to vent about what you like/don't like about the new bill. They don't care what we want to happen.
Edna
I oppose the bill. As a Tier 3, this bill will hurt you more. It will also do a lot of damage to other people (i.e. it will take Certificate of Rehabilitations away, give lots of power to the puestionable/limited Static 99, publish previously unpublished offenders on Megan's Law website IF they fall into Tier 2 or Tier 3), gives no way out for Tier 3, gives a lot of problems for Tier 2's who want to 'petition' out, gives a lot of power to elected judges and elected district attorneys, is an unfunded mandate... so how is this going to be paid for, does not account for Tier 1 or Tier 2 expanding in future registration duration, does not account for more narrowly tailored restrictions on YOU... as a Tier 3. What will prevent presence restrictions, internet restrictions or identifier restrictions against you in the future? As a potential Tier 3 under this bill, you are sacrificing yourself.
JDub
ACSOL Board member’s do face a “Sophie’s Choice” dilemma regarding the issue of Tier Registry. Does ACSOL support the proposed board as it stands, or does it continue to fight for universal application of the registry laws?
I ever so respectfully remind everyone of ACSOL’s Mission Statement: “The Alliance for Constitutional Sex Offense Laws (ACSOL) is dedicated to protecting the Constitution by restoring the civil rights of registrants and their families. In order to achieve that objective, ACSOL will educate and litigate as well as support or oppose legislation.”
Moreover, ACSOL believes, in part, that “Sex offense laws and policies should be based on sound research and common sense, not fear, panic or paranoia. Current laws and policies that paint all sex offenders with one broad brush are counter- productive, wasteful, and cause needless harm. Each offense must be judged on its own merits with a punishment that fits the crime and does not waste taxpayer dollars. The public sex offender registry and residency restriction laws do not protect children but instead ostracize and dehumanize individuals and their families.”
Having been convicted in 1990, under the proposed bill I will fall 3-years short of the 1987 propose CONVICTION year for relief of registry responsibility… this, after serving 25 years in state prison. Moreover, for most all other registrants (including myself) registration time begins upon release from incarceration… unlike the conviction dates of those prior to 1987.
Here in California, it is understood that incarceration is punishment for the offenses committed. What is unknown to many is that “290” inmates are subjected to willful deliberate indifference and punitive measures within the prison system designed, propagated and enforced by CDCR, such as housing, employment, custody levels, fear of being “found out” etc.…
While each of us who are registered citizens have our own personal reasons for wanting the elimination of the registry, I would argue that a tiered registry is a huge step for California 290’s. Not a perfect step… but a good step nonetheless. However, on a personal note (and not unlike many 290’s) I served a great deal of time for challenging the courts and going to trial. My choice! I cannot argue that! I also spent, what I believe to be enhance and arbitrary punishment, for the nature of my offenses. And now, I can see the light at the end of the tunnel – but for some reason, the proposed law chooses to allow some 290’s to use their CONVICTION DATE to determine that they no long are required to register, while holding others to their release date from incarceration.
I would propose that ACSOL consider supporting the idea of an either-or scenario for the 10-20 registration: In the case of 10-year registry, I propose that a 10-year registration include a period from the date of conviction OR the date of release… Whichever comes first. And for 20-year registration, it be 20 years include a period from date of conviction OR the date of release… Whichever comes first. And as for petitioning for removal… This can easily open the door for the courts to be arbitrary in its decision, rather that guarantying release from the obligation to register. Which in trun will ope the door for more litigation kin the future.
Now is the time for change… But now is also the time to ensure that change is as fair and equal to the clear majority of registered citizens, and not just a few.
Punished For Life
I believe that under AWA a Tier 1 must register once per year, Tier 2 is every 6 months and Tier 3 is every 90 days. In Nevada all RC's who have no permanent residence must Check in every 30 days. Now Nevada is not a fully compliant AWA State, and I hope to hell they never implement it. Just keep in mind that if CA. goes to the AWA so they'll receive the federal funding, 288(a) moves to Tier 3 and you are on there for life with no chance to be removed. Any "Bill" that even resembles AWA should be avoided like the plague.
If we must have a registry (although unconstitutional) we should fight to the very end resisting anything based on the original conviction and work toward "Risk Based" methods for rehabilitation and moving ex-offenders back into society once time is served. I'll be the first to agree there are some who may deserve and require civil commitment. Some maybe shouldn't be out of prison. But 99% should have a chance to be redeemed. 17 years should be the goal, and it should be automatic.
Edna
The fact that Derek and Will (from the organizations you mention) oppose it: is that a good or bad thing? Because personally, I oppose this bill.
Agamemnon
I for one see the tiered registry as a step (a big step) in the right direction, not a resolution. I say this as a person who will most likely see themselves placed on the third tier.
Steve
One of the reasons California has not gone awa besides cost is that it includes juveniles. I don't think they want to see that happen here.
Edna
If a previously unpublished offender falls into the Tier 2 or Tier 3 category, then they ARE going to get published. So for those people, this bill will hurt them. One of the many flaws to this bill.
Edna
Some people ALREADY have the opportunity to 'petition.' It's called a Certificate of Rehabilitation. Strangely, this bill takes the relief of a Certificate of Rehabilitation AWAY!! As I read above, there will be people who qualify for the certificates under existing law. But if this shady bill passes, those same people might be lumped into Tier 3 and have no more hope in ever getting off. So this bill does a lot of damage to people. For one, it takes Certificate of Rehabilitation away. Second, many unpublished people will be surprised to learn that they'll end up on Megan's Law website (if they end up in Tier 2 or Tier 3). And third, this law relies on the very flawed Static 99R 'instrument.'
NO!
This is not well-thought out in terms of our benefit, quite the opposite.
Read more closely, many many people will be harmed by this.
Josh
What I did forced me to become a different person. Thankfully. I understand why many could care less about me, but not having forced public humiliation and shaming would be better than being released from prison. Its like theres a part of me being held back from really being a normal, contributing person, cause I never know when someone's going to recognize me fromthe list
abolishtheregistry.com
Every action, especially government action, is intentional and thought out. Once you realise the nature of government, it's easier to figure out their intentions. That works for the average person too.
Anyway, it's 29 years, so that's most likely the beginning of the greater influx of people. It also stops the most from timing out at 30 years. Now they'll most likely endeavor to keep the remaining on by upping their tiers and also denying the petitions for release. This also projects the idea that they're trying to reform, in words and soundbites only of course, but not in actuality.
Edna
"Not Really," you are wrong. There WILL BE a lot of previously unpublished offenders published under this bill. That website exclusion petition process with the DOJ, similarly, seems like a farce. So many exceptions. If someone who is currently unpublished either has a 6 or higher static score -OR- meets the criteria of Tier 2 or Tier 3, they are (unfortunately) going to get published under this bill. So these are a class of people that are really going to get harmed with this thorny bill.
Davidh
Janice, above I've discriminated between two other views by registrants. I'd like to now do so with yours. Your 5 year goal, as presented is sound to the principle that no two person's situation, or in this case crime, are the same; and therefore, to what appear to be a solution for the many, and solving your goal--here's the problem: i'm going to assume the organization's name sake: Alliance for constitutional SO laws is also a goal and that you presumably got into this area of practice because of your deep seated convictions for justice, fair and good laws for the betterment and enrichment of society was part of that too. Now, we all can agree there is nothing just or beneficial for society with these laws and still would not be with the passage of this legislation. So I will ask that before you consider you following paragraph to be a : well, boys a job well done--we met our goal and objective. I would say very narrowly defined. I agree we cant make a perfect outcome for everyone, we are not all similarly situated. but I'd argue given what we're being left with, which in the end will be AWA, would be a betrayal, I feel. I dont think you are a naive person, but some times we all can be blindsided. Call me a skeptic, but ever since my brush with the law, I frown negatively of the motives of man! They are dressing this up to look like they're creating a rational system, but there was never a rational component to it to begin with so building from it cant be right! They are attempting to become an AWA compliant state, period!
" During the five years in which this organization has existed, we have often heard a wish expressed – that registrants in California be treated differently, not the same. That wish was expressed in many variations including that registrants should be treated differently according to their current risk or that registrants should be treated differently according to the offense for which they were convicted."
Edna
This bill has the risk of publishing previously unpublished offenders. If one scores high enough on the Static, they can go from unpublished (i.e. one of the lines not crossed out) to Tier 3 and published! Similarly, a current unpublished offender can meet the criteria of Tier 2 and he/she will end up being published. These people will definitely get screwed by this bill!
please do not support this bill. fight for something NOT created by the government
The support for this bill is not part of any 'incrementalist' strategy. It seems predetermined because clearly, for some reason, the money fundng this bill and organization seem so intent to to let the 10,000 pre 1987 go. "1987" is such an arbitrary number. This bill is so troubling, and it shows this 'civil rights' organization's true colors, because it is not just helping the 10,000 group: but it also is harming a group of 30,000. Plus, the fact this bill is an UNFUNDED MANDATE!! My guess is California will next become an Adam Walsh Act state to get federal funding to pay for this UNFUNDED MANDATE. That means Tier 2 would need to register every 6 months and Tier 1 would need to register every 3 months!! That's a lot worse than every year, folks!! Janice, please have a heart and consider what you might be getting into! This is a bill that is going to harm a lot more people than help!
Lee
I am against any new law that falls short of abolishing the registration requirement for citizen's who have done their time. I've been registering for a 288(a) since 1992. Everything the Legislature has done since then has been punitive and I see nothing in the proposed bill that guarantees that will change. It is still left up to the DAs and Judges. I never was given a static rating but I do know one size doesn't fit all. That being said, I trust Janet and Board to come to the right decision and will support them in whatever that is!
someone who cares
Derek from Once Fallen and Will from "Sosen" both oppose this bill. That should tell us something.
Davidh
Anonymous:
a few things you said and one someone else said struck me the most.
You:
Moving to AWA. what else is this about! They are not admitting to an error here or doing anyone a favor, and anyone who believes a system under AWA is better than we have now is crazy! I think the tiered registry was the only item California was not compliant on. So why not AWA, leave all the constitutional crap to the federal courts and save money! defer to another entity (federal government). This is AWA compliance all the way--and to you thinking you're off the registry--READ AWA!
Someone else:
Janice, Agree to your principles for change, but dont be naive and destroy so many--dont get caught up in pronouns such as the "many" or the "few" the real solution is the betterment of all. This is only accomplished when you accept what is acceptable and fight against what is not, what someone else said!
Plese dont accept this as is,but do get behind change!
NO!
That is wrong. Some lives will likely not be improved and many other will be SUBSTANTIALLY harmed.
Davidh
Tim:
there's a pretty big list out there of California registrants, including phone numbers. It just takes doing!
Punished For Life
OK here's my question with all of these possible ways to get off of the Registry.
What about the poor sole who has no real skill or a means to earn a decent living? I mean after all,
I don't see any State with a program to help the RC find work or to teach them a trade.
Many are fortunate enough to have access to "Thousands of dollars" to hire a good attorney and petition the courts and file lawsuits. There really isn't much help in the "Proposed Bill" for someone who can hardly afford
food? What about them?
My guess is that the State really does not care about them. If they fall off the list, OK. If they never can get off, So be it.
Davidh
i think 288 (a) is probably one of the most popular offense in the community, as I too am one. Tim, i know 288's are punished as a violent, but I was unaware that it's categorizes as a violent felony--how sure are you of this??
Anonymous
Janice, here are my thoughts about the matter (Note: I would be a tier two):
If you do end up supporting the bill, I believe you would need to fight tooth and nail to remove the power of the DA in this draft. It should be when your time is up, then you are automatically off. If the DA has the power to oppose, then both of these things will happen, which will cause even more legal issues:
1. Some counties are more liberal than others. So one county might not oppose registered citizens petitioning to removal, while other counties will do all they can to oppose. So then basically it'll come down to luck to which county you were convicted in.
2. If the DA does oppose, than an ELECTED judge will have to decide. As we know, judges are human, and look out for themselves and their careers first, before justice. They will be very hesitant to approve somebody, since it can be used against them in a re-election. And as somebody else said, all it takes is one person who has been removed from the list to re-offend in a heinous way, then no judge will ever approve again.
So either the power of the DA's opposition must be removed from the draft, or if left in, must be severely reduced. For example, if they do oppose, then they MUST provide reason (ex. maybe you got two DUI's in the last 5 years). If they can't provide reason (ex. you were living a clean, offense free life), then they cannot oppose.
The thing that worries me the most is the "unfunded mandate" that was mentioned. Believe me, I could easily see the legislature moving to be AWA compliant in the future to "fund" this mandate. If that were to happen, it would move the majority of tier 2 registrants to tier 3, including me. If DA opposition was removed from the draft, then no extra funding would be required since the courts wouldn't be involved.
Davidh
Steve true! at least with all the flaws of the current system--I'm left alone--if they up the ante on me and those like me--how is it a good thing?? it's not even a matter of releasing a many and leaving a few behind--it's upping the punishment for many; unacceptable.
They built an unmanageable monster in this registry and now they want to appease a few with a hope, while giving so many a real shaft. This is the wolf in sheep's clothing disguised! in numbers they know we're gaining a voice--they're trying to divide and conquer us again
And even when you get off a state registry one is continually hounded by a separate federal entity. I say keep it as it is and keep fighting on constitutional grounds as to affect both state and federal laws
NO!
Because each registrant must still petition a judge in order to get off the registry. It's incredibly naive to believe that this will happen.
NO!
Wrong. This is not some progressive evolution. This is a sheep's in wolf's clothing meant to deceive.
This bill will keep SOs in an even tighter, more controlled grip. Please read the bill fully before making a statement of support - in every instance registrants must still petition to get off the registry even if their Tier designation mandates it. Many registrants will be denied.
This bill will destroy many SOs lives by eliminating the previous public exclusions. By eliminating the possible of Certificate of Rehabilitation. And by using a terrible measurement in the static99.
Please read the bill fully.
This bill MUST NOT be supported.
Not Really
Do you mean this? It appears to still allow for exclusion. The stricken lines are ommited.
1) If a Tier Two offender successfully completes the first 10 years of Tier Two following release from custody on the registrable offense, pursuant to subdivision (e) of Section 290, and he or she has not, subsequent to conviction on the registrable offense, been convicted of an offense described in the Sex Offender Registration Act, or of an offense described in Section 667.6 or 1192.7, that person may file an application with the Department of Justice, on a form approved by the departinent, for exclusion from the Internet Web site. If the department determines that the person meets the requirements of this subdivision, the department shall grant the exclusion and no information concerning the person shall be made.available via the Internet Web site described in this section. He or she bears the burden of proving the facts that make him or her eligible for exclusion from the Internet Web site. However, a person who has filed for or been granted an exclusion from the Internet Web site is not relieved of his or her duty to register as a sex offender pursuant to Section 290 nor from any, otherwise applicable provision of law.
(2) Other offenders required to register pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act may apply for exclusion from the Internet Web site if they demonstrate that they meet the following criteria:
The person's only registrable 'offense is an offense for which the offender successfully completed probation, provided that the offender submits to the department a certified copy of a probation report, presentencing report, report prepared pursuant to Section 288.1,or other official court document that clearly demonstrates that the offender was the victim's parent, stepparent, sibling, or grandparent and that the crime did not involve either oral copulation or penetration of the vagina or rectum of either the victim or the offender by the penis of the other or by any foreign object.
(ii) An offense for which the offender is on probation at the time of his or her application, provided that the offender submits to the department a certified copy of a probation report, presentencing report, report prepared pursuant to Section 288.1, or other official court document that clearly demonstrates that the offender was the victim's parent, stepparent, sibling, or grandparent and that the crime did not involve either oral copulation or penetration of the vagina or rectum of either the victim or the offender by the penis of the other or by any foreign object.
(iii) If, subsequent to his or her application, the offender commits a violation of probation resulting in his or her incarceration in county jail or state prison, his or her exclusion, or application for exclusion, from the Internet Web site shall be terminated.
(iv) For the purposes of this subparagraph, "successfully completed probation" means that during the period of probation the offender neither received additional county jail or state prison time for a violation of probation nor was convicted of another offense resulting in a sentence to county' jail or state prison.
Roger
A tiered system bill would not help me today, since I would be in the third tier. However I support it.
I think we need to fight the registry on two fronts: (1) challenge its constitutionality, and (2) supporting a tiered system.
But I believe challenging its constitutionality will FAIL in the short term because politicians, the courts, and the public will not suddenly drop their fear of RCs after decades of fear-mongering.
I believe a tiered system would eventually help lessen their fear of those of us in tier 3.
Here is why:
Human nature is such that we need to have evidence that what we believe is false before we will change our beliefs. This is especially true for highly emotional issues surrounding RC policy.
Hyper-conservative California politicians often object to the tier system, saying that when tens of thousands of people are gradually released from the registry it would cause a huge increase in offenses against children.
However, when a tiered system passes and that does NOT happen, people will see that their fears are proven unjustified, and would be more open to allowing tier 3 RCs to apply for release from the registry.
This is similar to how gathering statistics on recidivism of RCs over the years resulted in proving low re-offense rates, forcing people to think twice about their incorrect preconceptions of high recidivism, which opened a dialog around the nation on alternatives to treating every RC as a dangerous monster.
Gerald Cervente
To Anon,the tier 2 does not address 288(a),tier 3 does say that if you have two separate 288(a)'s that you were convicted of your, going on tier 3. I only have only one 288(a),however it maybe a typo for tier 2,
since it makes no sense to say you need two 288(a) separate convictions for tier 3.
The bill is far to confusing it needs to be clear,not in bullishness.
The bill needs work,as it stands no way I support it,I agree with you these dirty rotten politicians
are ready to ponce.If Trump drains the swamp in Washington ,he needs to drain the septic
tank in Sacramento.
Timmr
Need I point out that before 1947 there was no registry. Need I point out that branding peoples palms with an M for murderer or T for thief is no longer done, and we look down on those countries that still do that as medieval. Things change with new information. I am depressed that registrants themselves feel there is some sort of valid public safety use for registering people like cattle.
Anon
Gerald, if you have one conviction of 288(a), then you would be tier 2. You are tier 3 if you have more than one 288(a) conviction (separate convictions, not at the same time), or if you committed 288(a) during a murder.
Side note: if California was AWA compliant, then I believe one count of 288(a) would put you up to tier 3. That is why we have to be careful. If this is approved, then, we would be one legislation closer to being AWA compliant, which would move all registrants with a 288(a) charge from tier 2 to tier 3. Believe me, I'm sure there are already some legislators frothing at the mouth to do this to further their career.
Timmr
Even punishment must follow some rational, deterrence, retribution, rehabilitation. 1987 is completely irrational. Maybe they just need to cut off a certain number of registrants right away for some reason. Talk about arbitrary.
Not Really
That is not my reading:
"(2) Tier Two offenders must register for 20 years. Persons shall register for 20 years if the
person was convicted of an offense described in subdivision (c) which is also described in
subdivision (c) of Section 667.5 "
The first subdivision (c) is the offenses that requires registration.
The subdivision (c) of Section 667.5 includes 288 (A).
So the requirement to register under 290 (c) of the 288(a) offense in subdivision (c) of Section 667.5 puts one in Tier 2, not Tier 3.
NO!
Check where all the previous eligibility for exclusion has been crossed out.
Opposed
I hope everyone understands. I've been here almost 30 years & it never gets better. Every chance they get they just pile on more bull$#/+. They have the Supreme Court telling them, "it''s not punishment!" So they add more laws and punishments to go with them. & in this draft the DA still has too much power. How much relief can we really expect from a group financially motivated to keep us registered? This is political. Reforming Criminal Law by saying, "Look we're letting go of all these previously registered sex offenders." & the other's have to petition for relief? The system they have now is so impossible I've had lawyers say "Don't waste your money!" I can 't imagine the hurdles & flaming hoops they have planned. & before we were all so bad they placed us all in one group. All of the sudden, about 1% of us, without questioning or screening, are stable enough to be unsupervised. However, don't expect to travel!
I'm afraid this is going to pass when the voter's hear that it's backed by the DA. The police, sheriff & attorney general will probably back it too. I believe these people are not our friends & we should be highly suspicious and cautious anytime they label something sex offender & present it to voters. I also believe that support for this tiered system will indeed somehow justify the registry.
EX-POST FACTO, BILL OF ATTAINDER, RETROACTIVE APPLICATION, REDEFINING THE REGISTRY AS PUNISHMENT; the registry should be fought with every & all issues. Accepting this proposal is justifying the registry.
"Good Parents don't need Sex Offender Registries!"
Not Really
I have long argued that the best attack against the registry would be for the family to sue under Skinner v Oklahoma. They have very strong and recognized rights.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/316/535
Since I do not have a wife a children I cannot pursue this line of attack.
NO!
It's dangerous to support this without reading the bill and understanding it. If THIS tiered registry bill passes, we will not get a second chance at it.
We must NOT accept this bill simply because it appears like it's a progressive move. It is not.
Many more registrants will be harmed than helped by this. The Static99 Risk assessment is not an acceptable measurement.
They are removing the certificate of rehabilitation. They are publishing the names of those were previously not published.
Even after your Tier designated time duration ends there is absolutely NO guarantee that you will actually be granted exclusion.
Open your eyes people and READ the BILL. DON'T JUST BLINDLY SUPPORT IT.
Gerald Cervente
I'm shocked that some members would even consider this proposed bill,that the organization
would view this as Sophie’s choice and consider it .I have been on the registry for 34 years,convicted of 288(a)
in 1982,there a lot of people that have been convicted of 288(a),your asking them to be completely destroyed,a lot have young families that will be destroyed.This proposed bill needs changes to include
288(a) having a time limit and not being bumped up to tier 3.If people with 288(a) get bumped up to tier 3,besides them being on megans web site,and reporting every 3 months,harassment by the police,public notification,possibly getting attacked.It will occur to the dirty politicians that this mass in flux of
tier 3 people constitute a threat to the public and likely will pass a restriction bill to apply to these people this will result in a lot being homeless and jobless.If this proposed bill did not help me,and simply left me in the same situation that would be ok,if it released a lot of other people.It completely will destroy anyone having a 288(a) conviction,so no way,a very bad proposed bill.
Not Really
Where in the bill do you find that? I missed it. Please point it out.
Not Really
The difference is between LIFE for all or the opportunity to petition. I don't understand the bill well enough to be for or against, but that is a big difference.
Not Really
Won't be? How do you know that?
Not Really
You may or may not be referring to my comment about getting out of jail. Either way, I'm not a lady. Why do you say there will suddenly be "beatings and abuse" when there were none before? I don't get that.
Not Really
My understanding is that the "tool" does not apply.
Eric
I agree with you ... It's why the scare quote marks are there. I'm one of the "really bad people" under the new law, for your information.
Eric
The proposed bill in its current form would still have men and women who've never had an actual, identifiable victim, on the registry for 20 years or life. Outrageous and unnecessary.
Sergio
Overall, I support the bill.
The reality is that any tiered registry that passes will not be good for everyone. I can understand that those that will be categorized as tier 3 will be in a very tough situation, being perceived as higher risk. However, there are elements of the new law that are moving in the right direction. For one, having limits on how long you register (at least for some individuals). Second, taking into account some sort of risk assessment.
I don't know how static the tier classification will be. Can you demonstrate with time that you are not "high risk" and be shift from tier 3 to 2 to 1? It would be great to have some sort of mechanism to do this.
The registry is unsustainable in terms of the amount of resources that go into it. I'm glad people in government are realizing this. It's an expensive waste of money that does not protect victims and punishes families that are trying to contribute positively to society.
Not Really
"Also, at least 10,000 previously unpublished SOs will have their information published and their lives destroyed even further."
Please point to where this is written in the bill. I did not see it.
NO!
Did you miss the point of the title? Obviously Janice has not decided yet.
HOWEVER Janice MUST NOT support this bill.
Too many will be harmed significantly by this bill.
Not Really
After reading the bill twice, I still don't understand it and still don't know how much it will help me, if at all.
A few guesses so far:
1. The bill reflects the 3 Tiered system already in place. Yes, it's there. Some offenses can petition to removed from the public registry. Some others do not require the DOJ to post home address, and, finally, what could be called the 3rd Tier, the DOJ is required to includes the home address be public. So the registry was already divided. This bill seems to reflect that to a degree as a starting point, but it is not a perfect reflection.
2. It incorporates the Three Strikes law violent or serious felonies law. In other words, it appears those with a strike offense will have a lot more trouble getting off the registry. I did not research this in depth.
3. If the petition goes through the police department, then the DA, and it is denied, it is possible to try again within 5 years at the most. A judge could set 1 - 5 years as the "postponement" limit, it seems. After whatever the limit the judge set, a person could try again.
4. It uses the current Static-99r procedure, and that means it is not meant for older offenses. That takes into account "ageing out." Does that mean those with a current Static-99r of medium or high will not have that after the time period of accuracy expires (provided they stay out of trouble)? After the expiration date, could the person petition for an updated score and then an accurate score would be impossible because the score would no longer apply to that now outdated older case?
These are just initial reactions and questions and they could be wrong. It is very difficult to read.
Anon
I agree with you Derek. Too bad you aren't the attorney representing all sex offenders.
Anonymous
Or how about something that says it's illegal for third-party sites to publish Megan's Law information altogether? People can always go to the government's site themselves.
NO!
What was the recent tightening?
Anonymous
ERIC: You said that "[o]nly really bad people will stay on for 20 years or life." Are you kidding me? This bill leads the public to believe that those who are Tier II or III are "really bad people." But I have to disagree entirely! This bill, which I DISAGREE with, does nothing but single out Tier II and Tier III as "bad people" based on either PAST conviction OR a dubious Static 99 score. What makes you think people can't change and learn from the past? I used to label people as either 'good' or 'bad.' But I've come to learn that people are often more complex than the labels ascribed to them.
Steve
In addition to what everyone has said that is bad about this if this does pass there has to be something in this bill that states it would be illegal and punsihable if third party sites continued to publish people's names who were lucky enough to be removed.
NO!
You won't be. Read the bill and educate yourself.
Eric
Thank you for your leadership, Janice.
This proposed bill comes in the wake of the recent tightening of certificate of rehabilitation availability.
The two reflect an attempt to reform the registry regime by narrowing its focus ... Only "really bad people" will stay on for 20 years or life.
I would support the proposed bill. Relative freedom for some, sooner, is better. But we must continue to press the issue: Does the registry do what it's supposed to do? Does it reduce crime?
The public registry is expensive to maintain. It debilitates registrants and their families. It frightens communities. It's arguably un-American. Unless it can be shown by data to benefit society, these costs are an inexcusable waste.
Honorary Lifetime Price Club Member
Third, the people who crafted this bill used the 10,000 old-timers as leverage -- not unlike a hostage situation -- to have those that will benefit sellout to the cause as a whole. So at the end, the real people who pay the true Constitutional consequence are those who are labeled "Tier 3." Meanwhile, Tier 2's are stuck in a sort of Twilight Zone (wondering if their petition will be granted or whether the tiers will be extended in the future). Meanwhile, the CASOMB crafters of this bill are well-aware that their new tiered bill is a perfect setup for becoming an Adam Walsh Act state. Because you know what? Sharper Future (as well as CASOMB) will LOVE LOVE LOVE that new federal funding. It's all part of a corrupt political system -- and I don't think any one person can stop it. Not especially after seeing the process highjacked what seemed to have been a noble civil rights group.
Marked For Life. Lepors
I see a problem with this bill. There is no way for those who would be placed in the tier 3 category. There are those of us like myself whose crime is listed one way but had a totally different meaning because of the way it was written with no variation as to the penal code to differentiate between a crime with a child or an adult. Such as an example of 288a(c) which is oral copulation with a child under the age of 14.... OR BY FORCE in which the victim was an ADULT , NOT a child. In essence, the person is labeled as a CHILD MOLESTER when the opposite is true. So how do people have any chance of getting off the registry? Again, we are just lepor's with no right to live a normal life, or have a girl friend or a family for fear of placing our families in harm's way, or having a good job, or a nice place to live. Not even the right to travel outside of the USA. Now they want to ban us from watching our kids in a school play or be able to attend college classes to better ourselves.
God Bless America!!!
danielle
Hope and prayers! No public registry. It kills by 1000 cuts. It only creates panic. It helps no ones safety. It prevents re integration into society. Its probably costly too- though some folks make a living that way- but there's more humane ways -please. I'm praying that no one can be bumped up a tier retroactively. And please-if a tiered registry with possibilitys to get off is implemented,do not go past that 17 year maximum registry requirement for any RC. Provided no new sex crime convictions during that period. The laws were made for man(and women). Not- man or woman for the law. Let's have fair and just laws. And stop the panic buttom costly laws.
Will A
I am not a California resident so this would not directly affect me.
But I feel that any attempt by the criminal politicians to polish their illegal, immoral, un-American turd, should be completey rejected. The only thing that is acceptable to Americans is to destroy the Registries.
When I read people asking about how the bill will affect them personally, I find it to be quite offensive. I feel that attitude is how the U.S. got into its Registry mess and witch hunt. People seem to be good with the Registries as long as they are not being affected. I feel like those people would get off of the Registries and never lift a finger again to oppose them.
I have been listed for 2 decades and I'm surely a "low level" former offender. But I won't ever forsake people who are listed for life. F the un-Americans who think the Registries are okay just as long as they only list "those people".
Ron S
So glad to see so many of us giving our input. I wish the people who make these laws that cause so much harm in our lives would read these posts. At minimum they would realize that we're all just people who want to feel human again.
Regarding the bill, it makes very little sense to support it as is. Just about everyone who is classified tier 1 is eligible for a COR which you can get in 10 years anyway. This is a scam folks. They're giving us something we already have and if we agree, the men and women who remain registered will face more scrutiny from both the law and the public.
This bill has to be amended to allow EVERYONE to obtain a COR. I don't know why some of us can and some us us can't get it. You are either reformed or you are not. We should have protection from this sort of ambiguity in the law.
Secondly, I'd love to see verbiage in the bill that eliminates ex post facto increases in limitations for those who will remain registered. I'd hate to see us sell each other out for a small return.
Another item of concern to me is petitioning to be removed. Those who are eligible need to be dropped automatically without applying to an elected official who may see a political benefit to interfere.
While true freedom would be an all out abolishment of the registry, I don't consider it realistic. We're a very important piece of the fear machine that makes a lot of money for a lot of shitty people. If we are going to agree to a reformed registry, it needs to liberate all whom deserve it. Let's keep this discussion going and make our voices heard.
NO!
WE CANNOT SUPPORT THIS BILL!
All those in support of this bill have clearly NOT read the bill. The devil is in the details.
As it stands this bill is nothing but a "dangling carrot" meant to deceive us into thinking it's a progressive improvement. It is NOT.
We will be WORSE off. There will be NO SOs "immediately" getting off. All this bill does it put control back in the hands of local DA/municipalities and corrupt/brown-nosing legislators.
Also, at least 10,000 previously unpublished SOs will have their information published and their lives destroyed even further.
I believe this is an attempt to maintain control over the registry under the pretense of a "progressive tiered system" due to the increasing scrutiny that SO laws have been getting.
DO NOT SUPPORT THIS BILL.
The Minorty Report?
So even for the non-contact offenders, the Static 99R will be THE controlling factor in determining whether one belongs belongs in the Tier III category? What is this? "The Minority Report"?!?!
E
So I don't even really understand this draft to the point where I could tell how it will affect me personally. I will be checking with my lawyer about that. But I'm confused about some of these comments. Can't we continue the fight on a federal level to abolish the registry AND have a tiered registry in CA? Are these two goals mutually exclusive?
If they are not mutually exclusive then we should take progress, if it in fact really is progress. I say that because there is one point that I see brought up several times that does concern me. The idea that we have to petition to be taken off the list. So my question to Janice and her team is: on a practical level what is the benefit of this bill over the current system that that allows us to petition of a certificate of rehab after 10 years?
HopingforHope
What happens to those of us who were never assigned a risk level? My offense was 25 years ago in California and I was never assigned a risk level.
This Bill Is At The 'Expense' Of Others Rights!
This bill helps 10K, but at the expense of 3 times the people (i.e. 30,000 people will be advanced into Tier 3 and thus labeled as the most 'dangerous' and harmed MORE). Unfortunately, you can see that the special interests funding this group are in the pre 1987 category -- a capricious year -- because they are leaving everyone else to hang. Kind of ridiculous because a lot of us put a lot of faith in this CIVIL RIGHTS group. Also, I very much agree with your statement that civil rights groups should be like 'doctors' in doing 'no harm.' This bill, in much more that one sense, will likely do more harm than the current scheme that we have now. I don't know about you guys, but this bill is a farce. This bill should have 'CAUTION!' and 'WARNING!' signs wrapped around it in big bold letters. But you know, with Janice, CASOMB, and the DA's behind this... this sham bill is going to pass.
Steve
Interesting Chris...
New Person
What change, exactly occurred?
They pardon 10,000. They could have easily done that via Certificate of Rehabilitation.
60,000 will have to petition to get off the registry in 10 years. That's what we all have to do for the Certificate of Rehabilitation. The DA is involved in the rejection process of the petition for both instances. How exactly is that different? What is the longest term a tier one can be denied registration? Is there is set limit? Similarly, the same can be said for tier 2s? The state can continually "add" years to your registration without breaking the law.
What about tier 3s? They have no resolution? Janice brought up 17 years as a statistical landmark. CASOMB has founded under 1% recidivism rates for the past two years. None of these FACTS help mold this current bill as it stands.
This is a DA trying to give you a bad plea deal vs the highest restriction possible -which we are already in. On the surface, it looks like the state is trying to help, but in truth, they are showing how they've held so many registrants down by not awarding Certificate of Rehabilitation, CoR, to many registrants, particularly those set to be automatically absolved off the registry list.
That's how out of the box POV I have. So we know the state doesn't give out CoR awards to many registrants, why would any RSOL want another "petition" type exit program when we know the state does not give it out often enough in the first place?
By this bill, the state is still fearful of registrants. So the petition can easily add years to any registrant!
Again, after 10 years, qualified registrants can petition for a CoR. How is that any different from what this bill proposes? Oh... besides taking away the CoR (because tier 2s could probably petition in 10 years instead of 20) and making all those who, by law, do not have to show up on ML's list to be show on ML's list.
Again, nothing really changes for the registrants outside the 10,000 that are absolved, except just get worse. There is nothing of statistical support that reflect under 1% recidivism rate, nor if the registration system is effective, nor the 17 years max limit. NOTHING POSITIVE RESPECTIVE OF REGISTRANTS WHO STILL HAVE TO REGISTER.
Trader Joe's
LS, there are more than two 'points of view.' It is not as binary as you make it seem. Personally, I cannot -- and do not -- accept this bill. But at the same time, I recognize that there will always likely be a need for a registry, so it will likely never be 'abolished.' We need something that INDIVIDUALLY evaluates EACH person (and not solely using the hocus-pocus Static 99R, but a collection of instruments and clinical opinion of QUALIFIED and UNBIASED psychiatry experts). What disturbs me about this bill is that it is written in a manner that is clearly intended to divide our civil rights cause. This is a bill that gives immediate relief to 10,000, at the EXPENSE of dignity and civil rights to 30,000-plus people who will be unfairly advanced into the Tier 3 category. Meanwhile, the others who are sandwiched into Tier 2 live at the hope and fear that the Tier 2 registration period is not increased or that judges do not become politically unwilling to grant these petitions. It's just a risky and bad bill.
Well said Derek....
Well said in what is needed to be said about the brutal honesty of this draft bill.....
New Person
"
My opinion is to support now, contingent on what the bill evolves into.
"
Is this like saying, "You have to pass the bill in order to know what's in the bill?"
I don't subscribe to supporting something that doesn't really change anything, but at the same time make it worse. A 10 year minimum to where you have to petition - how is that any different now? I know I will sue if there is added restrictions upon me and use the Michigan decision as my basis.
New Person
I think that may only work if it's punishment. Why? No other convicts are forced to register after their punishment custody has ended.
someone who cares
I already voiced my opinion earlier, and I just wanted to emphasize my concerns again. Some already mentioned this and I wanted to summarize three points again:
1. 10,000 will fall off the registry right away. If they are deemed not a threat all of a sudden, why did they have to stay on the registry for this long in the first place? They were not able to get a COR for what reason? Now, everything is different and they are fully rehabilitated? Actually, I am sure they are, like so many others whose offense happened after 1987. They, too deserve to fall off immediately.
2. Per AWA Wikipedia: A study conducted in Ohio found that retroactive AWA re-classification increased the number of offenders and altered their placement in management categories. Prior to implementation of AWA in Ohio 76% of adult and 88% of juvenile offenders were designated on the least restrictive category or did not have to register at all, while only 20% of adults and 5% of juveniles were classified as "sexual predators", the most restrictive category. Following re-classification this basic pattern was reversed, with 13% of adults and 22% of juveniles placed in Tier 1, 31% of adults and 32% of juveniles placed in Tier 2, and 55% of adults and 46% of juveniles placed in the highest and most restrictive Tier 3. 41% of adults and 43% of juveniles previously in lowest category and 59% of adults and 45% of juveniles who were not previously registered at all were assigned to Tier 3.[13]
So, the numbers of registrants who will end up on Tier III will have been excluded from the Internet all these years and are now considered SVP? How did this save the public all these years who were not aware of all these horrible people? The public is being fooled by the lawmakers, what a shame. Obviously, all this hysteria will get worse. If the people who were formerly not on the public site did not cause any concern, they should not cause concern now. The lawmakers can;t have it both ways. People were not on the public site for a reason, and the public deserves not to be mislead again.
3. Some mentioned that having some fall off the registry is better than what we have now. I disagree. A lady compared it to being in jail and being happy for those who get released. Right, but if the remaining people in jail now have to endure beatings and abuse that they previously not get, this does not constitute a fair ending.
B.Wat
I'm with LS, accept the tiered registry for now. I've been on this registry for 28 years and want off !
LS
So Iv'e read all of the comments on this post so far and there are obviously two points of view 1) Do not accept the tiered registry but abolish the registry altogether 2) accept the tiered registry (at least for now) and push forward later to try to change it or make it better. Any of you that believe/think that the registry will EVER be abolished are dreaming! At least a tiered registry represents SOME sort of positive change because if not, we are all destine to die while still on the registry
Paul
The decision to support, or not support, should be dynamic.
In its current form, the law seems reasonable when compared to what currently exists. That being said, this is only a draft bill. What is actually introduced, and what actually becomes law, can be a complete 180 from where the draft stands. After everyone has had their chance to amend the bill, what ends up landing on the Governor's desk (if it gets that far) could wind up being a nightmare.
My opinion is to support now, contingent on what the bill evolves into.
NO to this Bill!!
PLEASE do NOT back this bill!
I and many other registrants who were formerly excluded from the ML site will be made public if this bill goes through. This would ruin my life and the life of my family.
Jonathan
What ever happened to the 17 year idea? If even 'high risk' offenders who remain offense-free in the community for at least 17 years are not likely to reoffend than anyone else, then what is the point of 20 year or even lifetime registration? Also, we are failing to note that there is no evidence to show that registries reduce crime. In fact, most studies show registries perversely creating crime because registrants' risk factors are upped and are not able to integrate into communities and move on from the past. Even CASOMB awknowledged this in their reports. But I guess CASOMB is so dishonest to recognize its own findings and instead create and push a highly divisive bill that will put over 30,000 people in a WORSE position than everyone else. Again, I join the few others who OPPOSE this bill. It is unfair and lumps many in the Tier III who do not deserve to be. Thank you.
Jonathan
It's too much that a non contact offender can be lumped into Tier III because of the STATIC 99/R. If the static is only good for 10 yrs use, why is it then used for lifetime determination of Tier III? I don't think this is the "tier" we expected. At least I did not expect to be very disappointed and alienated like this. As I have a similar situation to you. A felony that required 290.006 registration. My ONLY (and last) offense. But STATIC 99/R has me at 6: so I guess I am lumped into Tier III. So yes..... this bill would have the perverse effect of making my situation MUCH worse. Please advocate that will at least IMPROVE ALL ourlives. Not a bill that will help a few, but completely screw over others. For the reasons I explain, I oppose this bill. Thanks.
Chris F
I'm confused. Are those proposing this really that stupid?
If they put an arbitrary "registrants convicted before 1987 would be automatically removed from the registry" in the bill, then go ahead and let it pass.
After it passes and some are removed from the registry, challenge it in court for everyone convicted after 1987 to also get off the registry under "Equal Protection" clause of the constitution.
Equal Protection
Overview
The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits states from denying any person within its territory the equal protection of the laws. This means that a state must treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances.
What am I missing here?
Timmr
I mean six million dollars would be a minimum.
Steve
Well I completely read it wrong then. I thought I saw it in tier 3. I hope someone can lay it out so we all can understand it.
LM
This is like trading one side of hell for another.
I think it's time all child safety advocates should be labeled as a hate group. They are the ones the Lawmakers have to coddle and appease in order to stay in office.
The dehumanization and subjugation will continue until the registry is no longer normalized as routine.
You people are not fighting mad enough. Reminds me of the Jews reaction when they felt the box car doors slamming shut on their faces. Only difference is they were forced to make peace with their fates.
Timmr
Yes, it is one of the violent felonies listed in PC 667.5 (c) that they put in tier II, unless you have two separate convictions for it, then tier III. Anyone correct me if I am wrong here. I have read it over and over.
Jason B.
"Take what is given?" What is this: a soup kitchen? There is nothing "pragmatic" about this bill. It is an 'unfunded mandate.' It is irrational in many ways. And the Tiering schemes are so bogus. 20 yrs and LIFETIME? What the heck is the point of LIFETIME for someone who remains offense free for many years? What ever happened to 17 yrs? This bogus bill is legislative judo in the worst degree. We are being clearly set-up with an 'unfunded mandate' that is sure to evolve to CA becoming an Adam Walsh Act state.
Jason B.
Whatever happened to "We're All In This Together?" When I attend those meetings the podium often has that handwritten note. But I guess it means nothing now? This bill is a dupe. I've been reading it over the last day. What it does is it forces the 10,000 to sellout for the greater good of the other 30K and probably many of the 60K who will just end up disappointed. The way the bill is written and setup, AM I JUST CRAZY IN SEEING THAT WE ARE VERY CLEARLY BEING SET-UP TO GET SCREWED? Are the attorneys not seeing this?
Not Sophie's Choice: Just a Bad Choice
You are only looking at the UNFUNDED costs incurred by the courts. But what about us registrants? If we need to hire an attorney to 'petition,' it would be at least $200 an hour? Assume that he or she has about 10 hours of work, that would be about $2,000 that each registrant would have to pay to 'petition' a judge. Maybe it will be successful. Maybe not. The only winners from this scheme would be the attorneys.
Then we'd probably have to pay for a plethora of "risk" assessments and a psychological "expert" to fight the DA in their almost guaranteed objection to our petition. That can easily be another $2,000. So then in that case, 10 hours of attorney billing hours will turn to 20 hours. So that's a $6,000 expedition... at minimum. But good luck in getting the petition approved. At least in Orange County, lol.
I hope the attorneys on ACSOL's board are not looking at this bill as a profit opportunity (i.e. "money scheme"). Because that's what it is looking more like. We trusted you guys, attended your meetings, donated to you. Please don't stab us in the back. We've had enough already.
What's perhaps more troubling is that the CASOMB judge, Superior Court Judge Brett Morgan, mentioned that this bogus bill is an "unfunded mandate." Well, how do you think the state is going to 'fund' this excursion? Become an Adam Walsh Act (AWA) state!
AWA = more federal funding.
So now we'd have to register either every 6 months or 90 days. Complete with the reassurance of greater restrictions.
The puzzle is so clear, that you'd be foolish not to see that we're being setup. Like someone said, this is a chess game in which the government has thought this out seven moves ahead.
Again. Just a bad choice to go along with this phony baloney tiered registration bill.
PR
I too oppose this bill. I believe that we should all stand together and work toward totally abolishing the registry.
Not Sophie's Choice: Just a Bad Choice
Timmr,
This bill is riddled with poison. This bill isn't "Sophies Choice." It's just a bad choice. Kind of like eating four Egg McMuffins. It's a great idea at first. But right after comes the consequences. Incrementalism has its downsides: one being that it doesn't always account for future variables. The fact that Jackie Lacey supports this is not something to be happy about; it's something to be worried about. Moreover, CASOMB, (and I respectfully say this) regardless of what is said by Janice and Frank in the meetings, is no friend of ours. Look at the pseudo science they recommend (i.e. polygraph, static, containment, etc.).
Be careful when you begin to trust the government. It might just come back to bite us. In this case, I'm pretty sure they have something planned in order to screw us over. They smile at us now, but they'll be sure to go 'Selena manager' on us later.
disagree w/ this bill. it's a farce.
M.J.
I disagree with this legislation. The way I see it, it's like taking equity out of your home or maxing out your credit card. It feels good at first; but later on, it's something you'll come to regret. Why?
First, while it is great that about 10,000 will get off, the price to pay is a plethora of endless qualifications for the other "about 60,000 registrants" who may or may not “ultimately” stop registering. Not every one's cases are clear. A lot of people might very well depend on having to petition the Court. And who knows if judges (who are elected) are really apt to grant such petitions. So this law might have the sick feature of making people pay a lot of attorneys fees to get disappointed in the end. So giving this much power to an elected judge to deny/grant a petition is really troubling. I can see why the attorneys on ACSOL's board would push for this bill. But then, maybe I'm being paranoid. Right?
Second, what about the OVER 30,000 registrants who are classified as Tier 3? So non contacts and non violents can be lumped into that category IF they just happen to score high on the static? The static is no sure predictor. What about if a Tier 3 hasn't reoffended in 20 years or more? Lifetime does not seem fair. Why is there an arbitrary 1987 date? What's so magical about 1987? Also, what's the point of posting addresses for Tier 3?
Third, why is this organization so adamant about pushing for a three-level tier? It seems awfully coincidental that Adam Walsh Act is also a three-level tier. After reading the draft and looking at other tiered states, I have a gut feeling that this law is a terrible long-term strategic option because all it's going to do is set California up to be one bill away from joining the Adam Walsh states. Tier 2 subject to 6 month registration requirement, Tier 3 to having to register every 90 days? No thanks!! But you know the politicians will pass AWA because of its perceived increase in public safety and federal funding. Be careful ACSOL!
IF this organization makes the mistake of classifying offenders into three groups, California will be only one piece of legislation away from becoming an AWA state. This powerful organization might just be setting up its very own registrants for a future of more draconian laws. Look at other states who extend their tier levels or give the Level 2 and Level 3 registrants more restrictions. You are sacrificing a few who will end up getting more scrutinized (30,000), just to "free" another few (10,000)... while giving the majority 60,000 a reward that MIGHT or MIGHT NOT come provided a judge is willing to risk her/his political career.
Another thing. California has the incentive to become an AWA state because of increased federal funding. The fact the District Attorneys support this farce bill is one sign that should trouble us. The DA's support is certainly not something to boast about. The fact CASOMB supports this bill is also something that should trouble us. They've thought this through. They know that becoming an AWA state will increase federal funding. And this is exactly what labeling and classifying registrants into three groups will do. It might very well set California up to be an AWA state. The incentive being more federal funding.
Think before you do this. While there might be some great short-term benefits, this is probably (in the long-term) a big mistake. I trust this organization will do the right thing:
1. Either work to HEAVILY revise this draft so that it is much more logical; or
2. Oppose it.
Derek W Logue of OnceFallen.com
I've been calling this a Sophie's Choice for a very long time now. i'm glad ACSOL is at least offering to let us voice our opinion before dissenting opinions are ignored, because I already know Janice is married to her incrementalist strategy. But since I have this last chance to point out the flaws of this strategy, I may as well do just that. This is why I say 3 jeers to 3 tiers:
1. Few will actually benefit from the 3 tiered system: First off, I doubt this will be applied retroactively and thousands of registrants will drop off immediately. (It seems the more likely scenario is they would create some form of petition to get off the list process rather than simply cut folks off.) There will be a Trump-storm if that is even sniffed by the media. Seriously, I doubt they'd cut 10,000 immediately. Oregon is transitioning to a 3 tiered system from lifetime registration and they've had to extend their time frame for implementation another 2 years to 2019. They have about a third of the registrants as Cali so I imagine that any potential relief will be delayed for years to come. Also, there's the potential for moving the goalpost, as NY state had done once to level 1 registrants, whose registration period increased from 10 to 20 years, and now there's a second push to increase that further. And how will folks be classified? I see a push to keep as many folks on the list as possible.
It validates the registry: If anyone's endgame is the abolition of the registry, then this strategy is repugnant because in order to advocate for three tiers, you have to proclaim the need for a registry in the first place. You are allowing the opposition to line up on our side of the field in doing so.
It will make things worse for those on the highest level: There isn't really a great way to pigeonhole folks into neat little levels. Ohio has been doing this for 20 years and they got it wrong even under the older, more superior risk assessment system. Just look at MY classification as an example. I've lived with the label of "sexual predator" for 11 years now, and I get it far worse than the average registrant. I could ramble on all day about the many ways it sucks more for me than for other registrants, but I think many of you get the idea already.
It will actually make fighting the registry harder in the future: It will be harder to use some of our go-to arguments (particularly the examples of teens landing on the list) under a tier system because folks will believe that we are successfully separating petty offenders from the "real threats" out there. Of course, I know that even risk assessment programs get it wrong because I've lived it. There is still a human factor involved in the risk assessments (in my case, judicial discretion, aka bias), and many judges or whoever is in charge of classifying registrants will err on the side of caution.
What I believe will ultimately happen is a very narrow pathway may open up for a very small number of registrants to get off the list (nowhere near 10,000) and the system will merely give many the false hope of getting off, but the procedure that will be installed will create standards so high, very few will truly get a reprieve. It might help a few but at the expense of many.
Janice believes in incrementalism but I don't. To me, that's like saying lets not abolish slavery because it is never going away, but instead, we just devise a system to free some slaves but allow some slavery to remain.
I don't care if I piss some of you off but they asked for an opinion, so i'm giving it to them.
Michael
Theodora,
How are you so sure your grandfather will be helped by this bill? At first I THOUGHT I would be helped by this registry. But after reading the draft. I'm wrong. I am actually harmed by it.
Screw this bill.
Steve
Sorry just re read your post is 288 (a) tier 2?
Provide a new bill proposal entirely
The board here has the ability to provide with details, analysis and truth what should and could be done by the powers that be in an entire new bill proposed that can and will accomplish everything that people want done. As the public, RCs and their representatives have the ability to do that, present and work to get it implemented. During the time, you will see then what the elected officials are really like, what and are willing to do to get their way. Rational and irrational thinking will take place with emotion and lack of factual thinking. Be prepared.
Based upon what is provided here today alone, there are enough smart people who have commented with great detail the shortcomings of the bill as is and where improvements are needed. I hope the board will take them and use them to better the bill or provide a new one altogether. CA has the ability to lead the nation here in this area, as they have with others, and stay away from any US Government enticement of being in compliance with what they feel is best (including $).
I do find it interesting this bill is provided just after election day has come and gone. I don't believe that is coincidence, but strategically planned.
A tiered system is not something that should be strived for.
Steve
Timmr my conviction is the same. When I first went to court DA told my attorney he just wanted a misdemeanor...a lynch mob changed that. Even with all the bad I've managed to more than adequately survive...I am lucky on that end. Fearing a tier 3 label could change all of that though. That's right at first serious...then violent...now thrown in with svp..total crap
Ron
Be pragmatic. Take what is given, then push the bar even further. There is nothing that says you can have one and not the other.
Timmr
If your enemy up until now gives you cake, shouldn't you check it for poison?
Tom
As written, the proposed tiered registry offers many of us no hope. Even though it speaks of risk assessment the assignment of tiers is still very much based on conviction, especially tier three. Each case is different and should be looked at on a one on one basis. Any legislation that proposes a 'one size fits all' law is not a good one. We already have that. I have two separate convictions which would put me into tier three, yet I have not had a criminal offense for over thirty years. The fact that I am a registered citizen does not dictate my life, however it sure does hamper it. It would be best to see a law that offers all of us a chance to be free from this stigma.
Peace
David Kennerly
Thanks Timmr.
You know, I'm almost certainly a Level 2 if my interpretation of the bill is correct and, having been on the Registry for 23 years or so and having been convicted in San Francisco County (the jurisdiction for the D.A.) probably means that I stand a pretty good shot at getting off fairly soon. However, I'm not willing to leave those left on the perverse Registry to the tender mercies of an ignorant and petty state.
Timmr
Yeah, this petitioning process will put the ending of registration under local, not state control. Woe to those who live in Orange or San Diego Counties! Judges may not want to make enemies of DA's. It would be better if the end to registration was processed in the AG's office. The only thing they need to look for is if a new offense was committed.
Timmr
$1000 per petition only? That seems off. These labor costs got to be at least $500/hr including staff, judge and DA salaries and infrastructure expenses, maybe $1000/hr. Got to spend more than one or two hours on each petition, I would think. $600,000 would be at best an unrealistic minimum.
Nicholas Maietta
My feelings are about this is pretty simple.
I used to believe in a tiered system but have since come to the realization we cannot and should not ever have a registry of those who have completed their sentences. I don't support the registry but if the only hope we have to remove some people off the registry is to go to a tiered system, then I will just have to accept it.
I still stand strong on the notion that the registry ultimately needs to come down completely.
Timmr
Steve, I am sorry to hear that. I thought my family and I had it bad. That is why I would propose first to get everyone off the public registry. Science supports it. If they want to keep someone on, it must be a pretty good verifiable reason to have the public monitoring of him or her for life. If that can be verified why not civilly commit him or her? I don't know what your offense was, but mine, 288(a) is already considered a violent felony along with murder and kidnapping. I don't know when that happened, or if it was because of Chelsea's Law, which the CASOMB supported, but in the beginning I was a "serious" felon as apposed to a violent. I suppose that is why they are putting it in tier II. (These tiers would define to the vigilantes where the bulls eye is and so to direct their hatred. As a tier III, you would have a very valid increased fear for your safety under this proposal.) Also, the minimum term for my offense now is I believe ten years. Added to the tier II time length, it would be thirty years of registry since the conviction. These time frames are brutal, let alone the collateral consequences of being on the registry that go with them. I am surprised someone has not gone ballistic over this by now. Ten years for a misdemeanor, someone streaking or going to a nude beach where it is not exactly legal? As a result, being put on an extortion site, to be there indefinitely. California is definitely not a liberal state when it comes to crime. It is all let's give people a chance, we are all one humanity, until one commits a s*x crime.
ONE DAY AT A TIME
I support a tiered registry, but it has to be the right one. The final bill's details really matter. I don't believe that the registration will ever be completely abolished.
Steve
Problem is BSL it's the aftermath. They did a tier in NY only to take it all back and throw many back on with many more restrictions. There are no guarantees anyone will come off except tier 1 and the rest are left up to the people that put you here in the 1st place. The vultures will be waiting for one person to screw up, and it will happen, then it's over.
I know have zero confidence in CASOMB
Timmr
David, we are on the same thought pattern. I agree. I wrote the following comment before I read yours.
James
I also do not see this as a Sophie’s Choice...even if the numbers are half of what Ms. Bellucci forecasts, 5,000/30,000...this is a boat that must be taken.
I have suffered under the Registration Regime, but for God's sake, let my people go...this is a fantastic first step that none of us could even have prayed for a month ago...and now it is close to becoming an actuality!
Let us run with this...yet secretly saying, This is only a first step.
Let me note where I sense people are falling into mistaken thinking:
"The nirvana fallacy is a name given to the informal fallacy of comparing actual things with unrealistic, idealized alternatives.[1] It can also refer to the tendency to assume that there is a perfect solution to a particular problem. A closely related concept is the perfect solution fallacy.
By creating a false dichotomy that presents one option which is obviously advantageous—while at the same time being completely implausible—a person using the nirvana fallacy can attack any opposing idea because it is imperfect. Under this fallacy, the choice is not between real world solutions; it is, rather, a choice between one realistic achievable possibility and another unrealistic solution that could in some way be "better"."
This is a false choice, for people starving, Eat half the cake presented and then get back into the kitchen...(smile).
I have agonized over writing anything on this...but, sitting here with a sigh...there really is no choice.
Take this and run with it with a smile.
Best Wishes, James
Timmr
There is no reason to take a for or against stand on the complete proposal. Heck, civil organizations take a yes/no position all the time with legislation. Affirm the good parts, oppose the bad parts. From whatever they say, it is not set in stone until the final vote. The key is to look at the details and not support something that will come back to haunt you (us). You represent all registrants, by your bylaws. That is what you are bound to. Your constituents spoke of a lot of concerns, represent them all of them.
Personally, I don't see them putting much value on our opinions. We haven't really organized the base of 80,000 to make much of a difference. They are going to listen mainly to the law enforcement personnel. If you threaten a lawsuit because of INCREASED penalties for some, they would probably take notice. It is way out of anything Constitutional to enhance a negative condition for one convicted person to benefit another. On the other hand, how can an organization that helps people say no to 10,000 getting off the registry right away? Answer: They are calling the shots. You (we) call the shots. Try to unite us.
David Kennerly
Oh, one last thing: the DA's required support is obviously quite horrible. We already know that this will prevent many Registrants from getting off of the Registry and that it will result in huge disparities from one county to the next. We don't need an actuarial instrument to know how that will shake out in advance.
One good development is that prosecutors are coming under scrutiny for their punitive zeal like never before as has been shown in this last election. Is it so unimaginable that their role in this registration removal process could be dispensed with and replaced by the decidedly low-effort and low-cost method of automatic removal?
This provision keeps this bill firmly in the failed and miserable Witch Finder General mode of justice just as D.A.s are coming to be seen, more-and-more, as power-hungry and often sadistic zealots who have played an outsize role in creating the biggest carceral state in history and in the world.
David Kennerly
Our ability, either as marginalized individuals or as members of a group representing the interests of a despised minority to influence our lawmakers is, I think everyone would agree, pretty limited. I don't know to what extent our buy-in on this particular scheme will enhance its ultimate success but I would guess that it would not be an overwhelming concern in Sacramento or amongst the public. Not to be terribly cynical but it could be that, if they see us as enthusiastic for the prospect of this bill then its chances of becoming law may be greatly diminished.
Certainly, ACSOL's influence will be needed to lobby for changes in the final draft of the bill and I have no doubt that Janice will be there doing just that. If the question is "Would sponsors of the bill be looking for Registrant stakeholders' acquiescence on the general concept of the proposed bill to move it forward?" and the answer seems to be yes then our response should be very much a provisional endorsement. If our concerns are being sought or even if they're not, the details of the finalized bill need to be clear and their effects knowable in order for us, either as individuals or as a group, to extend our support.
A great many concerns have been raised here over the last several days as our members try to wrap their heads around the deliberately obtuse arcana of legislative bill-craft and to imagine the logical consequences that it would have in their, very real lives.
The Static-99R has been revealed to be a wholly inappropriate and extraordinarily blunt instrument of prognostication which is, nevertheless, a critical component in the proposed mechanism for gaining relief from the horrors of registration.
A single additional metric would make it far less objectionable (although we would still find much in the Static-99R to object to) as it would be applied in this proposed law: a formula for further reducing that score through the passage of time, crime-free in the community.
Another would be the Tier-3 life sentence which is clearly at odds with what the best statistics are saying about the influence of aging on recidivism.
My point is that ACSOL's wholehearted support for this bill should be conditioned upon its final form and that any compromised and inferior relief that it represents should be met with an endorsement proportional to its capacity to deliver justice to its membership.
My hat's off to you Janice and good luck moving forward!
BSL
I SUPPORT THIS BILL!!!! It creates momentum in the right direction. Taking parts away from a structure from the bottom up immediately causes the top down to become unstable. Current RC will fall off, then become part of a support system of 10,000 to 60,000 supporters to help chip away at the top!
Theodore, Theodora, Theodora
A true Christian, Theodora, would stand and fight for all of those who are oppressed and been redeemed in the eyes of the Lord so everyman has their chance to live again, not just those who are in the numbers the tax collectors believe are best.
Sorry for your grandfather, but there are other just as deserving as him to live in such a free way.....
Opposed
I'm just having a hard time throwing so many under the bus to save those who will be relieved. The penalties & punishments for those still registered remain & some become even more punitive. Plus, all the power still remains with the DA. How much relief can we really expect from a group financially motivated to keep us in a regulated system? This is politically motivated. Criminal Law reform was big in the elections and this is part of their reform to say we're gonna stop punishing this group of people but only some & for the ones we keep punishing we'll make it worse. Reform would be taking this disgustingly expensive registry that puts a huge burden on taxpayers & does nothing to protect the public & displaces almost a million Americans & eliminate the whole thing. That would free up millions of taxpayer dollars & put hundreds of thousands of taxpayers back to work. Instead we avoid real reform; dress up some proposal to make it look like we're truly moving forward when it's really just a dog & pony show for the pubic. Police already have your information & they are the only ones legally able to use that info anyway. It's redundant & expensive for them to record that information twice or more. & since the public isn't allowed to use that information for any action against you it serves no purpose besides creating hysteria. It's been stated that this is a way to divide us. It will certainly remove the solidarity of many granted relief to the numbers still affected. The ONLY registry I would even consider standing behind is one that is placed on you as a parole or probation condition & only for that duration; accessible only to law enforcement for supervising & enforcement purposes only.
Steve
Miker,
We have had our differences but I along with many who will be placed in tier 3 appreciate the fact you don't support even though this would get you off in two years. I don't blame anyone who this helps for wanting this to happen I probably would too.
Steve
Theodora,
I too am a good god fearing person. With that said i have had my house vandalized 3 times my cars broken into and vandalized I even had a neighbor come into my backyard screaming and waving my price club membership in my face. My kids have been kicked off their sport teams and Ayso went as far to ban me from watching my six year old daughter play soccer. God knows how many other things my kids have been left off because of my status. I can only imagine what bs is coming my way after being placed along sexually violent predators. I will fully fight this and will seek representation for all the constitutional violations.
So yeah call me selfish but I am not taking anymore of this.
wonderin
I'll be getting off the registry because I'm one of the 10 thousand but I'll make a deal.
I don't believe the registry does anything to keep former offenders in line so here's my proposal: Cut everyone loose from the registry and if there are any significant negative behaviors from their freedom to rebuild their lives I'll agree to spend the rest of my life admitting I was wrong every time I muster in to go through the booking process and try to explain to my family why we must continue to be shammed and shunned by our community because I'M STILL REGISTERED.
Just show me the contract and where to sign and as I've said before either put up or shut up!
Not Really
I made the PDF searchable so readers can focus on on their own situation easier. How can I get it to you?
Thanks.
Theodora
My grandfather committed a crime 10 years before I was born. I pray for all of you to support to let him off of this registry. He is a good man. True Christians would not be so selfish and think only of themselves to oppose this.
No, a few more $$ than that....
An additional 60,000 petitions x $1,000/petition is $60M
Again, this is a money making scheme that is not and never has been truly about the safety of the people, but the coffers of the local municipality and overall state. When revenues decline elsewhere, like what could happen here at ACSOL if the right choice is not made, they put it on the backs of those who they know have to pay. If mass deportations happen, then the money that was made off of those folks is suddenly gone and then where does it get made up? The RC.......
Again, this bill needs to be defeated at the grass roots level like a gardener chasing a snake with a shovel....
Bruce Ferrell
Sorry Keith, but they don't exist for the vast majority of us. No way out of the registry, no way out of IML.
The registry IS stupid, but it what exists and abstaining from a partial solution for more of us is saying yes to no solution at all.
What happens if you say "if I can't save all, I won't save any"?
Not Really
If the new bill gets me off the registry I will like it better than if it doesn't. Anyone who is honest will likely say the same. If it keeps me on, I will like it much less and will have to fight resentment. But I won't begrudge those who get off the registry. Good for them.Think of it as getting out of jail. We might prefer we were the one getting out, but we wouldn't want whoever is getting out to stay locked up just because we feel bad. No one would ever get out.
Now I have to read it and that might change my mind.
Thanks.
Timmr
That judge sitting on the CASOMB, he may have a point. It is an unfunded mandate. What's the point of having a judge retry a person for the same crime, then having the tax payers fund it? Maybe they are hoping to flip this to Adam Walsh Act compliance and get the federal funding?
OPPOSED TO THIS BILL
Amen!
Tired Of Hiding
You can put lipstick on a pig but it's still a pig.
Get rid of the registry for those who have 1) done their time/paid their debt to society and 2) are not locked up and therefore have been determined to not be a threat to society.
Total freedom or Total imprisonment nothing else will do IMO!
OPPOSED TO THIS BILL
Agree with you Steve. This bill is a joke. Tier 3 will see 'narrowly tailored' restrictions that will be hard to challenge. My family and I will write and call our state politicians to oppose this bill when the time comes. I hate to be at odds with Janice and the organization; but they don't seem to be looking out for my family anymore in pushing this bill to help but hurt. When they claim to be a "civil rights" group, yet are so dismissive to set aside 30,000 plus people aside to be labeled as Tier 3... then to continue to support this group would be foolish. I hope they don't support this hurtful bill... but it sure seems like they are headed in that direction. - Amy
Timmr
That's the can of worms. Nothing in this bill establishes an ex post facto prohibition against further punishment, nor is there a clause that states the length of the tiers can not be increased by legislative action or proposition the day after it is made law. Nor is there any prohibition against residency or presence restrictions or even something ridiculous like prohibiting anyone on any tier from attending college. There is nothing here that will protect the innocent when people hear about the next heinous crime, and all registrants will be guilty of it, somehow, magically. That protection is in the Bill of Rights and the state constitutions. I am not against getting people off now, let's say amen to that, just that we have to realize we are going to need each other's help when these things happen in the future, including making sure people who are off are not subject to actions like IML. They will. Things will. Get worse. If people sleep. Take one step forward, be prepared to hold your ground against those who want to push you two steps back. Where have we all been if we believe 2003 is gone.
OPPOSED TO THIS BILL
No way! This piece of "legislation" is a joke!
OPPOSED TO THIS BILL
I am opposed to this bill. It bumps my husband up to a Tier III. Why must you, CARSOL, advocate for laws that help many... but also hurt others. You could have advocated for a system other than a 3 level system that does not throw quite a few under the bus. I thought this organization was about helping the few, not just the many. There was a better way to go about this. When the time comes, I, as well as my family, will be sure to write and call all necessary politicians to let them know about some of the flaws to this bill, as well as how our family will be worsened by my husband being placed in Tier 3. - Amy
Mike Mike
Wow, this is difficult. I understand the dilemma you're in, Janice.
Before I give you all my answer I'll start with explaining my own situation. I'm a registered citizen. In January of 2014 I was convicted to 261.5(c). Even though it doesn't require mandatory registration, the court decided to discretionarily require it. I didn't even know until later that that penal code didn't require it. Public pretender.
I did 1 year state prison for this (2 with half). I got out on PRCS and completed it in one year.
My static 99r is a 2. And yeah it's a joke system.
I am not listed publicly on Megan's Law (police only). By all accounts I would guess that puts me on Tier 1.
Having said all that, I can't support this bil. It's a slam dunk for me, so why not? First, it throws many under the bus. Those who didn't have it as bad now have it worse. They now can be singled out and focused on. That's unfair.
The whole petition for removal is a joke! This is the most hilarious part. So with current system I have the Certificate of Rehabilitation, in ten years. This bill, I apply for relief... In ten years. What's the difference??
This bill does far more harm than good. At the end of the day I care about everyone in this fight.
New Person
Is the petitioning a money scheme?
It makes no sense to absolve 10,000 without a thought, but the 60,000 need to petition in court? Let's presume it is $1,000 per petitioner. That's $60,000 right there, not including rejections.
Again, the logic behind this irrational. No petition for 10,000, but for you other 60,000, you will need to petition. If the DA doesn't like you, then you keep petitioning upward to a judge. That's another lump sum there.
How is this any different from our current 10 year wait for CoR just to be denied? It isn't.
New Person
EXPUNGEMENTS
1203.4 and the lack of registration relief is outdated.
CASOMB's research for the past four years have denoted recidivism rates hovering around 1%, with the last two consecutive years below 1%.
These are current FACTS.
1203.4 states:
"
the court shall set aside the verdict of guilty; and, in either case, the court shall thereupon dismiss the accusations or information against the defendant and except as noted below, he or she shall thereafter be released from all penalties and disabilities resulting from the offense of which he or she has been convicted, except as provided in Section 13555 of the Vehicle Code.
"
Registration is a disability. (Re-reading 1203.4, I see an amendment not to bear arms, but do not see an amendment in 1203.4 that states a person needs to continue to register. So I do not see where relief from the duty of registration should continue on the site: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=1203.4.&lawCode=PEN )
What exactly are all these years of facts for, by CASOMB, if it does not re-shape how registrants are viewed? It would seem that NPS has a plausible query as to why registration relief is not granted upon 1203.4 award.
In California, it is a "one crime" equates to lifetime term of perpetual Constitutional abuse. The risk assessment for low levels have very little value as you are still viewed as a lifetime registrant. Low risk assessment + CASOMB under 1% recidivism rate + 1203.4 = ??? It should equate to relief.
Is the point of CASOMB and the State of California to prevent people from regaining their life to induce a far worse outcome (see Re: Taylor) or should they try to promote people to gain relief from the registry to fulfill a proper life? No one is using the actual low level statistical recordings for the good of registrants, but rather glazing over to the point of ignoring the stats and 1203.4.
What is the point of CASOMB when they reflect a low recidivism rate for the past four years to still deem registrants as highly dangerous to cost them 10, 20, to lifetime terms of their lives? Shouldn't actual results guide CASOMB to a more appropriate amendment(s)? So why is CASOMB still perpetuating the myth that registrants cannot be more than monsters?
The 1203.4 and registration are contraries to one another. Either they are rehabilitated or they are not. Why the two different standards? Under definition, registration is not a punishment, but it is a disability.
alienated
First I must say it is about time they introduced a tiered registry. With that being said I honestly only thought of me and my family until now. Can You BLAME ME ? I have being living under a rock in a cave for 25 years. I am ecstatic of the thought of some closure and feel as though my life will begin anew. Now after knowing my cynical motivation and desire, I must now try to be impartial for all fairness to this question in front of me.
Honestly there are some who probably need to be monitored FOREVER if not incarcerated, yes I said it. I was selfish in my actions and regret my actions. There are some who do not regret and are looking for another opportunity. I am no expert or psychologist just a realist and been there done that kind of person.
While one broad stroke for labeling is not fair. I believe one broad stroke for removal from the requirements to be a very similar dilemma. I would feel sad/angry if anyone who was removed from the registry would re-offend. I could not imagine the weight of this decision that the board of directors must make.
I personally think we should allow all registrants to be allowed to petition removal from the Megan's Laws after a certain amount of time granted you meet the requirements.
So my thoughts are we proceed forward with the suggested tiered registry but also allow the Lifetime registrants to petition for removal after 25 years if they have only been convicted of one crime in which they are required to register and were not convicted after the new Bill comes into effect in 2017. This way if you commit a crime that requires registration after the new Bill comes into play you will live by the new rules set forth.
I feel that I am being impartial, fair and realistic.
Thank you for asking our opinion and I hope this has been some help.
Timmr
I don't understand you. Are you suggesting the board go along with this proposal even though it is not risk based or do you want them to make their own proposal based on risk?
mike r
also how is it that somewhere along the lines of all this registration bs that we are responsible and have had the burdeen of proving we are not dangerous and that we are innocent of any future offenses when the burden of proof has always been on the government to prove we are dangerous and are guilty of some crime, perceived or actual...think long and hard every state with tiered registration are the ones with residency restrictions presence and Internet restrictions....that alone should scare us all and make any ca organizations to vehemently oppose this bill....the only ones that will really profit from this bill are the handful of people who were convicted long ago and the legislators, lawyers, all the organizations profiting off the registry,county and municipal districts and their counsel members because they will be able to implement all these restrictions with impunity ect. and ect....think long and hard everyone and look to who realistically benefits from this bill and what other states who have such a system are like...not pretty...
Renny
If a tiered registry is passed, CA will simply do what NY has done, increase the registration time for the lower tiers until ultimately everyone has to register for life.
Each election year will bring about competition to close loopholes like Former Citizen Detainees "escaping" from the registry.
Passing a tiered registry bill might seem like it will do some good, but be warned, those who get off the registry will be put back on the registry when election year politics gets involved.
Run freed man, RUN!!
Lawyers win on both sides, financially if they are defense and electorally if they are voted should the defense lose and the prosecution win. The individuals don't win unless they are able to be removed via a petition. If the petition is such a great idea, then why are not other crimes also forced to petition for their removal from their conditions? Oh that is right, it is all about time and only time with the intermediate steps needing to be completed. If they do those steps and all is good, then they may be able to be released earlier from whatever they are under. Stupid and utter nonsense.
This is a great social experiment showing the true colors of who would do what in this situation. It is already sounding like everyman for themselves, screw the collective.
Guarantee you, those who would be freed will run away as far as they can from this and not stick around to help their fellow person left behind. It will be "See ya suckers!" and put it in the rearview mirror. If those who are the ones who may never be freed work this, should they work it knowing they will be left behind? No greater compassion than helping your fellow man, especially when you know your fellow man is not going to turn around and help you. If your fellow man had nothing to live for, then that is admirable, but when they do, do not expect them to help you knowing you won't help in return. Martyrs need not apply here, but real people who are freed or not who are willing to continue the fight. That is what fighting about civil rights is about....ALL or nothing.
There is only one real choice here Sophie, it is for ALL and a continued fight for registry abolishment with reliable analytics used individually on a case per case use to put people on par with others who kill, maim or hurt others daily in CA through a variety of methods. If there is not way out or off for Tier 3, your effort is only a half effort. You must go with ALL for everyone impacted.
mike r
I see a whole new wave of laws coming this bill passes, new residency restrictions,presence restrictions,Internet restrictions, all based on the fact that the registry will be more narrowly tailored and unlike all the wins we have had on these issues it will be extreemly hard to stop any of those types of bills from passing right thru the legislative process and even upheld by the courts....we have made exactly three steps forward only to leap ten steps backwards if this bill passes....floriduh here we come....
mike r
I agree....while I would be placed in a tier twoand immediately have my current address removed and would be able to get off the public registry in two years o still can not support this bill..this bill will open a Pandoras box of new laws aimed at registrants...even though it would be great to not have my current address listed it isn't worth our life's I fear will get worse not better just for that one issue and for relief for a handful of people and a slight chance for some others by a 1-2-3-thousand dollar petition that will most likely be denied unless you are an absolutely perfect fir according to a judges standards...we need to take the current registration scheme down and force them to repeal or replace it with only those that the Court can prove thru clear and convincing evidence standard are a threat to public safety...that is the only way registration can even have any resemblance to a constitutional law...their going to do whatever they want with this but we need to push for more reform and amendments especially to make it automatic deregistration not based upon a courts discretion and the requirement to register only after the government can prove you are a threat....we cant settle for anything less....apparently they are on the retreat and realize the entire scheme is going to come down unless they do something to prolong it's life and make it appear as though it's more fair and just....guess what people the justification for these laws are and always have been based on lies and deception and that justification needs to be challenged in this bill and in the courts....
New Person
Permit me to add onto the "Petitioning" portion.
In all technicality, all 70,000 registrants have the ability to eventually get off the registry via Certificate of Rehabilitation. The problem is not a lot of people do get off from the Certificate of Rehabilitation because judges and the DA are involved in that process. (I would love to see the success rate of Certificate of Rehabilitation, CoR, to registrants.)
The problem here is this tiered system already absolves 10,000 registrants. Wait.............. Why can't they do that now with Certificate of Rehabilitation? What's the psychology behind all this? Either they are dangerous or are not, but not both - which is what is suggested within this Bill by absolving 10,000 immediately and the 60,000 still need to petition to be relieved the "DUTY" to register.
Again, the CoR is a petition that can be done in 10 years. How is the new tiered system any different for those who will still have to petition? This is putting lipstick on a pig b/c it doesn't change anything!
This new tier bill actually does "enhance" penalties to a certain group of registrants. Well, according to what Michigan courts have already denoted, is in fact, added punishment. Changing one's level of risk after the fact to enhance penalties is added punishment. Making one's address available when the law made it not available is also added punishment.
The CASOMB, judges, and DA's are holding registrants hostage. The CoR is the only pathway off from the registry right now. Yet, the CASOMB, judges, and DA's are not rewarding registrants who have been conviction free for x-amount of years (since the arbitrary 1987 date) the CoR. Instead, they throw a carrot by absolving 10,000 right now, but still have to petition in 10 years after incarceration. How is that petitioning any different than now? It isn't.
It's essentially the same system disguised as tiers, without Frank Lindsay at the forefront.
Seriously, why cannot 10,000 registrants be awarded the CoR right now or all along? Because it is all dependent on judges and the DA. And you want to agree to the exact same conditions?
How is that a win?!
I would counter the bill and thoughts behind it by asking for the success rate of CoR for registrants. Apparently, the state is holding registrants down. Apparently, they don't see 10,000 registrants as dangerous enough to absolve them immediately, but cannot award them the CoR.
The more I contemplate about the tier bill, the more disastrous it looks when you take a step back. So 10,000 do not have to petition, but 60,000 do have to petition? How is that equal? It isn't. How is it that 10,000 can be absolved immediately when the bill is passed, but were denied the CoR make cogent logic? It doesn't.
This is a ruse. It's a pig with lipstick on it. After being conviction free for a decade and I still have to petition? So if they say no, then my registration years continue. For how long? How long can they continue to deny it? Well, basically, that's the same situation with the CoR.
There is no direct pathway to relief if people (judges and DA's) are involved. I had a judge, DA, and probation informally denied my initial request for a 1203.4. (I did everything probation wanted me to do, but they recommended that I not receive the 1203.4) It took an appellate lawyer to inform my lawyer that it is by law that my 1203.4 be granted. So we went in a second time, this time denoting in the paperwork that it is by law my 1203.4 be granted. The judge and DA were still upset, but the judge said the law is the law.
Being a registrant who abides by the law and fights to regain his rights are often met with opposition from the courts/state. I do not want any judges or DA to be part of the exit program. Set the conditions like 1203.4 and once achieved, that's that! We already know what happens when the CoR is at the discretion of the courts. You mean to say 10 years of being offense free isn't enough that they have to do special investigations, costing extra tax payer's monies to deny a path to freedom and PRIVACY, as denoted in the California Constitution, Article 1, section 1.
This bill proposal is a farce.
ReadyToFight
I'm a single father of two. My daughter (11) is high functioning autistic, and my teenage son was born with the umbilical cord around his neck and suffers delayed motor skills. I've done everything I can to protect them from the cruel realities of the registry.
I will Never let the term "Sex Offender" define who I am.
Against impossible odds, we break our backs to hold the weight of the world and put food on the table.
My children have a future. Our children have a future. And I will never compromise for that.
At this point, I want to add that if a Tiered Bill is to move forward, that at the very least ANYONE currently registered shall be exempt from Tier level manipulation (no bumping up) and Also, Teir 3 should be given an opportunity to drop down to the second tier at some point because we all know the DOJ makes mistakes and to set that in stone for someone is just terrible.
And like I said before, the "petition" for 1 and 2 tier is ridiculous. Just one more way to eff with peoples....Families lives.
Our decisions effect everyone we love, and So do Their Decisions...
Keith M.
Good points abolishtheregistry.com. Those are good reasons as to NOT support this bill.
Keith M.
Uhh... Bruce a lot of those things already existed before. Only the crossouts and underlines are the deletions and additions. Also note how they took the right to a certificate of rehabilitation away. I don't think it's 'Sophie's Choice' too. I just think this bill would be a Bad Choice. But it seems ACSOL has already made it's decision.
Stephen
I say were all in this together.
someone who cares
Proposing a tiered registry is admitting to the law makers that they were right all along in saying that a registry for sex offenders is justified. It is not! Especially since other groups of offenders don't have to experience the humiliation, fear and injustice that sex offenders AND their families endure. A constant threat of incarceration for failure to register, knowing all the laws in all the states, counties and cities all over the country, having Halloween restrictions, presence and residence restrictions, etc. All that because they are on a registry that needs to be outlawed. That is a fight I want to fight. Some say that we should not be selfish and be happy for those who would get a chance to get off the registry. We would be happy, IF the rest would not be subject to more severe punishment. If all registrants' status stayed the same or got better, I would be all for it. But having to go backwards is just not fair. Not even those who will benefit can honestly say that a step back for the rest is worth for this Bill to be introduced. We need to fight to have the registry abolished. By agreeing to a tiered registry, we will not be able to move forward with this goal for a long time. Even 10 years on the registry is too long. Heck, that is a decade. In ten years, many things can change, hopefully for the better. I oppose the tiered registry, and I don't trust those who want to implement it. They can, at any time, make changes and decisions that will be retroactively applied yet again.
Keith M.
Mary, it isn't as simple as 60,000 registrants being freed. Unfortunately, I think we are failing to see that most of the 60,000 that you claim would need to 'petition' a judge to get freed. ELECTED judges are not very friendly to registrants, especially in today's political climate, knowing that if one successfully petitioned registrant reoffends in a heinous fashion, their political career is bye-bye. The only winners in this bill are the defense attorneys, who may or may not get their client relief (but will be paid a bunch of money nonetheless). So the 60,000 may be inflated. But it seems Janice and ACSOL has already made up their mind. Which really frustrates me and quite frankly, feel betrayed at the moment for all the meetings and donations I give at each meeting.
Keith M.
Sorry to say, but this bill stinks. So I gotta disagree with it. For one: let's be real. It isn't really as simple as... POOF... 60,000 registrants 'ultimately' freed from registration. After the Brock Turner case, judges will be hesitant in granting these "petitions." They know that it will only take one registrant given relief to commit something heinous and they are out of their ELECTED office. So that can really mess things up in the future. This bill also gives the prosecutor the right to make a case against me 'petitioning' off the registry so it's going to be expensive, the outcome uncertain, and ONLY THE LAWYERS will get rich from this bill. Secondly, what's so special about 1987? Why have a lifetime tier at all? It should be a 30 yr rolling max applied to EVERYONE! Seems unfair. But, in my opinion, this bill seems so intellectually dishonest and disingenuous to begin with. I was really excited about this tier. But after reading the actual draft three times now, I am sorely disappointed.
Bruce Ferrell
Some things I noticed in the bill are the explicit prohibitions against use of registry inclusion for many purposes for which is used now, that in effect exclude registered citizens inclusion in wider society and including specific monetary damages to the offending entity for such exclusion. Also mechanisms for tier three registrants to be down graded to lower tiers and mechanisms for correcting/altering static scores.
Overall this seem to be well thought out, ultimately offering a way out. This doesn't exist for anyone in California now. It's NOT a some or none... It's all, but not necessarily right now and not without some review.
I don't see this as a Sophie's choice at all.
Cool CA RC
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Sophie%27s%20choice
The choice is between two unbearable options, and it's essentially a no-win situation.
Sophie has just arrived with her ten-year old son and her seven-year old daughter and a sadistic doctor, presumably Doctor Mengele, tells her that she can only bring one of her children; one will be allowed to live while the other is to be killed.
Take the tired registry at least it will save some people's life and their family.
The greatest love you can show is to give your life for your friends.
If we say no to this and nothing will improve. If we say yes to this then some life will be improved.
I think the other choices we have is a lawsuit and remove the registry
Registry effectiveness....
That, Timmer, is the true measure that should be used. Good point and well stated.....
Timmr
Go with the actual effectiveness of the registry or lack thereof to be fair to all registered citizens and support the Constitution. That is what every real American must do. I realize you are dealing with a hostage situation, where both the Bill of Rights and registrants are detained by criminal regimes and feel responsible to act in the greater good under present circumstances over which you have little control. I don't envy the choice you are making and wish you wisdom.
Civil Rights is an "All" movement
Sorry Mary, but those who are Tier 3 and classified by you as "disgruntled" are worthy of being freed from the system too. In this situation you don't take small victories as you can and then tell the rest to "piss off". You or one of yours must be one of those in the 70,000 who are turning a blind eye to the rest.
For true reform, it is "All or nothing" as history as indicated. The Civil Rights movement was an "All or nothing" situation just as this is. People are here to win a war, not a battle and call the war good afterward.
So, please take your "Some with victories" ball as you stated and go home. Someone else will want to play with you and your ball there.
Davidh
M:
I would strongly support passage of the tier system amended as you suggest. In my case, too, The only thing that makes me a "risk" to society is that damned static 99!
Maybe the argument should be to repeal and replace the static 99!
Davidh
Despite my earlier post, I'd like to hear the thoughts of others, really, before I made a conclusive vote. However, all risks considered after reading the legislation, I felt there was a lot of leeway in it or discretion by the "powers that be", as opposed to "cast in stone," a recent piece of legislation referred to.
Furthermore, the law I felt opened the door to new legal challenges. I wont enumerate my unqualified legal analysis on this board as I wouldn't want to see the Bill changed ( is Bill capitalized?). So let's have a good debate about this--needless to say it's a life-changer for all!
NPS
Under this proposal, I would be categorized as a tier I and off the registry in three years. But I still have some problems with this draft bill. Here are my concerns:
Petitioning
The requirement that one must petition for removal is ridiculous especially when it can still be denied. If the person has been offense free throughout their duration of registration, why not just fall off the registry?
Expungements
There is a lot of talk about categorizing tiers based on the criminal codes, but what of those who have had their records expunged? We no longer have a criminal code attached to our names, but we're still required to register. A 1203.4 is granted because the petitioner is deemed to have successfully completed all probation requirements, assessed as very low risk, and is not a threat to public safety. Why then, should we have to file yet another petition under this proposal? That work has already been done. Those with an expunged record should automatically be relieved of the duty to register once this bill (or a new version of this bill) is enacted.
Female RCs
I am a female registered citizen. I never took any Static-99 because there isn't one for women. Instead, we are given a general analysis about our likelihood to re-offend for any crime. I was tested at less than 1%. My therapist at Sharper Future stated numerous times that from her experience and interactions with female clients, women just don't reoffend. Furthermore, women are the backbone of the family. To have her on the registry is to deny her children the maternal bond and the strong sense of security she provides. Schools primarily confer with mothers about their children's education. If Senator Leyva has her way, she is denying mothers their involvement in their children's lives. Yes, I understand fathers are already going through this, but to place that burden on mothers is far more egregious.
Mary Devoy
Support the Tiers based on Risk! 70,000 peoples lives depend on it.
If 10,000 are NO-risk and 60,000 are a slight-risk how can reasonable or compassionate people even think about making them continue to bear the burden of being an RSO for the approximate 23,000 disgruntled RSO's who fall into the high-risk group?
For true reform you can NOT take the attitude of " All or Nothing".
Small steps forward that benefit some are better than no steps forward so everyone continues to suffer.
In the end some of your "supporters" and maybe even some board members could be in the lifetime- bucket and if they can't be happy for those who are removed while they remain then they weren't ever interested in reform they were just in it for themselves.
We should be happy when small groups of RSO's have successes even if we aren't included.
True advocates are selfless, not selfish.
Help those 70,000 NOW and work on the remaining 23,000 down the line but don't take your ball and go home because some folks aren't included in this first accomplishment.
Davidh
Wow interesting dilemma for both the organization and an objective registrant. I love the horse track, but I hate gambling on my life! I recall recently the conference call with Oregon in what seems to be a same situation. Thier situation was different, while they dont have a registry as such that everyone follows, or maybe as I recall it's not online; yet their decision would place many online to release a few. Not the same here, but your point hit home with me:
" Or do we oppose the tiered registry because those who remain on the registry could be viewed as posing a greater risk than they actually do? And if that latter choice is selected, all registrants will continue to suffer from the punishments inflicted by the registry for their lifetime."
Personally, I feel depending on how certain things are interpreted in my life would be the difference between 20 years or life. I feel it unconstitutional that I be stuck with this choice ex-post facto--These laws didn't exist when I made a deal with the government!
So in response, one naturally wants to go by way of an opportunity or hope, where there is little now! But as you point out the consequence of that bet could be punishing.
On the other hand, passing the tiered system is at least a positive step for many and I gather the cause would still continue for the rest, until all registries and ex-post facto has been removed.
I guess I'd vote for the step in the positive direction.
BA
It is very important that we do not look at this as a choice but as an opportunity, once they go to a tiered system we will have some momentum and it will put a lot more power in court for the judge. This is important as they will not prejudice as much as we see currently see, because there hands were tied. The other thing is a misdemeanor OFFENSE OF ANY KIND should have NEVER HAD ANY RESTRICTIONS weather it be sexual or not! Will the tier 3 ever see relief that is hard to say I think they still want to have a SEX OFFENDER LABEL so law enforcement can say see there is real bad guys out there, instead of rehabilitation and education.
ALL, must be for ALL
While this is an "All or Some" choice, working for "All" should be the stance. It wasn't liberating some of the Jewish people in the camps, but liberating all of the Jewish people in the camps regardless of what they had committed in the eyes of the judge, jury and executioner. This is the same situation with the same effort required.
If those who chose to administer this bill properly don't want to do the analytics of who the individual is as a person regarding their particular matter, because no two matters are the same, then they need to step back and recuse themselves from the efforts to better the system for people. They need to choose a system of analytics that is impartial and personal to the individual. CA can do this. They are smart enough to do it, but will they put politics aside and work to get it done? CA has lead the nation in many efforts before, they can do it again. Soon this could be swept up in the hysteria of the immigration movement that is coming after January 20 and be lost. If this is not done right, correct and proper from the onset, it will be a mess shortly thereafter and even more painful.
There will be votes by those who want off of it now and then will be off of it soon enough. There also will be opposition from those who don't have to register now, but given what the bill states, will need to register where their info becomes public. It is a swapping of one for another without any rhyme or reason to bring them from out of their productive, quiet, lawful shadows. This nation was once a great nation that would allow quiet, productive, personally redeemed lives to happen, but not now and perhaps never again. This nation has become a nation of labels, individuals, people always out for blood and a step up on the back of others regardless. This bill should deal with those who are currently impacted in their present format, not those who are not, but could be because things change. The tiered system is a flawed system based upon what people know, don't know, chose to read and acknowledge and blatantly ignore. Do it right or go home.
People here are going to find who their friends, colleagues and enemies are when voices are spoken in this comment time you have posted. Maslow's hierarchy of needs will prevail in the voices who speak up.
You, Janice, are in an unenviable situation here, but you are the voice here, the Joan of Arc leading this charge. You are looked up to gratefully by many. There should be no martyrs here in this effort. Don your armor with your sword and shield and climb aboard the horse to lead the liberation charge for All. May you be provided the strength and fortitude with the blessings of the Almighty as you traverse this path.
Steve
Sorry forgot to add the ramifications that no doubt will be coming for tier 3's. notification by flyers from the police, every 90 days reporting and without question extra scrutiny from the community not to mention the over zealous legislators who will do all they can to banish us from society. The latter might be extreme but why should we expect anything different from all that we've seen. This is Adam Walsh Act light until they realize they can get cash being compliant and then we will be in the same position as Michigan. Let's not be naive, being a tier 3 will mean to the public you are a dangerous person. All of this without any due process.
K
Supporting a tiered registry (a "fairer" registry) does not necessarily mean support of the idea of having a registry in general. BEST is not the enemy of BETTER.
Please support this legislation.
Steve
First of all Janice thank you for all you have done. I am not sure how you have come to those numbers but I think you are way off. I believe the majority of people are on the list with a 288 conviction and for those people, as I read it, there is absolutely zero risk assessment and automatic tier 3 without a hearing or any due process. I cannot support this bill written this way. There are already 3 tiers in California low, serious offender and svp. To throw us in the group of predators is just wrong. To be classsifed an Svp you need to be diagnosed with a mental disorder and be a repeat offender but not anymore apparently. The 6th circuit said its unconstitutional to classify someone after the fact with no individualized assessment. There is a poster "Mark" who says he is not even on the website but this new scheme will put him on.
The only way I support this bill is if those who are moving up a tier for any conviction, are given an assessment for current dangerousness as the 6th circuit says. For the record I am a onetime offender. 20 years on the list, no previous convictions and no post convictions for anything. Would have scored low risk on static 99 if it were given to me.
Doug
Thank you Janice !
I have been registering over 30 years. I finally can see the end of a very dark tunnel.
M.
I strongly disagree with this draft bill as it is now written.
While I respect that this bill will help others, I suggest that this organization work to make the following amendments:
1. The ability to earn a Certificate of Rehabilitation, relieving one of the duty to register, remain. Even for Tier 3 offenders.
2. The Static-99R be limited in application to a 10-year offense-free period in the community. (As others have mentioned, the Static tests were never designed to be used after a 10-year offense free period. And the state's studies only examine the Static for 5-year periods.)
3. That addresses remain unlisted for those who are not currently subject to address listing.
Here is the premise to my suggestions:
I was convicted of a non-contact, first-time offense about six years ago. The offense was under 290.006, so it was not one of the over 70 offenses requiring registration under mandatory registration. I scored low-risk on other risk assessments and had favorable assessments.
But unfortunately, my crime had multiple stranger victims. I was in my early 20's. And because my crime was "non contact" (as opposed to contact), I am actually given a worse score than a contact offender. These "risk factors" do not score favorably under the Static-99R. And I score right at the borderline of Tier 3. (It doesn't make sense that the Static scores 'non contact' offenses worse than contact offenses.)
It makes no sense that our futures can be determined based on 10 questions that do not take our CURRENT state of life into account. The Static also fails to take into account our offense-free period in the community. It doesn't even take into account any counseling! In fact, the Static score never changes! Unlike this draft bill, which Nancy O'Malley has said is "set in stone," our lives are hardly 'static.' Our destiny is not 'set in stone.' Our learnt experiences shape our future decisions. And the Static-99 tests do not take what we have learned from PAST mistakes -- such as healthy coping skills -- into account.
I had no violations during my two-year incarceration. No violations during supervision. (I discharged free of any violations.) No other crimes other than the one conviction.
Right now, I work full-time and volunteer for a non-profit. Since committing my crime, I completed my degree. I have matured from that time in my life. And the Static and this tiered draft does not take this into account in placing me in the Tier 3 level.
Currently, my address is not listed on the Megan's Law website.
However, this proposed law would place me in a Tier 3 level, thus requiring publication of my address. I would still be required to register for life. Further, this law would have the perverse effect of publishing my address. This bill will actually make life much worse for me.
I had looked forward to apply for a Certificate of Rehabilitation in about four more years. Under existing law, I am eligible for relief at the 10-year mark. But this proposed bill does not allow for the Certificate of Rehabilitation to relieve one of the duty to register. At minimum, I am of the opinion that that provision should stay. At least it would give Tier 3 offenders a way out.
I suggest that this organization consider the following amendments:
1. The ability to earn a Certificate of Rehabilitation remain: even for Tier 3 offenders.
2. The Static-99R be limited in application to a 10-year offense-free period in the community. (As others have mentioned, the Static tests were never designed to be used after a 10-year offense free period. And the state's studies only examine the Static for 5-year periods.)
3. That addresses remain unlisted for those who are not currently subject to address listing.
abolishtheregistry.com
First, there is no guarantee on the numbers of those going off the registry... Secondly, that's a token amount considering the people staying on and the newer people coming in later. Consider also the upward moves of tier 1 to 2 and 2 to tier 3. I'm sure if they can give you a projection on the 10,000, they have predictions on the bump ups and the growth with the new changes. None....
Advocate groups, in my opinion, should be like doctors. Do no harm. I warned you about the message support for a tiered registry would send and the potential of helping the state further their next registry schemes. Now we have a registry planned for Muslims. No registry is good, if you believe the targets are human. It's a disgusting practice that should be eradicated. You have no right to safety at the expense of another's rights.
Janice's Journal: Sex Offender in Chief?
Published Date : November 11, 2016
The election was divisive. The nation is divided. We must remain united.
It’s true. Donald J. Trump was elected President of the United States this week. The process that led to his election was divisive, reportedly the most divisive election of the century.
It’s also true that after the election, the nation is divided. So divided that citizens have been protesting in the streets of many major cities including New York, Chicago, Seattle and Oakland.
Further, it’s true that President-elect Trump has boasted that he has committed multiple acts that some in the media and elsewhere have labeled sexual assaults. And the victims of at least some of those alleged assaults have corroborated his statements.
Given these facts, as well as current law, we can reasonably conclude that President-elect Trump would be shocked to learn that he could be labeled an unconvicted “sex offender”. It is only logical then that as a member of the “sex offender” community, President-elect Trump will demonstrate his concern for registrants and their families.
President-elect Trump will choose Supreme Court justices who are eager to recognize that the requirement to register as a sex offender is punishment and therefore quickly overturn the wrongly decided case, Smith v. Doe. In addition, President-elect Trump will choose an Attorney General who will recognize that the Adam Walsh Act violates the U.S. Constitution and therefore all state registries must be abolished. Further, President-elect Trump will work with Congress to overturn the International Megan’s Law because it unfairly and unjustly brands hundreds of thousands of U.S. citizens as sex tourists and sex traffickers. Finally, President-elect Trump will ensure that registrants are fully employed, have adequate housing (perhaps in Trump Towers) and can live in peace with their families.
In case President-elect Trump makes different choices, however, we hope that you will join us to restore justice in the land. We hope that you will Show Up – Stand Up – Speak Up when we testify in the State Capitol about the need for a tiered registry, in federal district courts when we challenge residency restrictions and in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals when we continue our challenge to the International Megan’s Law. For it will take a united front to protect the Constitution by restoring the civil rights of more than 850,000 registrants and their families.
–by Janice Bellucci
(updated 1:52 pm)
Read all Janice’s Journals
Comments
Kyle
Hello everyone!
Happy Holidays!
I don't have a lot of numbers to throw at you, just some very good ideas.
First, I imagine that the percentage of sex offenders out there who have committed a serious, hurtful sex crime is very low. Most of us have never actually been a serious threat to anyone.
Second, I recall from my (expensive!!) sex offender treatment years ago that less than 5% will ever reoffend (we learned our lesson!).
So this means the VAST majority of the sex crimes yet to occur will be committed by people who are not currently registered!
It also means the VAST majority of those in the registery are indeed not a threat to anyone!
Umm... Seems mostly useless then, right? Doing much more harm than good, perhaps?
The solution is very quick and simple.
Abolish this stupid registry before it ruins any more families and lives!
How's that song go... "land of the free"?
What a joke. This nation is becoming a giant money-making prison.
HOOKSCAR
I'm with you. What I think is that we should have a class action lawsuit representing ALL RCs in the state (I live in CA). I think we need to show the VOLUME of impact that the registry has. 1or 3 plaintiffs are not enough. If I put 5 quarters on your desk you wouldn't blink, but if I dump a crapload on it I would have your attention.
By the way, I did post a link to sign a petition. *MODERATOR* Only have 12 signatures. People are pitiful. You want change but expect others to do it, and when others do it, nobody participates. Lol. I understand the frustration, but cmon. Quit bitchen and start doing something. I started a petition in the hopes we can have some unity. Without the unity, it is a joke and so is this task.
Tobin's Tools 2.0
There was only one poll that correctly predicted Trump's victory. The USC Dornsife poll: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-11/how-the-usc-dornsife-la-times-poll-saw-trump-s-win-coming
Ironically, do you know what two USC professors (Shoba Screenivasan, Linda Weinberger) say about the Static-99 and Static-99R scams? The two esteemed professors call the Static-99 and Static-99R "dubious."
Quoting the USC professor's analysis, "[a]part from the dizzying number of risk scores and qualifications, the validity of the risk scores themselves is dubious, given different definitions of recidivism in the norming samples, lack of clarity in statistical methods, and an overreliance on unpublished manuscripts and presentations to document methods."
Read about it in the following link: http://jaapl.org/content/jaapl/38/3/400.full.pdf
I think the last sentence in the above analysis says it best: " [Assessments] should reflect reasoned judgments based on an understanding of all elements of a case, not just a small number of risk factors." The problem with the Static scams are that they rely on a 'small number of risk factors.' As said above, the Static-99R relies on 10 dubious questions. The Static scam has been thoroughly discussed in a different posts. For example, a lot of us discuss the Static scam in the following link (see the comments section):
http://all4consolaws.org/2016/01/sex-offender-rehab-center-moving-to-former-out-of-the-closet-space/
abolishtheregistry.com
As a few of us have pointed out, it's probably put forth to retain the registry because they see the writing on the wall. They know the public safety/recidivism lie needs fresh blood. They're desperate.
I just hope I can sue the shit out of them after the scam is killed.
Timmr
Maybe hire Matt Groening to do the risk predictions. He was right on about Trump being president.
MIC DROP! BOOM!
MIC DROP ON THAT ADAM...BOOM!
abolishtheregistry.com
I'm glad you realise that. Americans are caught up in that two party trap but it makes me happy to see them waking up. Both sides have eroded everyone's rights for a great while, it'll take that sane kind of commitment to return us to a liberty state of mind.
adam
If the nation's best statisticians were not able to accurately predict Trump's victory over Hillary Clinton, it makes me wonder whether the third-rate pseudo psychologists like Karl Hanson have it right with the Static 99R. How the static's 10 stupid questions alone can allegedly predict our futures is beyond be. Basing a tiered registry on the Static 99R will be even a bigger mistake.
abolishtheregistry.com
Are you talking to me Timmr? It seemed your point was Trump could be talking about rso's too, including me. I think I responded correctly to that. I know he could, but hell, he can't do much more unless he just locks us in internment camps. Maybe I'll get lucky and he'll pay for a barbwire fence to go around my yard. It'll keep the riffraff in and out, simultaneously!
abolishtheregistry.com
different than website posts but I searched on Google and nothing came up. It was in October I believe and as I said... it wasn't a 'vote for Hillary" direct. It was about her pick as scrotus. I'll let it go as I can't find it but I'll make sure I snapshot any posts like that in the future. If I'm wrong, I'm sorry but that doesn't excuse the condemnation of trump over some braggadocios statements. It still stands that Hillary and bill specifically have either been accused of or actually done more than stating something. Where was the even keeled political approach there? Per the podesta emails, it was planned to "mirror" accusations against the republican nominee so how much of the fascists trump accusations of sexual impropriety are true, if any?
Again, I'm sorry, I won't make the same mistake again.
Paul
Unfortunately, for those who were rooting for Hillary, we have no reason to believe that Hillary, or the democratic party, would be any better for us than Trump, and the republican party. California and Illinois are just as draconian as most red states. No one can argue that this state, which has been controlled by democrats for quite a while now, has been very kind to us.
I did have a small glimmer of hope that perhaps a Supreme Court Justice picked by Hillary, might stand a chance of being a little better than a justice picked by Trump. But that hope is dashed and I suspect we may never know if that is true or not. I do believe, for what it’s worth, that Ginsberg will stay on the bench until she dies, or a democrat takes the Oval. I don’t think she has any intention of retiring out so long as a republican, especially Trump, is in office. This codes well for us!
abolishtheregistry.com
You are correct. Authoritarians rarely learn until someone shows them in direct ways, the errors of their thinking. History has repeated itself many times over in that regard and the idiots are due for another correction.
No website political endorsement
There were comments on this website that touted Trump, Clinton and Stein from what I saw by various commenters late in the political season for various reasons, e.g. SCOTUS, registries, etc. Commenters are free to voice their opinion here as we have seen.
I don't recall anyone associated with the website proper, e.g. ower, moderator, et al, endorsing or mentioning one candidate would be the better solution, just as Janice wrote.
Rick
To abolistheregistry
Why do you make crazy and irrational remarks without backing them up? Everything I've said is a result of Trump's plans
Timmr
Again, you seem to be missing my point completely.
abolishtheregistry.com
It was posted as a topic by your site. It may not have read as direct support but it implied it by suggesting shed pick a good supreme court nominee. Combining that with no remarks on trump, Johnson or steins possible picks is yet another sign. I don't just listen to a persons words, I watch their actions as well. You may not support her but the post implied we should.
Rick
I like that one, twilight zone is exactly what we live in, and that's why I love the show. It reveals just some of the fears humanity is unable to prevent or control. Then they have the nerve to claim how is this or that possible. No one could be that naive, except them. You cannot control human imperfection.
Janice Bellucci
This organization did not support Hilary for the reason stated or for any other reason. An individual may have posted such a statement on this website however.
Rick
Toabolishtheregistry
End of the world, just a new beginning I hope without American religious and moral hypocrisy. Like trump wants, new relationships, more like more world dominance. U.S. and Russia keeping tabs on China? Sounds like more European Nostradamus theory. The great white world saving the world nonsense. What's white is white, what's black is black, what's brown is brown, what's yellow is yellow, etc. Stay out of other people's countries and business, like the Phillipines have told us. Yea, it's difficult to deal with reality, isn't it? What you think there aren't effects for every action? Give me a break!
abolishtheregistry.com
I don't know the laws pertaining to wikileaks so I won't post direct links. If you're interested, you'll have to go to the site yourself. I'd suggest taking "precautions" if you do.
Here is a story about the hacker responsible for the podesta leak and the promise of the other stuff.
http://www.anonews.co/clinton-scandal/
In the link it brings up prince Andrew. He has links to Seville, if you know the story of that guy and the BBC coverup? Supposedly he was a facilitator like Epstein and had direct access to the bedroom of Andrew. Once you go down that rabbit hole, you begin to see the red flags leading to a possible worldwide trafficking ring that connects the worlds elites, including the catholic church. Not a whole lot of hard evidence has come out yet. Like I said, still waiting on it all.
Rick
Look, I have nothing personal against trump, most of his ideas are legal. It's on the news, he will immediately deport 2-3million Mexicans with criminal records, including misdemeanors? That's a lot of tax money gone, and will have an effect on all kinds of businesses, they make and spend money too. He says he will tax all money sent to Mexico to families to pay for the wall, that's about as discriminatory as it gets, but I'm sure the courts will say it's in the national interest, haha. So I guess the blacks, Puerto Ricans, and Cubans will now run the drug trade, since he's eliminating the competition by packing up the Mexicans? You know, the racial problems are just getting deeper here. Chicago is a disaster, if national interest is at stake, it's time to round up all drug related criminals in that city and put them away for life, especially those convicted of violent crimes and possession of weapons? It's a disgrace. Shootings and beatings are rampant in that gang territorial environment.
On a side note, they're talking about the crooked governor of new York Cuomo running for president, he wont get my vote, he's totally corrupt. He said he would break any law to provide public safety, that should tell you our constitution means nothing to him. RC's wouldn't even live here if it was up to him.
Look, discontent is everywhere. Relationships are like non existent, trust and hope gone. What do you want to hear, the country is fine, lol? Hell, we're slaves, and get no respect from anyone. I haven't had but a single traffic ticket in over 12 years, but I'm a threat? While people can be beaten and shot just for driving through Chicago? I don't ever think I will vote for another Democrat in my life, they're slime.
On a side note did u watch the last episode of the walking dead, I hope the bullet litta gets is for Rick, he deserves one. All he is worried about is his kids, not the group. Neagen said he slipped his pecker down Rick's throat and Rick said thank you, lol. Kind of like what they've done to us. It's a cruel world, and it's getting crueler. All the bull aside, principles mean very little anymore.
I only wish we got a cut of the pie from all of the riches of this nation like the Indians, Saudis, swedes, etc. But no, only the rich get free crap like tax breaks. Trump hasn't paid a dime in 18 years? But we're looked at like beggars, even when they take money out of our paychecks. I'm a veteran and disabled, I can't even go on a military base or reside in public housing? Even though I didn't screw, sodomize, force, threaten, or use weapons on anyone. But I'm a violent offender. Now you want me to have faith and hope, really?
Personally, logic and reason seem worthless, all people want to hear are emotional pleas, smart people are hated here. But hey, if you still believe in this nation, good for you, I guess Santa and the tooth fairy are worth believing in as well?
Son of Liberty Child of Freedom
Concur with mike r.
Here, Here!!!
abolishtheregistry.com
Timmr, both groups have 'drained' us so I have zero illusions when it comes to politicians. I usually expect the worse and rarely am I disappointed but I hold a little hope that they might make a mistake and appoint a Mike Lee or a real libertarian supreme judge. The likelihood is low but it could happen. The end of the world stuff is tiresome regardless. Hopefully, you're more rational than that.
Son of Liberty Child of Freedom
Here, here!!
Rick
To abolistheregistry
How can you say my political talk is irrational crazy talk. His entire platform used Mexicans as the scapegoat for this dumps problems. He says he's going to build a wall, not a fence. Am I being irrational? He says he's going to deport all Mexicans without citizenship, OK so your going to work picking fruit and vegetables on the farms, is that being irrational? Mexico is over 110 million people, they have every right to get nukes and trade with Russia and China, all countries are getting nukes, is that being irrational? In California you already have the compliance Hitler force in place to report the non citizen Mexicans, and other south Americans, is that crazy and irrational? Mexico and the rest of south America should be working to get their crap together, with a tremendously large military, instead of allowing the u.s. to continue thinking the Monroe doctrine is anything more than white racism. Trump wants to go it alone, says NATO is based on money, so why can't Mexico and the rest of south america. Give me a break, there's nothing irrational or crazy about my political views, you just want crap to stay in America's favor, well it won't. And his wall and demonizing of Mexico is just the beginning. Next he will be importing all the Nazis from Europe to work the fields, lol.
Son of Liberty Child of Freedom
I concur,
And posit the US Constitutions source for prohibition of Involentary Servitude that being The Law (Torah) given to Moses on Mount Sinai. In particular the Instruction Not to Steal, it's context is that of stealing persons.
For example: Joseph was stolen & sold into Involentay Servitude by his own brethren, they made a merchandise of Joseph & a source of there daily bread.
Later Joseph was convicted of sexual assault Without Due Process and throught into a Pit a second time.
This is the context of which The Father in Heaven Creator of all things Spiritual & Material is addressing when establishing He's Eternal Law to all human kind, these Instruction can never be nullified by Adding to the Torah or Taking away from the Torah.
Yeshua aka Jesus addresses this issue in the gospel of Mathew:
Making a clear distinction or contrast between the Oral laws of men & the Morally Correct Laws of The Eternal Father in Heaven.
Matthew 15:1-11 KJVS
[1] Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying,
[2] Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.
[3] But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?
[4] For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.
[5] But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;
[6] And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free . Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.
[7] Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,
[8] This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
[9] But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
[10] And he called the multitude, and said unto them, Hear, and understand: [11] Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.
I call Heaven & Earth to witness the Coveting Deeds of these usurping wicked servants who have commandeered the position of Yehovah the most High in Heaven.
As Yehovah lives so should we
HOOKSCAR
Not computer literate. If someone can put the link front and center that would be good. Asked the moderator to do it, but you can see nothing was done, so....... getting frustrated by people tooting their own horn and then when action needs to be taken, they do nothing. Nobody in particular, just seems hypocritical to say something needs to be done, and when it is, nobody participates. Oh well. So much for trying.
Son of Liberty Child of Freedom
Timmr,
California hosting so many santurary cities would be on the attention of President Trump for cutting off federal funding. I can not foresee the state of California repenting as it is so invested ideologically so President Trump will punish California to serve as a example to the other cities and states of the Nation.
That is the course of events that I foresee.
Son of Liberty Child of Freedom
Very compelling information you speak about.
Please provide links here to the sources you are refering on the Wikileaks web site or other websites so we can all confirm and reach clarity on these issues.
FRegistryTerrorists
I was kind of thinking that about President Obama signing the IML at first but quickly came to the realization that he may not have had much of a choice. It was right before the election. You know what "soft on s*x offenders" does in elections. And you know those laws have hundreds of different parts. Perhaps 90% of the law was okay. I don't know. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt until/unless I know all the facts.
I'm not an Obamacare expert at all but I doubt it's been much of a failure. Nothing's perfect. I don't know why people expect free health care. It costs money. The moral thing to do is to provide health care for people who can't afford it. So there has to be some plan to cover those who can't afford it OR who won't pay their fair share when they are able.
Regarding Trump - he really grabbed America by her p*ssy. He may be a good president but I couldn't support him just because of the way that he talked about people. What presidential candidate in their right mind implies that he wouldn't sexually assault a woman because she wouldn't be his "first choice"? How INSANE do you have to be to EVEN think about saying that, even if you believed it?!! His name-calling is also inexcusable. A couple of other things that I saw him say directly (so I didn't have to worry about a "biased media" or whatever other excuse he had) made me realize that he was just unacceptable.
Trump loves to label people, call them names, and spread hate and division. Obviously that is the main point of targeting and saying "s*x offender". So it seems like that would be his perfect thing.
PK
I would agree with you. IML was enacted into Law by a Democratic President. IML was dismissed by a Democratic Judge. To think that somehow the Democrats are easier on Sex Offenders is just complete BS! Democrats want more government, more control, more registration schemes.
Timmr
Luck is needed, but maybe a belief in the improbable and some devine intervention is required. To think the president elect is going to give us some rights after calling all felons criminals and therefore shouldn't vote all because of a tacit relationship with a couple of famous sex offenders is really clutching at straws.
Timmr
Where do you get that they are not including you as part of the mud and 'drain' you? I guess if you are on the moon, or at least in another country, you can sit safely and comfortably by and watch.
abolishtheregistry.com
Why is it, when you talk about the registry, you apply reason and logic but when you speak of politics, it's irrational crazy talk? He's not going to do any of those farfetched things. He may go after Hillary and crew but if she has done some of the things I've recently heard, she deserves to get jailtime like Larry Epstein (he didn't get enough time in my opinion). I still don't support the registry for her or anybody.
Rick
To Tired of hiding
Me too, I hope he causes all kinds of pain for this nation. Let homeland security loose on all left wingers, create registries of all liberal judges who don't go by the constitution. Build his stupid wall wasting more millions, then maybe Mexico will rise up and be rid of american influence. Maybe Mexico will get nukes like every other large nation, they need them. Then when he gets rid of the spare Mexicans and there's no one to pick the food or work farms, prices will go really high and then all hell will start to break loose. Mexico should eliminate all trade, causing even more problems. Then they can ask China and Russia for assistance since America will no longer have any influence. I hope the crap really gets bad, I could care less. I'm gonna sit back and watch too.
Tired Of Hiding
I voted for Trump because I have been betrayed by my country and its population so I want them to suffer as I have done for at least 4 years. I want the country to become the right wing hellhole for everyone...that the stupid masses have allowed it to become.
Welcome President Trump...Kick some ass and tear this place apart. Put everyone on some f^cking list. Listen to everyone's phone calls...read everyone's emails. Put fear into the minds of those who have punished us and lumped us all together as monster's with no worth. Punish us for life will you...well, they have brought this on themselves.
This is the America that the people deserve. I am just going to sit back with a bowl of popcorn and enjoy the show!
Leslie
The problem is that, for whatever reason, the STATIC 99R scam is widely considered the most credible "risk" assessment. The 99R scam's "developers," Karl Hanson and them all, are sometimes referred to as the most credible source when it comes to sex offender statistics. Again, for what reason? I do not know. Reality is that Hanson is funded by governments and works under a 3rd tier Canadian school: Carleton University. Hanson isn't even a statistician or mathematician by training. So it makes sense that at 10 years, the "high risk sex offender" label is only about five percent accurate. In other words, the STATIC scam is complete junk... and WAYYY less than chance. Especially at 17 years, when the HRSO label is 0 percent accurate.
anonymously
Tyson had at one time 300 million and now his net worth is 1 million. The reason his money dipped so low is probably because of reasons linked to the registry. I'm sure he knows that the registry sucks. I wouldn't come at him like that, wondering if his restrictions are the same as everyone elses, and especially not in person. Epsteins net worth has been over-estimated and he is worth between 10 and 99 million. Many in the electorate on both sides believed that the other candidate or candidates husband was in cahoots with Epstein for sex crimes and this got blown up in the media, as I am sure you know. I'm sure this guy really wants to be left alone by now, as well at this point. But good luck.
Tiers are not a panacea....
It would be best to understand how the analysis will be carried out into deciding the Tiers before going all in on the Tiers. Tiers as they are today are just classifications based upon offenses without any analyses. I live in a Tier based state and it makes no sense when analyses are not considered in what Tier one should be placed.
Careful what you wish for.....Tiers are not the panacea people think they are.....the big push should be for comprehensive analysis, e.g. more than just -99R, using all available tests and non-state provided or paid for analysts - that would the fox guarding the hen house if the state provided the analysts. If you can afford the price, pay for an assessment by someone who will administer it and then keep that in your files for later. Independent assessors will ensure fairness, supposedly, and be willing to be ethically more fair than a state provided person, e.g. see Static-99R test generators.
Iron Mike is registered
Iron Mike is registered in Henderson, NV as an RSO, Tier II.
abolishtheregistry.com
I second that idea. Please place a sticky so everyone will see it for a month at least.
abolishtheregistry.com
Yeah, every time I hear all of these facts about super low reoffense rates and then talk of a tiered registry, the twilight zone theme plays in my mind.
"There is a fifth dimension beyond that which is known to be justice. It is a dimension as vast as space and as timeless as infinity. It is the middle ground between light and shadow, between science and superstition, and it lies between the pit of man's fears and the summit of his knowledge. This is the dimension of legal imagination. It is an area which we call the Sex Offender Zone."
abolishtheregistry.com
"not biased or partisan, especially toward any particular political group."
Didn't this site push Hillary because she would "nominate a judge that'd be good for us"?
On the surface that might seem like a nonpartisan push but there was no assessment of her pick nor was there any mention of a Trump pick. Nonpartisan in practical terms I'd think would mean giving each side a fair looking at and equal showing, if you're going to bring an issue up.
abolishtheregistry.com
:) See how easy that is to mirror. You really should read the podesta, hillary and dnc emails. You'd find them enlightening. I found them to collaborate what Ive already suspected for the last 30 years.
Unlike Hillary's claim that Russia hacked her emails, my info comes from already proven sources. Will the files be leaked? Some have already been given to the FBI. Will they do anything? Dunno. We'll have to wait and see.
abolishtheregistry.com
I'll sign it when I go to town tomorrow. Gotta fill out my internet paperwork to accompany it.
Timmr
I'm going to sit down now and have a cold one and listen to silence. I will be checking in now and then for any news and maybe interrupt this pause with another track of "Hallelujah".
Please email me the next call for action.
abolishtheregistry.com
It's also rational to try even though you know the probability might be low. Exhaust all avenues.
abolishtheregistry.com
Excellent. Make sure you notify your "handlers" if you're required to do so. You did access a government site, don't give them an opportunity to use it against you. Wouldn't want anyone to get grief from anything.
Robert
Thank you Janice for all that you do. Yes it is hard to be believe that any relief will be coming from our elected folks. We have a lot to be hopeful for, there are many signs that the light is getting brighter from the courts for us.
Renny
Thank you for that reminder.
Too many here are arguing with each other over politics. No politician is on our side, regardless of of whether they are Democrat, Republican or Americans.
mike r
I think someone needs to research and do some fact checking into epstien and tyson to see if these laws are being applied to them equally as the rest of us...it sure seems like if they were then they would have put a legal team together to fight this...either they are not being effected by these laws or they figure there is no hope of fighting them or somethings up there that we need to come to light...im going to be sure to send them letters or find a way to contact them and see if I actually get an answer....
Rick
To Robert
Wow, since I don't travel, I wasn't aware of all of the restrictions and laws affecting RCs and their family members, it seems they have gone all the way in denying American citizens their rights. I only wonder what group is next. You have totally changed my mind in regard to Obama's legacy, and now regard him as a total fake. He never once objected to any of these laws. Obamacare has always been a failure and illegal as far as I'm concerned and has affected many of persons in my family negatively. I was very much against Trump, mostly because of his qualifications. But now I am prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt. Now if he does what he says about our constitution and begins to unravel this nonsense he will always have my vote. That's all I ask, that the constitution be upheld, nothing more.
Janice Bellucci
The majority of this column is based upon satire. I encourage the readers of this website to look up its definition. In my personal opinion President elect Trump is unlikely to do any of the things mentioned in the column. That is why the final paragraph encourages individuals to join us in the activities listed in the final paragraph. As for my personal political views and affiliations they are not relevant because the organization is and must remain nonpartisan in order to effectively protect the Constitution by restoring the rights of registrants.
Guy
I think you've missed my point.
HOOKSCAR
Moderator.
I just started a petition on the White House Petitions site, We the People. Will you sign it? https://wh.gov/ie8NR
Please let everyone see this and sign it. We need 150 signatures before it goes public. So I need you to bring this front and center so all RC's, family and friends can sign it also.
30 days for 100000 signatures. Tick tick. Want your voice heard? Sign and tell your family and friends
Robert
Was listening to some live coverage interviews on public radio about the wave of fear, uncertainty and anxiety among undocumented families with members who have been shielded from deportation for many years. The anxiety created from fear of the unknown that the policy in the country may reverse itself overnight one day in the future.
To me those families interviewed sounded exactly like registered citizens.
I remember how I felt when I learned that I may never see my wife and family overseas again when our civil rights and constitutional law attorney President signed IML.
I remember how I felt when I experienced instant deportation on multiple occasions when I visited my wife and family overseas.
I remember how I felt when I learned I was blacklisted from entering my wife’s country because of the actions that my government had taken against me.
I remember how I felt the day I learned that US Department of Homeland Security has intentionally destroyed 4000 families since 2008 by denying virtually 100% of the family petitions submitted to them for cases they determine to fall under their Adam Walsh Act policy. And after denying the petition, the DHS deports the non-citizen spouse and family members to banish them to a country far away from their loved ones even though they have never committed an offense of any kind.
And I now listen to the new reporters talking about how our President and his policies have done everything possible to keep families together during his two terms and we now have nothing but fear to look forward to because America taken a different turn now. I think I’ll go throw up now.
David Kennerly
That's not the right question. The question should be: are judges who defer to government and its authority or judges who value individual liberty over the will of the majority better for our cause?
You see, either type of judge can be found on both the left and the right and appointed by either conservative or liberal presidents.
That's why, over the years, observers of the courts often seem surprised that an opinion expressed by a particular judge or justice seem at odds with the politics of the president who had appointed them.
Alternatively, judges and justices who would be, not just "good" for us but actually great, can much more predictably and reliably be found in those who identify as "libertarian," for whom terms like "right" or "left" or "conservative" or "liberal" (as it has come to be understood) simply miss the most salient point: do they value individual liberty?
Two judges, both libertarians, who would make fine additions to the Court for our issues would be Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Alex Kozinski and Libertarian legal scholar Randy Barnett of the Georgetown Center for the Constitution.
There are a handful of others with both the qualifications necessary for the Supreme Court and the requisite passion for individual liberty which we desperately need.
November
I agree wholeheartedly with everything EXCEPT the "tiered" registry. It just disturbs me that even though ACSOL supporters have NO IDEA as to the details behind the tiered bill, this organization still sees it appropriate to stand behind a tiered registry that no one seems to know the details of. Specifically, how will the "tiers" be organized? Will it be classified according to offense OR classified by Static-99R scam scores?
How can a tiered registry even be supported when no evidence supports effectiveness of registration laws in the first place?
Jack
@new person, I don't understand. The IML to my knowledge is a federal law only. That is to say, the state of California has no such law on the books mimicking it. It it did of course you'd be right. But I don't think they have. And the point of Calexit seems to be California resisting what they consider to be a tyrannical federal governement. So therefore hypothetically if California were to become it's own country, the IML would cease to apply to us here. It really has nothing to do with it being a civil regulation or punishment. As the dismissal occurred in a federal, not state court that just happened to be located in California.
E
What's better for our cause? Conservative or Liberal judges? The 6th circuit judge Judge Alice Batchelder is a conservative judge that gave us the ruling we wanted. Meanwhile wasnt it a liberal judge who dismissed our IML lawsuit? Before the 6th circuit ruling I always assumed that liberal judges were better for us but now I just don't know.
Timmr
Only if there's proof of some sort. That's how it's supposed to work. In the court of public opinion and rabid political bias, one only needs an accusation. Lol.
New Person
Because registration is considered non-punishment, maybe we should spend a lot of time researching "involuntary servitude".
Involuntary servitude is prohibited unless to punish a crime. (There, nice and simple for any layman to comprehend.) That's in the California and US Constitutions.
The govt is supposed to protect its citizens from any such acts, regardless how it came about.
I've done some research on involuntary servitude and there are two parts.
First, does the consequence of not doing said duty rise above losing pay or losing the job of that duty?
Since this is not punishment, this duty does rise above said consequence in the aforementioned sentence. CHECK!
Second, I stumbled upon a law review paper that denoted four historical factors in determining involuntary servitude: (By Nathan B. Oman from William & Mary Law School)
i) Was the contract done in 100% freedom?
ii) What are the compensations of said duty?
iii) What are the term length of the contract?
iv) Is the person being domineered such that he/she can be hunted down, punished, and put back into service?
Answers:
i) No. It was brought along within a statute.
ii) No. There is no compensation at all, but "unrequited toil".
iii) In California, this is a LIFETIME CONTRACT! That alone should put a red flag that this is involuntary servitude. Remember, if this isn't punishment, then it is service outside of punishment custody... it is service compelled onto a free person.
iv) This question relates to first question, the consequence for not doing said service. If you do not do said service, you will be hunted down by the state, punished, and then returned to do said service.
Registration is involuntary servitude and every government administering this is complicit in breaking the prohibition of involuntary servitude, thus making rendering it all unconstitutional. I repeat... A LIFETIME CONTRACT THAT IS NOT PUNISHMENT????????? There is no such thing!
A LIFETIME CONTRACT THAT IS NOT PUNISHMENT THAT A PERSON NOT UNDER ANY PUNISHMENT CUSTODY CANNOT GET OUT FROM?????? Gov't is supposed to protect all of its citizens from all types of tyranny.
So until the government can conclusively state registration is punishment, then use the fact it is not punishment! Make the SCOTUS know it violated the Constitution by trying to pass it off as "regulation", not as a punishment. The Constitution made it very clear and plain -
Involuntary servitude is prohibited unless to punish a crime.
Timmr
Good plan.
David Kennerly
Yes, and this sad and desperate wish that he could be appealed to, directly, in hopes of reforming registration laws? As if he has any sympathy with any of us to which we might appeal. This assumes a level of good faith which he simply does not possess. This is the same phenomenon that got Trump elected: assuming that there is a reasonable and cerebral and rational mind inside that aberration of a human being.
New Person
Ummm... the Cal-Exit wouldn't do much for registrants. See the IML dismissal. See the fact that registration was once considered punishment, but no longer.
If we were Michigan, then yes as a registrant. We're not Michigan, so why secede if there's no benefit to begin with.
I guess the only benefit would be the state would be losing a lot of federal monies for everything and California would become the next Greece fiscally. How to actually save money for the government would play in part to cutting the whole registration program that doesn't do anything to protect the public. But you have to get over the fear mongering - that's the biggest hurdle. Why? CASOMB revealed less than 1% re-offense rates for two consecutive years, but still want tiers that no one can change.
Steve
He even calls Jeffrey Epstein a good guy who is a tier 3 registrant and the guy that supplied Trump with his 14 year old girl who is taking him to court Maybe Epstein can get him to change the law.
Punished For Life
Biol57.
My feelings exactly. We need to get the statistics to him NOW, not after he's settled in. If we give him a chance to listen to all of the haters in our government....we are in big trouble. We need to flood the inbox of "The Donald".
HOOKSCAR
The petition is at the following URL.
https://wh.gov/ie8NR
Sign it. We need 150 signatures for it to go public.
abolishtheregistry.com
We'll said. Don't stop preaching. It takes a very strong willed person to keep talking when even your peers, the very people you're trying to wake up, dump on their only true path to freedom.
HOOKSCAR
Created a petition at the web site provided by abolshtheregistry.com. We'll see what happens.
abolishtheregistry.com
I'm not sure she cares how corrupt Hillary is. She's a woman, a democrat and that's all that matters to some.
Rick
To Janice
I'm sorry, I didn't see where you stated if president trump makes alternative choices, then people can help choose a tiered system. My bad, like I said, if I make a mistake, I will gladly say I did.😉
Biol57
Dear Janice,
I think you are being optimistic but I see the possibilities in your argument. There is some obvious awakening in the Federal Courts to the reality that registered citizens are a vanishingly small threat to re-offend and pose a threat to almost no one.
The question is, as was asked above, how do we get the word out to President-elect Trump as he is forming the framework for his administration?
Gerald Cervente
Janice,Trump in a speech said this,which alarmed me a lot,I supported him,
"child molesters can not be cured". It there fore follows that hes belief
is all sex offenders are child molesters and can't be cured.If a certain celebrity
justice fighter you know who that is ,were to whisper things in hes ear
such as forcing states to use the Adam Walsh Act.We could be subject to
really horrible things.I believe Trump looks at both sides of an issue,I believe he needs to be contacted
as soon as possible when hes sworn in and presented facts.I believe he is about true facts,the justice
system (the people in it) seems to rely on how does this effect me,not on whats right or true,the system is corrupt to the core.
Rick
What's wrong with registries? I will provide some insight.
1). They are entirely predictive, and punishes for what might happen.
2). They remove the presumption that punishment does or can work.
3). They remove any presumption of future innocence.
4). They permit an unlawful predictive mental health designation and you receive none of the well established mental health law protections.
5). They permit too much judicial discretion.
6). They render a judicial contract and the principles of res judicata and collateral estoppel meaningless.
7). They permit discretional freedom of speech, expression, association, redress, and religion by judicial bodies and town, city, state and federal bodies.
8). They are entirely void of any u.s. constitutional protections.
9). They declare a u.s. citizen "persona non grata".
10. They permit psychological, socioeconomic, and physical torture and treatment upon a person who is never permitted to forget, be removed from their influence, directly and indirectly affects their friends, families, associations with societal pressure and bias, and imposes financial, residence, employment, schooling, etc, burdens.
11). They do not provide any meaningful protection to anyone, since laws clearly don't prevent the majority of crimes.
12). They permit anyone the ability to utilize the registries to locate, and determine who they will harm, destroy their property, harass, and humiliate.
13). I have never heard of a single case where a registry protected someone or prevented a crime.
14). There is no legal duty in the u.s. constitution that allows a federal, state, or local body to take control of a persons image, reputation, etc, except when being punished.
15). Defamation of character and slander lawsuits are based upon acts that someone has claimed might be true or might happen, but even so RCs cannot sue for defamation of character or slander against the government who apply what might be true and what might happen character determinations.
16). Even draft registration permits the use of the 5th amendment and other constitutional protections and it too is a regulatory law. Every 5th amendment precedent case states the following, "the 5th amendment applies to all regulatory, adminstrative, civil, and criminal laws. Does it really?
17). There is no such precedent or law including regulatory, administrative, civil, or criminal that is not subject to the protections of the u.s. constitution, except for registries?
18). This is the kind of law the u.s. supreme court upheld, are we supposed to obey and listen to them when they allow such a law to be passed?
19). By the way all of the same information was already available on any conviction website, and while it may be the government's right to make some information public and they are free to do so. it does not include your drivers license, address, phone number, photo, employer, school, or private information you pay to keep private, nor can they force a citizen to do so except when being punished, or jury duty, or voting, since they are the only legal duties in the u.s. constitution.
20). I could go on and on and on and never find one law that supports registries, with the exception of the Dred Scott decision permitting legal slavery.
So what's right about registries legally?
21). You tell us?
abolishtheregistry.com
I prefer direct legal action to persuasion in our case. Persuasion for sex offenses is the slow train to China.
abolishtheregistry.com
Yep, I'm still waiting for the video of bill having sex with a 13 year old to hit the news cycle though. Also pictures of huma and Hillary naked, having sex with an underage girl. Those were in the emails found on Anthony Wiener's computer. NYPD has threatened to go public unless all are punished. Gotta love wikileaks and all whistleblowers!
mike r
I don't know if that was sarcasm or if janice actually believes what she said about trump and his Supreme Court appointees but trump does still calls tyson a friend and even stated he was proud to have tyson endorse him....so who knows anythings better than corrupt Hillary and the status qou....the path our country has been on has done nothing but erode our freedoms and made the rich get richer and the poor get poorer...hopefully he does what he says and cleans up the swamp....
abolishtheregistry.com
Article IV, Section 4, declares: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.”
As a lawyer, she should know better.
Renny
I love the CalExit idea.
I would immediately vote to approve it and if approved I would immediately push for the US to declare war on CA and then if America would have me, join up to come back to CA and kill as many of my enemy, legally, as I could before I got killed back. It would be the one legal way to exterminate those in Sacramento - GO CALEXIT!
abolishtheregistry.com
The only part for democracy in this country is to elect its politicians. You've been spoonfed the idea that democracy is good and that we are one. We aren't, and it isn't, which is why the founding fathers limited it. This is a constitutional republic. Democratic rule flies in the face of the constitution and your rights. People are just too ignorant to realise it I guess.
Only a wannabe dictator applauds taking away the rights of 49% of Americans.
"We are now forming a Republican form of government. Real liberty is not found in the extremes of democracy, but in moderate governments. If we incline too much to democracy we shall soon shoot into a monarchy, or some other form of a dictatorship." Alexander Hamilton.
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." Thomas Jefferson.
“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!” Benjamin Franklin.
“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself.” John Adams.
James Madison, the father of the Constitution wrote in Federalist Paper No. 10 that pure democracies “have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”
abolishtheregistry.com
So by your own words, are you admitting you have things in your closet that drive you?
abolishtheregistry.com
Only if there's proof of some sort. That's how it's supposed to work.
In the court of public opinion and rabid political bias, one only needs an accusation.
abolishtheregistry.com
That was a general "you". I'm talking mainly about the news that's promoting this because they're crying about a lost election. Wasn't it Hillary and the media that blasted trump as unamerican because he wasn't going to just accept the outcome? The idea that he'd challenge a "democratic" process was so appalling to them. Of course, it's just them being the hypocritical pieces of shit they are. The do as I say, not as I do, trash.
abolishtheregistry.com
Start a petition.
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov
Address it to Trump.
Hit his twitter account or have someone do it for you.
Write him a letter.
Track down his email, send him a note.
Visit his property and hold a sign up.
Yell at him from a car window.
Lots of ways. Get busy!
abolishtheregistry.com
Here's a nice article by the interceptor talking about Hillary's position on the death penalty. Remember, she campaigned hard for those Clinton crime bills.
https://theintercept.com/2016/03/17/hillary-clintons-indefensible-stance-on-the-death-penalty/
31yearsLaterDidImameKillAnyone?
Well Stated Janice, well stated.
(Why can't press take this one in?)
It's only the facts...think about how many wrongful others out
there if our president gets away with it that have not been caught
yet or never turned themselves in for acts like the Donald.
Brandi
I agree with you my husband is considered lvl 2 and has all these restrictions that really damage his self being. Having a tiered system will not help matters. He did 2 years house arrest followed by 5 years with out a single violation, can own a firearm and vote but can't live with his family. The problem is he wasn't judged on his humanity or character it was the crime. That's all a tiered system will bring more good people being exiled, need to judge people on their humanity and character instead of a label
Guy
While it would be only logical that someone who committed acts that would be registerable would demonstrate concern for people on the registry and their families, I think we all know that logic has nothing to do with this.
In my experience, the people who demagogue the loudest regarding the registry tend to be those individuals with registerable skeletons in their closet. Of course I'm not a sex offender! Look how loud and obnoxious I am when it comes to punishing them!
I guess we'll all find out together.
Timmr
Hope isn't going to change anything unless there is a plan to deal with what may happen. I was all hopeful when Obama came in, but he didn't have a plan to deal with the opposition. The two Roosevelt's did, but the character of leadership has changed since then.
Timmr
Doesn't America always end up doing the right thing as a last resort? That is what we have been told over and over. It must, history notwithstanding, therefore be true.
Nicely said Rick.....
Well put Rick.....nice discussion points here....something to seriously consider...
Timmr
Well that contract requires several procedures to be followed. I am not at all scoffing at Texas leaving. Go Texas.
Timmr
Quite on target. None of this will 'work' if it is still considered regulation. And yeah no one is going to take you or me seriously, unless we become part of an organized voting block. Appealing to reason and moral persuasion have some power, but the politicians are going to weight the most what will keep them in power.
anonymously
Someone here mentioned that politicians are trying to get the death penalty for child molesters. It was Hillary whose position on the Death Penalty is that the death penalty should be reserved for murderers only. Hillary could have just as easily been some anti-registrant hawk like Catherine Cortez-Masto, who won in Nevada. Hillary did not make punishing sex offenders part of every sentence she speaks like Cortez-Masto at least. Cortez-Masto won, but her opponent Joe Heck seemed on board with all the authoritarian crap against sex offenders. So it was a lesser of two evil things there. At least Republican Kelly Ayotte lost in New Hampshire. But to make things even worse, she is now being discussed to become Trumps Defense Secretary and she does make attacking registrants part of every sentence she speaks. This cannot be good. With an incoming Republican President, Republican Congress, 3 to 4 Scotus Justices to be replaced with a Republican Senate to confirm them, things are not looking too hopeful. Trump is publicly friends with a registrant, Iron Mike. Trump said Mike should have been given a fine or something and no prison time. If trump himself were to make decisions on domestic policy such as registrants it may not be as bad as what Trump seems to be doing, which is handing domestic policy off to long time Republican establishment people from the Bush years where trhe only thing I can see having changed their minds on there past anti-registrant positions would be the demise of their brethren, Dennis Hastert. Trump seems like he may prfer to focus his perosnal attentin to matters of trade and foriegn policy. I personally am very disappoointed and that's why I am upset that HIllarys people did not reach out to registrants who largely were too mired in dysfunction to vote at all. Janice indicated a few weeks ago she prefers Democratic rule. I sense the tone of this piece is to hope for the best, and it would be naive not to prepare for the worst.
Chris F
Where is all this false hope that Trump will provide any assistance to sex offenders coming from?
Everything Trump has ever done in his campaign was knee-jerk reactions and sound bites. If his position on something isn't popular with a majority of people and won't fit in an easy to understand tweet, then he doesn't take that position. He will do nothing but the easy thing, which is to "save the children" and "increase punishment" for sex offenders.
He won't even say what his healthcare plan is other than to repeal Obama Care. That's all the majority wants to hear regardless of if its the right thing to do or if he actually has some secret plan to get healthcare for the millions that got it on Obamacare.
Harry
The one thing we need to remember the same media, celebs, academia, and politicians that hated Trump, also hates us.
শিশ্ন মাথা
Imagine, we would have had the first African American President, and then the First Sex Offender President; before the first Woman President!
robert m
Yes Janice how do we contact him so he knows of out plight? he talked about making america great again and following the constitution, let go with that first, so many things that we are dealing with are a violation of that very document, punish the crime yes, but not change it to extend after you already served your sentence.
abolishtheregistry.com
Trump will be whatever the real controllers of this country want. He's already going back on his promises like I knew he would. Nobody that will affect real change will be allowed. It'll take a revolution but even then, there's a chance Soros or the like will be the fomenter. Only one action would shake up the power brokers. Real world consequences for them.
David
Timmr, until she recently dropped the civil suit against Trump when he was elected, there was a woman suing him for raping her when she was 13 years old. The statute of limitations for criminal charges had expired, but she could still sue him civilly for damages.
Roger
Janice, you have my unconditional support. We all have to work together against the insanity.
abolishtheregistry.com
It's a hilarious and as usual, a hypocritical display from people who scoffed at Texas leaving. But, I'm all for ANY state that wants to do it (especially cali) :). The states created the feds when they signed on, they can leave the same way. Simply back out of the "contract". Well not really simply because the feds will try and hold you prisoner.
Timmr
Well said.
Timmr
Well, I might be for that. It deserves looking into. If CA is the crasher in the rest of the nation's electoral party then maybe we can, should have our own gig. This federal money for compliance checks would vanish, then. We seem to be good at handling our Runners and Melendezes. Not so good on the Chris Smiths or Obamas. Maybe we could get together with Oregon and Washington. One thing I have in common with Trump supporters, I am tired of sh*t status quo. Maybe not the same sh*t, but generally speaking.
David Kennerly
Trump will pander to his public at least as much as any other politician. That public doesn't like sex offenders. There is no political capital in doing anything nice for us. We should be under no illusions about Trump or Hillary, for that matter.
David Kennerly
The problem has been that, because registration is conveniently viewed as "non-punishment," they can change the length of registration and have it apply retroactively to include those who had already been assured that they would be getting off.
Any tiered proposal would need to reward years crime-free, regardless of original offense and not subject to length increases for me to support it. That could be written into the law but I'm very dubious that it would be done. Not that my support will be viewed as either necessary or relevant.
CXR
What you said, Rick, would make sense if Janice was advocating for a tiered registry when no registry existed before. But, that is not the case.
Patsy Hug
That is what my registered son for seeing an image says....false hope. He will not allow himself hope even now two years into probation....but I have to glob onto it whenever I see it.
Patsy Hug
I like your thinking Janice, I had thought about this as I am not too sure about agreeing with much he says, but this is the most important issue in our lives, taking precidence over global warming, other countries, name it. If President Trump can do anything to help our families, then he will have our support for live. What can we do to send him letters, worded correctly, so he can see the injustice and punishment not fitting crimes.
Punished For Life
Hello Ron,
You don't need to spend much time at this site, to hear the stories over and over again of RC's who have been
trapped within the lifetime of this registration scheme, for doing much less than what "The Donald" has been accused of. Maybe Trump groped and maybe he didn't. Maybe he
inappropriately touched and maybe he didn't.
What about those who never touched a soul...and are spending the rest of their lives in the chains of the registry for looking at an "IMAGE".
Someone with the power and pull of a Donald Trump can do just about anything they desire and get away with it.
WE CAN'T.
Trump may or may not be a unconvicted SO, but he has potentially done enough to get you or me or anyone else who is not an elite....arrested on probable cause.
I feel that the words of Janice, simply bring out into the open how bad the SOR is and why it needs to go away. President Elect Trump has the power to make the SOR go away. And that is what we all want.
If he is even close to becoming a Registered Citizen with us, I'll bet the registry goes away.
And BTW.
I voted for Donald Trump.
Ron
Well that fact is he is not a "sex offender" and he has denied any sexual molestation or assaults. I wish I could agrees with you, but sex offenders have such a stigma attached to them, there is no way he is going to be different than Clinton would have been. It is wishful, if not hopeful thinking, but I think it gives us false hope.
abolishtheregistry.com
Don't forget when anyone advocates for individual assessments, you have to scrutinize HOW they're going to do it and to who it applies.
Just saying..
Personally, I'm fine with one size fits all because once you're done, that's it. They could easily break crime based up to smaller bits if they wanted to, though.
As many have said, the government sees the writing on the wall, that's why they're pushing for tiered. It gives them more control to slap 30 or life on whoever they want based on an "evaluation". Guarantee, you'll have hundreds of thousands complaining "we got screwed" over a relatively lite charge if it's implemented. Of course that'll be 10 years down the road and then calls for more "reform" then 10 years of "rethinking" then 10 years before anything is done then another scheme. That's how government works. Nobody figured that out yet?
I hope I'm alive to say "I told you so" if it's implemented. That'll be a whopper prediction come true! :)
abolishtheregistry.com
I only read half of it because I quickly realised no need to go on because it's true that you're not politically biased.
From what I saw, which may or may not be all, it sounded like he said he "could do" those things, not that he did. If so, it reminds me of when he said " I COULD shoot someone and my supporters would still back me". You as a lawyer know that's not an admission of guilt.
If anyone can point to the VIDEO that shows where he admitted to actual criminal behavior and not the faux criminal wannabe act of making a move on someone, I'm all eyes.
A transcript isn't good enough.. if there's a transcript then there's an actual video file.
I've seen proof of him being a blowhard, obnoxious fascist but nothing yet sexually criminal.
As for a divided country: That's what happens when both sides endeavor to smear and control the other. Just remember, every time you talk shit and you choose to use liberal, republican and libertarian in your generalized rant... you are part of the problem. YOU are the divider.
Rick
Wait a minute Janice, I think you better remove the tiered registry idea after claiming registries are unconstitutional, don't you think? I thought that was a part only to be applied in the form of supervised release, not a public system? Heck, if anyone really needs to be on a public registry, they probably shouldn't be allowed to be out here in society, in other words the punishment should have either kept them locked up or committed? You can't be suggesting contradictory applications of law, or are you? You can't have it both ways!
Chris F
I like the humor, and appreciate the statements.
I'll still disagree that a tiered system is any more legal than one size fits all, since the tiered system still uses arbitrary durations and lumps everyone committing certain crimes together without an individual assessment by a judge in the original legal system that allows appeals and adjustments.
It's illegal for a judge to apply restrictions to all committing the same crime without taking into account individual circumstances, but it's ok for politicians to do not only to a specific crime, but an entire group of them?
Punished For Life
Very well said, Janice.
I believe that every member of Congress, Senators as well as the President elect and his entire staff, along with current and appointed Supreme Court Justices, needs to read what you have written. Is there a way to convey your words to them all? It is so well stated by you, that anyone who makes the promise to abide by our Constitution needs to read your words.
Jack
Janice, I know this is going to sound crazy, but have you heard of the Calexit campaign? It started in earnest just as soon as he was elected. It's actually getting enough support to have gotten on CNN. It's highly improbable to get passed of course, because it would need to pass both houses of congress with a 2/3 majority, and be approved by 38 state legislatures. But I think every registered citizen would be in favor of California leaving the union, given that the state would no longer have to abide any federal law.
Timmr
Anyway, why would Trump have any empathy? He was accused and the result, almost half of the voting population made him president despite that. He has no idea what it is like being really accused and being convicted when you don't have the celebrity shield to protect you.
Timmr
Could Trump actually be charged in any of those alleged acts? I haven't heard anyone analyse that scenario, either from before he takes the oath or after. Just as some assume he did break the law most seem to talk like he is immune from facing charges. I guess he would be immune, aren't most politicians somehow immune. Worst they get is a little embarrassment.
robert m
i hope he will hear what your saying Janice, how can we get to him with this information? i hope this is tongue in cheek sarcasm as it were. i was thinking if his election would be good for us or more of a hinderance, he is against illegal immigrants so why would he support trying to keep us all here rather then let us travel freely around the globe?? so many different things running through my mind right now
Harry
Well, either way there was going to be a sex offender in the White House.
Robert Curtis
I will be in meetings addressing those same concerns. It has been given to me the context on how to move forward. It's a God thing...
Nicholas Maietta
I concur. Thank you for this, Janice.
Janice's Journal: A Halloween Hero is Born in Ohio
Published Date : October 27, 2016
Halloween is here again. I have just finished another media interview about the dangers of Halloween. This interview was initiated by a newspaper reporter in Tennessee and follows a long string of interviews by newspaper, radio and TV reporters.
During each of those interviews, I did my best to turn the focus of the interview from the Halloween myth that registered citizens sexually assault children who are trick-or-treating to the real danger of Halloween – pedestrians being killed in car accidents. Despite those attempts, the articles and reports that were subsequently produced continued to repeat the Halloween myth.
To my great surprise, I read today a newspaper article that uncovered a Halloween Hero. His name is Gregory Hicks and he is the Law Director for the City of Warren, Ohio.
According to a newspaper article, Mr. Hicks told council members this week during a public City Council meeting that there is not an increased likelihood of registrants accosting children on Halloween. He made these remarks after a member of the council proposed a new ordinance that would prevent registrants from decorating their homes and doing anything that would attract children to their homes.
Mr. Hicks also stated, “There are those who may argue that such laws are worthwhile if they prevent just one child from being victimized. The burden placed on law enforcement to enforce such laws would be better allocated addressing more probable lawless events, including vandalism, theft, assault and traffic enforcement.”
Not content with those statements, Mr. Hicks went on to quote real Halloween facts from a real Halloween report, published by the Association for Treatment of Sexual Abusers (ATSA), that “children ages 5 to 14 are four times more likely to suffer injury or death caused by a pedestrian-vehicle accident during Halloween than any other time of year.”
Thank you, Mr. Hicks, for speaking the truth. You are our Halloween Hero!
— by Janice Bellucci
Read all of Janice’s Journal entries
Related
OH: Official – Halloween child sex attacks unlikely
Comments
NPS
Unfortunately...
http://www.mercurynews.com/2016/11/04/pacifica-man-charged-in-attempted-kidnap-of-girl-bail-at-10-million/
He's been convicted of sex offenses in the past, but it doesn't say he's a registrant.
Rick
What's a f.a.c.?
mike r
hey off topic here for a second...just looked at f.a.c. and am wondering why we don't have a case consideration form like they have and do they really consider cases????
Nicholas Maietta
There have been no sex offenders who committed a sex crime against a trick-or-treater this year, same as usual. However, Google searches for news coverage of trick-or treaters getting hit by cars this year reveal the following: (Also, the amount of media coverage targeting sex offenders vs safety tips for vehicles etc are disproportionate and show to at least me, that the media is extremely reckless in bring important issues to the public's attention.)
Trick or treater injured in hit-and-run, man stops driver from escaping
http://www.king5.com/news/local/tacoma/trick-or-treater-injured-in-hit-and-run-man-stops-driver-from-escaping/345262232
4-year-old trick or treater hit by a car in Lowell
http://www.fox25boston.com/news/4-year-old-trick-or-treater-hit-by-a-car-in-lowell/462558888
Car strikes two Santa Rosa trick-or-treaters
http://kron4.com/2016/10/31/car-strikes-two-santa-rosa-trick-or-treaters/
Long Branch trick-or-treater struck by van
http://www.app.com/story/news/local/emergencies/2016/10/31/long-branch-trick--treater-struck-van/93096320/
2 kids among 3 dead in Halloween hayride tragedy on Miss. highway
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/2-kids-among-3-dead-in-halloween-hayride-tragedy-on-miss-highway/
Trick-or-treating girls hit by car
https://sfbay.ca/2016/10/31/trick-or-treating-girls-hit-by-car/
CANADA: Driver arrested for alcohol-related charges after 3 trick-or-treaters injured on Halloween
http://globalnews.ca/news/3037314/driver-arrested-for-alcohol-related-charges-after-3-trick-or-treaters-injured-on-halloween/
steve
Drunk Drivers-1
RSO's -0
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2016/10/31/alleged-drunk-driver-who-struck-family-during-salem-halloween-face-charges-monday/5mS1FBbfYs9A96qstMxUDO/story.html
Rick
So I suppose another uneventful Halloween has gone by again without the precious children being harmed. I mean really, what kind of person really thinks anyone would use this holiday solely to harm kids, only sickos would think that way. Anyways, I'm sure someone will post some kind of nonsense to perpetuate this absurd and unsupportable garbage. This country really is mentally ill, from top to bottom.
NY Level 1
Huge Question another for serious constructive feedback. How can this happen??? How can a commercial website break the law by publishing names of Level 1 offenders?
http://patch.com/new-york/yorktown-somers/sex-offender-addresses-yorktown-somers-homes-be-aware-halloween-0
Sex Offender Addresses: Yorktown, Somers Homes to Be Aware of This Halloween
Before kids go out trick or treating on Halloween, fall is a good time to take inventory of who is living in the neighborhood.
By Michael Woyton (Patch Staff) - October 30, 2016 2:00 pm ET
Lee
Morning folks,
Several points to be made regarding California and OPP BOO:
#1.
ONLY applicable to those on ACTIVE PAROLE, not probation & not applicable for those that have completed their debt to society (post either path):
http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Parole/docs/Operation-Boo-Brochure-2016.pdf?pdf=Operation-Boo-2016
#2.
DOJ official govt site, #1. FAQ - debunks Operation Boo:
http://www.meganslaw.ca.gov/facts.aspx?lang=ENGLISH
#3.
Operation Boo assumes that young children would either be unaccompanied by an adult or not be in groups with others. Both of which have been completely false since the beginning of time.
NET/TAKE AWAY
As we know, this is a community feel good, smoke and mirrors stunt that is performed each year at our expense to mainly appease suburban soccer moms. Tough on crime, it's all about politicians and votes.
Every society needs deamons to exploit - and we're it. So let' keep our heads high and see you on the flip side.
ABOUT ME
I am on probation for a misdemeanor offense with no victim. And while I am allowed to go out, if I do they want to know where, and they are going to perform a drive by to insure no decorations/etc. If I am home - they will perform an inspection. Last year they tried to even track me down at a friend's house where I was supposed to go to a party. They got panicked when I wasn't there, and then found out I was home because I decided not to go. Can't imagine the embarrassment of that ordeal - ya, no apologies...
Regards,
Lee
M. Burbank
I am happy to hear that SCOTUS is going to consider the case. Here is from SCOTUS blog:
http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/10/court-adds-five-new-cases-including-transgender-bathroom-dispute-to-docket/
Among the court’s other grants today, Packingham v. North Carolina is the case of Lester Packingham, a North Carolina man who became a registered sex offender after he was convicted, at the age of 21, of taking indecent liberties with a minor. Six years after Packingham’s conviction, North Carolina enacted a law that made it a felony for registered sex offenders to access a variety of websites, from Facebook to The New York Times and YouTube. Packingham was convicted of violating this law after a police officer saw a Facebook post in which Packingham celebrated, and gave thanks to God for, the dismissal of a traffic ticket. The justices today agreed to review Packingham’s contention that the law violates the First Amendment.
Roger
Excellent! It is good to know that educating public officials can make a huge difference for us RCs.
Janice, thanks for your efforts in educating the public.
Nicholas Maietta
Good to hear there are people in government who actually use their brains for good. Maybe his actions will inadvertently save a child's life by allowing law enforcement to deal with what they were supposed to be there for anyway, community safety.
Rick
I agree, it's courage and conviction like Mr. Hicks that quiets ignorance and fear more than anything. I have always argued that the blame for all of this belongs to public officials who permit fear mongering and ignorance to prevail over the law. People will listen to the law, and people will also listen to lawlessness when it benefits them. We are supposed to be a nation of law, just as the contract of our constitution requires. People are tiring of the purpose of the registries, it's time for them to go.
Janice's Journal: It's a Setback But It's Not Over
Published Date : October 5, 2016
The U.S. District Court judge presiding over our challenge to the International Megan’s Law (IML) has dismissed that case with prejudice. As a result of her decision, the case is over and the complaint cannot be amended as we had requested.
The judge’s decision is a setback, but our challenge to the IML is not over.
The fact is we are currently reviewing our options which include, but are not limited to, whether to appeal the judge’s decision or to file a new lawsuit in a different jurisdiction. We have up to 60 days to decide whether or not to appeal and we have an unlimited amount of time to decide whether to file a new lawsuit.
There is no doubt. The judge’s decision is a setback. For in her decision, the judge not only determined that the lawsuit was premature and that our plaintiffs lacked standing, she also determined that our claims were not valid. That is one judge’s opinion and there are many more judges who may have a different opinion.
As we weigh our options, the most important thing to remember is that every civil rights movement has its setbacks. In fact, there is no civil rights movement that has ultimately crossed the finish line and declared victory without first suffering a series of defeats.
For example, the civil rights activists advocating in support of same-sex marriage won an important court victory in Hawaii in 1993 only to have constitutional amendments passed in more than 30 states that outlawed those marriages. That movement struggled for more than 20 years before it declared victory when the U.S. Supreme Court decided in 2015 that same-sex marriages are valid.
As we move toward our finish line, we need to remember that it is the power of citizen activists, such as those involved in our civil rights movement, that ultimately change constitutional law. As author and law professor David Cole stated in his book, “Engines of Liberty”, sustained advocacy by groups of citizens usually over many years and in a wide array of venues is required to make those changes to the constitution.
Be an engine of liberty. Attend a monthly meeting. Write letters and make phone calls. Join us when we lobby in Sacramento early next year. Make a donation to our worthy cause.
And when you are ready, Show up – Stand up – Speak up.
— by Janice Bellucci
Read all of Janice’s Journal
Comments
Michael
Congress permitted Immigration and Customs Enforcement to create the Angel Watch Center. It makes sense that it's being funded.
...
Mr. D
Hi Quint - First time I flew into Toronto had no issues breezed right through customs
PK
I was curious about the same thing Tuna.
Did the Petition regarding the State Department Rule fall by the wayside since the Challenge to IML was dismissed?
Tired Of Hiding
You keep asking for advice but only if the person "really knows" which is what is impossible to tell you.
Ask 5 governmental agencies and get 5 different answers.
Ask 5 lawyers and get 5 different opinions.
Research it yourself online...again, you will find there are NO absolutes to this massive clusterf^k mess. The point is that we are in limbo and yet, it seems that is exactly where the government wants us to be!
Tuna
Any news on the petition filed regarding the flawed State Dept rule published in the Federal Register?
Janice Bellucci
The ACLU was contacted before the first lawsuit was filed. We reconnected with them after the judge's decision and so far they are not willing to help.
Janice Bellucci
The State Department has not yet added "unique identifiers" to anyone's passport. Before they do so, they will need to issue regulations. As far as we know, the regulations have not yet been issued however we are expecting the regulations, but not the identifiers, to show up by the end of this year. The regulations should tell us when they will start to add the identifiers.
Quint
@Mr. D: Would love to know about your Canada headaches. Planning a trip there next summer.
Anonymous
By the way, we are now at stage 6, "Preparation," in the 8 stages of genocide...
http://www.genocidewatch.org/images/8StagesBriefingpaper.pdf
Mr. D
Hi Robert - I filled out the renewal form that is online printed it out and mailed it off at the post office via priority USPS mail. Dropped it off at the post office on a Friday had the new passport back the following Saturday eight days later. No odd markings that I can tell anywhere on the passport, it matches exactly the same as what's on the flier they sent back to me The details all the various usage options of a passport .
Robert M
yes did you do it online or in person at the post office? i think we would all like to know, again many thanks Mr. D
Unfortunately, it is all about the kids for the DL markings
It is about the kids and where RCs go that have the possible need to check DLs and IDs, e.g. county fairs, schools, libraries, etc....you know the list spouted commonly.
Read this GAO report on DL markings and their implementation....it is a 9 yr old report, but informative nonetheless:
http://www.gao.gov/assets/280/271597.html
Here is a CA Assy Trans Committee debate on CA's version of this topic:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_0551-0600/ab_589_cfa_20100611_093302_sen_comm.html
You will read CA Assy Trans Committee came to some of the same conclusions others have said for a long time, "Why not others also?"
Mr. D
Unfortunately still have to register. Original case is approximately 17 years ago. Felony reduced to misdemeanor and ultimately dismissed per 1203.4
Traveled to Germany and Denmark and France in 2014 no issues when I went. Went to Canada a number of times last year and although had a few headaches managed to get in each time. Reside in California where I get to enjoy lifetime registration.
Timmr
Hey, why don't you demand equal justice by having them stamp the passports of all those businessmen, who have profited off the child sweat shops and factory fire traps, with a big red CHILD EXPLOITER. It is only fair to give other countries this information so they have the choice to deny these monsters entry. They can do that. It's legal now if the intent is good, but selecting out just one despised group is not fair. No, no. And, if it saves just a few thousand extra children, well... more the better. Wouldn't our government, hall monitor to the world, be remiss if they didn't warn the world of our terrible citizenry. Oh yes, they can care less, it is the droans they fear.
Timmr
Maybe 'cause they think we drive those old wondowless white vans and can't see the blind spot, not to mention gluing our eyes on every school girl instead of the road -- they will even use urban legends like these to raise the priciple. Genius! Who's going to question? Profit, profit, profit. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.
PK
Are you currently required to register? Felony or Misdemeanor? Are you a Level Designated RSO? How long ago was your conviction?
NY Level 1
wow happy for you did you use online or physical please share many thanks!
NY Level 1
Just a thought for discussion and review. Can the ACLU or NYCLU be approached to help? Any background?
I know the NYCLU are still interested in an offender being named and coming forward to challenge the E-stop law.
RC specific insurance rates?
If being an RC is a non-driving infraction, then how is being an RC potentially influential on vehicle insurance rates? That seems to be a comparison that has no rate relevance. If there is any increased financial difference where being an RC influences rates, then it needs to be clearly explained, regardless if it is significant or not.
Comparing insurance rates
Then the question becomes are they investigating the same across the others who have committed an infraction vs those who have not or even comparing infractions against each other?
What difference does it make whether the person is an RC or not when it comes to comparing driving habits for insurance rates? Being an RC by itself is a non-driving infraction anyway. If they do that, then they can start to compare ethnicities, etc for driving habits and rates. Insurance is all about statistics.
Agree, if the $$ disparity is significant, there is room for a suit.
Eric Knight
Actually, insurance rates for RC's can be investigated compared to non-RC's with exact or near-exact driving records. If a significant disparity can be shown there is room for a civil lawsuit, especially if the rates are not justified in the terms.
Mr. D
FYI for everyone as it relates to passport renewal - my passport just expired, sent in the renewal last week under the expedited function. Took our good old government three days to cash my check, but then again I have my new passport in my hands within eight days . No unique identifier at this time. I'm almost impressed on how quickly they issued it .
Son of Liberty Child of Freedom
I concur with Timmr
The quanlifier to be pleaded is the State of Perpeual Slavehood into which forms a Concentration Camp of Want a Unjust Unequal treatment with no ability to Atone and be Reconciled with our Rights and Titles given by The Most High in Heaven Yehovah.
As Yehovah lives, so should we.
Why a RC identifier on driver record for insurance agencies to see?
If your RC status is noted on your driving record, does that mean the insurance agency sees it and adjusts your insurance accordingly (for more money) because of the RC identifiers for a non-driving offense? If that adjustment is done based upon the identifier, then they are damaging you by charging more for a non-driving offense using information that has no business being known to the insurance companies in the first place. There is no statistical correlation between the RC status and driving insurance rates. What would the insurance rates be without the RC marking on the driving record?
Thought process potentially is if you have higher priced insurance which you cannot afford, then you cannot drive (legally) because you need insurance to drive. Another underhanded way of using information that has no business being known by the insurance companies to keep the person down.
Are the insurance cards also marked with RC identifiers like the DLs?
Would be interesting to know answers to these questions.
I can't wait to die
in fl. your driving record is marked as well thus when you go looking for auto insurance they see that your an RSO from the call center as soon as the pull your DL ifo
Robert
Kat, I agree 100%. This IML fight is one in the same fight against the registry. These legislative schemes are a house of cards, built on fear and myths. Not on facts and rational thinking. They will be toppled when we find the right court that can see these laws for what they are and the damage they do to people.
Regarding a link between IML and child sex tourism, we have also data on our side. Child sex tourism is rare crime as Janice has outlined in her compliant. These crimes are not likely at all to be committed by someone listed on the registry for an unrelated crime.
Also in Janice’s favor is data: the Global Study Report on Sexual Exploitation of Children in Travel and Tourism published May 2016. This study validates that most demand for child sex tourism is domestic and regional: "The sexual exploitation of children in travel and tourism (SECTT) is now mainly a domestic and intra-regional crime." "Research shows that children are most likely to be exploited by someone they know and someone who has the opportunity within their own community rather than a stranger or tourist who travels for the purpose of child sex tourism."
“Key finding: Twenty years ago, it might have been possible to sketch a rough global map showing where international travelling sex offenders were from, and where they were going. The sexual exploitation of children in travel and tourism (SECTT) is now mainly a domestic and intra-regional crime, and can be found in both the world’s most developed and least developed countries. While the focus has long been on foreign tourists, male nationals account for the vast majority of offenders.”
This ECPAT study highlights the shift in the 20 year old belief that the demand for sex tourism and child sex tourism comes mainly from male tourists, especially from wealthy, industrialized nations seeking child sex opportunities. This is false. This is a busted myth.
Rep Chris Smith and US policy makers have based the IML and Angel Watch Program on the 20 year old busted myth, not on creditable data such as in this new report – that child sex tourism is a domestic crime where male nationals account for the vast majority of offenders (and not foreign tourists).
Facts are important. The truth is important. We must do all we can to help Janice get the truth restored in the courts for these laws passed based only on fear, false data and political posturing.
Link to study: http://globalstudysectt.org/global-report/
Timmr
What we need to find are successful prisoner rights campaigns, if indeed there are any, and transend the Constitution to get at the heart of justice. Like it or not we are all considered detainees or prisoners, and that is a difficult position to claim human rights from. Indeed, claims of personal preference and tolerance and general acceptence for certain sexaul acts are just not going to be in the equation for most of us as they can be for the LGBTQ community. For some acts, yes like teen age sex it is a matter of tolerant perceptions, but not for most of the acts that fall under registration. So what we are looking at is drawing some sort of rational line between the penalty for breaking the social contract and the right to have your citizenship given back at some point. Look, slavery is still active because of the hole in the 13th ammendment that allows involuntary servitude because of a crime, leaving something that in all but tge lable is modern slavery for certain classes. I like the angle Rick has suggested to focus on the contractual agreement. Our system was born long ago out of the contract, or so I believe, and the original bill of rights came about to balance the disparity in power between the citizen a sovereign . I think I will look at some of the criminal reform movements both past and present for instruction, because those seem most relevant to our stuation.
Well said
That is something, Darrin, along the lines of Sun Tzu for the 21st Century America.
You must study your enemies to know their tactics regardless of who they are as an enemy. If the tactics work, you must understand how and why they do and then look at applying them if they are successful, even if you don't agree with them as a friend or enemy (or the opposing political party in the USA).
Stephen
I fully agree. Like 1 of them 20 resident towns . used trailers are cheap. We can just vote them log heads out of office.
Timmr
What county would that be? Most all the climates in California are amenable and most areas can be farmed for self sufficiency, except for limited water availability. There are still some homestead sites, although probably on a dry lake or atop a granite spire, still...Put together a community solar/wind grid and we are set for power. Power can pump water, create channels, power servers, till land. Plenty of smart people also. You attempt to damn up potential genius and it finds another way. Heck, the Romans and the Anasazi grew crops in the desert, so...I'm for it. Just need to reach out to those who can't find a home. That would be hundreds of thousands now, I guess.
Janice Bellucci
I highly recommend that everyone read, "Engines of Liberty", by David Cole which includes three case studies of successful campaigns such as same sex marriage.
JohnDoeUtah
They do the same in Utah. My H.R. department hasn't caught on but for me to remain on the authorized driver list at work for rentals, auto insurance, when I go to Engineering symposiums or to visit the odd ball vendors; I have to have to provide a copy of my driver's license and provide an annual copy of my driving record (which luckily doesn't say I'm registered).
In Utah we have to pay for the renewal ($35.00 a year), and do it in person in our Birthday month. In order to renew in Utah you need a Birth Certificate and proof of address. I figured it was just another layer of registration because you actually don't have to show law enforcement any proof of address, but to renew you license with a separate agency they require it. I could only imagine that people get arrested if both the addresses you gave LE and DMV were different.
You also can't change your address online like everyone else, you have to go back to DMV and pay another $35.00. Not having an updated address on file at DMV in Utah is a crime for all citizens.
Darrin Swait
As I read your statements about civil rights and social justice, I'm reminded of something that I've recently come to understand.
There are many people with which I do not agree when it comes to their causes. Nevertheless, their tactics and plans are no doubt effective. Things that we once thought of as illegal are now legal. I think it would behoove us all to take a look at the strategies used by these groups and copy them for our own uses since they have already proven effective. Simply because there is a Democrat or a Republican in the White House shouldn't perplex us. There is always something that can be used to help propel and further our cause, regardless. It is up to us to find those "bits" that we can use to make our voices heard. Pay attention to the community planners, take note, and follow their examples.
Cannot exempt just business people who are RCs either
The government cannot exempt just those RCs who have business reasons to travel overseas from notifications or identifiers either if the government was found to be wrong because that would create government sanctioned discrimination which is also illegal.
Punished For Life
In Nevada normal citizens renew the drivers license online. RSO's must appear at the DMV. That's usually a 3 to 4 hour process each and every year. The punishment just goes on and on and on.
Interesting point on Angel Watch
If you are able to show damage via the Angel Watch notifications to foreign destinations, then you probably have solid footing. However, what damage? By the notifications, they are sending a fact of an RC is traveling to their country, but with the implied idea (or opinion) for nefarious reasons only based upon their own thinking/reasoning, not other reasons, e.g. travel with family or for family, see the country, do business there, etc. If it can be shown there is family damage (trauma) due to this notification (government inflicted damage), such as the gentleman showed in the Philippines (under the IML article posting), or the business is suffering because of the notifications being sent prevent commerce (government inflicted damage), then you can probably show the notifications are unconstitutional.
Using these example damages possibly against the identifier too, you may have solid ground again to challenge it in court......maybe even Angel Watch and IML Identifier together in the same filing, but probably better separately.
The idea or intent of the identifier is what possibly needs to be attacked under government implied speech either via defamation, libel or false light pretense in addition to established damages, e.g. cannot rent a car or stay in a hotel for commerce purposes; company revenues are down this quarter or year, by putting it physically on the passport without any background evidence to substantiate the implied nefarious claims.
"The only person who can be sent overseas to this country for the company is being prevented from doing commerce because of these notifications/identifier because a hotel room or rental car cannot be obtained through implied or opined nefarious trip reasons provided by government induced speech and thus the government is unconstitutionally stifling a constitutional right of commerce. "
A physical label is much more than just the physical label taken at face value, but the implied opinion behind it. That is where I believe government forced speech (against the constitution by the way) comes into play even if the government did not physically say for nefarious trip reasons because it is the government providing the label to begin with via passport identifiers and notifications. (Same can be said for the drivers license RC identifier argument under "Janice's Journal: It's a Setback, but not over".)
Angel Watch and IML is to help against trafficking, but they will never have statistics or metrics to back up the claim it is working without hard evidence trafficking was going to happen. This includes saying, "it stopped this # of people who were convicted of trafficking previously from traveling overseas", where the real overseas trip reasoning will never be known to satisfy the metrics.
Brazenly shown on the front
LA, GA, FL and OK have it brazenly written on the front of the license. (GA is a new add to that list above.)
An annual renewal would suck
Having to do an annual renewal would suck given the norm is longer than that obviously and someone knowing the secret to the annual renewal is not any better either. Sounds like just another way to needle the person out of spite even with the thought of incarceration hanging around if the paper trip to the cop shop isn't enough. Regardless, employers and others ought to understand when the license needs to be renewed, it needs to be renewed!
O.A.L.
That name already exists. Mr. Epstein , the famous billionaire convicted sex offender from Florida had his own Island outside U.S. jurisdiction. They nicknamed it and many public figures have taken trips there. Just shoes that money trumps morals( no pun intended) every time.
Punished For Life
Actually, I believe it is on our birthday here as well.
Punished For Life
Yup Chris F,
Those of us in Nevada can relate. They pull the same bull crap here with our drivers licenses. Renew every year on your anniversary date of original registration. And it is a highly stressful situation every time we are asked to produce the drivers license for whatever reason. Then you begin to see the "wide-eyed stare", from those who recognize the license belongs to a RSO.
The claim is that they can refuse to provide you with a drivers license if you fail to register? Whatever. Isn't the promise to put you in jail for failure to register enough?
I have learned to do everything in my power to avoid producing my drivers license for any reason whenever possible.
Tired of this
Same thing here in NV. And I directly depend on my license for a living (CDL). Only a matter of time until someone at work notices the one year expiration in my file and puts 2 and 2 together.
PK
Instead of Pervert Park they could call it Pervert Island! I'm sure a lot of businesses would be on board with that, and there would be good jobs for everyone!
Chris F
This is a good question.
Here in Texas, they found a different way to do it.
Sex Offenders get issued a license that expires every year on your birthday.
Anyone that knows that secret can look at a driver's license and know that you are a sex offender because they are the only ones with one year licenses. It sucks when you come across someone at a club, bank, or car rental place that immediately starts treating you differently after seeing your license.
I don't know why this wouldn't fall under a challenge to "Equal Protection" since other felons don't suffer with this and it serves no purpose. It also affects rights to privacy and rights to reputation.
Chris F
If they appeal, then they don't get to modify the case. Correct me if I am wrong, but Janice's case doesn't mention any challenge to Angel Watch and its practices over the last few years.
If they appeal, then the appeals court will still say that IML is not relevant to the situations these plaintiff's face because with or without the passport identifier the Angel Watch stuff will still keep them from traveling.
I'm no lawyer, but I really think they can't do much on appeal without re-filing and attacking both Angel Watch and IML.
Any successful driver's license identifier legal challenges to use in passport challenge?
Has there been a successful legal challenge to the special identifier for RCs on the driver's license showing it to be illegal? What about specific license plates? This could be a foothold on what it could take to do away with the passport identifier.
There are many states, e.g. DE, LA, FL, OK, TN & AL to name a few, where RCs have special driver licenses (DL) which are the same as a passport, used for identification. It looks like CA was considering to have a DL like this at one time.
I am not sure if there are any states with specific RC license plates, from what I can see at least, but it too would fall under the identifier issue. If no specific license plates, what is holding them back, e.g. harassment, etc? Could that be used a foothold of reasoning into why identifiers are not good?
If there has not been any successful challenges (yet), is there any knowledge of cases filed challenging the identifiers on the driver's licenses?
Just thinking out loud for a possible success in a similar identification area.
Lake County
We don't need to buy an Island. We could just pick any pleasant small CA County to move to where our voting population is grater than the local population. We could then vote for our preferred Sheriff, DA, Mayor or Supervisors, Judges and local laws. Not the best solution, but better than the way things are now. Daily life would be much better. There is power in numbers.
Punished For Life
DavidH,
If we are able to kill "Angel Watch" then the green notices would stop, but I still fear the "Identifier" would still be a problem if it is determined that the "Scarlet Letter" is somehow Constitutional.
You might get into the country, but try to rent a car, stay at a hotel or do anything that requires international Identification. IMO, one win will not necessarily kill the other. We need to take on both either together or independently.
Frank
DavidH
Chris:
I disagree--there needs to be an appeal because what's missed here is that IML and Angel Watch are linked. In fact IML now funds Angel Watch of $60M a year. The plaintiffs were ripe due to the damage being caused by Angel Watch--the identifier was merely icing on the cake!
Remember they augmented Angel Watch with IML simply because they believed people were re-routing their destinations.
The problem is Angel Watch!!! shoot that and you shoot IML!!!
civil rights first
Instead of all of us spinning our wheels why don't we all pitch in and buy a island somewhere... I vote for Hawaii.... Wish I would of got out of this country when the getting was good
PK
I know that Janice poured so much effort and money into the IML Challenge, and I can't stress enough about how disturbing it was to read that the Challenge was simply summarily rejected with prejudice. It would also appear that the Judge made the extra effort with her 45+ page Opinion to shut down any attempts to challenge IML in the future.
What I'm reading from Janice's commentary is that this could take 20 years to successfully challenge IML, just like the Civil Rights Movement took more than 20 years to be successful. I'm not sure if I want to stick around that long to "see what happens".
kat
Laws such as MLI force a "false perception" of registrants on the world. Every registrant is not involved in child sex-trafficking. Every registrant has not committed a contact offense.
We need to file and refile as many lawsuits as it takes to change the "thinking" of judges, to educate them regarding the false perception they've been fed all these years regarding registrants.
Keep fighting Janice, we all need you!
Chris F
Definately! The 6th has proven it actually follows the Constitution.
If only a case in the 6th abolishing the entire public registry scheme as well as the punishments on any remaining private registry could succeed, then the state should sue other states for illegally affecting its citizens that try to travel or move. That's the only guaranteed way to get something to SCOTUS if I am not mistaken. I believe they have to hear issues between two or more states and can't be denied a hearing like 69 out of every 70 cases are.
Chris F
I'll give you credit...unlike the government, at least you provide footnotes to back everything up instead of just making it up. Amen brother!
Harry
Persistent water moves mountains, Thank you Janice and team.
Quint
Keep up the good fight, Janice. Thank you for all you've done.
Phasma2128
It would be interesting to see the effect of piling on in the 6th circuit court here in Michigan. With the recent ruling pertaining to ex post facto and the statement from the federal judge that the registry is in fact harsh punishment and unconstitutional, I would love to see IML challenged here.
USA
Very intriguing. I would sit back and discuss this with peers. Sometimes reflection can help. I do have a few questions. I plead over 20 years ago to a misdemeanor now expunged/summary probation/massage parlor. Will this new law only affect those convicted of child related offenses? Also. Are those convicted of adult related offenses being prohibited from visiting Canada? Mexico? Philippines? Please don't respond unless you really know. Thanks
Tuna
Related, what is happening with the petition that was filed regarding the bogus State Dept rule that was published?
Son of Liberty Child of Freedom
Janise Speaks Truth!
As she walks on paths once traveled on by a Hebrew fellow named Salvation aka Yeshua aka Jesus two millennium ago.
In fact he crossed the whole Mediterranean Sea to deliver Salvation to the Iberian people aka Ibrim, as His name sake bears. We can correctly infer these facts by noting in the accounts of Matthew, Mark, & Luke. that the Gadarenes ate pigs and we know that pigs are not herded or consumed in the Holy Land, that being said the Gadarenes would not believe in Salvation and sent Him away on his Ship.
It is a SetBack, a StepBack, a SailBack for Yeshua and The Hebrew Gadarenes which was glossed over in the Gospels hidden lightly if one fails to practice Patience and Discipline as a good Disciple should when he studies His Cause.
I call Heaven and Earth to bear witness today in The Court of The Eternal Most High in Heaven Creator of all to incline His ear to Janice and hear how she was treated with Twisted Words Unjustly by a Poisoned Heart a Barrier that can't forget or forgive her Fellow Countrymen even as she was shown compassion by The Father in Heaven.
Let us pray together a "Yom Teruah" to The Most High Father in Heaven help Janice on her path on her voyage to deliver His Salvation, His Forgivness to the unforgiven for His glory, His High Honor, Blessed Be Him Forever. All say amen!
I posit the account mentioned above.
Luke 8:22-39 KJVS
[22] Now it came to pass on a certain day, that he went into a ship with his disciples: and he said unto them, Let us go over unto the other side of the lake. And they launched forth.
[23] But as they sailed he fell asleep: and there came down a storm of wind on the lake; and they were filled with water , and were in jeopardy.
[24] And they came to him, and awoke him, saying, Master, master, we perish. Then he arose, and rebuked the wind and the raging of the water: and they ceased, and there was a calm. [25] And he said unto them, Where is your faith? And they being afraid wondered, saying one to another, What manner of man is this! for he commandeth even the winds and water, and they obey him.
[26] And they arrived at the country of the Gadarenes, which is over against Galilee.
[27] And when he went forth to land, there met him out of the city a certain man, which had devils long time, and ware no clothes, neither abode in any house, but in the tombs.
[28] When he saw Jesus, he cried out, and fell down before him, and with a loud voice said, What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God most high? I beseech thee, torment me not.
[29] (For he had commanded the unclean spirit to come out of the man. For oftentimes it had caught him: and he was kept bound with chains and in fetters; and he brake the bands, and was driven of the devil into the wilderness.)
[30] And Jesus asked him, saying, What is thy name? And he said, Legion: because many devils were entered into him.
[31] And they besought him that he would not command them to go out into the deep.
[32] And there was there an herd of many swine feeding on the mountain: and they besought him that he would suffer them to enter into them. And he suffered them.
[33] Then went the devils out of the man, and entered into the swine: and the herd ran violently down a steep place into the lake, and were choked.
[34] When they that fed them saw what was done, they fled, and went and told it in the city and in the country.
[35] Then they went out to see what was done; and came to Jesus, and found the man, out of whom the devils were departed, sitting at the feet of Jesus, clothed, and in his right mind: and they were afraid.
[36] They also which saw it told them by what means he that was possessed of the devils was healed.
[37] Then the whole multitude of the country of the Gadarenes round about besought him to depart from them; for they were taken with great fear: and he went up into the ship, and returned back again.
[38] Now the man out of whom the devils were departed besought him that he might be with him: but Jesus sent him away, saying,
[39] Return to thine own house, and shew how great things God hath done unto thee. And he went his way, and published throughout the whole city how great things Jesus had done unto him.
As Yehovah lives so should we!
I speak Truth
Chris F
As I think about it, I am hoping Janice doesn't appeal since we should be close to the identifier being revealed and it being quite "RIPE".
A new filing would also allow cleaning up the original filing to address holes and allow extra plaintiffs.
Obviously, the judges in this circuit are the least likely to see our side, so if it is possible to file somewhere more friendly that would be best. Is Janice able to practice anywhere else or would she just be consulting with other attorneys in another circuit? I am interested how that works.
Chris F
The judge also pointed out the weak spots in the case, so hopefully there are ways to shore that up for the next time.
The biggest hole, is where it was pointed out that notices have been sent for years and would still be sent even if the identifier were not on the passport. The greatest effort needs to be in finding a way to challenge notices being sent without the offenders awareness or ability to be heard until after it is too late.
The next judge needs to be made aware of the fact that it's a big contradiction when previous notices were claimed to only target countries where child sex tourism was a high risk and only go to that countries border enforcement, VS the identifier that embarrases and risks the lives at every border, bank, hotel, rental car, and even restaurants.
Go team Janice!
Janice's Journal: The Failure of Fontana
Published Date : September 21, 2016
Shame on the Fontana Unified School District! Members of their Board of Education unanimously agreed last week to bar registered citizens from every school in their district. The decision applies to all registered citizens, including parents of students in that district, regardless of the offense for which they were convicted and regardless of whether they pose a current danger.
What makes this terrible decision worse is that the school board’s decision was in reaction to a few angry parents who ignorantly proclaimed during a school board meeting that the presence of registered citizens on campus would place their children in danger.
The school district dug themselves into an even deeper hole today when they issued a letter describing and explaining the school board’s decision. According to that letter, the district now has “a firm practice of zero-tolerance with regard to sex offenders on our campuses.”
The letter also explained that the board’s action “was taken in response to the concerns of our students, parents and community….over a new state law.” Never mind that the law was passed two years ago and that there were no reported incidents of a child being assaulted by a registered citizen during that time.
The action taken by the Fontana Unified School District must be stopped! Because if it is not stopped, the same action will be taken by school districts throughout the state of California. In order to prevent that from happening, the decision of the Fontana Unified School District will soon be challenged in court.
And in the meantime, hundreds of children – children of registered citizens – will be harmed because they will be deprived of their parents’ protection and devotion. The children of registered citizens will not be taken to, or picked up from school, by their parents. The children of registered citizens will not have the support of their parents during their academic and athletic activities.
The decision of the Fontana school district reminds me of the night when we testified in opposition to a law being considered by the Santa Ana City Council that would prohibit registered citizens from visiting parks in that city. After listening to angry and ignorant citizens, one member of the Council stated that she would not allow her children to visit city parks if registered citizens might be present. She then loudly proclaimed that if someone’s children were going to visit a park in that city, it would be her children and not the children of registered citizens.
Following that proclamation, the Santa Ana City Council unanimously passed the park restriction and for a period of time registered citizens were prohibited from visiting those parks. Also during that period of time, many children of registered citizens were unable to visit the parks with their registered citizen parent.
A series of lawsuits were later filed challenging park restrictions such as those passed by Santa Ana and as a result of those challenges, the parks in that city as well as the parks in other cities throughout the state of California were reopened to registered citizens.
We expect the same result in our challenge to Fontana’s shameful decision to prohibit all registered citizens from visiting schools the 45 elementary, middle schools and high schools in that district.
Read all of Janice’s Journal
Related
Fontana School Board votes to prohibit all access to registered sex offenders on campuses
FUSD Parent Letter
http://www.speroforum.com/a/NIIPTFJTUD5/78850-California-Parents-seek-to-keep-sex-offenders-off-school-campuses?utm_medium=top+3&utm_campaign=NIIPTFJTUD5&utm_content=78850&utm_source=front&utm_term=California+Parents+seek+to+keep+sex+offenders+off+school+campuses#.V-L6rbhE7Dc
Comments
Renny
Former Citizen Detainees = Sex offenders who were once American citizens but have been stripped of their citizenship with the passage of the IML.
j
I must hav missed something. What does FCD stand for? Thx.
72FLH
GET THEM Janice ! go in there like you got a War pony! I will burn some sage and blow a prayer your way
Renny
I wonder what steps the school system (the board, teachers, staff, administrators and volunteers) are taking off-paper to identify children who live with FCD parents or guardians? What is the policy they do not dare write?
In order to enforce this illegal rule, the school system in Fontucky will have to conduct research and identify those children and watch the adults they associate with to ensure that no FCD parent is on school property. Those children then become a sub-class of student, not part of the good kids, but considered as bad as the FCD parent because of the extra work the system must perform to enforce this rule.
The unions would surely have an issue with their teachers having to be covert spies and paramilitary protectors (sort of a brown shirt) for the School Board's illegal policy. The union will want to increase salaries and benefits because of the additional danger posed by marauding FCD in the hallways and bleachers.
It will only take ONE incident of a teacher stopping one of the marked kids and the adult with them to drastically alter and potentially ruin forever the potential of a child. If another child OR parent is within earshot of the questioning and even if the adult with the child is a non-FCD, that child is forever marked as the child of a FCD, and we all know the pains, harassment and harsh treatment out children face in school if they are outed as having a FCD parent.
So I counter that while the rights of the FCD are indeed hampered, the illegal action taken by our enemies on the Fontucky School Board are endangering children, not protecting them.
If the child of a FCD is leaked by as teacher or a volunteer, they WILL become the target of bullying, harassment and unfair grading practices. This drastically increases the potential for retaliation (I prefer retribution as the proper term) against the child enemies in the school in the form of extreme violent outbursts such as mass shooting or stabbings or in the form of more subtle retribution like mass poisoning of meals being served to that child's enemies using dimethylmercury or some other effective agent.
The only way they can actively enforce this policy is to identify FCD kids. When the information leaks, the child will be harassed, attacked physically, treated differently by teachers and be transferred to the loser-schools. I can tell you this from experience, not conjecture.
So the Fontana School Board has officially taken steps to endanger their entire student body and at a minimum has determined that the children of FCD are not worthy of the same love, attention and support as "good kids."
For that, I hereby declare the Fontana School Board AND their families as our enemy.
Anonymous Nobody
She should be able to get reciprocity to practice in most of the states in a specific case, and she should be able to get entry to the federal courts without a lot of trouble, already being in the State Bar of California and having a track record. Its actually much easier to get into the federal courts.
Anonymous Nobody
Yes, the analyses can be used in court to a degree. They can be used in showing or interpreting the legislative session on the matter and, in interpreting the law, be one of the things to consider about the lawmakers' intent of what they meant to do.
As far as how the lawmakers can vote contrary to the analyses, yes, of course they can. That analyses is nothing but information and some advice -- and it is far from being the only information, the only knowledge, the only consideration. It is up to the lawmakers to decide what, if anything, they want to do with it. Maybe they have other information and knowledge of their own -- they better if they are going to be lawmakers rather than clerks. But of course, they are simply playing politics of the corrupt kind.
Timmr
That doesn't mean they are involved in politics or have <elected the school board. Many minorities don't participate for a variety of reasons, as do poor people generally. They are often too busy commuting and working to go to a board meeting or can not afford to take the time to run for these positions. I live in such a community were the hispanic community is about 35%, yet you don't see that percent representation on the local boards. Most of the time they are white retired men or business people like realtors or contractors who have the flexibility to go to meetings.
O.A.L.
I understand. What is worse is that people are making bad decisions, that they know are wrong, but do it anyway. That to me shows a definite loss of moral compass.
O.A.L.
I noticed that the school board and the population of the district is heavily Hispanic. This is a group that historically has known the negative affects of categorizing, generalizing, and oppressive laws. How soon we forget.
Chris F
Even my little town in Texas has regulations governing what Sex Offenders can or can't do, but they somehow managed to have them make sense for the majority of it.
Here, a sex offender can't go to a school unless they have a child there and a reason to go. Basically, they just don't want an offender hanging out there for no reason.
Similar thing with parks. You can go if you have kids and they are with you. If you don't have kids, you can go if you are using the facilities but can't loiter in an area where children are present and must leave if requested.
It's a shame most places go overboard and over-broad with restrictions instead of narrowly tailoring them to just stop the kind of activity they want to stop.
Screech
They don't call Fontana "Fontucky" for nothing
Timmr
Well said. FUSD places the paranoid feelings of a few loud parents above the child's right to a supportive family.
Timmr
That is a good question. I doesn't look like they reference the law that gives the right. Here is the link to the analysis. http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB326.
By the way, many of the analysis tagged onto these type of bills going before the lawmakers are very good, showing what may be wrong with the law, and the legislators routinely ignore it and support the new seks offender law anyway. In court these analysis may find an ear I don't know, but in the legislatures a much better bet of success in opposing bills is when people just physically show up and speak out.
On a tangent, how can the legislators make a claim that a law is in the public good when their staff analysis questions that? They can't just say they didn't read the analysis, or just ignored it. If they are not using their staff, what are we paying them for? Would that lack of diligence on the part of the lawmakers be useful in challenging laws in court? I mean in attacking that pillar used to test whether a law is not punishment, that is, of the lawmakers say so of their own good intentions? You knock out one leg and the remaining have a hard time supporting the construction.
j
This is institutionalized child abuse against children of registrants sponsored by the cowardly dimwits on FUSD who cowered to the mob of even more ignorant and self righteous parents.
It is obvious the environmental contamination from the steel industry must have left many brain dead residents as evidenced by their delusions that they above state law. You'll find many of these hypocrites lined up in church, which is what makes it really nauseating at the very least.
ONE DAY AT A TIME
Unfortunately, Janice can only practice law in California. We need to find a great attorney for each of the 50 States for our reform advocacy. Although, Janice's work here in California will certainly lay the groundwork for changes in other States and will hopefully cause changes to Federal Laws.
Anonymous Nobody
As I understand this new group, Janice is now everywhere, she has gone national, she is ubiquitous. In fact, with the IML, she has gone international. Watch out world, Janice is on the job!
Anonymous Nobody
Fontana was an old steel town next to San Bernardino. It died back in the 1970s when the steel factory(s) was closed because of air quality regulations. All those good and well paying jobs lost, and so follows the local economy and tax base.
Anonymous Nobody
Excellent, you're getting there. What statute(s) was SB326 referring to giving rights -- that is something we need to know, to see how specifically it is written or if it is overloaded with interpretation or exemptions? Was that in education law, or where? I'd have to see the full context of the legislative analysis, it might or might not be very usable in court, it might or might be interpretation too. But it nonetheless gives us the lead to the statutes I was talking about that might give rights, and might conflict with 290 or even override 290, but at least have to be considered and weighed in conjunction with 290.
This all bolsters the due process claim. Such statues giving such rights would absolutely bar a blanket policy, there would have to be a case by case fact-based and legitimate justification.
Anonymous Nobody
Chris F, you raise a very good point -- I almost delved into it in what I wrote above, but did so only tangentially (I think I wrote enough to not elaborate on every point, and I'll bet everyone else agrees. :)
My thoughts were that there is not necessarily any US Constitutional due process right involved here -- after all, the courts have ruled there isn't even any such issue about making you register without any review of you.
However, I did mention the possibility that there might be something in education law that does give you some rights, someone would have to go through all of education law, including case law, to find out -- there might very well be something that conflicts with or outright overrides 290. That would be where what you just said could come into play, such as a parents having a right to be involved in their child's education and that requires being on campus at least at some times.
But I also suggest that the way California's 290 is written, I think it implicitly gives the registrant the right to be on campus as long as the principal does not provide a good reason to deny, a legitimate reason based on facts and based on YOU. I read 290 as specifically giving registrants due process. I say that because it specifically provides for registrants the process for entering campus -- that specifically means any registrant can enter campus under 290, there is no blanket prohibition, not even categorical, and that implicitly means there has to be a GOOD reason to deny you. 290 has preempted the locals on this, they can act only within 290, they cannot impose a blanket denial that 290 does not provide for.
I think until now, everyone has read it to mean the registrant has no rights, but the principal may grant them a special exemption for a particular moment. But I think not, I think it reads the other way, I think it means the registrant has the right but the principal must be given the chance to deny if there is a good reason to do so.
290 can't be interpreted to mean it goes to the trouble to make sure you can go on campus with the idea that you can be denied for no reason at all! That kind of interpretation would make the scheme to allow you on campus superfluous, meaningless, pointless! 290 simply means there can be circumstances and situations and details that could never all be anticipated by listing in a law, and so rather than write it like the Wisconsin statute that JM of Wi. posted above, the California law simply provides for the principal to have a chance to consider circumstances, situations, details that might not have been able to be anticipated by a list in law.
A blanket policy by either the district, as Fontana has just issued, or the principal would violate that scheme 290 set up, it would deny the DUE PROCESS that 290 absolutely requires. I don't see how 290 can be read as not requiring due process for this issue -- without arguing that that entire section is superflous -- and the courts will generally interpret via the approach that something in the law MUST be in there for a reason, an interpretive approach that strengthens our argument.
There is your due process argument, not constitutional, but statutory. We have statutory due process rights on this. Turn the arguments about 290 around, make 290 our protector rather than our oppressor. (I am rolling through my head what else in 290 might be able to be turned around to our benefit too. I welcome all thoughts on that -- but maybe in another thread, we want to stay on topic here.)
Anonymous Nobody
They don't need to ID and stop everyone. But if you get caught because of something you never expected or thought of, you go to prison. The unexpected happens all the time.
Anonymous Nobody
Well, Erwin, that is not what the statute JM of Wi just posted says, which you just replied to. That statute does not bar any registrant from going on a school campus, it only requires at most that the district administrator be NOTIFIED -- you don't need his/her permission, just let that person know. And if you are on the campus for certain reasons, like voting or to attend a non-school event or activity, or other listed reasons, you don't even have to give the notice.
That is easy compared to CA, even reasonable. In CA you cannot go on campus without first getting the permission of the principal. People in the past have pointed out that even in emergencies, such as floods of earthquakes, registrants can't even to go the emergency shelter when they end up out of their home -- because those shelters are normally set up in schools, and you don't have permission -- it takes time to get to a principal and ask permission, especially since you have to do it without going on the campus to his/her office to ask!
wonderin
Fontana declares war on children of parents deemed unsuitable for entry to school campuses regardless of their accomplishments and additions to the academic community.
The rights of these children to enjoy the same parental support in their scholarly achievements along with their parents right to assist in their safety and goals have been ruthlessly torn from them without due process in a community which seems indifferent to the needs of children already suffering from too many fear mongering laws.
What child doesn't want and need their parents in attendance for acceptance of their awards, open house, meetings with their teachers and etc.
ABC
We need a version of Janice in Florida. Those same restrictions do exist in Florida, and have existed for a number of years. As a registered citizen I have been banned from participation on my children's activities, including graduations and concerts.
Doc Martin
Suppose you're a registrant on probation with a walking stick standing within legal distance of a school and you see a rottweiler charging toward a 5 year old kid on the play ground. As John Quiñones would say,
"What would you do?"
Be a hero. Risk violating probation & Fontana city law. Run onto the grounds with your stick to beat that dog silly or shoo it away from the kid
OR
Do nothing and just watch from a safe distance. You don't want to risk being sent back to the pen although you MAY get charged for doing nothing but even that penalty would less severe than a felony probation violation plus breaking city law. But of course you will be painted as coward for doing nothing
OR
The 3rd option is run for help or calll 9-11 even while the kid is getting mauled. All your bases would be covered. You won't violate probation or any laws. However, some folks would still look at you as a coward but they know at least you tried to seek help
O.A.L.
I already sent an email to the board members stating all you pointed out, Janice. I added that i hope their children don't grow to show such bigotry to their neighbors.
I also wonder what would be the outcome of a group of offenders demonstrating at the next board mtgs. They would probably have it on school property so they wouldn't have to face them.
Erwin
It's far worst here in Wisconsin
Not only does state law ban registrants from going on school grounds, entire local communities and major cities ban registrants living there. At least a registrant can still live in Fontana.....just don't go near a schoolyard
Erwin
The only thing I know about Fontana is Kaiser Hospital where I was born. Shortly afterwards, my parents had the sense enough to get up out of that town
cool CA RC
If you are in a small town where "Everyone knows everyone and their business" and there is only one high school in that city. Then yes it could be a problem.
Roger
Thanks for your diligence, Janice.
LM
Because half of Congress would be on the DUI registry!!
Timmr
According to the analysis of SB326 before the assembly in 2013,
"Under current law, parents and guardians of pupils have a right to participate in the education of their children (e.g., attend special education hearings, parent-teacher conferences, expulsion hearings, etc.). According to the Association of California School Administrators, when notified that a parent or guardian of a pupil is a person who must register as a sex offender, principals honor the right of the parent or guardian by making accommodations as to the place and time the parent or guardian may participate in his or her child's education. For example, a principal may
make alternative drop off and pick up arrangements, schedule meetings after school, or escort the parent or guardian in and out of a school site."
Also, the law, SB 326, came into existence itself when a parent became outraged that a registrant obtained the principal's permission to volunteer at a school event. So SB 326 required two week notification of parents in addition to permission from the administrator. Now more uninformed parents want to create zero tolerance and zero intelligence and feel they have a right to disregard both policy and law in order to obey the hormones produced in the amygdalae. And it is always registrants who are claimed to be irrational acting on base instinct. At least at the state level these types of rules have to go before several committees, and there is a process whereby cooler heads may prevail. Still, this is a downward trend. I feel for those trying to raise children under these laws. This school board has added one more bomb to the minefield registrants have to navigate through in order to live a productive life.
David Kennerly
Intriguingly, and looking at the Fontana School Board calendar for tomorrow, the 22nd, they are having "Hemlock Coffee With the Principal."
Could it be? Are they taking the Socratic way out?
Undoubtedly not but still hilarious, nonetheless.
http://www.fusdweb.com/calendar/Lists/Calendar/calendar.aspx
New Person
Isn't banishment unconstitutional? Why aren't DUI's or any convict subjected to the same banishment?
Chris F
I've only been on here a year, and I'm from Texas, so I've missed a few things.
Would this issue open up both a challenge to the School as well as a challenge to 290's provision since it violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment that has already established a parent's right to participate completely in the raising of their children as being a fundamental right? I think they stopped using Strict Scrutiny on parental rights after 2000 but it probably isn't needed and could be used again if SCOTUS chooses.
steve
My question would be how will they enforce that at the entrance of a high school football game?? Answer I would not be surprised at all if one or all the board members are on the take with that company that has that photo scan for offenders software. There's is no other way they could control a sporting event. Something to watch....
JM of Wi.
We have had similar issues in Wi. See below legislation.
BACKGROUND
A person must register as a sex offender with the Department of Corrections (DOC) if he or she
has been convicted of certain sex offenses, found not guilty of certain sex offenses by reason of mental
disease or defect, or adjudicated delinquent on the basis of certain sex offenses. The sex offender
registry is maintained by DOC and contains information about a person who is required to register
(hereinafter, “registrant”), including the registrant’s name, appearance, offense, address, name and
address of his or her employment, and any school in which the registrant is enrolled. If any information
originally provided changes, the registrant must provide the updated information to DOC.
2013 WISCONSIN ACT 88
Under 2013 Wisconsin Act 88 (hereinafter, “the Act”), a registrant may not be on any school
premises (school building, grounds, recreation area or athletic field, or any other property owned, used,
or operated for school administration) unless the school district administrator, or his or her designee, for
a public school, or the governing body of a private school or charter school, has been notified of the
specific date, time, and place of the visit and of the registrant’s status as a registered sex offender. This
prohibition does not apply if the registrant is doing any of the following:
On the school premises to vote if an election is being held that day and the registrant’s
polling place is on the school premises.
On the school premises to attend an event or activity that is not sponsored by the school.
Has a child enrolled at the school if he or she notifies the school district administrator, or his
or her designee, for a public school, or the governing body of a private school or charter
school, that he or she is a registered sex offender and that he or she has a child enrolled at the
school. The registrant must provide the notification as follows:
o At the beginning of each academic school year.
o If the child is not enrolled at the beginning of the academic year, when the child is first
enrolled.
o If the registrant was not subject to the reporting requirements at the beginning of the
academic school year or when the child is first enrolled, when the registrant first
becomes subject to the sex offender reporting requirements.
o If none of the above apply, when the registrant becomes subject to the prohibition of
being on school premises.
Is a student enrolled at the school if the agency or person who is supervising the registrant
(i.e., DOC or a county agency, licensed child welfare agency, or other person supervising the
student under a juvenile delinquency dispositional order) works with the school district
administrator, or his or her designee, for a public school, or the governing body of a private
school or charter school, to ensure the safety of the students attending the school with the
student.
The penalty for knowingly violating this requirement is an unclassified misdemeanor with a fine
of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment not to exceed nine months, or both. This is equivalent to a
Class A misdemeanor. The penalty for knowingly violating this requirement as a second or subsequent
offense is a Class H felony, which is punishable by a fine not to exceed $10,000 or imprisonment not to
exceed six years, or both.
The Act also provides the following:
If DOC is supervising the registrant, it must work with a school district administrator or his
or her designee, for a public school, or a governing body of a private school or charter
school, to ensure that a registrant who is a student is not prohibited from being on the school
premises at which he or she is enrolled and to ensure the safety of the other students
attending the school.
DOC must make a reasonable attempt to notify each registrant of the prohibition created by
the Act.
DOC’s failure to make a reasonable attempt to notify each registrant is not a defense to
prosecution for being on school premises without providing notification as required by the
Act.
It is an affirmative defense to a prosecution for being on school premises without providing
notification as required by the Act if the defendant was traveling directly to the office of the
school district administrator or his or her designee, for a public school, or to the governing
body of a private school or charter school, to comply with the notification requirement. The
defendant has the burden of proving this defense by a preponderance of the evidence.
A school district administrator or his or her designee, for a public school, or the governing
body of a private school or charter school, is immune from civil or criminal liability for any
good faith act or omission in connection with any notice given by a registrant.
Effective date: December 15, 2013
Prepared by: Melissa Schmidt, Senior Staff Attorney January 6, 2014
Anonymous Nobody
You are right in all you said Janice. Good for you for jumping on this. Yes, it absolutely will spread to every school district if not stopped in its tracks.
I'm wondering what the legal argument would be against it. 290 specifically says registrants cannot go on school property without permission, I think it says permission from the principal. This board action would be ordering the principal how to respond: No.
You know more about these things than me. However, just to try to be a bit helpful, let me suggest one possible argument, actually gleened from your previous lawsuits.
290 says the registrants must get the permission of the principal -- so 290 clearly is registrants can go on campus, although the principal has a say in that. Well, it would seem to me that in 290 saying individual registrants can seek the principal's permission IMPLICITLY is saying that request must be given individual and serous consideration separately from other requests.
I would stretch a bit and say that in saying you can seek the permission of the principal, it clearly is barring a blanket policy. It is barring the district from setting its own policy rather than following the one prescribed in 290. And that would seem to mean that there must be a legitimate, justified reason to deny -- or it would be a blanket policy by another approach. The courts have already ruled in similar matters that 290 preempts local action in territory it clearly has addressed, as it has about registrants entering school property. So the locals cannot make their own rules, they can only follow 290. And 290, as I have just said, requires an individual consideration and a good reason to deny, not a blanket policy, whether by board decree or principal bias.
And of course, that means the board cannot take this action outside of 290 under its own authority.
I don't know education law, but perhaps there is something in there about a parent or sibling or even aunt or uncle having some kind of right or standing to participate in their child's school. Something for the researchers to look into. If so, it would cement that a legitimate reason would be needed to overcome those points I have made. Simply that they don't like registrants is not a legitimate reason.
One thing to point out to consider: The courts in the past have ruled that the "state" had preempted the locals on the issues in question. Technically, the school board is a STATE district, not a local district. This is why they often do not even follow a local jurisdiction's borders. I'm not sure how or if this mixes things up, but the thought is that makes the argument that the state (under 290) has preempted the state (the school district)! Aargh.
One last thought, and I think a major one: It seems to me that if we were to argue that there can be no blanket policy, each request must be considered on its merits individually, and there must be good reason to reject it, then we also must follow up by suing when someone (or someones) is rejected anyway. That is because they will simply reject everyone anyway, and state the reason as some specious, groundless, generic crap. That kind of rejection is just a blanket policy by another approach, and if we don't stop that, then the entire fight will have been pointless. So, first stop the board's blanket policy, the later follow up by suing over someone being rejected, and not necessarily even in the Fontana district, maybe several different applications being rejected. To take that case to a different district would really scare principals all over the state, they would not see it as localized. And the only way to make that lawsuit, of maybe a couple/few, have impact is to win a very large settlement or verdict. A big verdict is the only thing that will stop other principals from blanket policies. Simply an agreement to stop the practice and pay attorney fees would not make the impact needed. An example needs to be made.
That might be no help to you, but I just thought I toss out a little food for thought.
wonderin
(over a new state law) (passed two years ago) ?
Eric Knight
You've already caused a ruckus. The school board cancelled today's regularly-scheduled (along with special) meeting (Sep 21), and have rescheduled it for next week. While they've cancelled special meetings before, what makes today's cancellation more apparent is that this is the first regularly-scheduled meeting they've cancelled. That means they are worried about the legal ramifications that are about to come their way! Great job!
http://www.fusd.net/departments/board/Dates.stm
LM
Get the fainting couches ready, one of "those people" are on our school campuses targeting "our childrenz."
Again, we see the pearl clutchers passing a preemptive measure to a nonexistent problem. They might as well be having a war on dust. Makes about as much sense. Fontana is not promoting safety, they're promoting fear, ignorance, hate and dysfunction.
What really makes me spew coals is they think children reserve the right to reasonable expectation of safety while at school, but they're okay with having a SO's reasonable expectation of safety in his/her home circumvented.
DPH
Thank you Janice, this is just unbelievable. It must STOP here. Fontana. City Hall. County of San Bernardino. STATE of California. PERIOD. No revisiting Santa Ana City Parks OC nightmare.
Janice's Journal: Sixth Circuit Speaks Truth
Published Date : August 28, 2016
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals spoke the truth this week when it declared unconstitutional the retroactive application of sex offender laws in the State of Michigan. In doing so, the Court demonstrated uncommon courage and set an example that should be followed by courts throughout the land.
The laws at issue in this case are common and can be found in many states. First, they prohibited registrants from living, working or loitering within 1,000 feet of a school. Second, they required registrants to report in person updated information regarding such matters as vehicle ownership and internet identifiers.
As in many states, the professed purpose of the laws was to make communities safer. As in many states, the professed purpose was based upon the myth that registrants have a high rate of re-offense. The Court soundly debunked that myth by referring to several recent studies, including a study which reported that such laws have not decreased, but actually increased, registrants’ rate of re-offense.
In its decision, the Court boldly stated that the Michigan laws resembled “the ancient punishment of banishment” as well as “traditional shaming punishments”. The Court also stated that the laws branded registrants “as moral lepers” which made it difficult for registrants to get and keep a job, find housing and reintegrate into their communities.
In its decision, the Court did not ignore the U.S. Supreme Court decision, Smith v. Doe, which infamously declared that sex offender laws do not punish and therefore can be applied retroactively. The Court, in fact, acknowledged the Smith decision and its difficult two-part test but stated “difficult is not the same as impossible”. The Court concluded the plaintiffs in the case met that test and then bluntly stated that the Smith decision is not “a blank check to states to do whatever they please in this arena”.
The Court clearly stated that the Michigan laws advanced “all the traditional aims of punishment: incapacitation, retribution, and specific and general deterrence.” The Court also clearly stated that punishment may never be retroactively imposed or increased. The Court further stated that the fact that sex offenders are so widely feared and disdained by the general public implicates the core principle embodied in the Ex Post Facto clause of the U.S. Constitution – tyranny of the majority.
Thank you, Sixth Circuit, for speaking the truth on this subject. We look forward to the application of your brave decision to many states throughout the land. We also look forward to a review of your decision by the U.S. Supreme Court because it will provide that Court with an opportunity to overturn the unfortunate and misguided Smith decision.
Read all of Janice’s Journals
Related
MI: Court voids state sex offender registry for imposing unconstitutionally retroactive punishment [UPDATED]
Comments
New Person
Chris F,
I pulled the following quote from your wiki link:
"
In Selective Draft Law Cases,[163] the Supreme Court ruled that the military draft was not "involuntary servitude". In United States v. Kozminski,[164] the Supreme Court ruled that the Thirteenth Amendment did not prohibit compulsion of servitude through psychological coercion.[165][166] Kozminski defined involuntary servitude for purposes of criminal prosecution as "a condition of servitude in which the victim is forced to work for the defendant by the use or threat of physical restraint or physical injury or by the use or threat of coercion through law or the legal process. This definition encompasses cases in which the defendant holds the victim in servitude by placing him or her in fear of such physical restraint or injury or legal coercion."[164]
"
So it is stated that involuntary servitude is for purposes of criminal prosecution. The only way this is legal is if it is considered punishment for a crime, otherwise it is prohibited under the US Constitution of the 13th amendment and the California Constitution, Article 1, Section 6.
"
The court held that involuntary servitude exists only when the master subjects the servant to (1) threatened or actual physical force, (2) threatened or actual state-imposed legal coercion, or (3) fraud or deceit where the servant is a minor or an immigrant or is mentally incompetent.
"
From case law: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/487/931.html
Timmr
The draft and student service, in theory, apply to everyone of a certain age, not based on an offense, it it limited on time and one can get an exclusion, conscientious objector, to avoid military service. You also get paid in the military and there are other social benefits. 10, 25 years, especially lifetime of suffering on the registry from reduced employment, stress of public shaming, threats to life and limb, and threat of prison in exchange for information is clearly not the same. All this for a questionable at best public benefit. It is clearly different, and judges laugh because they are clowns and frauds, the ones who want to be liked.
Chris F
Claiming that registration is "Involuntary Servitude" would be a waste of time when it will be laughed at by justices and there are so many other constitutional violations that have a higher chance of being proven.
Just look here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
It is apparent that if they don't consider a military draft or community service for high school students as involuntary servitude, and only seem to apply it to actual hard labor cases dealing mostly with racial issues, then Sex Offenders with the burden of quarterly/annual registration don't stand a chance with that argument.
You may have some ground on the quote from 1203.4 releasing a criminal from ALL DISABILITIES though.
New Person
The 13th amendment prohibits involuntary servitude.
After you have completed probation or parole, then your punishment service ends. Yet... registration continues with the threat of felony punishment. That is the definition of involuntary servitude. Term of service doesn't matter. The only way involuntary servitude is allowed is if it is to punish a crime - thus making registration punitive, a punishment.
A person does not owe any service to the state or country after serving the prescribed punishment. Therefore making any service after probation or parole involuntary under threat of felony punishment coercion. That is strictly prohibited. UNLESS it is to punish a crime.
Who cares if it is administrative, it is forcing people who are no longer under punishment service to continue service to the state under coercion of felony punishment - which is clearly stated to be prohibited in US Constitution (13th Amendment) and California Constitution (Article 1, Section 6).
The term for said service is a lifetime. For some, it's a time near their birthday, every birthday for life. For others, it's every three months... for life. For others, it's more than every three months... for life. But if your probation or parole has been completed, then the state has agreed you have fulfilled your punishment service. If this is so, then the state forcing a person into service under coercion of felony penalty (or any penalty above loss of pay or loss of job for said service) is strictly prohibited unless it is to punish a crime.
The SCOTUS agreed that registration is legal despite what the 13th amendment prohibits? Either involuntary servitude is prohibited or it is punishment. How did the 13th amendment get glossed over?
But to bring this back to California, not only is "lifetime registration" a lifetime of involuntary servitude, but it totally negates the inalienable right to possess or obtain privacy. A lifetime registration negates privacy for life.
The 1203.4 denotes:
"
the court shall thereupon dismiss the accusations or information against the defendant and except as noted below, he or she shall thereafter be released from all penalties and disabilities resulting from the offense of which he or she has been convicted, except as provided in Section 13555 of the Vehicle Code.
"
The key words are "ALL DISABILITIES". Registration, according to law isn't punishment, but it is a disability. Is not ALL encompass everything? Also a way to obtain said inalienable right to privacy?
Chris F
If the lower courts ruled in favor of the Sex Offender on those other issues, than why did the 6th court say the issues other than ex-post facto have to wait for another day since the ex-post facto meant all those other things no longer apply to these particular offenders?
I really want to know about this one: "Fourteenth
Amendment by imposing oppressive restrictions on Plaintiffs’ ability to parent, work, and travel."
Anonymous Nobody
Nomore, re your suggestion of the privacy angle, that is one I have noted for some time has not been particularly pressed. And the California constitution has much stronger privacy protection than the US Constitution. I took special note of an Alaska Supreme Court decision based on its Constitution's right to privacy that devastated a big swatch of registration there. But the privacy argument is different from the punishment argument, although you might be able to merge them.
Meanwhile, as I said elsewhere, the Michigan suit used arguments nearly the same as in a California case from the late 1970s that held that simple, basic registration, and with a lot easier requirements than even basic registration has now, not only was punishment but such extreme punishment as to rise to the level of unconstitutional cruel or unusual punishment. (I used "or" because I'm pretty sure that is the word in the California constitution.) But the more current makeup of the California Supreme Court has overturned that earlier decision, saying it was simply wrongly decided. And it even said that registration was never considered to be punishment (then how did it land in the Penal Code?!) and is no punishment whatsoever!
That is to say, California has already done that case that Sixth Circuit just decided, many years ago. It was the rule of the land for decades, but now more recently has been overturned. We are under the court composition of this day, the Dark Ages, not that of the Enlightenment. There is zero possibility the California courts would ever go along with this Sixth Circuit decision. And the Ninth Circuit has not proved to be a very hopeful place for us, but it is our only possibility.
You simply got very lucky with the particular panel that handled the Sixth Circuit case -- I would not be too presumptuous that even an en banc panel will not overturn that, we will see. I am pretty sure SCOTUS will overturn it -- but I wish I were not so sure. But it should be fought to the bitter end anyway.
Anonymous Nobody
New Person, yes, I have pointed out how 1203.4 used to relieve both misdemeanants and felons of the registration requirement. That relief was dropped for felons in the mid-1980s and for misdemeanants in the early side of the mid-1990s. I note, that relief was not in 1203.4, it was a separate statute related to 290. That separate statute has now been merged into 290, so it isn't even easy to find or get its background. And you did not have to file any notice to say you were going to or wanted to stop registering, you simply stopped -- they already know.
However, another thing I have pointed out is that the California Supreme Court, in Doe v. Harris (you know, the Harris who wants us to elect her to the Senate now), a couple years ago ruled that the state of the law at the time of a plea bargain is NOT incorporated into the plea bargain, the law can be changed later, even to your great disadvantage, even if you never would have taken the plea bargain under those circumstances. So, that makes it seem that a law changing your status of whether you have to register can be imposed at a later date, even if it is to your great disadvantage. Mind you, you won't get around this by going to the federal courts - that case was in the Ninth Circuit, which decided it should be handled by the California high court instead! It was decided on the basis of contract law, not criminal law and retroactivity. The Ninth Circuit sent it to the California Supreme Court to decide! I knew we were lost the second they decided to send to that the California courts - we stand zero chance for anything in the California courts, they have proven every single time that they are as corrupt as it gets and hate us no matter what, they lie through their teeth every time. Its not just a matter of a different understanding, they are actually knowingly and intentionally lying, they are standing on their heads to do so.
And both the California Supreme Court and SCOTUS have ruled registration is not punishment of any sort, so the punishment argument already has failed (another lie, of course). And now the state high court says its OK to change laws after the fact so that later you have to start registering.
How sick these court rulings are. Here we have a lot of people who either plea bargained and accepted terms, or were given them after a conviction. They worked and did anything required, including being of good conduct, they earned the 1203.4 relief, and with that had earned the reward of no longer having to register. Probation and parole have always been considered to be the test of rehabilitation -- in fact, 1203.4 has sometimes been referred to as "statutory rehabilitation." (A COR isn't really simply a determination of whether you are rehabilitated but whether you are of such high and exemplary conduct that you are worthy of a pardon. This is what the courts are meaning when they mention the "high standards" for a COR, not simply whether you have proven by the test of time that you are not reoffending.) Then, years later, maybe decades later, the law is changed, and suddenly they find they are required to start registering all over again, and forever more, and no way out form under it other than to apply for a pardon. And nearly no one gets a COR (that is the first part of the application for a pardon), and investigation for that itself can completely ruin you, and then not get it anyway, and have spent of fortune on lawyers and others to try to get it.
And then if you do get it, and you can stop registering with simply a COR, you have to live in fear that tomorrow they will change the law and a COR will not be good enough, you will need a full pardon. That is the circumstances of what happened when people who did not have to register because they got 1203.4 relief suddenly had to start registering again! What they earned and were granted - -and was agreed to pas part of a plea bargain, whether overtly or implicitly as the state of the law -- was taken away with the swipe of a pen. Since 290 is deemed not to be punishment, they are hit by its retroactivity more so than anyone else -- their relief from it was taken away after the fact, what they earned was taken away, maybe after decades.
Bobby
Chris,
I'm from Michigan so ALLof this affects me greatly,since my conviction was in 1992 and i was put on the registry in 1995. The reason the 6th circuit,did not rule on the other issue's is because the Federal District Judge Cleland,ruled that the other issue's were vague and there for unconstitutional,but the ex pos facto did not violate the Constitution,but left it open for another court to rule on,hence the 6th circuit Court Ruling regarding the ex pos facto .
Bobby
David,
I to live in michigan, and i have been on the registry since 1995, i have also been in contact with Ms Aukerman from the ACLU since day 1, i also have spoke with Mark Allen,her assistant, and another person as well,don't remember her name though.
Mariam, I spoke with her on Friday the 16th, and since dumb ass, AG, Bill Schuette, has asked the 6th circuit to reconsider their decision,she said to just be patient,and the chances of the 6th circuit judges reversing their own decision, is pretty slim to non-existent.
I also do not sse this going to the US Supreme Court,but i have been wrong before.
Bobby
I'm from from Michigan,how do you figure something up? sure AG Schuette wants the 6th circuit to reconsider it's decision,but that is normal. I REALLY don't seethe 6th circuit reversing it's self,especially with all the questions the judges asked,and the lawyer for the state had NO clue what he was doing or what he was arguing about in my opinion.
The Lawyer for the does,knew exactly what she was doing and what she was arguing about,so your question makes no sense. The Judges knew why they were siding withe the Plantiff's and NOT the Defendants.
Robert
MikeR,
The legal basis for SCOTUS in determining whether or not the Alaska Sex Offender Registration Act is nonpunitive, is Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez (1963) and not the Alaska case itself.
Out of the 7 “Mendoza-Martinez factors from 1963, Smith in 2003 identified 5 that are relevant:
(1) Does the law inflict what has been regarded in our history and traditions as
punishment?
(2) Does it impose an affirmative disability or restraint?
(3) Does it promote the traditional aims of punishment?
(4) Does it have a rational connection to a non-punitive purpose?
(5) Is it excessive with respect to this purpose?
It is the legal interpretation of these five factors that caused other courts (including the 2008 Alaska court) to reach different conclusions than SCOTUS since 2003.
Remember that the question answered by SCOTUS in 2003 was if the intention was to impose a punishment or "civil proceedings".
If the intention was to punish, that ends the inquiry – registration is deemed punishment.
If the intention was to enact a regulatory scheme that is civil and nonpunitive, the Court must examine whether the scheme is so punitive as to negate the State's intention to deem it civil.
SCOTUS used the 7 Mendoza-Martinez factors from 1963 to answer this question.
All other significant state cases (and now 6th Circuit) used the same criteria- the Mendoza-Martinez factors, to determine that ex-post facto registration is punitive.
In a nutshell, this is why proving punishment appears to be the “jenga” block to overturning many current registration laws at the SCOTUS level.
mike r
I understand the process Robert I know that the Alaska case doesn’t officially overturn the SCOTUS decision but it is extremely good ammo that should be used and pointed out since Alaska is basically where all these new rules and regulations started and it's the same state Supreme Court that is in direct conflict with the smith v doe case that originated in Alaska...it's just that I hear so much surprise and focus on cases or states that are just now saying it's punishment when we have several other courts such as Alaska that declared that years ago but we never hear about them...
mike r
thank you Robert great video and I've only had time to see the first couple of minutes so far...I'll be watching the rest as soon as I can
New Person
As Anonymous Nobody has denoted meticulously, one was relieved of registering once awarded the 1203.4. That was taken away. Hence, it increased punishment. How so?
According to the California Constitution, there's an inalienable right to privacy or obtain privacy. By removal of relief of registration via 1203.4, the state removed a direct path to obtain privacy - a lifetime worth.
Yet the merits are there for revealing added punishment b/c a person has to continue to register as well as be regulated by the ever changing rules to registrants. Again, if it were the old rules of 1203.4, then one would not be subjected to register at all as well as regain the right to privacy.
Instead, after being awarded 1203.4 for successfully completing probation/parole, registrants must still continue to register or be punished for not doing so. That is involuntary servitude - unless it is considered punishment for a crime.
Registration outside of probation/parole is illegal if it is considered "regulatory" under Article 1, Section 6 of the California Constitution - unless it is considered punishment.
Am I wrong to believe that once one has been awarded the 1203.4 that they are being forced into service of registering every year along with compliance checks. Despite the "regulatory" intent, the consequence to a free person not complying with the registration service is punishment outside of withheld pay or loss of job for not doing said service - unless it is punishment.
Registration cannot be both regulatory and legal involuntary servitude (punishment).
Thus registration is punishment or registration is prohibited under the California Constitution. The law sides with they layman's interpretation.of Article 1, Section 6 is succinct.
Also, lifetime registration inherently denies the "inalienable right to obtain privacy" as prescribed under Article 1, Section 1 - it's lifetime registration... not three year registration, five year registration... it's a lifetime registration.
To me, it sounds so simple to utilize the California Constitution to combat "lifetime registration" as it runs contrary to two sections of the California Constitution. Where am I wrong on this logic?
Robert
MikeR, Because it is a state case and only affects the State of Alaska. One state will not overturn SCOTUS, must go through the court of appeals first, we need rulings from circuit courts to get there.
Watch the youtube video, it is all explained here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qyA9TU8nE8
mike r
why don't we ever hear and nobody ever uses the 2008 Alaska decision I believe should basically overturn the 2003 decision in Smith....the 2008 case has actually been revisited in other cases in Alaska after the 2008 decision ( and was affirmed ) but I haven't been or heard of it being used anywhere else.....dumbfounded again......here's a link to an article I wasn't able to open the pdf from my phone for some reason but it's there...
http://www.justiceflorida.com/alaska-supreme-court-declares-sex-offender-registration-law-unconstitutional/
hopefully someone can explain to me why this case isn't being used
Anonymous Nobody
The Sixth Circuit is not the first to rue on this issue. The California Supreme Court ruled way back in the 1970s that even the much lesser basic registration in effect then not only was punishment but such severe punishment as to rise to the level of unconstitutional cruel and unusual punishment, for when applied to lewd Conduct (which the Legislature later took out of 290). And later, in the 1980s, the appellate court extended that to indecent exposure, at least in may cases if not all - they never said whether it could apply to all cases -- but the legislature never followed up to take indecent exposure out of 290, so it remains in there to this day.
The previous case on lewd conduct used very similar arguments as in the Sixth Circuit opinion.
It was later, under a different state high court composition, that those rulings were overturned as wrongly decided, and none of the collateral requirements added were either. They said it was no punishment of any sort whatsoever -- in their opinion -- and, get this, that it NEVER had been considered to be punishment.
So, the most recent on the question by the California Supreme Court is that the arguments upheld in the Sixth Circuit opinion are wrong.
mike r
thats right no more they better have all the data to back their stance and argue this with precision and flawlessly...this is really good though since if this goes to SCOTUS and these attorneys are not competent enough to succeed than the court itself has left the possibility to challenges on the other issues.....I think these lower courts and even our own Supreme Court are encouraging a challenge on the real issues and are even doing what they can to give us ghe fodder we can use and keep the issues open until a successful challenge presents itself...I could be wrong but it sure appears that way to me....
nomore
No, it had some form of registration, not sex registration. But, it looked nowhere like it is today and without many of the restrictions. I really wish people would take the time to get their facts straight before giving "opinions". You do nothing but spread untruths like that.
D mccartin
Hello D. Be careful going against the constitution you will be wrong again. Take the time to read restrictions laws and ordinances placed since 1994. The dates submitted in Michigan case mirror this state. Just send a donation to Janice that would be best for you to do .
D
The registry in CA has been around since the 40s so they can't have a suit based on ex post facto here since it was jot applied to anyone after their conviction (unless you can still find someone convicted prior to that)
Agamemnon
While lawmakers can argue the registry is "administrative," the restrictive laws passed using said registry are anything but, and I for one applaud the sixth circuit for finally acknowledging this.
DavidH
My knee jerk reaction was they would be all over appealing to the US Supreme Court; however, they have lots to lose if it does go and the result is in our favor, which on some level I think they'd give us--but it aint going away!
nomore
The last part shows that he was signaling that the whole registry scheme as far back as Alaska's initial registry policy was unconstitutional as far as he was concerned. He could only legally bind the law presently as it pertained to the plantiffs of the case.
From the perspective of this case only and this judge, I find it powerful and potentially far reaching in its effects.
I do however have some possible bad news but I'll wait to see what the state does. If it goes to the supreme court, they'd better get their recidivism data ready for argument.
mike r
can't wait to read this decision I seem to be having problems opening it on my phone....
Anonymous Nobody
I note to readers (and Janice, if I'm wrong, please correct me), this opinion is saying that the entire registration regime together as it is imposed in Michigan is punishment. It then goes on to say that the amendments added in 2006 and 2011 cannot be applied retroactively, as they are punishment as included in registration too.
No one is being released from registration under this ruling. But of course, I don't think anyone in Michigan is subject to registration retroactively, as a lot are in California.
As this pertains to California, the state's registration law(s) goes all the way back to 1943 (or is it 1947); California was the first state to have registration, and the only state for many decades. By the time the Clinton administration made registration a national mandate in the mid-1990s, only two other states had imposed registration. Since then, California, too, started piling on the amendments -- although it already had done a number of them over the decades, very key ones here being that those who got 1203.4 PC relief (expungement) could stop registering.
That relief from registration via 1203.4 was lifted in the mid-1980s for felons, and in the early-mid-1990s for misdemeanants -- and at least since the Clinton mandate and language added to 290 declaring it not to be punishment, that change has been applied retroactively to all those people who had met the standard to be relieved of registration and had been relieved -- after years of no longer having to register, suddenly they had to start registering again and ever since and for the rest of their lives. What they had worked for, met the standard for and been granted was willy nilly taken away with the flick of a pen.
If the reasoning in this Sixth District case were applied to the California registration regime, it seems it might bar retroactive enforcement of even the basic registration requirement for both felons and misdemeanants who had gotten 1203.4 relief prior to the state retroactively lifting that relief.
This was something we tried to get partially in Doe v. Harris, but the Ninth Circuit sent that case to the California Supreme Court, which bent over backward, as it ALWAYS does, to come up with a lying excuse to shoot down Doe. That case was based on the state of the law at the time one enters a plea bargain.
We can only hope SCOTUS does not shoot down this Sixth District opinion, or water it down so it does not hold that even basic registration is punishment within the rest of the Michigan law.
On that point, I note there likely are added complications as applied to California. I don't know how the Michigan law is written on the books, in a single statute or in many. This Sixth Circuit opinion speaks of it being punishment in consideration of the entire regime together, not on the basis of nothing but basic registration -- I think Michigan must have it all under a single statute number.
California used to have 290 as a single statue, that is why it is referenced as that. But about a decade ago, California split 290 up into a long list if different statute numbers -- that makes it much more likely to salvage parts of it, and would require a different look at the specific 290 statute that imposes the basic registration requirement. As a separate statute, basic registration could be much more difficult to declare to be punishment, even if all other related statutes were -- under this Sixth Circuit ruling, since that spoke of the entire regime together.
California made the various parts effectively severable so the entire regime would not be endangered by a ruling against a single one of them -- the state was fully aware it was adding amendments that might very well endanger the entirety of 290, so it separated them. So, for instance, if residency restrictions were held to be punishment so not applicable retroactively, that would not necessarily means registration itself could not be applied retroactively, as in California, they are different statutes. And it seems to me that SCOTUS has already ruled that registration is not punishment, so while it is deemed punishment under this Sixth District ruing because it is part of the total regime, in California, it separate.
ADDENDUM: This Sixth District opinion also decried the approach Michigan takes of deciding tiers based simply on the offense, not on a review of each applicant individually. I have advocated our tier proposal nix such reviews, and instead base the tiers on the offense. But my proposal differs from Michigan's approach, as I also say to include the possibility for anyone to apply for a lower tier and be reviewed for that -- I do believe that would easily get around what this Sixth District opinion said about basing tiers on the offense rather than a review. I do not for a minute think this Sixth District opinion should be construed to justify a tier proposal in California that requires those reviews, they will only serve to put many people in a higher tier.
Anonymous Nobody
No, all states do not have to abide by this decision, only those in the Sixth District.
However, you can bet this will be appealed to SCOTUS, so I wold not presume it will last long, but I hope it spreads across the land..
72FLH
over haul? try scrap ! Bro , its the job of the court to give time and punishment , not a bunch of jonny come latelys , and say well we feel your to big of a danger ! oh hell no , if they do a crime then they go to court and start from go , you know as well as I do Bro most of us never stoped being punished , their is danger to all that have to live in this manner , I respect what you say man , all I am doing is adding how I think about this matter ,
72FLH
you know what he means , so whats your story ? you think maybe we should sign up for more constitution loss , I never signed on for any of it , its way over do the we abolish this crime against citizens ,
Chris F
While this is a great decision for those accused of crimes committed after 2006, it fell really short for everyone else and all future registrants.
The lawsuit challenged the ex-post facto application that affected them since the plantiffs' crimes were prior to 2006, as well as many other unconstitutional parts of registry that affect all registrants. Once the judges determined it did violate ex-post facto, they refused to address the rest of the issues since it didn't apply now to these particular plaintiffs since they are mow free of the burden.
It's great that the judges acknowledge the other things are good arguments and registrants may have had their rights infringed on with SORNA, but bad that they didn't use all of that evidence that was presented to extend their ruling to include that. The "statement of fact" that you can look at in the links is tons and tons of good evidence that is now wasted on a lack of rulings on all issues.
See the complaint:
*****
Plaintiffs sued Michigan Governor Richard Snyder and Colonel Kriste Etue, the director
Michigan’s state police (collectively, “Michigan”), challenging SORA’s validity on a number of
different grounds, including that portions of SORA are unconstitutionally vague, that its
requirements should not be construed as creating strict liability offenses, that SORA violates the
right to free speech guaranteed by the First Amendment, and that it violates the Fourteenth
Amendment by imposing oppressive restrictions on Plaintiffs’ ability to parent, work, and travel.
Plaintiffs also contended that SORA’s retroactive application to them—specifically, the
retroactive application of the amendments that went into effect starting in 2006 or later—
amounts to an Ex Post Facto punishment prohibited by the Constitution.
*****
and see the final statement in the ruling:
*****
As we have explained, this case involves far more than an Ex Post Facto challenge. And
as the district court’s detailed opinions make evident, Plaintiffs’ arguments on these other issues
are far from frivolous and involve matters of great public importance. These questions, however,
will have to wait for another day because none of the contested provisions may now be applied
to the plaintiffs in this lawsuit, and anything we would say on those other matters would be dicta.
We therefore reverse the district court’s decision that SORA is not an Ex Post Facto law and
remand for entry of judgment consistent with this opinion.
(fyi - dicta = a statement of opinion considered authoritative (although not binding))
O.A.L.
With tears in my eyes, Janice, I thank you for supporting and believing in me. I hope you and your staff can feel the embrace I am giving all of you at this moment. Our lives have been made so difficult by those who don't care, you give us all a feeling of hope.
Thank you.
Tobin's Tools 2.0
Kris,
I don't know the answer to your question. I guess wait and see... assuming that driver's license bill is even passed.
nomore
No, I mean Janice should go after retroactive punishment at the very least. There are numerous avenues that could be taken but that one, like the Michigan registry rejection could give relief to thousands upon thousands. How many were given life? 290 goes back retroactively to 1944, right? Come on! Challenge THAT shit. Who needs a tiered system to get a few off when you can give relief to tens of thousands.
Where's the michigan styled suit for 290?
mike r
yep it's to bad because Frank Lindsey would make a perfect candidate for the abolition of the current registration scheme if only Janice's team would argue it...
CXR
Michigan has a tiered system. You mean California should get a tiered system then to be like Michigan?
New Person
Michigan courts denoted it is punishment due to the increase in penalty.
I wonder if we can use this here. Anonymous Nobody has carefully outlined how 1203.4 ("expungement) used to give registrant relief from registration. Now, that relief was taken away, that counts as extra punishment.
Recall, our state constitution denotes the inalienable right to privacy and/or obtain privacy. In taking away the relief after being awarded 1203.4, the state added punishment via making it more difficult to "obtain privacy". This can easily be seen as one has to go to the local PD and register every year for the rest of their life.
So who qualifies for this Ex post facto? I guess anyone who was on probation at the time the state changed the laws.
Yet, it's pretty evident that the state made it more difficult to "obtain privacy" by no longer giving relief after being awarded 1203.4.
nomore
Talk about nutso... I must've hit a nerve. Maybe you should grow up a bit and not parrot what a dbag party hack reporter that was mentioning it just for the smear factor.. Which is why you did it. Sure, you didnt do it like that, youre just an innocent wittle commentor. As for "picking a fight with Janice" I was right to do so. Two days later a judge in Michigan backed up my comments. Im so sorry i went after your messiah. I know how you religious fanatics can be sometimes. I should have known better. I'm not going anywhere unless they ban me.
Les Mis Life
Big takeaway not mentioned is what a smart batch of cases this was to bring. How often have we seen these laws/precedents upheld by cases where the justices think, "these are exactly the people these laws are made for."
Now, because the system was attacked from the bottom up, the house of cards crumbled for all in the 6th circuit. Great day that's been a long time coming!
mike r
people wake-up...the key statement in this case besides the punishment issue which is EXTREMELY more important is the statements that there is no increase in public safety and no decrease in re-offense rates...a and that the law is absolutely useless.....I haven't been able to read the entire decision yet but what I hear here is that they actually referenced or recognized the false facts that was used to justify these laws....forget the punishment issue it is time to abolish the current registration scheme and force the legislature to overhaul the entire registration scheme to include only those that can actually be proven through clear and convincing evidence standard to be some kind of threat to public safety....it's time and the issue is ripe for SCOTUS
James Townsend
Janice I have always said that two wrongs don't make a right. You know offenses do come but woe to him, through whom them come. Now we can talk about trespasses or we can talk about doctrines of men but in the end let God be true. Showing disrespect is just what all this is and we as humans can't even image. This is a lesson for all to learn.
Kris Klein
Whoa dude! You're a real riot! You pick a fight with Janice then you go nutso over someone citing info in an article that mentions a tea party candidate trying to get a sex offender drivers license bill passed in Tennessee. I really didn't care about the tea party part until your sorry ass got offended by it. Maybe you're one of them and I really don't care what you think. I posed the question to Tobin's Tool, not you
.....baiting my foot. Get lost scum!
Brubaker
Michigan's own David M. ...that really is nice to hear the influence and help. Thanks for communicating that.
Michigan..! US 6th Circuit Appeals Court.
nomore
Maybe Janice will get inspiration from this case to get the same verdict in California instead of a tiered system. That would definitely be inspiring!
David M
I live in Michigan and get email updates from the ACLU lady that fights the registered citizen issues and so can anyone else.
Janice and her crew have 100% been a huge influence in legal battles in Michigan. If you want to get email updates regarding Michigan laws regarding RSO's and court battles please write.... [email protected] and request to be on the mailing list and state ur interest in doing so. Attention: Frances Giordano
nomore
Bait much? Felt the need to mention tea party huh? lol
On the more rational things you said. I have some potentially bad news for this Michigan verdict but I'll wait till I see what Michigan does in reply first. I think we might've been set up to fail lol. Something's up.
G4Change
Janice, et al: It may be hard to specifically prove this, but I FEEL deep down in my heart that this decision happened because of you all and your continued diligence and hard work in California. I hope and pray that this first "domino" that has finally been pushed over by this intelligent and brave judge will result in all of the rest of these "dominoes" being flattened down!
Freeborn
Please tell me this means something to Missouri.
Kris Klein
Does that mean a bills like this one put forth by a Tennessee tea partier won't be retroactive?
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/tennessee-bill-put-red-labels-sex-offenders-driving-licenses-article-1.1704398
States in the sixth circuit already have some of the most onerous laws against sex offenders. So the Michigan ruling doesn't give me much comfort because at most the ruling may require states in the 6th to scale back anti registrant laws to what is "normal" in states like California. That's probably why the ninth circuit hasn't ruled that additional registry restrictions amount to punishment because the states in the 9th haven't went bat shit crazy overboard with the registry laws as the case in Michigan & Tennessee
nomore
If I'm correct, it should go for review by SCOTUS, no?
Michael A. Lewis Sr.
Well I guess I’m lucky then. I am presently living in Kentucky.
I was thinking of moving to North Carolina but I don’t think that would be a wise move at this time.
Tobin's Tools 2.0
Only states in the U.S. Sixth Circuit -- Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee -- must abide by this decision.
Other U.S. circuits, and lower courts in other circuits, may use this case only as "persuasive authority" IF they decide to rule in similar fashion.
In California, for example, if a decision were to come from our highest federal court (other than the U.S. Supreme Court) it would need to come from the Ninth Circuit. And all published decisions would be applicable to ONLY states within the Ninth Circuit (i.e. Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Washington -- as well as Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands).
In sum, the Sixth Circuit having favorably decided this case certainly does not harm our cause. Courts in other circuits may be more willing to join suit.
DavidH
PK
The State's constitutions aside--it was deemed unconstitutional under the US federal constitution--not a state's; there fore it applies to all states within the 6th circuit and can be referenced as case law in lawsuit within any other circuit
PK
This is something I would like to research as well Michael.
What are the implications for the states outside of Michigan?
I would imagine that each state has it's own constitution, which may or may not apply Ex Post Facto in the same way that MIchigan does.
Tobin's Tools
The U.S Sixth Circuit did something the California Supreme Court failed to do last year in People v. Mosley:
- http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/archive/S187965.PDF
The Sixth Circuit recognized registration, at least in Michigan, as a form of punishment.
Michael A. Lewis Sr.
Does this mean that All states will have to abide by this decision?
K
Well said. And thank you Janice for all you do.
HOOKSCAR
AMEN!!!!
Janice's Journal: Waiting for Justice
Published Date : August 20, 2016
As summer comes to an end, we are waiting for justice. We are waiting for a judge’s decision in our challenge to the International Megan’s Law. We are waiting for cities to eliminate residency restrictions. We are waiting for a tiered registry bill to be introduced in the California state legislature.
Why does it take so long? Why can’t judges, city officials and state legislators stop the punishment of registered citizens NOW?
Perhaps it’s due to habit. For many people, including judges and elected officials, have adopted the habit of viewing registered citizens as “monsters” who always re-offend and cannot be cured. Their habit is based upon myth and supported by the media rather than empirical evidence such as the CDCR report which states that the rate of re-offense for registrants on parole is less than 1 percent.
Perhaps it’s due to complacency. For many people, including judges and elected officials, are complacent because their personal lives have not been directly affected by the punishment that continues to be levied against registrants and their families. What else can explain their lack of compassion when a registrant cannot find a decent job or adequate housing? What else can explain their lack of understanding when a registrant and his family can no longer live together due to residency restrictions passed decades after his offense occurred?
Perhaps it’s due to fear. For many people, especially judges and elected officials, fear that they will lose the next election if they are viewed by the public as friendly to registrants. Their fear is so deep that they are willing to violate the state and federal Constitutions despite an oath they swore to uphold them.
To the many people described above, we have the following message: Stop your habits! Snap out of your complacency! Move through your fear! Do what is right, not what is popular.
The time is NOW to view registrants as who they truly are – human beings who deserve a second chance – and not lepers of society. The time is NOW not just to allow, but to support, registrants as they re-enter society so that they can live with their families and contribute their skills and talents to society.
This is the future we see. And we will support those, including judges and elected officials, who share our vision when we vote in November.
Comments
Esri
Can we avoid using words like PO-leese ? It is racially insensitive. This is not an alt-right ( racist ) movement.
Timmr
It does not make sense for someone who had a violent or molestation offense to be considered a risk, say after 17 years, using their own studies, basing it on nothing but disgust for the crime. How does one measure disgust? How is that re-integrating anyone into society, which is a benefit to society? The CASOMB proposal is a mix of punishment and regulatory theory, a real mutant, and neither part can stand on its own, let alone help the other. I doubt it will do much more than spawn lawsuits against it, and those who support it will end up wasting time in the courts defending it
72FLH
great comments Tobins Tools ,
Tobin's Tools 2.0
But then is there much "science" to the Static-99R? The Static-99R is statistical manipulation to achieve certain desired outcomes.
The Static-99R's 'science' forces its opponent(s) to play by its so-called "actuarial" "coding rules," in which those that disagree with its non-transparent methodology must entangle themselves in the Static-99R "developers'" pseudo semantics. Semantics of dizzying qualifications that, are at best, appear to be applicable to only a 10-year maximum period.
Timmr, while it is true that a "tiered" proposal may be classified as a "hybrid" system, a high static score will supersede offense-based tier classification. So even if you have a non-violent, non-contact, first-time offense, the Static-99R may classify one into the lifetime tier (rather than the 10 or 20 year tier). The result? Because the Static-99R perversely gives a higher score to non-violent offenders, you will -- at least in theory -- see a greater proportion of non-violent offenders classified in the most severe (lifetime) tier because of the static score. They will be lumped together with the most severe (violent and contact) offenders.
This does not make sense, as the Static-99R only seems to publish "norms" that purport to predict the future only 10-years out. So why base lifetime registration on the Static-99 scam when it only pretends to play fortune teller up to -- and NOT exceeding -- 10-years.
Someone show me Static-99R 'norms' that predict more than 10-years out to prove my reasoning wrong.
mike r
wow they must've took down the petition for that judge any update on that
Timmr
There was no reply button under your comment, but I am replying to you, New Person. It looks like the CASOMB tier proposal is a hybrid, a combination of risk based and level of heinousness of offense based. I am not seeing any definition of what risk is. I think the science-looking part in the risk assessment is to impress the legislators and the courts, and the offense base part is to keep the pitchfork public from knocking it down outright.
mike r
one more thing you guys hating on me dont understand what I am about...Just because I question peoples motives and speak my mind including insinuations that may or may not be true doesnt mean that I dont or havent supported Janice and sosen and w.a.r. and f.a.c. and anyone else that fights for or supports our cause....I have donated money made phone calls every time janice asked us to and wrote and sent all those letters I sent...Just because you guys have this hero worship menatility and dont ask question or speak your minds doesnt mean I have to think like you guys do...Its that simple...Ive spent countless hours preparing my motion and if it prevails all your sorry a...... will benifit from it so get off my back and support the way you feel is best and I will continue to prod convince coerce or encourage and do any and everything I can to get someone (especially the people that are supposed to be civil rights activist leaders) to go that extra mile and get something real done.........................
mike r
don't get me wrong i don't believe in any type of registry but if these legislators and the majority of people must have their precious registry than overhaul it as I explained a registry like that just may and I mean may be somewhat effective...I doubt it but it might...it would be an entirely different set of circumstances that would need to be evaluated using empirical evidence on recidivism rates of those types of offenders both before and after they implement such a scheme ....like I said though I don't believe any registry is justified or constitutional....
mike r
man hopeful finally an intelligent comment comes out of your mouth....
can assure you miker you’ve would of definitely in your words been “smashed”had u been on mainline in prison with your jacket. U r no different in the eyes of many. .
your absolutely right for once read my last post maybe you'll understand my position on this subject...
as far as walking around with my head down saying we'll never win is exactly the opposite of what I've been doing...you just can't wrap your head around that our activists leaders ie janice and other activist leaders may need to be persuaded convinced or prodded just like Martin Luther King was in order to get them to go all out and confront and overcome what seems like impossible odds.....I know we can and will win so dont paint me as a pessimist like the rest of you guys are ...have a little faith and don't just hope our activist leaders who have a much louder voice and more god giving talents and learned abilities than us average joes help them in anyway possible and try to convince them to do the right thing and win or lose they will be heroes just for trying what seems impossible.......I hope we all understand each other's positions and mentalities and can stop all these personal attacks but if not I guess it hasn't been a total waste of time having discourse about these hard topics can't hurt I guess.....
mike r
you guys are right flh and nomore I really am not a hater and try very hard to put myself in the other persons shoes that guys mentality was just very hard to wrap my head around....wanting to smash the guy was just a residual thought from my own pre-registration self....that's what I used to think before I got involved in this crap and believe me if someone told me what he was telling us i would have beat him to near death but I have gained a lot of empathy and humanity from all this bs as well as off of a lifetime of drugs (meth) so I can say I actually learned and even benefited in those areas off what's happened to me....now I just hope guys like that admit they have a medical condition which is a mental abnormality and get help....that's not a opinion or a condemnation it's a fact...thanks for reminding me nomore and flh to keep my judgemental attitude in check because it's really hard in those types of situations especially in the heat of intense debate. you guys are great....
New Person
"... then the judges shouldn't be employing 290.006."
Well, I concur. I scored low on the Static 99, but still the courts thought the judge would have came to the same conclusion despite not doing the mandatory two step process.
So I don't know what the Static 99 actually does. If you're a low risk assessment, then why even slap lifetime?
72FLH
Doc , I would like to see people get off ,and we all truly know a little something about pain , but this tier will pidgin hole many in this system that can change with out even having to pass a law , you know like prole dose all the time , I really don't want to be judged anymore , like give a rubber stamp to the state by our own hand to further judge us for crimes we have not even do yet , as well as the ones we have already been judged for , we have held up our end of the deal in spades , so its time to set us free , its time for this wall of shame to come down all the way down to the ground , because if it don't its going to turn in to a whole different critter , I don't "think" we have time to play around with tier systems , maybe I am wrong but , I "think" we should stand on the constitution for dear life , because that's all that's standing in the way of us being burned at the stake as a weekend pick nick as a pass time for brown shirts ,
72FLH
dang mike r , I hope as citizens we are not in the judging biz now , its hard enough just to be a citizen Bro . we need to care about each other more , you know as well as I do that their are many things that are not always as it seems , maybe its not just the student that's mentally challenged, I don't know because I was not there , come on mike r please don't be part of the hate , rather be part of the understanding , and the healing spirt as well as the mind , its ok to care man
72FLH
I wish they would open the boarder so we could live their if we wished , I don't no much about their GOV , and I don't even speak Spanish , but I think its a great country , I worked with south AMC folks most of life and I have to say they are good solid people , I had a great time down their , went to 2 wedding and those were some of the best partys i ever went to , the people have a right to be proud , but i think what stood out to me the most was that there are so many open minded people , yes their are haters , but you cant ever get away from haters , when ever I think about mexacali I get hungry like right now LOL , we use to ride our Putts down there when i was working Tex , and it was something to see , bad ass lakes great fishing man , sure i seen some places that was ate up , but i see that here as well , like where i live now , and i have seen houses down there that go for 35k on payments , that would fetch 250k here on the coast , and a lot of places that are off grid , money is harder to come by for many , but you can live poor down there , fish right off the coast line and make enough money to live a nice simple life , and hell if your a strait shooter you will make lots of friends fast ,i broke down on my motersickl down their once on some back road HY , and this guy and his wife stopped for me , mind you they spoke Zero English , but after we did the cave man talk thing , him and his wife got in their car and came back with this cool ass ole dude looked like he was 80 if he was a day , and he was driving this old 49 chev pickup and the ole guy picked up the front end of my 741 pound Harley and sat it on the back of his truck ,lol , well then he drove me to some little town and the other folks that stopped in the first place followed us , there was no motersickl shop there but there was a shop man , and it had a big ass motersicle bone yard out back the biggest i ever seen! , wow man ! they had everything from 34 flatheads , to 77 shovels ,lol well anyway these folks put me up for two days wile my putt was bein worked on , bad front "cylinder head"hehe , but we just kick back drank cold beer and smoked big fat hooters lol and ate like kings man , ya if they would open that boarder and let us buy land /home , i think i would go , well i guess i talk to much , something to do with wanting to free i guess
mike r
I don't care what anyone says if you're a rapist or a true prepubesent sex offender then you need help you have actual mental illness that needs to be addressed.....those are the people the government should be evaluating and determine if there is clear and convincing evidence to justify a registry for those individuals...even those deemed a threat should have annual Evaluations to see if they are ready to come off the list and after ten years be automatically off the list....that's is the overhaul that the government needs to do that I've talked about and it's the only way these laws can be constitutional.....I also believe everyone that has committed any kind of crime and goes offense free for ten years should have their records automatically expunged and the complete restoration of all their constitutional rights unfettered....criminal records should only be used by the courts if an offender reoffends....
mike r
no I'm lying Steve what a idiot...why the hellllll would I lie about something like that.....braindead people wow
nomore
Just curious if it has ever dawned on you to ask Janice for hard facts? You see, we can all speculate based on subjective statements but that seems rather ridiculous when we could just ask questions and find out.
We had a saying in the Ron Paul campaign... Trust when you verify.
Still trying to wrap my head around people wanting a tiered system instead of going after away/290/retroactivity first. Clearly the michigan case showed we have a great chance of getting rid of it all.
nomore
Go look up hypocrisy. I get what he was saying, it's not my cup of tea to say one way or another. That guy will have to figure that out for himself, hopefully he does. I also get what you're saying but in reality you're shunning Mike as well.
72FLH
then they will just keep changing the amount of years , and start tweaking new stuff just like they do with prole , and they don't even have to pass a law to make changes , sounds like someone is gaining power , and its not us
nomore
It sure seems like Stockholm when we're telling you guys that we can get rid of the registry and you're fighting us to keep it. Michigan should be a slap in the face for all of you to drop it. Did you read the judges opinion? It's mainly about retroactivity but it goes way farther. Go read it if you haven't. At the very least, retroactive laws could be done away with. Retroactivity was ruled unconstitutional at one time in Cali till Alaska cane about I'm guessing and was overturned. Now there's a high likelihood it can be reversed again. No need for a tiered system to help a handful when you can clear thousands upon thousands. If you don't think the advocates are acting a little strange, look into what happened on the IML exchange concerning the judges comments. I'm all for giving a pat on the back when someone helps but I'm not giving a pass on anything that's not kosher.
72FLH
there going to make a boat load of cash of the tier system , and will pidgin hole the rest of us , I don't think that's staving anything , Doc don't even live here in CA , misery loves company ? what the hell man?
72FLH
for ever !
steve
Who the hell are you to condemn anyone? I don't believe a word of that story. We are done. Good luck to you.
steve
I was never talking to you in the first place. How did you get involved in this?
Steri
Janice, I support your efforts 110%, but I believe the individual named 'nomore' has a point.
If we are going to have a tier system based off future crimes, then I believe the tier system needs to have a no-risk tier implemented and applied to sex offenders. There are SO's who will never commit a future crime, which would place them on the no-risk tier. To me, predicting a future crime is exactly like the movie 'The Minority Report'.
If we are going to guess the future crimes of citizens (or sex offenders), then the starting tier should be no-risk - especially given that there are SO's who won't ever commit another crime.
If the government is going to predict future crimes of sex offenders on a case-by-case base, then they should do that for all individuals in society, especially since everyone is capable of breaking the laws just like a sex offender is.
But in reality, I believe the most fair system is to place all criminals on tier 3 (basically because of their new offense and moral turpitude), and then over time (and offence free) they will drop to tier 2 and then tier 1. And then finally be removed from the tier system after xx number of years. This system will allow them to prove their trust worthiness over the years.
Hopeful4all
Wow! Miker reminds me of that kid on the team who's always complaining about everything walking around the field kicking the dirt with his cleats with his head down blurting out words of "we'll never win a game" always dragging his heals with a cloud over his head like schleprock. Here we have a registrant in the same boat many here on this site are in and has the audacity to condemn another registrant by wanting to "smash him" what the heck!! I can assure you miker you've would of definitely in your words been "smashed"had u been on mainline in prison with your jacket. U r no different in the eyes of many. What a joke
Doc Martin
Ha! Ha! Lighten up a little. I'm just having a little fun with the title of your state's registry. Alaska isn't the only state with a bizarre name. How bout the 'Minnesota Predatory Offender Registry' Dam! Everyone's a predator.
I know there's a debate among rcs about the tier system. I lean towards it like some others on this forum including Janice. But it don't mean we have Stockholm syndrome. I'm definitely not in love with visiting the PO-leese every year. But if the tier system knocks more people off the registry earlier and not up others a level, I have no problem. I do respect the rights of other rcs who believe in knocking down the whole dam thing at once. I also get the view that laws have to get so bad (like in Michigan) that a court just says enough is enough, you're now punishing those poor schmucks. But before many courts start saying no, quite a few registrants will continue to get mowed down by a giant lawn mower. Talk about a lot of pain! Should the pain first be eased with a tier system? I kinda of think so. The Doc don't like to see people in pain
mike r
steve I condemned that guy because he would not admit or come to terms with the fact he did something wrong....he grabbed a special ed young woman vagina who by his own words didn’t have the mental capacity to consent...I actually have very little sympathy for people who commits rape or force themselves on anyone especially the younger women and doubly when they are special ed student being groped by their special ed teacher....if the dude would have manned up and admitted or comprehended he did something wrong and was working to make amends or at least sure it wouldn't happen again then I could of felt differently but he was proud of what he did and showed no remorse at all
..he is one of the ones that the courts could probably prove with clear and convincing evidence standard to reoffend since he used force on a mentally challenged individual and has absolutely no remorse or doesn't feel any culpability....
nomore
Up "crap Creek" was figuratively used to speak to the lack of brains I see when people make statements which make no logical sense. They're often reaching in their attempts to justify something. Most people are just spouting nonsense based on little or no actual facts and simply going on feelings. Much like your attempt to peg mike and I as the same guy.
But I don't play those type of petty games. I've been extremely straightforward and open with my opinions and who I am and what I want to accomplish.
steve
"…I lmfao at you blindef fools …and yes I have been to a meeting with janice with my fiance and I won’t even ask her to go again after the first person to speak was some freak spouting off about how he was a special ed teacher who grabbed a 12 year olds vagina to make her stop grabbing herself and shiwed no remorse or felt that he didnt do anything wrong and that he was a victim
…absolutely disgusting I wanted to smash the guy…."
This statement is the true Miker. And should nobody smash you in the face for what you did to get yourself here? Just wow...Dude do you not realize someone here is trying to help us.
You are the only one I have ever seen condemn somebody else on this board. I think you are bi-polar,
I think you need a lot of help...and not for writing your brief.
steve
Go do it Miker... wish you luck.
steve
lol ok it's all my fault you are in the position you are in......are you, nomore and Miker the same guy? a lot of lower case going on in all your posts.
72FLH
like Janice said Doc not all tier systems are the same their is truth in that since I lived in one , and it was much worse than Cali , but it did not start out that way , it turnd in to a real master because they just kept adding to it , like level 3's hand to REG every three months , , and people marked us as the worst of the worst ,lol , what a joke on us , and no one is pilling on Janice Doc , you need to stop this , we have a right to voice strongly our problems with how a movement is being ran that we are part of , I am not signing on to no darn tier system , it is over do that a massive shift happen , over our rights being restored , and stop bitting on the first turd that the feds and state toss for us to bit on , I don't care what the state thinks , their eather going to go by the constitution or their going to get called on it , a tier system is not even close to up holding the constitution , if you cool with living this kind of thing GOOD for you Doc I am truly happy for you , but this is Cali not Bug tussel , a whole dam state that should have long since put to death this REG , and one of the probems has been so many people willing to settle for less than what very much in our grasp , not 99R or tier systems ! if its better to fight from a tier system how come every state that has one , is still on it ?? its because it takes what edge we do have , sorry about PA and the tier , and sorry NY about your gun rights , but here in Cali we need to take a stance of no more bull shit , we did our time , now its time to get on with living
B.Wat
Timmr, here is the right link, https://www.change.org/p/California-commission-on-judicial-performance-a-letter-in-support-of-judge-Aaron-Persky-and-judicial-discretion
nomore
I'm glad you're in Stockholm heaven about your registry but to me it's kind of like comparing who's boil on who's ass is less painful, when all I want to do is get rid of it.
Also, when was the last time, since you've been on the registry that you've went for a job interview? Can't say I've ever had them distinguish between them. In the real world, we're all the same.
Timmr
Nothing there at this link you gave. I did see an interview with Mr. Khan, the Santa Clara defence attorney fighting the ouster of judge Persky. He made some very good points about the importance of judicial discretion and dangers of sentencing minimums and the race to solve every wrong through longer prison sentences. I will donate to his cause if I can find out where to do it. He is unafraid to take a stand against this.
Doc Martin
Well, it's a little bit more complicated than that. Quite true that PA follows the 15 year minimum which is a tad higher than even SORNA guidelines of 10 years for minor offenses. But even in the relatively few states that have 10 years, your offense has to be some light weight stuff like peeping Tom shet or mooning the opposing team after a high school football game. He! He!
Nevertheless, PA's tier system is generally based on offense. Now they may deviate a little and take risk into consideration. If they didn't, your dear friend the Doc would be doing life instead of 25 years considering I did some dirty stuff with minors. I got 14 years left but the Grim Reaper will probably take me by then. Nasty fellow that asshole the reaper
Now take your state for instance. They divide offenses between aggravated & non-aggravated. And it doesn't take much to get on the Alaska lifetime registry for an aggravated offense, especially if it involves a minor. Some aggravated offenses in Alaska are simply tier 2 and even tier 1 offenses in PA. I'm glad it worked out for you & much praise that you're off the hit list next year. But it may not have worked out for the next fella
Here's another thing that bothers me about the Alaska registry. They call it the Sex Offender/Child Kidnapper Registry. Talk about guilt by association. Imagine a registrant getting a background check for a job, Let's see, candidate has experience in this and that. Committed a sex offender...okay, I'll overlook it because other qualifications look good, CHILD KIDNAPPER! Holy shet! Next application
mike r
very intelligent and articulate comments flh and no more...wish we had more minds like yours in this fight.....we will prevail and not in ten twenty or thirty years even if I or someone else who's fed up has to be the ones to do it.....
mike r
and by the way learn your civil rights history...martin Luther King and Thurgood Marshall both had to be prodded pushed ridiculed and then encouraged to change their minds tactics and weak fighting positions before they took on the real issues in those movements....maybe we need to use the same tactics on our activists leaders in order for them to get the gonadsssss to step up and fight the real issues and do what's right and take down the registry in its current form....Janice is no doubt a hero with all of us but if she wants to be a hero at a level of King and Marshall she needs to go out on a limb and bring a challenge that others are either afraid to bring or think that it's an impossible task....nothings impossible unless you never try.....oh and yes I have filed motions to dismiss,demurres,judicial notices,motions for summary judgement and declaratory relief and a couple more which a couple were successful....no I am not an attorney but I am a free thinking confident America that is willing to say anything I feel needs to be said and I'm a fast learner willing to try what some may think are impossible tasks in order to stand up for myself and fight for what's right......
72FLH
keep your head up mike r , and don't let anyone blame you for what someone dose them selfs Bro , and its sad because I like lake county , when all that came down it looked to me that he was shamed by a few weasels and lake county just slipped up , some folks like to play head games on good people that feel tormented , and their was no lack of people trying to keep that going between both of you men ,
PK
"the first is to not tare down people that bring light to the movement"
Listen I wasn't trying to tare down anyone. I know this is all about a movement like you say, but my point was that nobody should make demands of those Attorneys who are helping us, for free, with this "movement". If any one of us doesn't like the direction or strategy that the Attorney is taking, they should not rant about it.
Hopeful4all
Thank u Steve! Mike R strikes again. Still considerablely new to this site and in the name of "freedom of speech " this mike r uses to nag and complain. . Dude get a job!! It seems u have so much free time punching on keys griping bout this and that. Freakin back seat driver.
Timmr
I have more restrictions on me now than 12 years ago, when I got off probation. Registration is like inverse probation or parole. With probation, if you obey the rules you have a chance to lessen restrictions. Registration keeps piling on the rules no matter how good you behave. It is a disincentive to reintegration, whereas probation or parole can be an incentive. It can't even be equated with modern punishment. It is a foul beast of its own that is maybe best compared with medieval punishments.
Stumped
Mike like I stated before Mexico is used as an excuse by the USA to have people concentrate on other countries issues instead of their own, as far as Mexico bowing down to Mexico that would never Happen you living in Mexico would know that, Mexico is a very proud country and bows down to no one. The big problem I find is that the USA is labeling everyone the same way and just as big is the problem that Mexico does not question it or has its own program to determine who is a danger and who is not, and yes I agree with you I would assume 99% of RC's are no bigger danger than any other citizen but yet are being returned due to lack of credible info.
nomore
1. The attorneys that are advocating here.
2. Through lawsuits against AWA and the like.
Anymore questions? Those were too easy.!.
nomore
All silly comments. So if I give a $1 donation, I have say so and an approved right to speak? Lol
It's comments and mentalities like yours that prove we're up crap creek. Not a cogent argument in any of it.
72FLH
credibility ? to who you? donate money? , I and my family do , and as part of this movement their are many that are living under bridges , that have no phone or computer , how do they get to voice ? its you that don't have the foggiest idea what a movement is , so your plainly on the wrong site , your part of the problem, shouting on the internet ? lol that's all in your head , and your clearly the one trying to boss what is said here , protest ? ok man your way the hell out of your bounds , are you on meds of some kind? that was a nice peaceful protest , and more power to the people that went , but before you protest your suppose to rally people together , and if we as a people cant feel like its ok to voice our feelings, then your not going to have many folks show up , they already feel powerless , so you should know that , and deal with all things in that manner , not kick them further down , your in the wrong , so get your act together and be part of a real freedom movement , your responsible for loosing numbers of people , by your own hand , people that have been in pain for years ,
Lake County
You can look up the income for any non-profit on the internet and CA. RSOL is no exception. I'm not going to disclose the income amounts I found listed, but anyone can do their own research. The amount of donations is disappointingly very small. We are very lucky to get any representation based on the small amount of donations Janice receives.
mike r
bill thanks for that info and I will definitely be donating to help that judge and we should all be helping Derek of oncefallen.com
B.Wat
Sorry the web site is https://www.change.org/p/California regarding Judge Persky.
mike r
go to he.....I'll say whatever I want you don't like it don't read it...only naive idiots would think that these organizations aren't benefiting off these sites either monetarily or professionally... I've never seen or heard of a " lawyer" doing anything out of the goodness of their heart....keep sticking your heads in the sand and blindly follow anyone else besides your own intellect and be complacent in waiting for years upon years for any kind of change
...I lmfao at you blindef fools ...and yes I have been to a meeting with janice with my fiance and I won't even ask her to go again after the first person to speak was some freak spouting off about how he was a special ed teacher who grabbed a 12 year olds vagina to make her stop grabbing herself and shiwed no remorse or felt that he didnt do anything wrong and that he was a victim
...absolutely disgusting I wanted to smash the guy....I've also made my phone calls sent my letters and donated to several of these sites so like I said bit...me i will say what I want
72FLH
get over your self PK , this is a movement , not hero worship , I love Janice and anyone else that is in her position and take any kind of stand , but she is representing a movement , a movement that seems to think its ok to take further laws we can do nothing about , and many of us have a great deal of insight on what its like to live under these laws that are coming our way , and some of us have been active in the 60's and 70's and have much insight to offer on how to handle problems we have seen in the past , most of us as a movement want this REG gone Now , but we are being torn down by people on this very site that have no dam clue how to be truly active , and the first is to not tare down people that bring light to the movement , if your not about free speech , your not a movement , if you want to hold hands and carry balloons you might try a zoo , where you pay money and get what you want , a movement we are not asking for our rights back we are demanding them ,
72FLH
Janice her self said this is a movement! and this is how a movement works , is by sharing ideas , and what we want , don't care about no stinking 5k , so you do what you think is proper , the rest of us will stand on our freedom of speech
PK
Mary Devoy wrote:
"The Registries have to crack in the States before the Federal AWA Act can crumble down. Problem is many ACLU’s refuse to step up for Registered Sex Offenders, Virginia is one example. The stigma of defending those heinous ‘Sexual Predators’ is just too much for many who claim to defend the Constitution as well as civil and human rights."
steve
Miker,
I gave you the benefit of the doubt for a long time but "screaming" aloud about what tactics are being used here to fight this monster is ridiculous. Did you show up for the IML protest? Have you gone to sacramento to stand up and voice your opinion to who it matters? Do you donate ANY money to the cause? If you answered no to all those questions shut the hell up and stick to your own brief that you have every right here to post.. You go WAY to far when you want to start giving directives about a strategy here. You think Janice is making millions here? Not even close. I would bet the majority of what she does here is out of the goodness of her heart. I'm sure you have a few good ideas but barking them out loud needs to stop. You are losing a ton of credibility here and becoming an annoyance. I have an an idea. Go start your own website where you can be the boss thats what you want anyway,
anonymously
Just because California had A registry around does not mean that ex-post facto is not violated. Ex-post-facto is violated by new or increased punishment. You can say its not new, in the respect that a registry was around in 1947, but the same can't or shouldn't be said about punishment not increasing with each new add-on.
PK
Exactly One Day. Those Attorneys who are willing to fight for a cause like this are truly courageous. Lawyers like that are few and far between.
If some RSO wants service and "answers" then that person should go ahead and Hire and Pay a Lawyer who would be willing to do that. Good luck finding someone who is experienced with the Registry!
ONE DAY AT A TIME
I also wonder who these people are that are supposed to be helping us. The only people I have ever expected to help me are those attorneys I've hired and paid at least a $5,000 retainer fee to. Other than that, I expect that no one is obligated to represent us. Without an attorney - client contract, I for one, would not tell any attorney what issues they should or shouldn't be working on. I am grateful for any attorney or group that is willing to fight any of the issues involving registration.
PK
Hi Mike r- "it’s time for the people that are supposed to be representing us to do the right thing and force the legislature to overhaul the entire registration scheme to only include people that the government can provide beyond a reasonable doubt by clear and convincing evidence are a threat to society….bottom line…."
1. Who are the people that are "supposed" to be representing us?
2. How would they "force the government" to overhaul the entire registration scheme. I'm guessing your talking about that AWA?
Bill Watkins
We need to step up to the plate and help Judge Aaron Perskey, as you may know, he is the Santa Clara County Judge, who is being unfairly persecuted, for handing down what some are saying was too lenient of a sentence in the Brock Turner rape case, I found an online petition, to help Judge Persky stay on the bench. We need Judges like this to have the courage to make the right decision in cases like this, we all know life on the list is not a light sentence. If you want to help please sign the petition, and donate what you can at, https://www.org/p/california, go to search, then, a letter of support of Judge Aaron Persky. Thanks B.Wat.
James
Hummmm....ThoughtasWeak...I hadn't considered this aspect, smart of you.
Yet, while Registration has always been lifetime in CA, it hasn't only until lately that it has truly become putative and therefore...again...these added restrictions are an application of ex post facto law against us and certainly not something I signed up for when, like most of us, I took an attractive plea deal.
However, to be truthful with everyone here....as much as I fought it and screamed and shouted and cursed against the night...
It was a good deal, and even given today what I know, I still would have taken the deal.
That's the truth of it.
Best Wishes, James
nomore
You seem to have problems reasoning things out. I left my original state after being bumped up from 10 to 20 by a tiered system. I then moved to a state where I've had more freedom from police banging on my door whenever they wanted to and a lower requirement for release. I seek abolishment not the implementation of more unconstitutional requirements. Nothing sttange about it.
She should challenge 290 at its core. California has a chance to clean house so what's strange is people advocating for keeping a registry. Its like you people have some kind of Stockholm syndrome. You've been captive so long your scared of freedom lol
nomore
You're welcome here when you can make it. Hopefully with all of you working together, you can make it happen.
I got involved with politics heavily about ten years ago because I got tired of seeing these kinds of things happening to people. I'm committed to the abolishment of the registries and the automatic return of rights for felons upon release. I would hope others , regardless of silly political affiliation would want that too. Thus state, because of the lax building requirements affords me a chance to build for retirement and affect change through those funds.
If people want to push political agendas I can do that too though. I'd rather keep politics out of it so we all can work together but that doesn't mean I'm going to keep quiet when I see poor judgement/strategy, from anyone. So they can cry all they like. :)
Mike's a fighter, I can tell and he's logical in the way he goes at things. Hopefully he doesn't get discouraged, same goes for you.
CXR
So you are going off the registry which was enabled by your state having a tiered registry, but you don't want California registrants to be afforded the same consideration. What a strange position.
mike r
lovr it flh I'm tired of these idiots telling me what I can and can't say or how I should act according to them...screw them we need a team to abolish the current registration scheme and stop caving in to babysteps that only strengthen the government positions...the government just amends the crap to be more narrowly focused which can't be fought by conventional attacks like ex post facto and the rational basis claims....anyways I have said enough it's time for the people that are supposed to be representing us to do the right thing and force the legislature to overhaul the entire registration scheme to only include people that the government can provide beyond a reasonable doubt by clear and convincing evidence are a threat to society....bottom line.....still waiting for a response to my question I won't hold my breath though...
PK
Mike r do you have legal experience in filing this type of a motion?
I could see myself critiquing my motion, maybe offering suggestions to add certain case law, but I would prefer to have a legal expert do something like that. I would especially look for some new evidence that just developed from the Michigan Case.
72FLH
I tried twice to comment to this to this yellow fingered ass mite , and seen it go up on the board , and it got pulled , these guys think they can talk smack and run everyone down with 2 dollar words , acting like we don't have a right to ask anything in less its ok with them , and that's just not how its going down , if you don't have free speech on a dam SO site something is bad wrong , this is not about letting off steam , this is about being sick of people acting like if any of us have anything to say they try to make us feel stupid , or belittle what ever it is you do have to say , because it don't fit in to their nice neat little box , their always thinking bout what their going to say next , rather than listening , act like we are blind about whats going on and how its been , and then they wonder why many don't get jazzed about going to some event , that they really don't want you at anyway! I have seen these sucker fish gang up on mike r a few times , and that aint cool with me at all , for one mike trys his best to put his own spin on thing and think out side of the box as well as the inside , as all of us should be , Nomore your good people and I know you had the right idea moving up there , I know one thing for sure I am not going to live like this for another 3oplus years , and I know my wife and kids run the hell down , I would much rather be fishing , oh and hey that state I lived in that had the tear system at first you had to REG 1 every 6 months , then they changed it for levl 3's 3's had to every 3 months so I say to to my wife the fishin is good here but it aint that good lets go back home , so we loaded up my bad ass old custom 10 and we rolled on out of their , now I have to get alittle work done on this truck and have our have our over sized brats move in with us so we can play kick the can out of Cali , someones always got their nose up your ass here anyway , and I cant afford to live in my home county here , and change really happened over that way
nomore
No it doesn't, a point is valid based on truth, reason and logic, irregardless of who and how its delivery is accompanied. What you're proposing is one of many internet attempts to diminish your online opponents argument. It doesn't work any more than calling someone a basement dweller of their moms home lol
mike
Stumped I loved living in Mexico. They get a lot of bad pub that is just wrong. I do think that they give whatever the USA says a lot of credibility. It seems to me like some one in government would devise a way to enter Mexico, if the person was not dangerous. I understand MX not allowing RC's with a green notice not to enter, but I would think that there would be an appeal process. The very large majority is not dangerous and do contribute to Mexico, by money or other ways or both.
nomore
Likewise and thanks for saying so.
Just saw USA asking for a tiered system after the Michigan case. Some people you just can't reach. Lol
nomore
Don't worry about being called combative. I consider the source. When it cones from mindless sheep,l, it's a badge of honor. Wear it proudly lol.
They feel threathebed because we've insulted their chowen messiah by challenging her tiered system and incremental approach.
mike r
I hope that last question is clear enough that even DUHHHHHHH can comprehend....what a screen name...
mike r
I dont normally repeat what others say on this site but nomore's statement deserves repeating repeatedly.....lol
Yep and if the Michigan case doesn’t tell people that they’re on the wrong track and we were on the right one, well they might need to go get checked for a stroke, cause something is off upstairs.
so on the mark....god it's great to hear and see that there are still intelligent people out there....gives me a little more faith that we will prevail and nomore and fl I am still preparing my own motion and will be filing it by about this time next year..I have personal reasons why I have to wait that I can't go into detail on here just know i want to file this when i am in a position that the repercussions from filing it will not effect my livelihood since I don't believe I can depend on anyone else except myself for any help if I am attacked by all the different tyrant organizations and individuals who are dependent on the registry for their livelihood or political gain....
Stumped
I think you are exaggerating things a little bit I was born in the USA and grew up in Mexico to say that Mexican government tailors to whatever the USA wants is absurd, Mexican people are very humble and proud of who they are. As far as the drug lords buying off politicians it is no different then in the USA with businesses buying off a politician with their "financial contributions". The media puts out all this hype about Mexico and other countries and forgets about the issues that we have here, luckily I recently gained dual citizenship and was able to return to Mexico for vacation last month after being sent back one year ago, I'm happy to say that I will be returning to Mexico again in December with no fears of all the drug lords and corruption everybody talks about, we have plenty of that going on in our own backyard.
mike r
also I have asked the question very respectfully why they , Janice et el, , will not file suit on the real issues i.e no justification for these laws based on lies and myths and deception, unreasonable arbitrary oppressive official actions since the registry is proven to be useless, right to reputation, right to equal protection, right to travel and freedom of association, just to name a few...and after asking many times have never received an real answer...after all without the registry there is no acsol,rsol,f.a.c.,w.a.r.or the countless other organizations out there....bring it on haters I can take... lmfao...as far as my question seeming combative it kind of is at this point... I challenge any organization to answer my question in detail explaining their position on the question and issues I am asking about and am and will be waiting for such an answer....
mike r
man thank you fl and nomore I am glad to see that there are other intelligent people on this site who actually see our situation and the people that are supposed to be representing our cause for what it is and for questioning and asking difficult questions that we know are not going to be popular on this site...I have tried to be extreemly respectful to others and only when I am attacked on a personal level because of my opinions and questions and don't simply lay down and comply and kiss A do i attack back like with lake county he had it coming sorry if you guys especially him are to thin skinned to handle it and claim that what I said actually kept him from going to a protest or other bs.... thats sad....to any and every one that is supposed to be representing us..and yes I believe that they're obligated to us and our cause since they are benefiting and exploiting us and the registry to advance their organization that by definition in their name is supposed to be supporting our cause...I want real action and check this out i do believe these organizations that are created and are expanding because of US me and you and the registry owe you and me a real defense and offensive line of attack against the government instead of these incremental technical attacks and basically plea deals that will strengthen the government positions....lake duhh and whatever your name was talking cra...I have been on this site much longer than you guys unless you change user names and I repeat you people have no idea what I have done to support our cause no idea......once again thanks FLand nomore I am glad to see open minded and free thinking individuals still on this site...
72FLH
seems I don't have a choice to rethink my approach since my comments just gets pulled , its not like you care about facts in this matter , it sure don't matter to me , its ok for you to cut people down with watered down $2 words, like I tried to say before you don't really know what I was talking about , and I guess you wont , so much for freedom of speech , pretty bad I had to waist my time thinking free speech would fly on an SO ,, site ,
anonymously
That really sucks about your family passing on before any of this good stuff. I've had similar experiences. The Michigan decision would have been encouraging to your parents I am sure. It feels like the momentum is really building now.
NPS
Mike R. is precisely who I am calling combative against many others who post here; in particular against Lake County who has contributed to our cause (as have I) long before Mike R. came along. You are right up there with him, too. Whenever anyone resorts to name calling others as you have just done, his/her opinions become null and void. I suggest you rethink your approach.
72FLH
NPS , < who are you calling combative ? I hope its not mike r , if so that's not true , if you are saying that . your a self important wind bag ! and an ass kisser , when was the last time you had a real feeling or thought of your own that did not pertain to kissing someones ass ? mike r makes many good points , one of them being is that it seems a good part of the time no one is listing ,
NPS
Exactly! Not only rude but also combative.
NPS
Quite honestly, I have no idea what a Static-99 evaluation is because I've never taken one. In fact, I am barred from taking it because there is no evaluation for people in my demographic since the rate re-offense doesn't even quantify on any kind of scale. In other words, we will never reoffend. I was only given the general examination given to all people on probation. My rate of re-offense for any crime is less than 1%.
Obviously if certain demographics are barred from taking static-99, there will be many questions related to tier placement since those like me either should be on the lowest tier or not be on a registry at all. And that will lead to another can of worms for the legal system. If people are already tested at being less than 1% of reoffense, and the code isn't even a registrable offense, then judges shouldn't be employing 290.006.
72FLH
its time I think to get out of CA , because of people like "duhh" below my comment , I my self am sick of the ass kissers , rather than us saying everything is ok when its not , I don't like the way this fight is going in CA , a good many of us are lev,2&3 , also many of all levels don't want to lose what little edge we do have by giving in to a quick fix , when we want it abolished , like it should be ! this is a huge mistake stepping in to a tier system , this is no time to pussy foot around , I don't want to go another 30 plus years of kissing ass , I have never seen a comment left by mike r that you could call rude , matter of fact I think that is respectful , even when it is plain that he is attacked he is kind , on the other hand others feel that what they have to say is more important anyone else , screw that , we are about to embark in to a system that gives the state momentum to further control us as a free people , level zero sounds good to me , it was all built on bull shit anyway , just like 99R , so I got your rude hangin , its rude just how you posted , by coming on here as "duhh" is rude , it implies that someone to stupid understand your simple ass ,
New Person
NPS,
I tried to get the courts to do their legal jobs and do the mandatory two step process. I never got one. I tried to appeal it as well, but they said there would be no other conclusion. Except, that's not what the law said - it said they had to go through a two step process... essentially a mini trial for registration.
I never got it and the appeals court basically said the lower courts didn't have to do the mandatory two step process. I figured having a really low static 99 score would or should weigh heavily in my favor. It didn't matter.
That's probably why I don't want a tiered system b/c the courts won't follow what is law.
New Person
This brings up Article 1, Sec 6 of the California Constitution.
Involuntary servitude is prohibited unless it is to punish a crime.
Plain and simple question: Is it punishment or involuntary servitude? Involuntary servitude is prohibited. If involuntary servitude, then there is a consequence more than withholding pay or loss of that job (to register). It is coercion with felony punishment for registrants who do not register after successful completion of probation/parole. The only way registration can be legal with felony punishment is if it is in fact to punish a crime.
The only legal way to describe registration is involuntary servitude after the successful completion of probation/parole.
Again, I bring up Frank burning his registration card. By not carrying it, he can be cited by the courts and given punishment. Also, if he does not register, then he'll be sentenced with probably a felony punishment. What will Frank do to combat this if he is arrested and brought to the court system? Maybe he can reiterate Article 1, section 6 of the California Constitution of involuntary servitude is prohibited? Or possibly his "inalienable right to privacy or obtain privacy" (Cal Constitution Article 1, Section 1.). Or both?
Will he use California law to combat defying to register ever more?
New Person
That's what I don't get about the 1203.4. It says it removes ALL penalties and disabilities.
The law is supposed to side with the layman. Doesn't ALL mean ALL? The statute still says that.
nomore
Yep and if the Michigan case doesn't tell people that they're on the wrong track and we were on the right one, well they might need to go get checked for a stroke, cause something is off upstairs.
I hope it holds up or at least gets its day in the supreme court. I see it crumbling either way.
Like you said... Writing on the wall.
Timmr
From what I remember, the judge was having trouble figuring out why the pre-IML notifications were not being challenged.
nomore
Im with you bud. Cases like yours are especially troublesome. You'd think your case would be just what Janice would need to get a declaration of punishment.. I wonder if you'd be off of it by moving here?
David Kennerly
Mike, I don't remember Janice saying that she refused to do any such thing.
Her resources, and all of ours, are limited and she has to direct those resources strategically and at the correct time.
She is trying, amongst other things, to build momentum and a base of support.
I'd say that she is doing so very effectively and I know that there is nothing she'd rather do than to completely dismantle the registration scheme.
David Kennerly
"David, can those pre-IML practices be part of the IML lawsuit if they were not in the original complaint? Is this why Janice had asked to modify her complaint?"
Yes, so long as the Judge allows an amended complaint which she appears to have invited in the last court hearing on the government's motion to dismiss.
As to the near-total mystery of the provenance of their notification regime, I would say that we probably have the support of the court (given the Judge's line of questioning in this regard) to compel the government to respond to those questions.
I believe that the answer to the question of the government's authority may lie buried somewhere in AWA (I don't remember precisely where) perhaps as language that charges the government with "exchanging information" with foreign governments or some such although I really don't recall accurately. I just remember that there was language that was vague, and probably intentionally so, that might be used to justify travel notices.
duhh
Maybe you don't get an answer because you ask your questions in a very rude way.
PK
I think I would have focused on the Green Notices as well. The problem is however, once you've been flagged and your name is in the Immigration System for whatever country, it would be extremely challenging to get your name off of their system.
PK
Mike r have you ever considered leaving the United States and starting over?
Kris Klein
I'm willing to blame Mexico. They have long been cowards & lapdogs to American foreign policy. I mean really...they're afraid some American might commit a crime there? Sorry to say crime, gangs, corruption and violence run rampant in that country where drug lords often buy out politicians. As much as the Mexican government may bark, they don't want to antagonize the American government.
On the other hand, European Union countries don't care what info the state dept sends out as long as it's not someone on the terrorist watch list. The entire African continent also seems not to fear the notices and American boogeyman. As long as registrants bring in their hard earned cash to spend
mike r
I agree no more that's why no one will answer my question because they do not want to see the end of registration wat else could it be there is no rational basis to or reasonable excuse for not filing a real motion attacking the real facts and issues...I wish I was wrong but it's obvious...
ThoughtasWeak
It's very hard to get a case where the registry being seen as punitive by the courts. Janice as well as many others are always on the look out for the right case and plantiffs to Challange these laws.
It took years for the right case to present itself in OK. It took several more years before MI present itself. It's a lot harder to win a case in CA, since we were the first to have a registry and it was always lifetime. There wasn't a retroactive issue to address (unlike the other states). Therefore, in CA the only way to have the registry completely abolished is through SCOTUS. The courts here in CA will not rule the registry as punitive like the other states as there wasn't a retroactive aspect to the registry.
ThoughtasWeak
California still has a lot of politicians and citizens that still believe in stranger danger. Some of the staffers are even surprised to find that CA is only one of a few states that mandates lifetime registry for everyone. Some are surprised to find other states have tries and haven't reverted back to lifetime registry.
Janice and her team educate as many people they can at the capital. They educate what the % of reoffense is based on risk levels, they show them the facts and what other states have done. They have brought abuse survivors, psychologists, registrants, parents, spouses, as well as RC's to help them see the full picture. Not every legislature wants to know the truth. They want to stay blind to it, so they can continue to make more and more laws that will hurt our families.
As Janice and her team work in Sacramento and the courts, we too need to talk to people and change their perspectives. People are starting to realize that not every sex offender is the same. The more we open their eyes, and push for education and prevention programs the faster we can see the results we all strive for, no more registration.
Have some faith people. Janice has a plan, just because it's not written in black and white, doesn't mean she didn't have your best interest at heart.
Mike
It is much more than the notifications. It is the green notice. I was told that the warning that I was dangerous was why I was not allowed in Mexico, and who can blame Mexico? If a government is told by the travelers own government that "they are likely to commit a crime again" then who can blame the host country? What legal grounds can the US say with any probability, with not data, that a person is likely to commit a dangerous crime again? I wish that Janice would respond as I totally do not understand, or why the notifications were not challenged a long time ago.
ThoughtasWeak
The people who used to be a Teir 1 and moved to a Teir 3 is due to the implementation of AWA. And states are starting to see that retroactive punishment is actually punitive.
I personally would live to see a Teir based on a person's risk level. Anyone deemed a level 1 or level 2 offender would not be listed publicly (ideally I would love to see just a LE only registry). Based on the current political climate, I do not see that the registry will be eliminated. Therefore, we need to attack it in the right way. One way is to address people who are not a risk to society and have them be able to be removed from the registry.
I do not want my loved one listed anymore than any of you want to be listed. I know that the registry does nothing to protect society, and just gives them a false sense of security. Having a Teir based on a person's risk level will certainly eliminate thousands of people from the lifetime registry requirement, if not tens of thousands. This will help LE to better monitor those who do have a higher risk of reoffending (like the Phil Garrido).
Janice is focusing on what she can do to solve the problems for as many registrants and their families. In this political climate and the current laws, she cannot bring down the registry (this would actually have to get to SCOTUS to have the registry eliminated), not without the right case. If anything goes to SCOTUS, it would be the recent decision in Michigan (and only if the state appeals it).
nomore
The problem with your logic is, we're getting used like lab rats and the end result is a highly imperfect declaration of a persons future crime, not present crime. So we're charging people now for what they MIGHT do instead of what they have done. You don't see anything fucked up about that? I'm trying to be nice here but I'm pissed. I find it outrageous that a civil rights group is advocating for a system that penalises people on what they MIGHT do instead of what their actual crime is. A tiered system based on future crime is criminal. Have you people stopped to think how this government would expand that power to other groups?
Janice Bellucci
Not all tiered registries are the same. Some are based upon the offense committed regardless of how much time has passed and whether the individual has re-offended. We do not support that type of tiered registry. Instead, we support tiered registries based upon an individual's current risk of re-offense. We recognize that there is an ongoing discussion and debate regarding how to determine such a risk of re-offense and we are open to hearing from others about that topic. A significant data point in this discussion is a determination by Dr. Karl Hanson that an individual who has committed a violent, contact sex offense but who has not committed a subsequent sex offense for 17 years is no more likely to commit a sex offense than any one who has not committed a sex offense. This could be an argument that the longest amount of time such an individual should be monitored by law enforcement is 17 years. And of course, the amount of time other individuals who have committed lesser offenses should be monitored should be significantly less.
Screech
To be quiet honest, child molesters & rapists are lifetime even in states without tiers. In fact, some states go beyond tiers and put rapists & molesters in the category of sexually violent predator. Washington state had a pretty good system until the court gave some lady earlier this year won the right to disclose on her private website the information of tier 1 offenders. Before that, only law enforcement new
nomore
A better chance at freedom, per the Michigan case. People have mentioned the reasons so why would you ignore those. We told you it was just a matter of time but you guys want a "quick fix". Hell I said you'd have a better chance at getting this mess invalidated if your restrictions were tough. Trimming away at the edges only helps the establishment. It weakens your case for abolishment. I'm not sure this group wants abolishment, some don't and see a need for it so they endeavor to reform.
Notgivingup
Mike R you wrote..........….any reasonable mind can see the writing on the wall they are just not acting on for personal reasons or they are being coerced threatened or compensated in some way
I myself do not believe that statement in any way, I have seen most of these organizations fight until there is not much money left and given endless hours for free but if I am proven wrong I will be the first to say I was a SUCKER.
Notgivingup
G. Allen is the Static-99R the same as the Static-2002 which is used in many states? I also had the LSI-R and what they called the Hare PCL-R, I scored a 0 on the static and a 1 on the Hare which gave me low risk on all test, how did you score a 6 for a first time offence, did they do it wrong? Just trying to understand how so many ended up as level 3s. I understand what others are saying about a tier registry so I have mixed feelings, I would love to get off but if a tier system is put in place do the higher levels just stay on forever, who really knows. I still believe Janice and her great team probably know more about it than many of us do, so I support her and will continue making donations so at least some might get relief for now. We will never make everyone happy at one time. I know most would like the registry to be done away with and I agree but do not see it happening any time soon.
Civil Rights First
I live in WA. the Tiered system sucks. Also with a tiered system they will say a certain class of offender i.e. child molester, rapist, etc.. will be automatically life time registration. Please do not support the tiered system but attack the whole dam thing as a united group. I tell you if you agree to a tiered system you will never get everyone free.... once the tiered system is in place anyone in the highest risk classification will never get off just because of the crime they were convicted of. To hell with the fact they have 20, 30, or more years without any further incident. In WA. individuals convicted of certain crimes will NEVER be off the registry even if they get their level lowered.... WAKE UP!
Clark
Even more weight on the scales of justice to side with Janice Bellucci iml lawsuit with the great news in the US 6th Circuit Appeals Court ruling.
Fundamental Rights are at issue that requires a court to weigh info evidence under strict scrutiny.
The iml judge must allow to amend the lawsuit as well so the judge is very clear on what this iml atrocity really is to the Constitution and free Americans' civil fundamental rights.
The 6th Circuit ruling greatly supported our weight on the scales of justice.
ONE DAY AT A TIME
I couldn't agree with you more Erwin. Well said.
Erwin
Viewing child pornography is considered possession which is an automatic 3 year minimum prison sentence here in Wisconsin.....let alone registering for 15 years. In fact, most states require 10 to 15 year minimum registration for possessing cp and it's lifetime registration in California. But I wish my son did get caught in California. He would have taken probation & life time registration over a 3 year prison term in Wisconsin any day.
mike r
I take back part of my comment on iml...we might and i mean a very small chance that they will get the identifiers off of the passports but as far as the notifications thats been going on for years now and is an entire different issue then iml which would take an entire different action or claim against the angel watch organization and require entirly different argument since the US has been notifying countries of felony convictions for decades..totally different issue which requires a totally different approach...
mike r
how the heck did you score a 6 Allen..That’s so ridiculous for a non contact offense...that's what a lot of us are saying a tiered registry will be devastating to the people it bumps up or puts into the 2 &3 tiers just for offering relief to a very small minority and I mean small minority and that relief I am sure will not be retroactively applied so no one will even get any relief for 10-15 or even 20 years or more.....totally worthless impractical waste of time and resources..just like the iml lawsuit...I will be amazed no I mean completely dumbfounded if it prevails on any of the arguments that have been brought up in that case...that time resources and money should have been put into a motion that has a real chance of prevailing that would make law makers totally and completely overhaul the registry to include very very few on it or scrap it altogether....any reasonable mind can see the writing on the wall they are just not acting on for personal reasons or they are being coerced threatened or compensated in some way....I just cannot see it any other way and no one from any organization will explain why so you be the judge..whatever happened to WAR motion that was supposed to be filed last fall haven't heard anything about it.....
Anonymous Nobody
DocMartin, thank you for that. That is an approach I have been advocating here for years now, to no avail -- to not have that dangerous assessment, just determine the tier by the offense, an assessment only if you want to appeal for a lower tier.
So you see people, it does work, its not a wrongheaded approach, it is not too much to insist on - and it is much cheaper for the state and it does not feed the beast by building a major enemy against us.
But we can do better than PA too - 15 years simply for looking at some child porn strikes me as just a tad excessive -- he just looked, he didn't make it, he didn't pay for it, he didn't distribute it, he just looked at it. An offense like that certainly can be justified for a shorter time frame.
Anonymous Nobody
MikeR, I think she has explained that often: they feel the "incremental" approach will be more successful in the long run. (I put "incremental" in quotes because there is "piecemeal" and there is "incremental.")
My own opinion is that it is a bit much to insist that everything they do be given a full, detailed, written explanation of their justification. This isn't to say I wouldn't like to have it, but they won't get anything done if they are spending all their time instead writing up such full, detailed explanations, and then having to defend them, since different people will agree and disagree about that explanation. We would not want to debate ourselves to death here and so get nothing at all done.
That's simply my opinion, I'm not criticizing, and MikeR, you are welcome to have and express your's, I even appreciate it.
Anonymous Nobody
You make a good point that I also have wondered about. They do seem to always measure the distance by radius rather than by the distance it is to actually go from one place to another. Gee, you could be 75-feet away from a school on the next block over, but to go there you would have to go all the way around the block, a big block, and that would be 5,000 feet.
I wish I had some advice for you.
Anonymous Nobody
No one is suggesting throwing anything under the bus. It is not so simple. We are calling for NOT simply complacently accepting a bad proposal and going out lobbying for it.
Get in at the stage where the proposal is being drafted, that is a major point to influence what gets drafted. Play every influence method out there at every level, such as finesse, poker and bluffing, psychology, point out how those checkpoints not only are useless to the state but also have budget considerations (all this will cost money), and other. Whatever you do, do not be complacent about accepting a bad proposal, do not fear arguing it and trying to change it.
Since it failed the last time around, we have time to get it right this time - and we should. We should not just go with the same bad proposal.
Anonymous Nobody
Yes, absolutely. And absolutely the highest respect -- and great appreciation. We want her. And we have input and disagreements on some points that each individual giving it does believe is helpful and worth considering.
Doc Martin
Like I said. Derek's a great guy. Straight shooter and good writer Although he's likes to use colorful language at times (kinda like me) he! he! Plus I wouldn't as Derek did take a greyhound all the way from Virginia to M.C. Hammer's hometown.
I just think we sometimes take for granted what Janice Bellucci has built. Not only by far the largest & strongest online RC support group, but she's out there defending our asses in court at the same time. What a woman!
Erwin
This is a tricky one but I stand with Janice. Before giving her opinion, I'm sure she's studied, and looked at hard data to find out if a tier system has negatively impacted registrants in other states. I have no doubt some retroactive provisions have bumped some people up but what do Californians have to lose? Everyone is a lifer anyways. Plus no rule is stopping people in their on going push to end the registry altogether after a tier system is in place. Janice will continue her work and I don't mind being considered one of her "cult" followers. To me she is a Jesus figure who can walk on water as far as I'm concerned. You think I wouldn't bow down and throw rose petals at her feet for as much as she's done for us?
mike r
ca has a drug offender registration also same rules as the arson registry you laid out above....
Punished For Life
anonymously:
Before my mother passed away 10 years ago, I made her a promise that I would clear "Our Name" from this unconstitutional mess. Then before my father passed away 2 years ago, I made him the same promise. My mother thought I would accomplish the task....my father wasn't so optimistic.
My brother was a drunk and he committed suicide 3 years back. Now it's me and my wife,
I need to remain positive for what is left of a torn family. I do have a son and grand kids who I see about once or twice a year, but they aren't in the middle of the lifetime of punitive laws. It's now been 27 years of this crap. I hope I live to see the entire mess disappear. I want to do it for my family. I promised them.
Timmr
Re: Derek -- as critiically important as it is, one doesn't have to win a case or have tons of admirers to be important to the cause. Oncefallen was the first website I saw that laid out the truth about the registry as I new it. Noone else was challenging the myths at that time. That was before there was a CARSOL. Some need to challenge the laws in court, some need to challenge the registry in the media, as I see Derek and others do in their online posts., all leading to positive progress in chipping away at the myths, steady but sure. But there needs to be more involved or it is going to take more time than even the youngest have left if the goal is to have fair laws. Why push an issue like the tiered registry that is a divisive issue, pushing people in one camp or another? At the IML I saw a concensus and a unity of purpose. Buddha knows, that can't be manufactured by argument, or by shaming opponents, but by striking a common nerve. Noone was there saying, "ah jeez, maybe only tier three should have passport identifiers. Can't change things too fast. If you fight having identifiers for some, then you are condemning all to have identifiers." How would that have gone down?
Timmr
Looking at it from a different, larger perspective, there are already three tiers for ex cons in California.
1) Everyone but sex offenders, gang members and arsonists. No public disclosure, police registering or restrictions after sentence is completed. Your sentence is done, you can "disappear."
2 ) Arsonists and gang members, police only registering for five years.
3) Sex related offenders, life time registration, limited exclusions from public web site and other regulations limiting free movement, or movement without notification counted as a new felony offense.
Any recommendation that does not put murderers and the extremely violent on a public registry, yet will force someone who has looked at dirty pictures (for example) to be listed and have his movements made available to the general public for at least ten years, is a recommendation that shows a bias towards political correctness rather than public safety.
mike r
let me know pk if I was specific enough and I welcome any constructive criticism or feedback....
mike r
pk I have been very specific maybe you haven't seen the following motion I am drafting.. I have done half the work for any attorney who's brave enough and articulate enough to revise and contribute to...now with the other courts recognition that the current registration scheme is in fact punishment this motion needs to include the ex post facto claim along with the cruel and unusual punishment claim...SCOTUS has hinted that it would be open to a procedural due process claim and a lot of other courts are ruling against these laws..I was very specific in asking janice why she isn't filing a suit on the following issues and am now including ex post facto along with cruel and unusual punishment claim....we will see if I get a real answer...
This court has jurisdiction because ________________________________________________________________
I the plaintiff ______________________do hereby bring forth this motion for Declaratory and/or Injunction relief.
Introduction.
This motion is being brought forth as a as applied challenge to the constitutionality of the sex offender registration and notification laws or Megan's law (CA Penal Code § 290, Sex Offender Registration Act) as applied to me.
I am the plaintiff in this case. I am a United States citizen who resides in Sacramento, CA.
I am a non-violent, non-contact first time ex-offender from a incident that occurred over a decade ago. There was never any physical contact between myself and any victim. I completed my prison sentence and parole supervision without any incidents or violations despite all the obstacles and conditions of parole that were placed on me because of the sex offender designation. I have been arrest free and a completely law abiding citizen since my release. I do not pose any cognizable risk to the public. I was already severely punished for my offense and have been subjected to intensive monitoring and supervision while on parole. I should not be subjected to these registration and notification laws that involve consequences that are severely detrimental to so many aspects of my life.
Issues.
(1) The sex offender registration and notification laws (CA Penal Code § 290, Sex Offender Registration Act) violate my constitutionally protected liberty interest in my reputation which is protected under the federal due process clause in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and the California Constitution’s Article I, Section 7 on “due process, equal protection and the right to travel".
(2) The sex offender registration and notification laws (CA Penal Code § 290, Sex Offender Registration Act) violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth amendment of the United States Constitution and the California Constitution’s Article I, Section 7 on “due process, equal protection and the right to travel"
(3) Sex offender registration and notification laws (CA Penal Code § 290, Sex Offender Registration Act) violate my constitutionally protected liberty interests by infringing on my freedom of movement and my freedom of association which is protected under the Fifth and Fourteenth amendment of the United States Constitution and the California Constitution’s Article I, Section 7 on “due process, equal protection and the right to travel"
(4) Sex offender registration and notification laws (CA Penal Code § 290, Sex Offender Registration Act) violate my constitutionally protected right to liberty and to be free from unreasonable, arbitrary and oppressive official actions, which is protected under the Fifth and Fourteenth amendment of the United States Constitution and the California Constitution’s Article I, Section 7 on “due process, equal protection and the right to travel"
(5) The sex offender registration and notification laws (CA Penal Code § 290, Sex Offender Registration Act) violate my constitutionally protected right to procedural due process which is protected under the federal due process clause in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and the California Constitution’s Article I, Section 7 on “due process, equal protection and the right to travel" with an irrefutable presumption of future offending that is universally untrue and which provides no meaningful process to determine such facts.
Facts.
(1) My constitutionally-protected right to reputation is encroached upon by an irrefutable presumption of future offending that is universally untrue.
The United States Supreme Court has previously recognized that a person’s reputation is a protected liberty interest under the federal due process clause. Wisconsin v. Constantineau, 400 U.S. 433 (1971) (hereafter “Constantineau”); Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (1972) (hereafter “Roth”).
In Constantineau, the State of Wisconsin authorized the posting of a notice prohibiting the sale or gift of liquor to any person who “‘by excessive drinking’ produces described conditions or exhibits specified traits, such as exposing himself or family ‘to want’ or becoming ‘dangerous to the peace’ of the community.” On appeal, the Constantineau Court recognized that “[i]t would be naive not to recognize that such ‘posting’ or characterization of an individual will expose him to public embarrassment and ridicule.” 400 U.S. at 436. The Court therefore held that a protectible liberty interest is implicated “[w]here a person’s good name, reputation, honor, or integrity is at stake because of what the government is doing to him [or her.]” Id. at 437.
One year later, the Court again recognized a person’s liberty interest may be implicated by damage to his or her reputation. See Roth, 408 U.S. at 573. The plaintiff in Roth, a university professor, alleged that “the failure of University officials to give him notice of any reason for non-retention and an opportunity for a hearing violated his right to procedural due process of law.” Id. at 569. The Roth Court reasoned that in declining to hire the plaintiff, the state had neither advanced “any charge against him that might seriously damage his standing and associations in the community” nor “imposed on him a stigma or other disability that foreclosed his freedom to take advantage of other employment opportunities.” Id. at 573. The Roth Court noted, however, that “a different case” would have been presented had the state either damaged the plaintiff’s reputation or imposed a stigma on him. Id. at 573-74.
However, in Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, reh’g denied, 425 U.S. 985 (1976), the Court clarified that “reputation alone, apart from some more tangible interests such as employment, is [n]either ‘liberty’ [n]or ‘property’ by itself sufficient to invoke the procedural protection of the Due Process Clause.” Id. at 701. The plaintiff in Paul alleged a deprivation of liberty without due process of law after the circulation of flyers publicizing his conviction for shoplifting and labeling him an “active shoplifter.” Id. at 712. According to the Paul Court, because the plaintiff’s harm was not accompanied by the alteration of “a right or status previously recognized by state law,” there was no deprivation of a protectible liberty interest. Id. at 711-12.
Paul has been interpreted to require “stigma plus” in order to establish a constitutional deprivation. See, e.g., Valmonte v. Bane, 18 F.3d 992, 999 (2d Cir. 1994). In other words, “an allegation that government dissemination of information or government defamation has caused damage to reputation, even with all the attendant emotional anguish and social stigma, does not in itself state a cause of action for violation of a constitutional right, infringement of more ‘tangible interests’ must be alleged as well”. Borucki v. Ryan, 827 F.2d 836, 842-43 (1st Cir. 1987); see also Marshall v. University of Hawaii, 9 Haw. App. 21, 32, 821 P.2d 937, 948 (1991).
Courts have recognized the serious harm to other “tangible interests” as a result of registration as a sex offender. Potential employers and landlords are reluctant to employ or rent to me once they learn of my status as a “sex offender”. See Pataki III, 3 F. Supp. 2d at 468; W.P. v. Poritz, 931 F. Supp. 1199, 1219 (D.N.J. 1996), rev’d, 119 F.3d 1077 (3d Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1110 (1998) [hereinafter Verniero]; see also In re Reed, 663 P.2d 216 (Cal. 1983) (quoting In re Birch, 515 P.2d 12 (Cal. 1973)). (8). Indeed, the public notification provisions do adversely affect my personal and professional life, employability, associations with neighbors and choice of housing. Noble v. Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision, 964 P.2d 990, 995-96 (Or. 1998); State v. Myers, 923 P.2d 1024, 1041 (Kan. 1996), cert. denied, 521 U.S. 1118 (1997); Rowe v. Burton, 884 F. Supp. 1372, 1378 (D. Alaska 1994), appeal dismissed, 85 F.3d 635 (9th Cir. 1996) (personal and professional lives); Artway v. Attorney General, 876 F. Supp. 666, 668 (D.N.J. 1995),aff’d in part and vacated in part, 81 F.3d 1235 (3d Cir.), reh’g denied, 83 F.2d 594 (1996) (employability and associations with neighbors); Robin L. Deems, Comment, California’s Sex Offender Notification Statute: A Constitutional Analysis, 33 San Diego L. Rev. 1195 (1996) (citing Jenny A. Montana, Note, An Ineffective Weapon in the Fight Against Child Sexual Abuse: New Jersey’s Megan’s Law, 3 J. L. & Pol’y 569, 580-81 (1995)) (choice of housing). In addition, public disclosure encourages vigilantism and exposes me to possible physical violence. (9)See, e.g., Poritz, 662 A.2d at 430-31 (Stein, J., dissenting); Pataki I, 940 F. Supp. 603, 608-11 (S.D.N.Y. 1996); Doe v. Gregoire, 960 F. Supp. 1478, 1485 (W.D. Wash. 1997). Indeed, [w]hen a government agency focuses its machinery on the task of determining whether a person should be labeled publicly as having a certain undesirable characteristic or belonging to a certain undesirable group, and that agency must by law gather and synthesize evidence outside the public record in making that determination, the interest of the person to be labeled goes beyond mere reputation. . . . [I]t is an interest in avoiding the social ostracism, loss of employment opportunities, and significant likelihood of verbal and, perhaps, even physical harassment likely to follow from designation.
Noble, 964 P.2d at 995-96.
The Paul Court recognized that, in addition to the interests recognized by state law, “[t]here are other interests . . . protected not by virtue of their recognition by the law of a particular State but because they are guaranteed in one of the provisions of the Bill of Rights which has been ‘incorporated’ into the Fourteenth Amendment.” Paul, 424 U.S. at 710 n.5. As an example, in Bohn, 772 F.2d at 1436 n.4, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit found a protectible interest in reputation where the stigma of being identified as a child abuser was tied to the protectible interest in privacy and autonomy of family relationships. See also Poritz, 662 A.2d at 419 (holding that the stigma resulting from notification that petitioner was a sex offender was tied to the protectible interest in privacy inasmuch as he had an interest in his reputation); Neal, 131 F.3d at 830 (holding that Hawaii’s designating of prisoner as “sex offender” without hearing and requiring successful completion of treatment program as precondition for parole eligibility together implicated a liberty interest protected by the right to due process of law).
Additionally, in an oft-quoted dissent in Poe v. Ullman,367 U.S. 497 (1961), Justice Harlan wrote,
[T]he full scope of liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution. This 'liberty' is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property; the freedom of speech, press, and religion; the right to keep and bear arms; the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on. It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints.
Id. at 543 (Harlan, J., dissenting).[4] These words "eloquently" describe the Court's role in the substantive due process inquiry. Moore v. City of East Cleveland,431 U.S. 494, 501 (1977).
These laws effectively brand me a “sex offender”, i.e., a public danger, for life. See Doe v. Pataki, 3 F. Supp. 2d 456, 467 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) [here in after Pataki III]; Doe v. Attorney General, 686 N.E.2d 1007, 1013 (Mass. 1997) [hereinafter Doe II];see also Bohn v. County of Dakota, 772 F.2d 1433, 1436 n.4 (8th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1014 (1986).
Specifically, the public notification provisions imply that I am potentially dangerous, thereby undermining my reputation and standing in the community. Doe v. Poritz, 662 A.2d 367, 419 (N.J. 1995); cf. Neal v. Shimoda, 131 F.3d 818, 829 (9th Cir. 1997) (noting that “[o]ne need only look to the increasingly popular ‘Megan’s laws’, whereby states require sex offenders to register with law enforcement officials, who are then authorized to release information about the sex offender to the public, to comprehend the stigmatizing consequences of being labeled a sex offender”). Indeed, public notification that I am a convicted sex offender implicitly announces that, in the eyes of the State, I present a risk of committing another sex offense. Doe II, 686 N.E.2d at 144.
The sex offender registration and notification laws or Megan's law is causing irreparable harm to my reputation and professional life, employability, associations with neighbors, and choice of housing.
The sex offender registration and notification laws violate my liberty interest in my reputation by making public my current personal address and current photo which is not public information and which puts me in physical harm every time I enter or leave my home and even while I’m in my home I can not feel safe. This information is also being publicly distributed on the Internet from privately owned and operated websites such as homefacts.com. That information being made public puts not only myself but my families lives and property in danger of physical harm, harassment and vandalism. These claims are not hypothetical situations or exaggerations, these claims are facts and the possibilities of these incidents occurring are real and in fact some have already occurred in my case. The Megan’s law website also displays my criminal record which is only available to authorized individuals who meet certain criteria and have a need to know basis, not to the general public at a click of a computer mouse.
These laws affect and limit employment as very few employers will hire me simply because I am on a sex offender website that is accessible to the general public. These laws also restrict or limit my ability to travel for work or to be employed by local, state or federal agencies and severely affects my ability to obtain a business licence or business loans. They also limit what professions and careers that I can pursue and affect my personal and professional relationships in a severely negative way because of my inclusion on the sex offender registry and the publicly accessible Megan’s law website. These issues are not minor inconveniences but are major obstacles to my financial stability and to my fundamental right to life and liberty for me and my family. It also affects housing because very few property owners or property management organizations will rent to me for fear of vandalism and or the loss of present or potential tenants because of the accessibility to the registry by the general public. I am reluctant to move or purchase property for fear that I may violate some local ordinance or be forced to move because of some new law or ordinance being enacted and applied retroactively. I am also reluctant to move or purchase property for fear that I will be subjected to even worse harassment and vandalism by the community in which I move then I have already endured in my present location. These laws create real fears of being the victim of vigilante attacks, harassment and vandalism which forces me limit my activities to avoid being outside of my residence for fear of being harmed or harassed. I have had to call the police twice due to my family and I being physically threatened in one instance and having threats and profanity written all over our porch on the
See also for collateral damage caused by these laws.
http://sosen.org/blog/2015/05/19/collateral-damage-in-americas-war-on-sex-crimes.html
, http://sosen.org/blog/2015/02/09/spouse-of-registered-citizen-forced-to-quit-job-and-her-three-children-lose-their-home.html
, http://sosen.org/blog/2014/12/01/refugees-usa-families-destroyed-by-the-registry.html
. http://sosen.org/blog/2014/02/25/government-sanctioned-cruelty-to-over-half-1-million-american-children.html
I have a liberty interest protected by the Constitution that entitles me to procedural due process because of: (1) the public disclosure of accumulated and synthesized personal information that would not otherwise be easily available; (2) the harm to my personal and professional life; (3) the foreseeable harm to my reputation; and (4) the statutory branding of me as a public danger, i.e., as a sex offender. I note that the “interest cannot be captured in a single word or phrase. It is an interest in knowing when the government is moving against you and why it has singled you out for special attention. It is an interest in avoiding the secret machinations of a Star Chamber.” Noble, 964 P.2d at 995.
(2) The sex offender registration and notification laws are discriminating irrationally among classes of ex-offenders which violates the equal protection clauses.
All sex offenders fall into the classification of felons and felons are a group or classification. The question is, are sex offenders being treated the same as all other felons, do other felons have to register or have the community notified of their presence after they have completed their sentence, are they being denied state and government services, are other felons restricted where they can live, work and recreate, do other felons face criminal prosecution, a felony offense which is punishable by three or more years in state prison, not for engaging in any type of criminal conduct but simply for not providing personal information to the government within a certain time frame? The answer is, no they are not. The courts have found that a distinction among members of the class of offenders is irrational regardless of the importance of public safety consideration underlying the regulations or relevance of prior convictions simply discerning any regulatory reason, however plausible, will not serve to satisfy the rational basis requirement of equal protection; relevant inquiry more properly focuses on whether the means utilized to carry out the regulatory purpose substantially furthers that end.
These laws do not substantially further the regulatory purpose or the legislative objectives of increasing public safety, reducing sexual abuse or preventing recidivism as evidenced in the following reports and actual facts from the leading authorities on this subject.
California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) End of Year Report 2014. (page 13)
Under the current system many local registering agencies are challenged just keeping up with registration paperwork. It takes an hour or more to process each registrant, the majority of whom are low risk offenders. As a result law enforcement cannot monitor higher risk offenders more intensively in the community due to the sheer numbers on the registry. Some of the consequences of lengthy and unnecessary registration requirements actually destabilize the life's of registrants and those -such as families- whose lives are often substantially impacted. Such consequences are thought to raise levels of known risk factors while providing no discernible benefit in terms of community safety.
The full report is available online at. http://www.casomb.org/index.cfm?pid=231
National Institute of Justice (NIJ) US Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs United States of America.
The overall conclusion is that Megan’s law has had no demonstrated effect on sexual offenses in New Jersey, calling into question the justification for start-up and operational costs. Megan’s Law has had no effect on time to first rearrest for known sex offenders and has not reduced sexual re offending. Neither has it had an impact on the type of sexual re offense or first-time sexual offense. The study also found that the law had not reduced the number of victims of sexual offenses.
The full report is available online at. https://www.ncjrs.gov/app/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=247350
The University of Chicago Press for The Booth School of Business of the University of Chicago and The University of Chicago Law School Article DOI: 10.1086/658483
Conclusion.
The data in these three data sets do not strongly support the effectiveness of sex offender registries. The national panel data do not show a significant decrease in the rate of rape or the arrest rate for sexual abuse after implementation of a registry via the Internet. The BJS data that tracked individual sex offenders after their release in 1994 did not show that registration had a significantly negative effect on recidivism. And the D.C. crime data do not show that knowing the location of sex offenders by census block can help protect the locations of sexual abuse. This pattern of ineffectiveness across the data sets does not support the conclusion that sex offender registries are successful in meeting their objectives of increasing public safety and lowering recidivism rates.
The full report is available online at. http://www.jstor.org/stable/full/10.
From Justice Policy Institute.
Estimated cost to implement SORNA
Here are some of the estimates made in 2009 expressed in 2014 current dollars: California, $66M; Florida, $34M; Illinois, $24M; New York, $35M; Pennsylvania, $22M; Texas, $44M. In 2014 dollars, Virginia’s estimate for implementation was $14M, and the annual operating cost after that would be $10M.
For the US, the total is $547M. That’s over half a billion dollars – every year – for something that doesn’t work.
http://www.justicepolicy.org/images/upload/08-08_FAC_SORNACosts_JJ.pdf
These conclusions are virtually the same in the majority of conclusions and reports on this subject from multiple government agencies and throughout the academic community.
(3) The sex offender registration and notification laws violate my right to freedom of movement and freedom of association by severely curtailing my ability to travel both interstate and intrastate and also international travel. With all the different state laws and local ordinances that are in place and the constant introduction of new legislation in the different states and the constantly changing local ordinances in thousands of cities and counties across the country, it makes it virtually impossible for me to travel or visit anywhere in this country without a very real fear and potential for violating one of these laws or ordinances. It is virtually impossible for a person of average intelligence to research, assimilate and abide by all the different state laws and local ordinances that apply to registered sex offenders across the country. I can not visit family or friends without extensive research of local ordinances and state laws and even after extensive research I still fear I could have missed one of these laws or ordinances. I can not attend meetings or protest that occur in places that prohibit registered sex offenders from being present. The laws effectively bar me from attending higher education institutions simply because there are day care centers on most college campuses therefor curtailing my ability to obtain a higher education. The punishments for violating one of these laws or ordinances are severe. The registration and notification laws makes it virtually impossible for me to travel to a multitude of major countries in the world as they are notified by our government of my registration status so therefore I am denied entry. These are not hypothetical situations and are not minor inconveniences of registration but are major violations of my constitutional rights to liberty. These violations will continue to cause me irreparable damage as long as I am subjected to these registration and notification laws.
(4). The sex offender registration and notification laws violate my right to be free from unreasonable, arbitrary and oppressive official actions. These laws achieve no legislative purpose as demonstrated above and are completely irrational as applied to me in my case since I currently pose no cognizable risk of re offense. Since I am a non-violent, non-contact, first time ex-offender from a incident that occurred over a decade ago there is no rational basis to continue to subject me to these laws that have consequences that destabilize my life, restricts my abilities to reintegrate into society and have been shown to actually increase known risk factors for re-offense while not achieving any legislative objective of preventing sexual abuse, increasing public safety or reducing recidivism. Since these laws have been seen as strictly regulatory in nature and not considered part of the punishment for an offense, there must be some evidence that the regulations actually achieve some legislative objective. These laws were originally designed to give law enforcement a tool to investigate and apprehend sexually violent predators, child abductors/rapist and habitual repeat offenders when such acts have been committed in the community but have since been expanded to the point to make the registration and notification laws useless to law enforcement or the general public. Just because these laws are so popular within the legislature or the public does not mean that there is a rational basis for such laws. With the facts and evidence of all the destabilizing collateral consequences I endure and all the recent research done on this subject there is overwhelming evidence that these laws are completely irrational and counterproductive especially when applied to non-violent, first time offenders such as myself who currently pose no cognizable risk of re-offense. The theory or legislative purpose for the sex offender registry that is stated by the legislative body and the courts is that there is a extremely high recidivism rate for sexual offences which has been irrefutably debunked.
The Supreme Court has fed the fear of frightening high sex offender recidivism rates that has proven to be universally untrue. It’s become the “go to” source that courts and politicians rely upon for “facts” about sex offender recidivism rates that aren’t true. Its endorsement has transformed random opinions by self-interested non-experts into definitive studies offered to justify law and policy, while real studies by real scientists go unnoticed. The Court’s casual approach to the facts of sex offender re-offense rates is far more frightening than the rates themselves, and it’s high time for correction.
The sources relied upon by the Supreme Court in Smith v. Doe, a heavily cited constitutional decision on sex offender registries, in fact provide no support at all for the facts about sex offender re-offense rates that the Court treats as central to its constitutional conclusions. This misreading of the social science was abetted in part by the Solicitor General’s misrepresentations in the amicus brief it filed in this case. The false “facts” stated in the opinion have since been relied upon repeatedly by other courts in their own constitutional decisions, thus infecting an entire field of law as well as policy making by legislative bodies. Recent decisions by the Pennsylvania and California supreme courts establish principles that would support major judicial reforms of sex offender registries, if they were applied to the actual facts.
I am asking this court to apply the actual facts submitted in reports from the leading authorities and credible experts in the fields such as the following.
California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB)
Sex offender recidivism rate for a new sex offense is 0.8% (page 30)
The full report is available online at
http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Adult_Research_Branch/Research_Documents/2014_Outcome_Evaluation_Report_7-6-2015.pdf
.
Document title; A Model of Static and Dynamic Sex Offender Risk Assessment Author: Robert J. McGrath, Michael P. Lasher, Georgia F. Cumming Document No.: 236217 Date Received: October 2011 Award Number: 2008-DD-BX-0013
Findings: Study of 759 adult male offenders under community supervision Re-arrest rate: 4.6% after 3-year follow-up
The sexual re-offense rates for the 746 released in 2005 are much lower than what many in the public have been led to expect or believe. These low re-offense rates appear to contradict a conventional wisdom that sex offenders have very high sexual re-offense rates.
The full report is available online at. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/236217.pdf
Bureau of Justice Statistics
5 PERCENT OF SEX OFFENDERS REARRESTED FOR ANOTHER SEX CRIME WITHIN 3 YEARS OF PRISON RELEASE
WASHINGTON, D.C.
Within 3 years following their 1994 state prison release, 5.3 percent of sex offenders (men who had committed rape or sexual assault) were rearrested for another sex crime, the Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) announced today.
The full report is available online at. http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/press/rsorp94pr.cfm
Document Title: SEX OFFENDER SENTENCING IN WASHINGTON STATE: RECIDIVISM RATES BY: Washington State Institute For Public Policy.
A study of 4,091 sex offenders either released from prison or community supervision form 1994 to 1998 and examined for 5 years Findings: Sex Crime Recidivism Rate: 2.7%
Link to Report: http://www.oncefallen.com/files/Washington_SO_Recid_2005.pdf
Document Title: Indiana’s Recidivism Rates Decline for Third Consecutive Year BY: Indiana Department of Correction 2009.
The recidivism rate for sex offenders returning on a new sex offense was 1.05%, one of the lowest in the nation. In a time when sex offenders continue to face additional post-release requirements that often result in their return to prison for violating technical rules such as registration and residency restrictions, the instances of sex offenders returning to prison due to the commitment of a new sex crime is extremely low. Findings: sex offenders returning on a new sex offense was 1.05%
Link to Report: http://www.in.gov/idoc/files/RecidivismRelease.pdf
More state studies;
AK 03% page 8 Criminal Recidivism in Alaska Alaska Judicial Council January 2007
https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8635&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf
AZ 05.5 % Sex Offender Recidivism Arizona dept. of corrections note bottom of page 03.3%
https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8633&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf
CA 00.8% The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) “2014 Outcome Evaluation Report“ http://californiarsol.org/2015/08/new-cdcr-report-reduces-rate-of-re-offense-to-less-than-1-percent.
CA 05.0 % fig 12 California Department of Corrections And Rehabilitation
2010 Adult Institutions Outcome Evaluation Report
https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8632&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf
CA 03.5% table 3-2 California sex offender management Board January 2008
https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8630&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf
CA figure 11 01.9% California sex offender management Board 2012 in looking at this one I realize that this is another attempt to increase the visual concept of a higher reoffend rate than actually exists you will note in table 11 , that there are 8490 released sex offenders and that 5870 are returned to prison or 69.1% going onto figure 11. The pie chart does not represent the 8490 but rather represents the 5870 . When you take this into account and do the math. 1.9% of 5870 comes out to 111 and 111 people involved in the new sex crime, out of 8490 comes out to an actual reoffend rate of 1.3% . This is just another way that the government is using razzle-dazzle techniques. In doing their statistical analysis.
https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8943&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf
CA 01.9 % figure 11 California Department of Corrections And Rehabilitation 2012 Outcome Evaluation Report
https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8943&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf
CA 5 year study 03.2% RECIDIVISM OF PAROLED SEX OFFENDERS – A FIVE (5) YEAR STUDY
https://onedrive.live.com/?cid=A754C96E86E37F71&id=A754C96E86E37F71!8627
CA 10 year study 03.3% RECIDIVISM OF PAROLED SEX OFFENDERS – A TEN (10) YEAR STUDY
https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8626&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf
CT page 9 01,7% And prisoners with no prior sex crime are six times more likely to be involved in a new sex crime Recidivism among sex offenders in Connecticut, State of Connecticut
Office of Policy and Management, Criminal Justice Policy & Planning Division, February 15, 2012
DE Table 26 03.1% REARREST 6 offenders and on table 27 3 Offenders were not found guilty of a crime that makes the percentage of people convicted of a new sex crime. 01.5% Rearrest should never be used as a determining factor. Delaware Sex Offenders, Profiles and Criminal Justice System Outcomes, January 2008
https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8622&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf
DE 3.8% rearrest table 7 Recidivism of Delaware Adult Sex Offenders Released from Prison in 2001 July 2007
https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8621&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf
DE 5% rearrest table 8 after 5 years Recidivism of Delaware Juvenile Sex Offenders Released in 2001 September 2007
https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8620&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf
FL 4.2% page10 Figure 2 10 year follow up SEX OFFENDER RISK AND RECIDIVISM IN FLORIDA
https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8784&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf
HI RECIDIVISM/REOFFENDING BY SEXUALLY ABUSIVE ADOLESCENTS: A DIGEST OF EMPIRICAL RESEARCH STUDIES Years: 1943-2008 85 RESEARCH STUDIES MEAN RECIDIVISM RATE FOR ALL STUDIES = 7.73%
https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8619&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf
IA page 7 #4 “With the overall recidivism for sex offenses as low as 2% “ Iowa Sex Offender Research Council Report to the Iowa General Assembly January 22, 2009
https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8618&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf
IA table 4 03% new sex crime THE IOWA SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY AND
RECIDIVISM Iowa Department of Human Rights Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning and Statistical Analysis Center
https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8617&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf
IA ARREST 02.3% page 7 Iowa Department of Corrections Report to the Board of Corrections
Third in a series of reports highlighting issues contributing to corrections population growth April 2006 Sex Offenders
https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8616&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf
IN bottom of page “1.05%of identified sex offender’srecidivated for a new sex crime within 3 years.” Indiana Department of Correction Recidivism Rates Decrease for 3rd Consecutive Year
https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8935&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf
IN page 22 05.7% Recidivism Rates Compared 2005-2007 Indiana Department of CORRECTION
https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8936&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf
ME page 12 03.8% Returned to prison for sex offense SEXUAL ASSAULT TRENDS
AND SEX OFFENDER RECIDIVISM IN MAINE 2010
https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8612&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf
MI 8/10 of 1% three-year study has come out of Michigan looking at the number of people on parole that were returned to prison for new crimes they found that of the sex offenders who were released from prison and found that they were involved in the new sexually related crime at 8/10 of 1%, or in other words, that 99.2% DID NOT Reoffend in the new sex crime. And that they had the lowest reoffend rate of all the criminal classes released. the full report is here http://nationalrsol.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/CAPPS.pdf
MN 5.7 % over 12 years Table 2 page 21 Sex Offender Recidivism in Minnesota April 2007
https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8610&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf
NY 04% profile and follow-up of sex offenders released in 1986 this one is another attempt to hide the facts . I finally found this information on page 19. They state that there were 556 offenders released below that on page 19. They show a table 14 the number of people related to each of those crimes that were returned to prison. If you look at the numbers for a new sex crime. You will see that they are 5,6,5 and 7 totaling 23 , when you do the percentages 23/556 UN that with the re-offense rate of 4% . If you look at the other graphs that they have provided they have shockingly high numbers . The problem is that they are only looking at the people that are returned to prison and ignoring the people that stayed out of prison. So their numbers are skewed because they did not include people not reoffending in their statistical data.
https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8607&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf
OH report to the Ohio criminal sentencing commission, January 2006 sex offenders Sex offenders in Ohio have a lower recidivism rate than the recidivism rate of all offenders (38.8 percent). A 10-year follow-up of a 1989 cohort of sex offenders released from Ohio prisons found that only 8 percent of sex offenders were recommitted for a new sex offense
https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8604&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf
OH Ten-Year Recidivism Follow-Up Of 1989 Sex Offender Releases EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommitment for a New Crime Sex Offense 8.0 % after 10 yeaars
https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8603&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf
WA03 07% Re-offended Department of Corrections Public Safety Update What is the re-offense behavior for sex offenders under supervision in the community? •Of the 264 offenders who committed a re-offense:•83% or 218 were unemployed •73% or 192 DID NOT have stable housing
WY again I have to dig through the research to find the numbers . The end result is that between 2000 and 2005 , 545 sex offenders were released and of that 24 reoffended it in a new sex crime . That makes the reoffend charade of 04.4%
For further information and empirical evidence on recidivism rates see also,
http://sexoffender-statistics.blogspot.com/search/label/Recid%2001%25-05%25
http://sexoffender-statistics.blogspot.com/search/label/Recid%2001%25-10%25
http://sexoffenderissues.blogspot.com/p/studies.html
http://www.oncefallen.com/recidivismchart.html
http://sosen.org/blog/2015/01/12/simple-question.html
http://sosen.org/blog/2014/11/06/why-are-the-reconviction-rates-so-important.html
http://news.legislature.ne.gov/dist20/files/2013/08/NE_sex_offender_recidivism.pdf
http://therealosc.blogspot.com/2013/04/as-we-said-so-long-ago.html
https://rsoresearch.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/butner_study_debunking_kit.pdf
http://www.oncefallen.com/SOMyths.html
These conclusions are virtually the same in the majority of reports on this subject from multiple government agencies and throughout the academic community.
When the laws that have been passed are based on the justification of the high numbers. And they come out, in fact, be not only low, but extremely low. Lower than any other group that does not have the same restrictions or requirements. You would think that there would be a public outcry to do away with these laws but because of politicians are continuing the myth for their political gain, as well as professionals who have a fiduciary interest in the myth continuing and victims advocates, whose only real purpose is revenge. as well as Sensationalism of the news media. All these people continue the myth. Even though the hard data shows that it is a lie. What is it going to take to bring sanity back to our country and overturned laws based on lies and myths? That are in fact a springboard to passing other laws taking away constitutional rights of the American citizens.
Finally what is this lie that is so corrupting and insidious that it has destroyed lives, family’s and children. And the fear of being added to the list created by this law has caused both adults and children to commit suicide. The laws based on this lie that have stolen the constitutional protected rights of not only individuals but whole families, well the answer is real simple. The lie is that people who are involved in sex crimes, have a high propensity to do it again. And even though at the time that these laws were passed there were studies showing lower reoffend rates of those in this group than any other criminal class, the laws were passed based on studies that since have been proven false and inaccurate and all the recent studies have shown no high propensity to reoffend.
Without this issue, (the high reoffend rate) to support the states justification of the existence of the laws the rest of their reasons fall way as nothing more than rules, regulations and laws based on fear that is now unjustified.
Recently a number of legislators and news articles have attempted to use information from a study that said that one in four girls and one in five boys have been sexually abused before the age of 18 as proof of the high re-offense rates for people on the registry and they have used the twisted data mentioned above from the 1997 US Department of Justice study to prove their point, even though that researched conclusion ha been thoroughly debunked.
First of all the student study on unreported sexual abuse has been called into doubt because of the type questions that were asked and the way that they were asked. They worded the questions on the study to get the answers that they wanted and not the facts or truth. They also biased study by using small numbers of the tested group that were chosen from specific locations that didn’t represent most groups of teenagers.
But even if the numbers are correct there are a couple of other issue that need to be brought out that are totally being ignored by the yellow journalists that are attempting to make a point by using this information. We now know through multiple studies and lots of number crunching that the re-offense rate for people on the registry is less than 1% in any given year, and that means of the new sex crimes that are committed each year 99% plus are by people that are not on the registry. If there is under-reporting then it also has to follow that particular logical progression and that is if there is a percentage of under-reporting then 99% of those unreported crimes are not done by people on the registry.
Here is the primary issue that should be pointed out, nowhere in the under-reporting study, or for that matter any accredited study, was there any proof that any portion of the under-reporting was due to people on the registry reoffending. For the media to jump to this conclusion is at the very least biased reporting.
Therefore attempting to use under-reporting to justify the existence of the registry is another myth, or a lie. This is another form of misinformation perpetrated by those who either have a fiduciary interest in continuing the unconstitutional treatment of a disfavored group or are seeking to justify their need for punishment for people who have already paid for their crime by loss of their freedom through incarceration and are now attempting to reenter society as honest citizens. When this information is placed into the public’s attention by naive media then you have to wonder if the media also falls into one of these two groups that are not truly interested in reporting the truth.
Both of these groups of people that have that type of mentality can be classified as vigilantes, bullies, or sociopaths, and are responsible for the destruction of our constitutional values and the erosion of personal freedoms in this country.
(5) The sex offender registration and notification laws (CA Penal Code § 290, Sex Offender Registration Act) violate my constitutionally protected right to procedural due process with an irrefutable presumption of future offending that is universally untrue,(as demonstrated in the above studies), and which provides no meaningful process to determine such facts. When "particularly important" interests are involved in a civil proceeding, whether or not physical restraint is threatened, the United States Supreme Court has mandated a clear and convincing evidence standard of proof and stated that, "[n]otwithstanding 'the state's "civil labels and good intentions," ' . . . this level of certainty [is deemed] necessary to preserve fundamental fairness in a variety of government-initiated proceedings that threaten the individual involved with 'a significant deprivation of liberty' or 'stigma.' " Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 756 (1982) (requiring clear and convincing evidence standard to support termination of parental rights), quoting Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 425, 426, 427 (1979) (civil commitment); Woodby v. INS, 385 U.S. 276, 285 (1966) (deportation); Chaunt v. United States, 364 U.S. 350, 353 (1960) (denaturalization); Schneiderman v. United States, 320 U.S. 118, 125, 159 (1943) (denaturalization). A registrant's liberty interest is seriously infringed in the creation of a long-term relationship with the police, in the potential criminal sanctions overshadowing that relationship, and in the stigma of notification - all penalties that are "more substantial than mere loss of money." Santosky, supra, quoting Addington v. Texas, supra at 424.
The court also too easily confines the State's interest to a single dimension. While the primary purpose of the registration statute is to protect the public from sexual predators, the State also has "an interest in ensuring that its classification and notification system is both fair and accurate." E.B. v. Verniero, supra at 1107. The State has no interest in making erroneous classifications and implementing overbroad registration and notifications. Id. See Doe v. Pataki, supra at (slip op. at 32). Contrary to the court's conclusion, the burdens on the government are great, without any likely benefit, when it holds hearings for and maintains the registration of thousands of registrants for whom there is no clear evidence that they pose any danger to the public. Requiring the government to assemble and present clear evidence of a sex offender's dangerousness would ensure that limited adjudicatory and police enforcement resources would be concentrated on those individuals who realistically may pose.threats to young children and other vulnerable populations. As observed in an altogether different context, but oddly apropos of this classification system as well, "when everything is classified, then nothing is classified, and the system becomes one to be disregarded by the cynical or the careless." New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713, 729 (1971) (Stewart, J., concurring).
Conclusion.
(1) The sex offender registration and notification laws (CA Penal Code § 290, Sex Offender Registration Act. ) as applied to me, severely violate my fundamental liberty rights to my reputation and to my right to due process.
(2). The sex offender registration and notification laws (CA Penal Code § 290, Sex Offender Registration Act. ) violate the equal protection clause.
(3) The sex offender registration and notification laws (CA Penal Code § 290, Sex Offender Registration Act. ) violate my freedom of movement and freedom of association.
(4). The sex offender registration and notification laws (CA Penal Code § 290, Sex Offender Registration Act. ) violate my right to be free from unreasonable, arbitrary and oppressive official actions.
(5) The sex offender registration and notification laws (CA Penal Code § 290, Sex Offender Registration Act) violate my constitutionally protected right to procedural due process with an irrefutable presumption of future offending that is universally untrue and which provides no meaningful process to determine such facts.
Supreme Court Justice Brandeis noted that the Founding Fathers
recognized the significance of man's spiritual nature, of his feelings and of his intellect. They knew that only a part of the pain, pleasure and satisfactions of life are to be found in material things. They sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensations. They conferred, as against the government, the right to be let alone-the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men.
Olmstead v. United States,277 U.S. 438, 478 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting), overruled in part by Berger v. New York,388 U.S. 41 (1967) and Katz v. United States,389 U.S. 347 (1967).
Law enforcement already has accessible records of my criminal record, including my DNA, my photograph and my complete set of prints and can easily locate me if they were to implicate me in a crime in the future. That process is the alternative to sex offender registration and notification laws and is the least restrictive measure that is available to the government that is related to the legislative objectives of increasing public safety and preventing recidivism. Furthermore, the government already has a meaningful process to determine if an individual poses a significant risk for re offense before ever releasing the person from custody. It is available in the states civil commitment statues. If a person is found to present a potentially high risk of re offense then that individual is confined under the civil commitment statues until it is determined that they no longer pose a risk to the public.
It is in the public best interest to grant me this relief as it will increase my ability to reintegrate into society and increase the probability that I will maintain stability in my life and be a law abiding, productive member of society which actually decreases my risk for re-offense even further. It will also allow governmental agencies and law enforcement agencies to re-direct their limited resources to monitor high risk offenders more intensively thereby increasing public safety. It will also save the state tax payer dollars that can be used for policies that have proven to actually be effective.
These laws will continue to cause me irreparable damage if the court fails to grant me relief.
No one can doubt that child sexual abuse is traumatic and devastating. The question is not whether the state has an interest in preventing such harm, but whether current laws are effective in doing so.
Prayer.
I pray the court grant me Declaratory relief and/or Injunction relief or any other relief the court deems necessary and to enjoin local, state, and federal agencies from requiring me to register as a sex offender and subjecting me to the public notification laws (CA Penal Code § 290, Sex Offender Registration Act. ) .
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to my knowledge on __________ Signed: _____________________________
G. Allen
All I'll say is that this tier registration scheme has a lot of exceptions and gives an awful lot of credibility to the Static-99R. Do these Static tests really deserve the credibility that its given? As its proposed by the CA Sex Offender Management Board, many of us (myself included) would still be subject to lifetime registration because of a high Static-99R SCAM score. I happen to score a big 6 ("high risk sex offender"), for a 290.006 offense from 2009. It was non-contact, first and only time offense. I was an immature 22 yr. old. In fact, I'm not even listed on Megan's Law website. Yet under this tiered registry scheme, I am treated worse than many violent offenders. This tiering is no justice. I say we deserve better.
mike r
it doesn't save anyone's life what I meant to say is that all a tiered registry will do is release a very small minority from the pow camps we all live in now only after 15-20 years of the registry ..
Anonymous Nobody
Janice, first, I want you to know I VERY much appreciate and respect YOU and all you have been doing. And hope you never feel otherwise by points I make that might disagree with Consolaws' approach. I'm not fighting you, I'm working with you to get to the best we can get -- and extending my knowledge and background (I can't explain that, I'm h).
That said, I have understood all along what you just explained about the approach. But I politely want to point out that I don't think you quite understand how politics works -- and that is not surprising, I do not believe it is not your background for the past several decades.
The likelihood of a second or third revisit to tiers is pretty nil. You might have heard cf scaling back Social Security benefits as an untouchable third rail of politics; well, registration is that third rail on steroids.
When we do this, if we can get them to touch that rail once, it is a one-time thing only, the politicians are not going to play with suicide a second time around, not even 10, 20 years from now. Gee, just look at how they even have repeatedly refused to do it this one time, just look at how nearly anything to make registration even worse just sales through often by unanimous vote.
Tiers will not be coming back for further consideration and reduction later, that thinking is simply showing a lack of understanding of politics. So, we simply must pull out the nukes now, and demand and push harder for the proposal to be made much better than it has been proposed up until now. What has been proposed is NOT good -- and the checkpoints I have warned about will only make it more impossible later, they are a wolf in sheep's clothing. As I wrote above, even the time frames are based on -- nothing, made up out of thin air, whereas there are facts out there for real justification of time frames for serous felonies, saying five years is the mark, but we're promoting 10 years for even the most minor of misdemeanors much less the lesser felonies.
We must eliminate those checkpoints (the assessments based on individual review rather than automatic by offense, and individual review only if you apply for a reduction -- which even would save the state money. And also the tail end where the proposal says we mist file with the state to be OK'd to stop registering -- no, they already know, that is only going to be sued against us), that is absolutely critical, and we should at least make the lesser offenses five years and they simply cannot justify making misdemeanants register, for mere poor demeanor.
I can't stress enough how critical it is to get it right now; we are not going to get to tweak it later, that just is not the category this political issue is in, this is an untouchable third rail, it is not the same as other political matters.
mike r
Static 99 will be just another tool for government to use to justify harsher rules and regulations on the level 2 and 3 offender which I am sure the majority of people on the registry will be bumped up to..they will use this psychic tool to enact and place residency restrictions and presence restrictions on us just for starters and will be able to tell the courts that there laws are now narrowly tailored and justifiable because of the higher tiers...sure there will be a few people and I mean a very few that will benefit from this but the majority of us will be subjected to even worse rules and regulations...that will happen if they get their tiered system garunteed...if the system would get people off the registry without having extreme consequences for the majority of others I would be all for it but the fact is that it will be used against the majority of us in a major way and only offer relief for very few....I am not willing to sacrifice the lives of thousands upon thousands with extreme detrimental consequences that only strengthens the governments cause just to get relief for a very small minority of people only after the complete 15 or 20 years on the registry anyway....it's like giving the enemy a nuclear bomb when all we have already is 22 caliber rifles just to save a couple hundred people from dying but who will be prisoners of war for 15 or 20 years...anyone that advocates for the tiered system either knowingly or inadvertently are supporting the registry it's that simple....
Anonymous Nobody
Yes, as it has been proposed, it is NOT good - I have already listed some key details that are very dangerous for us and must be taken out.
Even the time frames -- a minimum of 10 years for the most minor of offenses, is not justified. Gee, 10 years was just an arbitrary number that came into play when those who can never have sentences long enough boosted the standard with no facts to justify it to 10 years from five years. Five years was the standard based on facts for recidivism of serious felonies, and we are now supporting 10 years for the most minor of misdemeanors!
We must not simply accept a proposal as-is, we must get in at the drafting stage and fight afterward to make it what it ought to be. They are not going to come back later and touch this third rail or politics a second time around, we must get it right the first time.
This is a point where we should insist that misdemeanors be taken out of registration altogether, and, if we must go to tiers rather than elimination of registration, make it five years for the lessor felonies.
Mind you, the Federal standard now being pushed is only for the offenses they list. They do not list any misdemeanors, nor many of the lesser felonies for which California requires registration!
I have spoken often about finding some political cover when doing something, and if we do the tiers, that is the cover that can allow misdemeanors to be taken out of registrant altogether, and for a lesser number of years for lesser felonies - and we should be talking with whomever is putting together a tier proposal to demand that be included.
It would not be the first time offenses have been taken out of registration, that was done by the Legislature with lewd conduct at the end of the 1970s, an no one from the public even noticed much less complained about a misdemeanor being taken out; the public has no idea that this even applies to misdemeanors, the public is only concerned with what they see a serious offenders.
72FLH
no matter how you gift rap a dung pile , it still stinks , over 30 years for me , and I am no bodys level anything , I am just plain old me , that did his time and should have long since been on down the road , we can sit around playing 5 dollar word games all you want , but just because most states have this don't make it good , I understand that Janice is working hard , but right now we need to be thinking in terms of getting rid if this REG , part of the strong point of CA is we don't have a stupid tierd system ,or 99R , I will never get used to paying for a crime payed for in FULL all ready ,
72FLH
how is it a step foreword ? its just a new tool for the state to use against us , 99R is not set up to help us , its voodoo bull , its a way to further screw us , its a step back words , to give 99R any power at all is stupid
72FLH
they will have to charge you for something level 2 or 3 , and most will still be on the REG anyway , we are still doing time ! its time to get rid of this REG, most court cases are not a fair fight to begin with , so do we really need yet one more tool to be used against us , their is already talk of the worst of the worst ! LOL , dose anyone know how easy it is to get a second case ? pretty darn easy , same dam thing lets play lets make a deal ! when sitting in a jail with cops seeing to it your living a nightmare when waiting to go to court ! so the worst of the worst bull shit , there is only people , the worst are the lop sided courts that pass out time with out true facts , setting bonds way to high , and no safety with in the jails , using fear to bend us over , state unlimited resources to beat you in court , that's just a few things , now we are doing time for what we might do ? force people to show up for a lie detector ? we have nothing to prove , we did our time and paper , this nightmare needs to be over , 99R what a bad joke , its all propped up by junk voo doo , I lived in a state that was tierd , and I know people that started out level 1 and are now level 33333333333333333333 , many other factors were pilled on as time went by ,
cool CA RC
if he got money for a car then may be some of it can go to all4consolaws im sure it will speed up getting rid of the registry faster.
Now the police are asking.. Have you sold this car yet? did you stop using it? something like that.
nomore
"Be careful what you ask for, every decision will have unintended consequences."
Yeah, that's what we're trying to get across to you people.l but you're uneducated and hard headed.. Bad combo.
Most of your comments are flatly false or reaching. The courts cant dish out greater sentences unless it's warranted or they'd be doing it now.
Yes, the supreme court hears a select few but with recent cases being what they are, I think they'll revisit this, but if we never go after the registry, you're guaranteed to get just what you have.
If they want to help, then challenge the registry and 290 in California or pick a select state to challenge the registry in. A punitive win outright will help those in that state and set up a supreme court hearing.
Hell challenge AWA, challenge something that'll set the stage for the future
Go big or go home?
Timmr
Wow, you just described what is wrong with the registry. Say some tier one public urinator flips out rapes and kills someone, all on tier one are bumped up. How am I going to keep that from happening?
nomore
http://www.soab.pa.gov/FortheCommunity/FAQs/Pages/default.aspx#.V75g9TNw3TY
Interesting read. Sounds pretty shitty to me. It was an automatic bump up of 5 years at the very least for everyone.
Scoring/Risk assessment.
http://www.pbpp.pa.gov/Understanding%20Parole/PS/Pages/default.aspx
http://www.pbpp.pa.gov/Understanding%20Parole/PDM/Pages/Interview.aspx
Luckily, I moved out of state. I went from 10 years under ML to 20 then back to 15 where I am now. If all goes well, I'll be off this crap next year but who knows under an AWA static 99 system. It seems reckless to risk it based on an assumption that because you're a tier 1, you'll surely stay a tier 1.
ONE DAY AT A TIME
I for one am 100% sure that Janice's approach is the best way. We will never get rid of the registry completely. At best we may get rid of the public registry. People think it's easy to challenge an issue already decided by the Supreme Court, but no case is easy to get before SCOTUS. They pick the cases they want to hear. Always less than 100 per year. I think if we abolish the registry completely, more judges will opt to be overly cautious and just give out larger sentences that will be equal to life for many. Be careful what you ask for, every decision will have unintended consequences.
anonymously
I do agree with Doc that tiering is a good incremental step forward. I just do not think it should take centuries to get to the end game..
anonymously
It took under 40 years for gays to go from registering in California to be allowed to get married in all states. What gains have LBGT's made up until the last 40 years? I think it's all been done in the last 40, with the most being done in the last 10. Back in 1977, Mario Cuomo's campaign for NYC Mayor used the slogan 'Vote for Cuomo, not the Homo'. We've come a long way since 1977 in this respect. Waiting centuries should be the last resort.
Tobin's Tools 2.0
NPS,
It depends. Some may argue your position as more "selfish" in the long-run. It's a matter of perspective. For me, it's about refusing to take anything CASOMB -- and its corrupt, conflict-of-interest laden board members -- offers. Especially when much of its proposals are disingenuous and flout the very premise of their claims. The California Sex Offender Management Board certainly has its own hidden agenda.
To coin an idiom, "It's all relative."
NPS
Actually the code for which I was convicted doesn't require registration. I am what is called discretionary.. That is, 290.006. This means that the judge at his own discretion required that I register as long as he documents his reasons why. Only the judge in my case never made such documentation. He did so because he could.
I will not state which code was expunged as it is insignificant when it comes to the registry. This site isn't about talking about the offense. It's about our rights and life on the registry.
If you want to know which codes can be expunged, look up PC 1203.4.
Tobin's Tools 2.0
We are simply expressing our objection to CASOMB's tiered registry proposal.
In my opinion, we can disagree with some of ACSOL's objectives (namely, the proposed tiered registry), while at the same time having the greatest of admiration and appreciation for Ms. Bellucci's great efforts and achievement.
Most of us are without any power to do much, and these public forums provide the opportunity to vent and express our concerns with regard to a tiering of the registry. Is this not what these forums are made for?
Doc Martin
We're a sorna state with a tier system here in Pennsylvania. Now I understand why some would get worked up about a tier system turning into a nightmare but if it's implemented right, it's not so bad. The PA tier doesn't follow static 99 or Tom Tobin or other shrinks pushing pscho babble analysis. BTW, nothing keeps non tier states from also following that garbage
Luckily PA doesn't and the tier system is straight forward. A person caught possessing dirty pictures of minors is automatically a tier 1 year registrant. Dont matter about number of images or not knowing the child depicted, or not being a family member. That's what New York's static 99 tier system does....moves you up because of "stranger danger" PA don't play that. Possess cp, you're tier 1 period. Commit the offense twice, then they may move you up. Distribute it, they'll move you up. Everything's more about the offense and less about psychological risk
Another good thing about the Pennsylvania system is out of state or foreign immigrants often committed sex offenses that don't fit neatly into a little box of similar offenses under Pennsylvania commonwealth law (yeah we call ourselves that cuz we hate them British royalty snobs)
Anyways, many of these out of state & foreign folk just get automatically categorized as tier 1 with 15 year registration. Thankfully our state bureaucrats are too busy & too lazy to find an exact match (I can't see Pennsylvania low paid bureaucrat calling corrupt local cop shop in Yemen asking hey, what exactly did Abdul do with that underage girl after the party? Yemen cop shop: Well, he was trying get a wife but he went about it the wrong way. You do know you can get a wife at age 13 in Yemen? PA bureacrat: Click! Okay, let's make him tier 1. Less paperwork)
So I really don't understand the big fuss over the tier system. I know some people will say it legitamizes the registry like it hasn't already been legitimized by politicians in non tier lifer states like Cali & Florida
Some registrants believe they can chew more than they bite. They often make comparisons with hard fought rights of other minorities when the fact is, non of those rights happened overnight. You think this country went from making it illegal to lynch or burn homosexuals at the stake too okay, you guys wont only be burned at the stake, but ya'll can also get married. I believe there was a 2 to 300 years in between.
Another thing.....it's plain stupid for some folk to pile on Janice. Without her, you wouldn't even have this website to vent you're frustration. Ever look at the traffic on other support sites? Now Derek's a good guy but I hear a lot of birds chirping over there.
A classy lady like Janice is only trying to get the best possible outcome (more people coming off the registry early) with what we have to work with now. Now I understand some folks get bumped up and that's happened in some states. But California? You guys lifetime anyways. I figure if a tier system allows new offenders who come into the system not be subjected to lifetime hell, I'm all for it even though I'm in the upper tier and be long dead before I'm off the registry.
And also think about this. Folks being bumped up will end at the point when a new system is up and going. Therefore when I'm worm food 20 years from now, a young one who just got categorized after committing a romeo & juliet will say gosh darn this registry sucks. But at least I'm just getting off in 15 years and thankfully advocates are still out there trying to get this stupid law overturned.
Sincerely, your dear Doc
Finn
The STATIC 99R test is no where close being as accurate as the breathalyzer or radar detector. The STATIC 99 developers (Harris, Phenix, Karl Hanson and Thornton) refuse to disclose the STATIC 99R's "source code," so to speak, because they don't want their big scam exposed.
Doug
Janice has worked , very hard , and very long , for very little pay , Her only goal is to help right the un just system that we live with. She has dedicated her life to this cause.. If she says the tierd system is better , and is the best way to go. I am not going to disput her. . I'm not going to throw rocks. I belive she knows best.
Janice is the only person I know who is fighting for us. Don't discurage her. With out her We will be much worse off. I'll never understand how anyone could jump into this quigmire , when they were not forced to , simply to try and help others.
Finn
I support ACSOL. But it does seem over idealistic in expecting all those that are potentially removed from a potential tier registry not to reoffend. Even out of many thousands, there will likely be at least one idiot who will repeat. As for this "tiering" proposal, I also share the fear that its "risk" based premise is absolutely flawed. Why incorporate the STATIC 99R into it when there is so much flaws with the test? Incorporating the static tests hardly seems like an effective way to define "risk" under this "tier" registry. I don't even think the STATIC 99R is designed to be used after one has been offense-free in the community for at least 10 years. Why then is it used to define whether one should register for life?
Finn
NPS, if you don't mind me asking, what penal code requiring you to register was "expunged?" Just curious, you know.
Mike
I have thought the same thing PK. It is one thing to tell another country of your offense, albeit we are singled out as they do not notify other countries of DUI or drug offenses or even worse crimes. What I can not see as legal is the green notices that states as a fact that the person is likely to commit another crime. Based on what? Total speculation. I would like to hear a response.
nomore
I originally thought of moving but I don't know of another country where they allow foreigners to buy land. Then there's the whole "the world hates Americans" bit, plus the world hates SO's so I'm staying here. I've thought of other "crazy" ideas. Buying a larger cargo ship, purchasing an island, buying and old oil rig platform, etc. I "settled" on alaska for many reasons and it has been the best choice I've made in a while. Few restrictions, cheap land (depending on how you buy) and lots of room. If you have the money and the inclination, you could buy a remote parcel, build a cabin and work from home (satellite). That's my final goal too. No neighbors for a 100 miles!
nomore
Why do you guys keep bringing up politicians and lawmakers. We know that's a all but wasteful fight because of many variables. Hell you might get one or two to support you but out of how many?
The courts are a different story. A ruling can happen "overnight". It almost happened in Kansas. There was a ruling that deemed the registry as punishment. Of course there was trickery and it got pushed down but it happened.
The courts are the most efficient way forward and to me the only thing worth putting money towards. We don't need the public nor the politithugs to like us before the courts can overturn this mess.
mike r
easy pk... I wasn't asking about why the law makers or politicians weren't doing anything about the issues my question was directed to Janice..as far as just get used to it screw that I've been through all the hell the registry offers including the residency restrictions and extensive parole conditions and the harassment and vandalism for over 8 years now and I don't ever want to get used to it i want it to change and will not be complacent and accepting of it ever...
nomore
I'm guessing because they don't want to. Not all people see the registry as unconstitutional despite the false data that was used to implement it.
If we want this done, we're going to have to raise the money to hire an attorney and pick a fight.
nomore
How about doing a pro vs con post on a tiered system with actual stats on what happened in other states. Tell them what percentage of originally lower tiered rso's got bumped up, etc.
I'm not seeing a lot of happy people about this so it makes me wonder why you're pushing it or possibly WHO is pushing it.
ONE DAY AT A TIME
The problem is that it has not cost taxpayers billions, or millions, or 100's of thousands of dollars to defend the residency lawsuits. At most, the average suit is settled for $3000 to $5000 to cover attorney's fees. Plaintiffs like Frank rarely see any financial gain themselves. Other than the several lawsuits Janice has filed, there certainly is not a large enough number of these cases filed with a large enough settlement to cause taxpayers any real concern. No advocacy group or attorney is making any large amounts of money fighting residency restrictions or any other issues we are fighting. If you know of any large payout by taxpayers, please point us to the documentation.
Frank
I don't think anyone should be punished for life. I was a senior in high school and when to this girls house, we just messed around, I left a little hicky. She was 3 years younger than me, I was event thinking about it. Not like I was secretly talking to her because she was younger, I was in school, she was available and we messed around. That was 18 years ago, I moved to California because Florida was pretty crazy with the requirements, no life there. If they want to make people register, they should have a jury of your peers to listen to the case and decide of you should even be considered. It shouldn't be an automagic thing. I've never been in trouble since for anything, that was 3 months after I turned 18, I'm 36 and still haven't got to live a normal life yet for something that was harmless and not with any bad intention. I was just a dumb kid not thinkin and been paying hell since. I'm at the point of buying a sailboat and notify my destination as international waters and I'm not coming back. I'll just sail around the world till someone let's me and becone some where else. I keep all my case Files with me, just reading it, you can see how petty it all was.
I commend you all on the fight. First time I even looked at anything about sex offenders. Didnt even know there were sites like this. I wish I would have found out sooner as I would have definitely be on board. But half my life literally has been a struggle. I was just waiting around like a dumb as all these years waiting for something to happen.
I been planning my departure from this he'll hole. I've managed to save up a nice chunk of dough as software developer over the years. I'm on my way out, I got enough to entice another country to accept me as a citizen if I start a business there, not going to say the exact one but it south of Mexico. I have an aunt that also lives there though it's not my first choice as a new homeland, I prefer a corrupt government than the nazies we have in charge.
PK
".I am just incredibly confused and dumbfounded why these issues are not a major importance…I would love to hear a detailed description why they are not…"
Why do you think they are not Mike r ?
Do you believe that lawmakers and politicians would have something to gain by doing what is right and what is fair for the mere 100,000 Sex Offenders in California?
Life as an RSO will NOT be fair- get used to it. The Lawyers will chip away at it piece by piece, but don't expect any changes to "make things fair" to happen overnight.
PK
Mike r- that's quite a run-on sentence there. "Janice can you please explain to me and many others on this site why you and your team will not prepare and file a complaint that includes the real issues that could topple the entire registration scheme".
Whatever complaint that the Lawyers will file needs to be very minutely specific. In fact in as much as the challenge to the new IML Law is specific, it challenges 2 provisions to IML being the Passport and Notification Provisions. Galen and his Associate Attorney felt that this was a somewhat broad approach.
Moreover, you mentioned: why not challenge the entire registration scheme. As you know, the registration schema varies from state-to-state, and I think trying to challenge those as a group at a federal level probably couldn't be done with a single lawsuit. She could go after the AWA however.
PK
David, can those pre-IML practices be part of the IML lawsuit if they were not in the original complaint? Is this why Janice had asked to modify her complaint? I think the biggest issue is there is that these "pre-IML practices" were being carried out in secret, without legal standing and guidance. That being said, how could anyone legally challenge those practices if there was nothing known about them?
mike r
I know you don't owe any of us an explanation and we here in cali all owe you our appreciation for what you and your team have accomplished in California. like I've said in the past I couldn't even be able to go to college if it wasn't for you and your team..I am just incredibly confused and dumbfounded why these issues are not a major importance...I would love to hear a detailed description why they are not....I am sure a lot of other people would like to know as well...thank you....
Gregory Gaspar
I'm always grateful for the help and your determination in this matter. I can see how those in our judicial process are afraid of making a ruling. We are labeled as monsters by the public and ostracized by others who don't know us. I've been fortunate, however, I do not want to be known as one of the lucky ones. I want to see changes and tiers with limited time frames being registered.
What needs to be noted as well is the unfairness of prosecuting those who fit this criteria. I do keep a low profile and because of this, people in different capacities of law enforcement have said things to me not knowing I am a registrant.
One case:: Yet another Sheriff Deputy was found to be having sex with a minor. His wife divorced him and he was just transferred to another department. The reason I was told was that he just got too involved in his line of work.
There is a double standard on who gets registered and who doesn't. This is one of the many reasons we no longer hear and/or read about those who carry a badge being arrested and charged.
mike r
Janice can you please explain to me and many others on this site why you and your team will not prepare and file a complaint that includes the real issues that could topple the entire registration scheme especially challenging the court's justification for these laws that was and is based on lies and deception also right to reputation right to equal protection right to travel right to be free from unreasonable arbitrary oppressive official actions right to freedom of association and I could go on and on but those are all fundamental rights that are being infringed upon with absolutely no justification or due process ???
David Kennerly
If IML is completely overturned:
"will the requirement of doing the notification and sending of green notices to the countries end?"
The Registrant's obligation to notify the U.S. government WILL end. However, and unless the courts also address the government practice of notifying countries which predates IML, then Green Notices or other mechanisms of notification will NOT end.
" will registrants be able to travel internationally again without being flagged and denied entry to a country?"
Not necessarily. It seems likely that some countries will continue to deny entry because they will still benefit from the notification mechanism which predated IML just as many Registrants were denied entry prior to its enactment and for several years now UNLESS the courts also consider and sanction those current and earlier practices as part of the IML challenge.
What is key is that the courts undertake a scrutiny of those pre-IML practices as part of the IML lawsuit currently before the Federal Court. This is one of the things that Janice is trying to do now in response to the Judge's queries.
72FLH
they can pass a law in no time flat that can and will put you right back on it , I don't think its right to throw everyone under a bus because of some bull shit test , that's forced on us as well , this is not any of us agreed to in court , LIFE AS 290 , did the time over 30 years ago and walked all my paper , most people on this site are sick of being treated like live stock , level 1 & 2& 3$ , who is to say ? how many had no other choice but to take a plea ? the state is taking more of our writes by forcing test ON PEOPLE ! just so maybe a few will get off , in the mean the court will just shift in how it will charge people on down the road , like magic all SO's will be level 2or 3 ,
Janice Bellucci
Thank you, NPS, for your understanding and words of support! This organization was created to protect the Constitution by restoring the civil rights of registrants which have been and continue to be denied since 1947. During that 70 year period, the CA registry has ballooned to more than 100,000 and is currently expected to grow to about 135,000 by the year 2020. One way to stop this growth and to reduce the number of registrants is to create a tiered registry that will allow some, but not all, registrants to leave the registry permanently. If that reduction is successful, the tiers can be adjusted and more registrants will be allowed to leave the registry permanently. The key to success is responsibility. The first registrants who leave the registry on a tiered registry must act responsibility and must not re-offend because if they do, the tiers will shrink or the tiered registry will disappear completely and today's scenario where every one is on the registry for life will continue.
NPS
I shouldn't have even been on the registry to begin with since the penal code (which is now expunged) doesn't even require it, but OC Judges love to make people register as it makes them look tough on crime.
So, Tobin's Tool, it is definitely something for me. I am my own priority, and if a tiered registry has me fall off (and it will), then I openly accept it. Sounds selfish? I whole heartedly admit it. But what's more selfish: me? or holding tens of thousands hostage under lifetime registry because it doesn't suit you?
T
I have some questions, and I don't know if this is important to think about but here it goes, let's say that the IML is lifted, what happens then? will the requirement of doing the notification and sending of green notices to the countries end? will registrants be able to travel internationally again without being flagged and denied entry to a country? what could happen if the IML is lifted?
nomore
That's kind of what many of us are clammering on about... Doesn't it seem odd that all of these groups post stories and data about how we're not a danger to society and yet their actions seem to contradict their stated beliefs.
It reminds me of public defenders and their coziness with prosecuting offices.
I'll be off my restrictions next year if they don't pull something so technically I won't have a dog in the fight anymore (well unless Alaska goes lifetime and retroactive) but I'm not going away. The idea that this country has slipped so far from it's original intent, pisses me off. Registering people like animals? Why not tattoos on our arms? That's what IML is really.. It's Nazi style stamps. Let's eradicate it all, not compromise.
nomore
OK but let's look at the facts rationally. How many people are we talking about collectively and how many of those are just trusting without verifying? Do they actually know what a tiered system entails? That's why hero worshipping is so dangerous. People shut their brains off and become sheep easily led.
Civil commitment is great, all the cool kids are doing it!
nomore
"inalienable" It's "unalienable".. There is a difference.
Other things don't make sense. You say it's better to fight from a tiered system. Why? I'd say it's the other way around because you have a harsher penalty to bitch about and rightly so.
"The registry will never go away; at least not in our lifetime."
That's a load of crap. Of course later you say "until the supreme court rules otherwise"
How do you think that'll come about? Wishful thinking? Osmosis over time? It takes a challenge, that's what we're all saying, it's time.
Actually depending on what you're calling "tiered" I'd say you're off on your number. Many states are having problems implementing ADW. Some are weighing the costs and declining. 29 states have not substantially complied.
http://www.smart.gov/sorna-map.htm
Here, if you're a repeat offender, I believe it's then life. But no civil commitment which I believe ADW has.
But you go ahead, keep pushing because you feel desperarate. One way or another, they'll still shaft you.
Timmr
The difference is those registrants didn't have a hand in creating their registries. It can be said it is easier to oppose something thrust upon you, than backtrack on something you had a hand in making, and like it or not, own it.
Timmr
That's in California, only one of four with a life time registry for everyone. How's that working in the states that have already had a tiered registry for decades? That seems like plenty of time for the population to lower its fear level and moved towards abandoning the registry. Why hasn't it happened?
Tobin's Tools 2.0
FYI, there still would be many people subject to lifetime registration under a tiered registry. The issue for me is a matter of principle: why accept CASOMB's tier proposal when it is constructed in such a disingenuous manner? Why include 20 year and lifetime tier levels when it's proven that even "high-risk" offenders who remain offense-free in the community for 17 years are not likely to reoffend compared to anyone else? Why not make the highest tier term 17 years then?
And why sell a "risk" based registry when 'risk' is quantified by the Static-99R scam? Under this fictitious tiered registry, a high Static-99R scam score can mean the difference between a 10-year -OR- lifetime registration term... even for a non-contact offense!
Sometimes "nothing," as you put it, is better than something. Especially if the "something" is crap. And I'm telling you, a tiered registry -- as currently proposed by CASOMB -- is "crap."
As for the other states that you mention, it seems an awful amount of registrants from other states complain about how the tiered registry has thrown them under the bus.
Les Mis Life
Any time this starts, it's always pitched as "worst of the worst" and then they decide to expand it down, "because wouldn't that seem safer? "
Les Mis Life
How the courts pretend it's not punishment is beyond me.
Politicians will never dare being painted as "pro-sex offender" by voting for a bill that does anything but pile more pain on us.
Realistically, I think these are our best options:
1. Raise awareness of how RSOS ruin property values and THEN point out how few actually reoffend.
2. Severely increase penalties for repeat offenses, while eliminating retroactively increasing registration burdens on all and allowing a mechanism to get off.
3. Support victims' plight and point out that nothing is being done to help them while millions are wasted in this family/society ruining registry system
Les Mis Life
"Like waiting for midnight
"On a clock with no hands
"We're watching the hourglass
"They're adding sands"
-Steve Kim
Quote from '2000 Feet From a Nursery Ryhme'
Finn
My thoughts exactly. When I attended the last CARSOL meeting, it amazed me at how many supported this fictitious "tiered" registry. It was like watching the masses worship a false prophet. Those I spoke with did not seem to understand the many exceptions and caveats to the 10 year, 20 year and lifetime "tier" levels. They just blindly decide to buy the Kool Aid, so to speak, perhaps because they are weary and desperate for some type of relief. Like you, I do not trust anything that comes from CASOMB. Like the polygraph and STATIC 99 scam (both of which endorsed by CASOMB), I also feel this fictitious "tiered" registry is "phony baloney" (as you put it). Just look at other states with a tiered registry and see the patchwork of disaster they end up with. Then on top of it, California wants to incorporate "risk" into the equation? Sounds good... but only in theory. Fortune telling has never been a strong suit of our lawmakers (or anyone else for that matter).
I can't wait to die
the hit list aka price club is all about $$$ why has the static 99 been challenged like radar or breathalyzer where the manufacturer had to give the source code? well it keeps the static 99 alive and as a result keeps people in treatment for years. thus it provides many people jobs. just as more cops, probation, jail/prison guards, computer people all employed. also the states and feds must always have a group of boogy men so they can do other things under the radar. follow the $$$$
i may be wrong about this but i thought that there is DR. Pt. privacy is the law, if so i thought that even if you signed some agreement that goes against the law, the law prevails.
WitsEndWife
My husband is on PRCS in Fresno County, his probation Officer has done nothing but set him up to fail by her application of the residency restriction. My husband owns a mobile home in a mobile park, which is next to a school. For the purposes of measuring the 2000 ft required to be between his residence and a school, his PO is measuring from the front door of our mobile home to the closest boundary of the school, as "THE CROW FLIES," in a straight line. However, the "straight line" goes over a 5 ft blook wall, across an Irrigation District easement, across a canal full of water, and over a 6 ft. chainlink fence. IF his PO measured the 2000 ft. from the ENTRANCE to the mobile park, our mobile home would be over 4000 ft. from the school. The PO has created her own definition of "PRIMARY ENTRANCE.' We argued the point that one cannot access our mobile home without FIRST entering through the entrance to the mobile home park. As a result of his PO's blanket application of the residency restrictions, he has registered with the PC290 office as "transient". The Officer's at the PC 290 office told us they have no problem with the address where our mobile home/mobile home park is located and that they will not come arrest him for being there, and that the Fresno County Probation Dept (AB 109) Officer in charge of ALL PC 290s hangs her hat on residency restrictions and is, in affect, an habitual B____! We are homeless, it is over 100 degrees in Fresno, and due to my husbands transient status, he wears a GPS and we must find places to charge. As a result of this restriction, he is unable to find employment, and I am recovering from cancer treatment. Why isn't anyone else up in arms about Fresno County Probation's unconstitutional application of the residency restrictions?? Its blanket one size fits all attitude? We are at our wits end and ready to give up!!!!!!!
Tara Swift
My husband is on PRCS in Fresno County, his probation Officer has done nothing but set him up to fail by her application of the residency restriction. My husband owns a mobile home in a mobile park, which is next to a school. For the purposes of measuring the 2000 ft required to be between his residence and a school, his PO is measuring from the front door of our mobile home to the closest boundary of the school, as "THE CROW FLIES," in a straight line. However, the "straight line" goes over a 5 ft blook wall, across an Irrigation District easement, across a canal full of water, and over a 6 ft. chainlink fence. IF his PO measured the 2000 ft. from the ENTRANCE to the mobile park, our mobile home would be over 4000 ft. from the school. The PO has created her own definition of "PRIMARY ENTRANCE.' We argued the point that one cannot access our mobile home without FIRST entering through the entrance to the mobile home park. As a result of his PO's blanket application of the residency restrictions, he has registered with the PC290 office as "transient". The Officer's at the PC 290 office told us they have no problem with the address where our mobile home/mobile home park is located and that they will not come arrest him for being there, and that the Fresno County Probation Dept (AB 109) Officer in charge of ALL PC 290s hangs her hat on residency restrictions and is, in affect, an habitual B____! We are homeless, it is over 100 degrees in Fresno, and due to my husbands transient status, he wears a GPS and we must find places to charge. As a result of this restriction, he is unable to find employment, and I am recovering from cancer treatment. Why isn't anyone else up in arms about Fresno County Probation's unconstitutional application of the residency restrictions?? Its blanket one size fits all attitude? We are at our wits end and ready to give up!!!!!!!
Dan
Ever heard of being compelled to re-register whenever you get a new car or get rid of the old one?
My buddy says they are trying to pull that b.s. on him. He's got money and gets a new car every few months, they expect him to go down there and update (aside from the annual)! LOL.
NPS
The registry will never go away; at least not in our lifetime. That is a fact that will remain until the Supreme Court rules otherwise. Until then, I openly welcome a tiered system because at this moment, we have nothing. We Californians are on it for life regardless of the nature of offense.
I truly believe that once California has its tiered registry the fight will continue. 46 other states have tiers but that doesn't prevent them from fighting against the registry. They are not sitting back waiting for their registration to expire. They are still fighting against those restrictions that prevent them from maintaining their inalienable rights. They are still working to prove that the registry even with its tiers is still violating the Constitution. I say it's better to fight as a tiered state than a lifetime registration state.
So, Janice, thank you for all that you have done and are continuing to do. Push for that tiered registry because in this state, a fight against the tier is a fight to maintain lifetime registration.
mike r
amen 72 if these organizations really care and want to abolish the registry they will challenge the Courts justification for these laws and totally refute the false facts and straight out lies that was used to justify these laws...I am not an attorney but any reasonable mind will tell you the following issues are just the starting point for a successful challenge...
Issues.
(1) The sex offender registration and notification laws (CA Penal Code § 290, Sex Offender Registration Act) violate my constitutionally protected liberty interest in my reputation which is protected under the federal due process clause in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and the California Constitution’s Article I, Section 7 on “due process, equal protection and the right to travel".
(2) The sex offender registration and notification laws (CA Penal Code § 290, Sex Offender Registration Act) violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth amendment of the United States Constitution and the California Constitution’s Article I, Section 7 on “due process, equal protection and the right to travel"
(3) Sex offender registration and notification laws (CA Penal Code § 290, Sex Offender Registration Act) violate my constitutionally protected liberty interests by infringing on my freedom of movement and my freedom of association which is protected under the Fifth and Fourteenth amendment of the United States Constitution and the California Constitution’s Article I, Section 7 on “due process, equal protection and the right to travel"
(4) Sex offender registration and notification laws (CA Penal Code § 290, Sex Offender Registration Act) violate my constitutionally protected right to liberty and to be free from unreasonable, arbitrary and oppressive official actions, which is protected under the Fifth and Fourteenth amendment of the United States Constitution and the California Constitution’s Article I, Section 7 on “due process, equal protection and the right to travel"
(5) The sex offender registration and notification laws (CA Penal Code § 290, Sex Offender Registration Act) violate my constitutionally protected right to procedural due process which is protected under the federal due process clause in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and the California Constitution’s Article I, Section 7 on “due process, equal protection and the right to travel" with an irrefutable presumption of future offending that is universally untrue and which provides no meaningful process to determine such facts.
Anonymous Nobody
No More, as for assessing what anyone wants, I have to give credit to Janice and CARSOL. They have regular meetings with any registrant who wants to attend to give information and hear their input. They spend a lot of time with those meetings, and so they do better on that point that anyone else or any other group I know of.
But yes, that doesn't mean anyone is infallible. They are listening, and they are making the best choices they now how to make. They have to draw on their background to try to make the best strategies. They are learning as they go. Every day, they get better and learn more. Some of us are a bit surprised when we hear comments from CARSOL about shock at this ruling or that ruling, for instance. Some of us have been int he game a long time and so are not the least bit shocked, knew that would not work.
Anonymous Nobody
Just to weigh in and even clarify my feelings about the tiers: I have mixed feelings about them. They are dangerous, be very careful how you proceed if you are going to proceed on them. Minimum is that they must work cleanly and smoothy in the manner I have described above, or there absolutely is going to be trouble and you absolutely will be creating and building our worst enemy, a bureacracy that will fight us to the death.
If done properly, and with the right messages in talking, arguing, explaining why we are doing this, it can be done as one of the incremental steps people here often advocate. But it is a treacherous step, it can also be done as the final nail in our coffin. If not handled just right, it will undermine ALL our other complaints and issues and arguments; it WILL be thrown back in our faces at every turn. We can push it but only as we also make clear this is unacceptable, that tiers are merely getting the ball rolling, not an end unto itself nor even acceptable even as we push it. It will be an end unto itself if you ever suggest it is livable. It is NOT livable.
But with those checkpoints in it that I have addressed above, I would oppose it strongly. Oh, it also should be measuring the time from the date of conviction (or maybe from release from prison), not from the date you started registering -- that's another major problem, especially for those living out of state. In fact, these checkpoints would mean no one living out of state who was convicted in California could ever get out from under lifetime registration. They're not even in state to be getting assessed!
Anonymous Nobody
It used to be that getting 1203.4 relief after probation did end your registration. That was changed for felons in the mid 1980s and for misdemeanants in the mid 1990s.
Among those sheparding that change through, and many other nerous things added to registration in the 1990sand early 2000s,was Antonio Villaraigosa, the speaker of the Assembly at the time, and later the mayor of Los Angeles. Note, he is planning to run for governor next time around. (When he became mayor of Los Angeles, one of the first things he proposed was a city TV program with each episode featuring all about one of the people on the registration list!)
Villaraigosa is normally categorized as a liberal!
Anonymous Nobody
Robert, just a note: Registration is technically NOT part of your criminal sentence. It is merely a related administrative matter. Yes, they inform you of it at that time, but it is not part of your sentence. If it were part of the sentence, they could not apply it retroactively.
Anonymous Nobody
Yes, New Person, you make excellent points; unfortunately, the lying courts have ruled on them, except for the privacy issue, and say you are wrong.
Re the privacy, I have promoted that as an attack on registration for a long time, especially since the Alaska high court ruled on that very issue in a registration case and sided with privacy. That was based on the right to privacy in the Alaska constitution. The California Constitution also has a much stronger right to privacy than the US Constitution, but no one has mounted a major attack on that point.
Re 1203.4, the California appellate courts have now ruled repeatedly that it does not actually expunge the conviction, the conviction remains. They say it merely lifts some of the disabilities of a conviction. They saw a conflict in it in that it says it eliminates the conviction, but it also retains some disabilities, such as barring felons from possessing a gun. To solve that conflict, rather than lift the penalties that remain, they lifted the expungement!
72FLH
we need our rights back ,the public is hooked on this REG , and that's not our problem , we did not sell it to the public , but that is not even the point ! the point is that judges are not going by the very clear CA constitution , or the US Constitution ! what kind of freedom can we have living like this? I am not for a tiered system at all! eliminating this registry is the only way we will have a real life with our family and friends , I am sick of being used like a cruch by people that are sold a bill of goods by the crooks that are keeping them sick rather than working on moving on ,now we are being raped over and over , and we have no choice in the matter , we are forced to relive our nightmare ,
mike r
I dont care what people on this site say about this comment I'm saying it anyways...
I will partially repeat myself and expand on my comments...I am dumbfounded have zero faith that any of these organizations really want to eliminate the registry...it is beyond a reasonable mind that none of them have brought suit on the real issues that can not be ignored by the courts i am not going to keep regurgitating the issues we all know the answer to that... i hate to say it but none of these organizations have anything to gain by ending registration...it's very naive to not question the motives of any and every one especially organizations that are growing and benefiting off the registry...slam me with all your hate speech but im telling you but it can't be much harder or expensive to present and argue the real issues that can end the registration scheme..it actually seems like a much easier and credible arguments then all these lame technical issues...dont get me wrong i have benefited from these technical wins here in cali and I do appreciate what has been successful here i just feel if we want real change we are going to have to do it ourselves..
Tobin's Tools 2.0
I think it's great that ACSOL continues to fight against residency restrictions and IML.
However, I agree with many of you that a tiered registry is not a good idea. It's simply troublesome that there are 20 year and lifetime tier levels, even under this tiered registry proposal. Yet by CASOMB's own admission, even "high-risk" labeled registrants are no more likely to reoffend when offense-free in the community for 17 years. Why, then, does CASOMB not propose the maximum tier level at 17 years? Why are 20 years and lifetime levels even necessary?
Remember, CASOMB is the same organization that endorses the polygraph and the sex offender registry when neither are based on science or empirical findings. Same with the questionable Static-99R... which CASOMB incorporates into this phony baloney tiered registry. It's disturbing to say the least.
mike r
how many billions of dollars and pain and suffering on just the residency restrictions are costing the tax payers defending all the law suits taking place across the country and taxes from people who can't find work because they can't even find a place to live let alone work..
I was just informed that I was correct that organizations and individuals can be sued in a false lite action..it seems like a no brainer that these organizations and individuals are projecting us in a false lite and with all the evidence that’s now out there that they should’ve know that it is a false lite and that they are actually desamating it with reckless disregard for the truth and that their actions are causing great detrimental affects.
New Person
Actually, we don't have to go all the way to the SCOTUS.
A Maryland lawyer used their state Constitution to prove Ex Post Facto because it was written in their Constitution.
So why can't we use our state Constitution to combat the registration? I really think (I'm no lawyer though) that we have two laws in our favor in the California Constitution once out of custody of the state (meaning off of probation/parole): 1) Inalienable right to privacy or obtain privacy and 2) Involuntary servitude is prohibited except to punish crime.
If we beat registration in California, then there's a good chance we can beat SCOTUS.
This price club membership... is involuntary service (once your sentence, probation, or parole is completed). Slavery is unconstitutional. Involuntary servitude is prohibited unless it is considered punishment - otherwise, involuntary servitude is a form of slavery. You can walk away from a price club membership and have no ill effects to one's being. You cannot walk away from registration because you are being coerced to registered by penalty of felony punishment - which is the definition of involuntary servitude.
New Person
From CASOMB, less than 1% re-offense rate for registrants.
Why have a tiered system for "less than 1% re-offense rate"?
.
.
.
.
That's the only stat that needs to be re-emphasized, including re-emphasizing it to CASOMB, who believes in a tiered system despite their own work denoting "less than 1% re-offense rate". Seems cruel and unusual to have a tier of any kind if there's a "less than 1% re-offense rate".
New Person
Robert Wrote:
"
Once off probation and parole the requirement to register also ends. The registry as it is today is a form of informal probation/parole so why not call/make it for what it really is?
"
Registration after custody ends, according to the SCOTUS, is administrative. Calling it informal probation incites it is a form of punishment. If registration is ever proven to be punishment, then there will be a huge legal backlash due to the unconstitutionality of the punishment.
The huge hurdle is proving registration is punishment.
How do you prove this legally? There has to be cases and such that judges rule parts of registration punishment. Or... we can see registration (out of custody) for what it is - involuntary servitude.
Here is a quote from lectlaw.com on Involuntary Servitude:
"
INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE & PEONAGE
A condition of compulsory service or labor performed by one person, against his will, for the benefit of another person due to force, threats, intimidation or other similar means of coercion and compulsion directed against him.
In considering whether service or labor was performed by someone against his will or involuntarily, it makes no difference that the person may have initially agreed, voluntarily, to render the service or perform the work. If a person willingly begins work but later desires to withdraw and is then forced to remain and perform work against his will, his service becomes involuntary. Also, whether a person is paid a salary or a wage is not determinative of the question as to whether that person has been held in involuntary servitude. In other words, if a person is forced to labor against his will, his service is involuntary even though he is paid for his work.
However, it is necessary to prove that the person knowingly and willfully took action, by way of force, threats, intimidation or other form of coercion, causing the victim to reasonably believe that he had no way to avoid continued service, that he was confronted by the existence of a superior and overpowering authority, constantly threatening to the extent that his will was completely subjugated.
Title 18, U.S.C., Sec. 1584, makes it a Federal crime or offense for anyone to willfully hold another person in involuntary servitude.
"
.
.
.
Once out of custody, the state has no right to compel you to do any service for them, including registration - unless it considered a form of punishment as stated in the California Constitution, Article 1, Section 6.
"
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
SEC. 6. Slavery is prohibited. Involuntary servitude is prohibited
except to punish crime.
"
There it is in plain English. Registration outside of custody is an involuntary service (whose consequence is a felony punishment) to punish crime. Registration is punishment. Registration is punitive in nature as prescribed by the description of involuntary service.
.
.
.
Also note, the California Constitution provides an "inalienable right to privacy and obtain privacy". Again, once out of custody, what right does the state have to deny you your "inalienable right to privacy or obtain privacy"? Registration, out of custody, forces you to have no privacy, even if it is to law enforcement alone - that is still unconstitutional under the California Constitution.
Basically, do the crime, do the time, and then it ends. You can start anew. California has its constitution, and we should try to enforce it to help our cause.
I can't wait to die
the standards the feds have to be compliant to get the hit list bribe $$$ is to have a tiered system; although Florida is a compliant state, there is no tiered system in place.
New Person
Thanks, Clark!
By legal law definition, it's not indentured servitude if the consequence is a loss of pay or job. (Well, that's what I read online. I have no idea what lawyers determine is involuntary servitude.)
In registering, we are forced to labor our time to process ourselves at least once a year. If we don't register, then we are levied with a felony punishment. The only way this is legal in California is if it a form of punishment.
For example, if I am out of custody and have a job, then I am involuntarily forced to make arrangements with my current job just so I can register my application for that day. I am involuntarily serving the state when I am already out of custody. I will be levied with a felony punishment if I do not labor myself to register within a specified time frame. According to the California Constitution, the only way this is not indentured servitude is if it is to punish a crime. It specifically states that.
So I really want to see what happens when Frank does not register and is persecuted in court with a felony punishment. I think Janice can use this incident to bring forth that registration in California is punishment as specifically stated in the California Constitution. In fact, I think anyone incarcerated for failing to register should have this claim.
Failing to register induces punishment, thus making the act of registration a form of involuntary servitude. In California, that can only be done if it considered a punishment. Thus, making registration punitive. (Again, provided you are no longer under custody of the state. If I am no longer in custody of the state, then I am involuntarily forced to register and process myself - without pay no less).
The SCOTUS may have said that registration is administrative, but under the California Constitution, the residents of California are protected from involuntary servitude - unless it is considered punishment. California Constitution, Article 1, Section 6, is only two sentences long and very explicit.
Hence, it doesn't matter if it's like filling out membership card by the SCOTUS' perspective. Registration is punishment under the legal definition of involuntary servitude under California law. If Janice can prove this in the California Court system, then I'm sure many other states will try to join her. Slavery was banished long ago. I thought involuntary servitude (out of custody) was also.
I can't wait to die
NOMORE,
Attacks must be made on all corners of the hit list with the possibility of getting one or 2 or 3 case's to SCOTUS in hopes of overturning the price club membership or at least parts of it at a time!
nomore
I'd like to add more..
Her and her team are advocates right? Has anyone asked what we want? Has there been a nationwide poll I'm unaware of? I'd think giving people what they want as an advocate would be a good place to start.
She's done great on living restrictions, they're working on IML and a number of other attacks which are great too but those aren't the biggest problems.
Being on the registry is the biggest restriction to a stable life. What good does the lifting of a living restriction mean when you can't find work because everyone and their brother outs you to the boss in less than a week. Try and run a business like that, see how long your customers keep coming in. How about all of the love you get from the public? Death threats, cars and property vandalised, family harassed... I could go on and on.
This all, from being on the registry itself. So you want people to get onboard with something that causes fundamental harm to them AND take the high risk of possibly getting bumped up to all of the previous fun, plus increased time and more restrictions.
Yeah, sign me up for that shit. I'm dying for it.
nomore
How about who? Everyone has given their wishes and comments, they overwhelmingly say no tiered system.
You're analogy falls flat. We are dealing with peoples lives, THEIR lives and they've spoken. We don't need to wait for the public to get it... all we need is for the courts too.
Anyone with a rational mind and a little history on tiered systems knows it's a bad idea for multiple reasons.
This reminds me of the people calling for a constitutional convention. They actually expected the states to reel in the feds when the states are made of the same filth the feds are. They're power hungry corrupt opportunists.
So what in the hell would make them favor you or I in legislation...
You're only way forward is through the courts, unless you want to wait 50 years before the public and the politithugs catch up.
Sorry, that's not smart strategy and nobody should stay quite about it if they think it. After all of the news about recidivism rates and damage the registries causes, you want people to just go with whatever is suggested?
That doesn't stand up to logic, sorry.
Finn
I am all for fighting against International Megan's Law and most certainly, the senseless residency restrictions. But it is the fight for a "tiered" registry that worries me most. Not just the fact a tiered registry will rely on the STATIC-99R scam; but as others mentioned, it gives the message a public registry is effective when the evidence is to the contrary. The registry does nothing but hinder rehabilitation. Registrants in other states talk about how a tiered registry has done little to none in helping them. I could be wrong; but I suspect many may end up very disappointed with the tiered "risk" based registry proposed by CASOMB. A upper LIFETIME tier not defined by the objective fact of criminal conviction, but by the subjective (and seemingly bogus) number scored by the STATIC 99. Again, I hope that I am wrong.
Robert Curtis
The tiered registry should be apart of sentencing guideline for only while on probation or parole. Once off probation and parole the requirement to register also ends. The registry as it is today is a form of informal probation/parole so why not call/make it for what it really is? There is a thing called Lifetime parole and also civil commitment laws for those deemed extremely dangerous.... although with such low recidivism rates that options should be rarely exercised. This way discretion is returned back to our judges to exercise such on a case by case bases and given the ability to adjust terms while registrants are on such probation/parole.
Roger
Telling the public facts is only a SMALL but necessary part of the way to eliminate the registry. Why? The courts may pay attention to facts and find in our favor, but people vote their feelings—especially FEAR--and rationalize supporting bad RC laws by picking and choosing only facts that justify their fear.
Your car cannot immediately shift from 60 mph to going in reverse. There must be a transition of slowing down, then reversing.
Similarly, there is no way a paranoid, fearful public that has been brainwashed with lies about RCs for decades is suddenly going to say, "Wow, those statistics and studies you just told me completely took away my fear of all RCs! Let's dump that registry!" That is pure wishful thinking. That is NOT how humans change belief systems.
There MUST be a transitional time that addresses that INCREMENTALLY lowers their fear using PROOF. The obvious way is to let them see how thousands of low-level RCs who are released over a period of a few years do NOT re-offend.
Then they must see the same results for higher-level RCs.
Then they must see how shortening the time to get off the registry still doesn't cause an increase in offenses.
Then the whole justification for the registry will collapse. And the registry will crumble due to lack of support.
Janice is the expert in navigating public opinion and laws.
We are not.
I vote we support Janice and stop tearing down her plans.
How about you?
Assuming you want to remain an uncompromising idealist of "Absolutely No Registry", please do not badmouth the excellent strategy that Janice advocates. We get enough negativity from those who hate us. Don’t spread their poison for them.
someone who cares
I agree with some of the comments that a tiered registry will only support the thought that the registry is legal. A registry is wrong in every way. Once people have served their time, including probation/ parole, that needs to be the end of the punishment. Also, who will determine the tier level and under what grounds? Nobody can predict anyone's future recidivism, and the Static 99 is an absolute joke. Some said to fight this by demanding the statistics to prove the recidivism rate, and to go by the facts and not just assumptions. How hard is it really to do a powerpoint presentation, proving that all their "facts" are wrong and can;t be the basis of an inhumane and wrongful punishment for so many citizens. We need to show the facts to the public who deserve the truth. If we want to protect the children, the public has a right to know the truth. We are done feeding lies and hysteria. The public deserves the truth!!
Renny
We will never be taken seriously if we continue to regard ourselves as something we are not: Citizens.
If you are not treated exactly the same as a citizen, you are not a citizen.
We are not citizens and we are not Americans. We owe nothing to the United States.
Timmr
I doubt that criminal justice reform was ever a popular issue. Changes to the criminal justice system have only happened when they have been tied to other movements. In the eighteenth century it came on the heels of the rejection of the supreme authority of kings. Today it is tied to the struggle of people of color to gain equality. Where are we in this? To change the very nature of the system in and of itself is something new and revolutionary. It may be the people in this movement will blaze that trail, but only if we think big, offering new solutions along with criticism of what has become the supreme corporate state. Take a look around you, that state is coming under scrutiny from all directions and there are people listening.
Clark
Yes New Person please keep those issues made aware in communication here & elsewhere.
While there has been involuntary servitude as an issue by a number of us here ...it is still good to get out there... Any publicity is Good Publicity.
Involuntary servitude is exactly what attaches to state railroadistry. (registry)
mike r
I am not going to say what I think about people that advocate for a tiered registry because I have told myself not to post negative comments on personal levels but I will say I agree with everyone else that a tiered registry isn't a compromise it's a surrender and an acceptance of unconstitutional laws
.it's very discouraging that it appears no organization believes or wants to challenge the Courts on the lies and false facts and on the real issues...sad
New Person
I don't subscribe to a tiered system either because a tiered system says it is a legal to register people. You are in custody for the rest of your life. Nay, you do your time and it ends thereafter. Registration is a secondary punishment and was judged upon with FALSE FACTS - registrants are not "frightening and high" to re-offend as there are a bountiful of stats available, including CASOMB denoting less than 1% of re-offending. No other convicts share the same levy of extra punishment/conditions. NO OTHER.
The California Constitution, in plain English, states that privacy is an inalienable right and every person has the right to pursue it. We are not supposed to lose it, but suspend it when we make a mistake. Yet the Constitution states we have a right to obtain privacy once again:
"
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.
"
1203.4 (dismissal of the case) states the following:
"
1203.4.
(a) (1) In any case in which a defendant has fulfilled the conditions of probation for the entire period of probation, or has been discharged prior to the termination of the period of probation, or in any other case in which a court, in its discretion and the interests of justice, determines that a defendant should be granted the relief available under this section, the defendant shall, at any time after the termination of the period of probation, if he or she is not then serving a sentence for any offense, on probation for any offense, or charged with the commission of any offense, be permitted by the court to withdraw his or her plea of guilty or plea of nolo contendere and enter a plea of not guilty; or, if he or she has been convicted after a plea of not guilty, the court shall set aside the verdict of guilty; and, in either case, the court shall thereupon dismiss the accusations or information against the defendant and except as noted below, he or she shall thereafter be released from all penalties and disabilities resulting from the offense of which he or she has been convicted, except as provided in Section 13555 of the Vehicle Code.
"
I will point out that "...he or she shall thereafter be released from ALL PENALTIES AND DISABILITIES resulting from the offense..."
1203.4 should trigger the 'inalienable right to obtain privacy" of the California Constitution.
Registration invalidates the "inalienable right to privacy as well as the right to obtain privacy". Whether registration is considered punishment or administrative, in California it infringes upon the "inalienable right to privacy" once your custody is completed.
Registration (after custody) and "inalienable right to privacy' cannot co-exist as they run contrary to one another. There is no privacy if you have to register.
In Maryland, the defender of registrants found verbiage in their Maryland Constitution that states (I'm paraphrasing), "... punishment and registrations... cannot be applied retroactively." Registrants won that fight in Maryland because that verbiage on 'and registration' was re-emphasized! Why can we not apply that same logic here and re-emphasize the California Constitution that explicitly states the "inalienable right to privacy"? That would trump any registration out of custody! Secondly, the 1203.4 awards the completion of a successful probation that will release one from ALL penalties and disabilities. The 1203.4 is the process of "the right to obtain privacy" as it reflects the successful completion to no longer be in custody.
Should there not be a much higher demand to uphold the California Constitution since it guarantees "inalienable rights", including the right to privacy or to obtain one? Please note that no other convicts share the same lack of privacy as registrants.
Odd... reading up on the California Constitution, I found this tidbit:
"
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
SEC. 6. Slavery is prohibited. Involuntary servitude is prohibited
except to punish crime.
"
Is not lifetime registration involuntary servitude? The consequence for not "laboring" your information is a felony punishment and/or prison time. Now, if lifetime registration is legal involuntary servitude, then by legal verbiage in the California Constitution, registration is punishment.
Once registration is legally defined as punishment as described by the California Constitution, then registration can now be identified as cruel and unusual punishment due to the duration of the registration of lifetime and all the peripheral "punishments" attached to being registered.
I'm curious. Frank burned his registration card in protest of the IML in Oakland. It is on video. If Frank does not register (as it is his "job" to register), then he will be levied with actual punishment. Then does not the consequence of that act of being sentenced construe involuntary servitude to the state defines involuntary servitude as punishment as per California Constitution?
In short,
(i) Registration infringes upon the "inalienable right to privacy" as denoted by the California Constitution after custody has ended
(ii) Registration is involuntary servitude, which is considered punishment under the California Constitution because the consequence of not servicing the process of registration is a felony and jail time.
I do not know if anything I brought up makes any legal sense or hedgeway for registrants, but California Constitution has to mean something, especially when it specifically denotes what is punishment.
Robert Curtis
The govt no longer works for and by the people. Our representatives are funneled into a system addicted to feeding off the people. Why does any citizen pay taxes to such a disfunctional beast? RSO's especially are not truly repersented...so we are part of the problem by feeding the thing. IMO
4sensiblepolicies
Right on! That's just about the size of it.
What is most curious is what exactly is it that creates the tipping point where the society finally accepts that their practices are abusive toward an oppressed group. Unfortunately, it seems that the masses have the ability to lie to themselves for generations that something evil is in fact just, or they are able to simply ignore the truth. The few that do recognize injustices at the time they are being committed are generally too fearful to speak up, or see no reason to risk their reputation when they are not personally affected.
How true that so many self-righteous individuals who are absolutely convinced they would have stood up against the treatment of hated groups of the past prove daily that in fact they would not. This includes a great many politicians who consider themselves champions of the oppressed. It represents the height of hypocrisy.
Steve
I agree just say no to A tiered system UNLESS you stay in the current category you are in and people that have been on 20 years or more and have had no further convictions are off the list. We all know what the stats say those on for 17 years or more with no further convictions are as likely to commit a new crime as any other citizen. Nobody should be forced into predator category when they currently aren't that classification . I hope Janice does not let that happen.
Timmr
Part of the painfulness of being registered is the rules keep changing, almost always for the worse. Just when you have adjusted your life to what you are given and have hope that you can salvage something of a life, the law puts you under new rules. We need to fight for no more retroactice restrictions first, or else we are spinning our wheels.
nomore
And you know lawyers know this happens.
Anonymous Nobody
The tiered system is a compromise that at least the other side is doing to make sure registration is PERMANENT. Compromises can be double edged swords. They are simply diluting one of the strongest arguments against registration by eliminating the damning fact of "lifetime," weakening our argument against registration -- although I haven't heard us have an argument against registration, I've only heard us having an argument against some points of it.
Getting what you can now, and going for more or the rest later is one thing -- but you better have a step-by-step plan for the rest, or you are merely undermining yourself. I haven't heard a step-by-step plan.
That said, what we have had for a proposal for a tiered system previously is not good. So, re the reference above that we are waiting for legislation for tiers to be introduced -- I surely hope we are making sure any such new legislation at least gets those right, not wrong as the previously proposals.
The checkpoints in the previous proposals would prove to be a real problem, even disastrous, whether immediately or eventually. There is only one reason the other side wants those checkpoints, and that reason is not a decent one and it is not good for us. All of those checkpoints are useless to the other side -- other than to undermine us.
The time for the registration should be automatic by offense, with an appeals process only to lower your tier. In other words, no review, as in the previous proposals, other than to lower your tier. There must not be a review of everyone and only then decide the tier -- because that will only put you in a higher tier. And the side effect of that review is that it will require a huge bureaucracy to be created to do it -- a bureaucracy that absolutely will work like the prison guard lobby to always demand more of registration, never less; that bureaucracy will start or evolve to be our biggest enemy. Do NOT feed the beast!
Second, the requirement that you file an application when your time is up asking to be released or notifying them it is time to stop: Absolutely not. That is completely useless to the state for the stated reason: They already know your time is up, they can even automate it in the computer to take you off their list. That is in there only for one reason, a very bad reason, as a point for them to create trouble, make up reasons, make up excuses, a point to add onto in subsequent legislation. They already know, they do not now have to be told your time is up. In years gone by, simply stopping registration with no notice was how it worked, and it worked well, there was no application or notice to the state. When you got 1203.4 PC relief after probation, you simply stopped registering -- even though neither 1203.4 nor the order issued from it said nothing about registration. You just stopped, the state knew it, 1203.4 relief was on your rap sheet, just as it is on your rap sheet that your offense is older than the tier for it, and any additional mark if you appealed to a lower tier, so they know that too.
And thus, everyone who already is past that time frame does not have to be assessed and maybe land in a higher tier, does not have to apply to the state to be dropped, those people would already be out from under the registration requirement once the tier law takes effect, not who knows how long later after they hire people to handle all that stuff and deal with it. To make them have an assessment and file an application, or notice, is only asking for trouble. The state, the local police already know, they already know how long since your offense, and your offense tells your tier unless their is an additional note that says you have been lowered.
The old system worked smoothly, so any argument they give that they need that to make sure things go smoothly is nothing but a smoke screen. We don't have to guess, we have done it as I urge for many decades, it is very well tested -- and my way will even save the state money.
You must realize, that assessment and the notices at the end of your time is nothing but a wolf in sheeps clothing. You should always look all all checkpoints as that.
And for god's sake, as the tiers we supported seem to match the time frames for a COR, don't INCREASE the tier for those offenses that are only 7 years to a COR! That is what our tier proposal in the past has done, making that 10 years, not 7! And we are supported that!
Civil Rights First
I live in a state that has a Tiered system.... don't do it California. When I was released from prison in 2003 the Department of Corrections set my level at a level 2 based on the static 99. However, when it came time to be released the county I was releasing to, the Sheriff department elevated my level to a level 3 "because it was not my county of conviction and no local family or friends". Stay united as one group and fight to have it abolished. Getting the level lowered is next to impossible. No one wants to sign their name to it.... the what if risk/fear for their own ass prevents anyone from sticking their neck out. Much like the judges, legislatures etc. No one wants to stick their neck out in support of any RC's because of the what if/fear. If you do push for a tiered system.... good luck getting your level lowered.
nomore
How many lower tiers got bumped up? Gotta be careful when reading news, sometimes they leave out important parts.
O.A.L.
Pennsylvania Supreme court is doing it! And I was under the impression that California was the progressive State , if restoring civil rights is considered progressive!
72FLH
tiered systems don't work , I know level 1's that are now level 3's because of this , this creates yet more lines being drown between each other as RS's , when cutting down a tree you don't start at the top of the tree , no you keep chopping at the as close as you can to the roots , and that's what we need to be ding is chopping at the root of the problem , if you just top the tree it will just keep growing , and our rights are at the roots , everyones rights , not just something called level ONE , we are level nothing , because we did our time , we did our paper , open the door for the ones that Might need help and move on in their live rather than being forced to live as a "victim to the system ""
Roger
As a Registered Citizen (RC), I have this say TO YOU NON-RCs who refuse to treat me and my fellow RCs as humans:
SHAME on you!
Many of you non-RCs fantasize that you are enlightened by thinking things like these:
“If I had lived when America had slavery, I would have stood up to my neighbors as they called them inhuman and inferior to the white races”
or
“I would have definitely stood up for Native Americans as my fellow European Americans called them savages and committed genocide against them”,
Yet RIGHT NOW you treat me and my fellow RCs as subhuman, not worthy of basic human rights.
You feel very self-righteous in your beliefs, just as white Americans did as they enslaved and killed “subhuman” African Americans and Native Americans. You look the other way as whites did when Japanese were interned in WWII, as Chinese were beaten and pushed out of towns, as gays were abused and called predators, and many other people groups today are treated as political pawns, such as Muslims and Latinos.
Ironically, many of you non-RCs working against us are those very people groups that were abused in the past.
My wish is that all you non-RCs have a close relative prosecuted for whatever the latest fad crime is labeled as “sex offense”, such as sexting or urinating behind a tree while at a park. Then you will see firsthand what a Pandora’s box you have opened, and be stuck in a web of your own making.
Then maybe you will have some empathy for RCs and be willing to vote against hate-spewing politicians and laws that perpetuate inhumanity.
TO MY FELLOW RCs, I say: we must get out of our tiny bubble of comfort and be willing to speak up for ourselves.
Let’s show respect to each other in these discussion forms.
Let’s all subscribe to Janice’s Action Alert emails.
Let’s all work with family and friends to write letters and make phone calls when Janice has a call to action.
Let’s contribute as much as we can to ACSOL so they can take legal action against bad laws, lobby against bad bills, and spread the word to our fellow RCs about ACSOL.
Let’s show up in person to events Janice announces. Showing up in person has as huge impact, no matter what you may have heard from some RCs (who don’t show up).
We have a long road ahead of us, but so did African Americans. By being willing to take action, they made huge gains in civil rights.
So can we!
You rock, Janice!
nomore
Well I guess that answers the question of abolishment. If you're hoping for a tiered bill, you aren't hoping for abolishment. Can't imagine why someone would hope for a tiered registry when they know it's just going to bump up the numbers on the higher tier's. Can anyone show me a state that dropped more to lower than bumped up?
RP
As to why, that is how it is with most laws. This is business to these people and not rushing things if the way of our legal system.
Patrick Thompson
I would like to discuss some presence restrictions, and other issues of San Joaquin Parole Department. I am only speaking of my case and I think you can help!
Janice's Journal: We Need YOU to Help Restore Registrants’ Rights on July
Published Date : July 24, 2016
A federal judge made a wise and brave decision on Friday. She granted a TRO which temporarily prohibits the City of Murrieta from evicting a registrant, who suffers from both medical and financial challenges, from the home of his sister, the only person willing and able to care for him.
This judge’s decision is important because it is the first decision by a federal judge to limit the enforcement of residency restrictions in a California city. It can, and will, set a precedent in other cases both within and outside our state.
Another federal judge is facing an even more important decision on July 27 when she hears oral arguments in the lawsuit challenging the International Megan’s Law (IML). The oral arguments that day will focus upon the government’s Motion to Dismiss the case, which is based upon two procedural grounds – lack of ripeness for the claims and lack of standing for the plaintiffs.
The same two issues – ripeness and standing – were argued before the same judge in March after the plaintiffs in the case requested injunctive relief in order to stop enforcement of the IML. The judge denied that request, in part, because the federal government had not yet determined the appearance or placement of a “conspicuous unique identifier” on the passports of several hundred thousand registrants.
Because the federal government still hasn’t revealed information regarding the passport identifiers, it is easy to jump to the conclusion that the judge will again determine that the case is not ripe and dismiss the case. It also possible, however, that the judge will consider this important issue in its historical context. That is, the United States of America has never added a conspicuous unique identifier to its citizens’ passports and the only countries that have done so are Nazi Germany and Communist Russia. This is not hyperbole. This is the truth.
The judge may or may not render her decision on July 27. Regardless of whether she renders her opinion or the decision she makes, there will be a peaceful protest in the courtyard outside the courthouse. The protest will begin immediately after the oral argument and will include banners, signs and buttons.
The biggest and most important question is whether the protest will include YOU. This protest is a unique opportunity for you and your loved ones to help restore the civil rights of hundreds of thousands of registrants and their families.
This protest is a unique opportunity to Show Up – Stand Up – Speak Up. Please join us in Oakland on July 27.
— Related
On Wednesday, July 20th KABF Radio (public affairs) and It Could Be You Hosted by Arkansas Time After Time aired live an interview with Vicki Henry, president of Women Against Registry, and Janice Bellucci, President of California RSOL to talk about the upcoming International Megan’s Law hearing and peaceful protest in Oakland, California on July 27th.
Listen to the Radio Program
— Read all Janice’s Journals
Comments
Nicholas Maietta
It was fantastic to watch Janice chew up and spit out the other person who was arguing that the case should be dismissed.
It was shocking for me to witness common sense fly right over the federal judges' head. Maybe it will "click" before a decision is rendered.
Roger
I'll stand with you at this important event, Janice.
Our fight can't be won if we assume the "other guy" will show up for us. We've got to step away from our computer sometimes and get involved in-person.
I hope others who might not normally consider attending events like this in-person would see how important this particular event is and join us, even though it is a sacrifice for us in time and money.
Yes, for many of us, the time and money may be too great. But at least 135 RCs--one in a thousand out of 135,000--should be able to attend.
If not, we should ask ourselves why.
I look forward to seeing you there, fellow RCs!
4sensiblepolicies
Yes, we must win. But who is Brubaker? How can Brubaker help us win?
Clark
We ask this court to weigh the issues under the doctrine of Strict Scrutiny.
Brubaker
Get Brubaker in this case and WIN.
Fundamental Rights are at issue and have standing deserving the court's strictest case hearing especially when fundamental rights are concerned.
This case must be allowed to go foward as it can be amended on issues that hi-lite the atrocities this iml entails.
Fundamental Rights are at issue.
David H
" Because the federal government still hasn’t revealed information regarding the passport identifiers, it is easy to jump to the conclusion that the judge will again determine that the case is not ripe and dismiss the case. "
By the government's own words, they will have this unique identifier in place by the last quarter of this year.. Two items:
1). if they appear this month and claim they still dont have this identifier figured out--wouldn't it be reasonable to extend the matter before dismissing it, after all it is inevitable!
2) if that portion of the case is dismissed--would and what be anything left to pursue--there were several issues within the lawsuit
Janice's Journal: Hand-to-Hand Combat in California Cities
Published Date : July 18, 2016
Today we are conducting hand-to-hand combat with cities throughout the state of California in order to challenge their residency restrictions. There are more than 100 cities that have such restrictions and thusfar we have filed nine lawsuits.
The series of lawsuits began last year when we challenged residency restriction in the City of Grover Beach that prohibited registered citizens from moving into most of that small city. It also prohibited registered citizens already living in that city from moving into a new home within the same city…..including Frank Lindsay who was viciously attacked in his home by a stranger who vowed to kill him solely because Frank is on the registry.
We chose the City of Grover Beach as the first challenge because we testified there when the City considered whether to expand its residency restrictions from 1,000 feet to 2,000 feet. Despite our testimony as well as verification of the facts we presented by the city’s Chief of Police, the City Council agreed to the expansion.
It took a federal lawsuit to get the attention of the City of Grover Beach. Once that lawsuit was filed, however, the City Council corrected its mistake in 30 days by repealing not just the expansion it had approved, but all of the residency restrictions in that city.
Not all of the cities we have sued have been as smart as Grover Beach. In fact, the dumbest city we have sued so far is the City of Murrieta. Not only did the City of Murrieta fail to repeal its residency restrictions, it filed an unsuccessful motion to dismiss the case just a few months later.
In addition, the City of Murrieta is the only city known to have enforced its residency restrictions following a California Supreme Court case that declared similar restrictions to be unconstitutional in some circumstances. The City, in fact, enforced its restrictions only 10 days ago after a registrant moved in with his sister, a move approved by the CA Department of Corrections under an interstate compact.
In its decision to enforce its residency restrictions, the City of Murrieta did not take into account that the registrant has a low risk of re-offense (Static-99 score of 0), is destitute and has significant health conditions that require in-home care. The City of Murrieta did not take into account that the registrant’s sister is the only person willing and able to care for him and that if he is not allowed to live with her, he will be homeless and possibly die on the streets of Murrieta.
What will it take for the cities of California to abide by the Constitution? Will it take 100 lawsuits? Will it take registrants dying on their streets?
Please stay tuned for the answer as we continue to file lawsuits as well as an application for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) that prevents the City of Murrieta from evicting a registered citizen from his sister’s home.
Read all Janice’s Journals
Comments
D
Is there a copy of the agreement Cypress made in writing available for download? My wife and I are looking to move there and I would like to have that letter "in my back pocket."
Rob
I’m very lucky. On my form I’m not asked for anything other then address and work, I only put my address down. The officer who does my registration does not ask me or writes down my work, internet I’d’s, college I attend, vehicles or anything, he just asks me how is everything, finger prints me, takes my picture and says see you next year. It’s only a 5 min ordeal once a year.
Jon
"99" in Static-99R stands for 99% artificial flavor.
It is hate, imported from Canada. The people who wrote it are from Canada.
Anonymous Nobody
On a related matter concerning residency near parks, and also related to previous forum threads about Los Angeles in particular, I want to inform CA RSOL that Los Angeles is moving more strongly than was already condemned by Janice and others here to have "parks" all over everywhere -- the consequence of which in the finality would be to bar registrants from living in Los Angeles.
The city is now moving strongly under Mayor Eric Garcetti (who I call a fake, especially a fake liberal -- well, pretty much everything about him, if you look into it, is fake), to put in "parklets," which are being done as parks and under the city Recreation and Parks Department, everywhere.
While the impetus for this appears to be to attack use of cars in particular, but also to roust and/or jail the homeless (the city bars "camping" in city parks, and uses that law to roust and jail the homeless), it clearly will have dramatic impact on registrants, and just as clearly, that surely is why at least some city officials like it -- think of the previous thread here about the councilman representing the San Pedro neighborhood urging a parklet be put in at a certain location there because he wanted to run out registrants living on that block. All that is different with this major citywide push now as compared to the San Pedro news is that they aren't saying that, they are keeping quiet about that.
There is now a major, formal city plan to put these in all over. They will put them in on any small piece of dirt they find, and already are, and all of a sudden something 5-feet x 5-feet is a "park." They also are already starting to eliminate parking on streets and use that space to put in a tiny parklet, a park -- the first permanent one (previous ones were demonstration) just went in in the Highland Park neighborhood, and more are on the way sooner than later. (Insane that someone should be stupid enough to want to sit there out at the traffic lanes, rather than on the sidewalk with a safe buffer. So no one will, but it will be there and bar registrants for several blocks around.)
Even a ballot measure this November to raise the sales tax in Los Angeles County for "transportation" will include substantial money in it for these parklets along and in the streets.
I don't know what to do about it, but we all at least need to know of it. This is likely to catch on all over the state.
There is NO legitimacy in barring registrants from living near a park (or anything else that anyone else can live near). And all that restriction is doing is to provide the tool to bar registration from living (or being homeless) anywhere.
Anonymous Nobody
Liars figure, and figures lie.
Anonymous Nobody
What she just said is that it is not retroactive, she said it applies (as it currently stands) only to those convicted on or after Jan. 1, 2017 -- that means not retroactive. Unless you shod have a new conviction, it does not affect you directly.
Anonymous Nobody
Good thoughts David. But as far as not being notified, and thus not having any knowledge about it, that can be a defense if you were to be prosecuted -- so in the end, it might be better not to be notified than to be notified. (And you have no legal requirement to sign anything when you go in to register to indicate you have been notified. They will try to make you do so, but you can refuse to -- they will have to find another way to prove you were notified, such as bring in more officers as witnesses to it -- more burden on them.)
There are always details about such defenses, and since I'm not a lawyer, l'm not going to say you can use it for all things related to registration, I'll leave that to the lawyers to say. However, I have read multiple appellate cases where it was ruled that defendants cannot be prosecuted for registration violations unless it can be shown they had knowledge of the requirement -- this is why you get any notification about it, so they can prosecute you.
I note, knowledge is not simply being notified, if there is any other way you came to know, you still knew (such as from this Website), and if that can be shown, you still could be prosecuted.
Still, your ideas about so burying the locals in costly and constant litigation that they finally scream uncle simply because of the burden is a legitimate, indirect way to fight registration. Of course, you have to consider what other things you are not doing because you are doing that.
Mike r
lake county good to see you are still active on this site and in our fight for our rights.
Tara Swift
Thank you Janice, for your dedication and hard work. Fresno County needs to be on the list of unconstitutional municipalities.
Tara Swift
My husband was coerced by his public defender, to plead guilty to a crime he didn't commit --1st degree Child Molestation back in 1991 Washington State. We live in Fresno, Ca, where he is on PRCS. His probation officer applies the 2000 ft residency restriction "one size fits all," and as a result, we are homeless. We need help and have nowhere to turn. Fresno is not following Re: Taylor! The Officers at the 290 Registration office have told us they do not enforce the residency restriction and that the PRCS officer who handles all 290s is "hanging her hat on it."
Tara Swift
My husband was coerced by his public defender, to plead guilty to 1st degree Child Molestation back in 1991 Washington State. We live in Fresno, Ca, where he is on PRCS. His probation officer applies the 2000 ft residency restriction "one size fits all," and as a result, we are homeless. We need help and have nowhere to turn.
Roger
Awesome, Janice! You rock! Thanks for fighting for us!
Janice Bellucci
Due to technical difficulties, the story regarding Murrieta has not yet been added to the website. Here is what we wrote earlier today that will be posted as soon as possible along with the judge's 10-page decision:
Federal judge Virginia Phillips issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) today that prohibits the City of Murrieta from enforcing its residency restrictions against a registrant who moved to his sister's home earlier this month. The TRO will remain in effect until August 15 when a hearing will be held to determine whether the judge will grant additional injunctive relief.
"This is a great victory for registrants," stated attorney Janice Bellucci. "For the first time, a federal judge has stopped the enforcement of a city's residency restrictions in the state of California."
According to the decision, the city's application of its restrictions to the plaintiff violates the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution because it was the result of blanket enforcement and did not consider the actual risk posed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has a Static-99 score of zero and is physically disabled. He moved to Murrieta under an interstate compact, approved by the CA Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, in order to obtain medical care and financial support.
In its decision, the court considered as evidence a recent report issued by the CA Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) which concluded that "residence restrictions are likely to have the unintended effect of increasing the likelihood of sexual re-offense." The report also found that residence restrictions lead to homelessness and are associated with an unstable lifestyle that includes housing instability unemployment.
In its decision, the court noted that the CASOMB report "suggests that allowing Plaintiff to reside with his sister in Murrieta may promote the public's interest in child safety, as it would provide stability to Plaintiffs' life and decrease the likelihood he would re-offend. The court also noted that "allowing Plaintiff to remain in his sister's house may actually further Defendant's (Murrieta's) legitimate interest in protecting children."
Punished for Life
Janice,
It's so nice to hear good news every now and then. With all of the negative news, it's very refreshing to hear something positive.
Frank
James
Yahoooo....!
I am so proud of you!
(not that this should mean anything to you...but I am just bursting with pride for you and I have tears in my eyes...)
You are going to have so much good karma going for you the gates of heaven will welcome you with similar joy...which is not to say you're going to heaven soon, rather you will be welcomed.
That paragraph above is fairly awkwardly phrased...let me just try again:
Congratulations, you do good in this world!
Best Wishes, James
PS I am just too excited by this to write well...this is a big win.
Lake County
Relax everyone, there are no new requirements. Perhaps this person is on probation/parole and they are only requirements for him.
Renny
Murrieta.......
A Mormon infested cesspool of incestual deviants. I speculate that not ONE of the City Council members of Murrieta would pass the polygraph examination given to sex offenders.
Murrieta....... well known by the rest of Riverside County as the city where a black man is truly a nigger, a Hispanic man is truly a spic and the Jews are nothing but oven fodder.
Murrieta....... Where you slow down to 69 on the 15 simply out of fear that the CHP might turn you over to the city cops.
Let's make them pay...
Janice Bellucci
The judge in the Murrieta case issued a TRO today that prohibits the city from enforcing residency restrictions against a registered citizen. In her decision, the judge relied heavily upon last year's CA Supreme Court decision, In re Taylor, as well as a recent CA Sex Offender Management Board report. The judge stated in her ruling that "the CSOMB Report suggests that allowing Plaintiff to reside with his sister in Murrieta may promote the public's interest in public safety, as it would provide stability to Plaintiff's life...." More information about this decision will be added "soon" to the website.
CA
My fellow registered citizens, how I keep up with the current laws regarding PC 290 every year, is by going to the ca assembly website and seeing if any new laws have been added! whats convenient, is that under every statute it has the year of implementation. Its at the bottom of the web page under "ca laws" just FYI.
If anybody has any feedback, i would appreciate that- thank you :]
Mike r
wow two days later still no elaboration about these supposed knew requirements in ca thats nice throw a bombshell out there then leave people hanging for days...not cool man...
G4Change
Sue Murietta for $1 Billion dollars for violation of this man's Constitutional and Human rights. Enough is enough!!!!
Nicholas Maietta
Wow, I just went into register a few days ago, and NO changes to the forms.
steve
How could anyone possibly know what you are talking about if you don't post these requirements
Mike r
I had 22 requirements on my forms in my last registration in November
Mike r
concerned what are these 12 new requirements. please elaborate on this subject.
RH
Concerned Mistake,
Please tell us what the 12 new requirements are in California. I’d like to follow them since “ignorance” of the law is not a valid reason for not following it.
jd
I thought the battle with Long Beach was over. Didn't the city finally agree to amend its residency restrictions this past June?
http://all4consolaws.org/2016/06/long-beach-residential-restrictions-for-sex-offenders-to-be-amended-after-state-rules-buffers-unconstitutional/
This especially concerns my husband and me, as he is nearing the end of his probation and we're considering moving back into our condo (which we own), located between a daycare center and a park.
David H
Yes that's what I meant (I guess depends on the definition of gross negligence); I meant bankrupt or make a significant financial impact on cities, State government, county, etc for their negligence--it's all around--no other class of citizen administratively gets treated in such a manner--i don't know half of what I'm criminally liable for--it's government and those who personally are involved responsibility to insure I and the public know what I may or may not do. The burden is on them to inform--they have a registration (administrative) process in place where this could be easily managed--there's no excuse that I dont know what can send me to prison
Janice Bellucci
You are confused, CA. My column addresses residency restrictions which went into effect with the passage of Jessica's Law. You are talking about AB 2569 which has not yet been passed or signed by the Governor. If AB 2569 is passed and signed, it will apply only to those convicted on or after January 1, 2017.
ConcernedMistake
What about the 12 new requirements that just got forced into effect? I went down in California and just got confronted with 12 new requirements. I have copy. Of all 12
Joe Unger
I commend Janice's efforts and wish her and her team well. It seems the only way to attack these laws is that they violate so many of the tenets of our US constitution. RSO from Houston TX
Janice Bellucci
As a general rule government organizations cannot be sued for mere negligence although they can be sued for gross negligence.
CA
whoa- wait a minute this law is supposed to ONLY apply to those convictions involving the internet!
and convicted after 2017 right??????
David H
Just as a side thought--I would think it in our best interest to begin suing for the simple things, such as negligence to inform or notify of laws and restrictions or regulations, etc. it may be enough pay some bills to do so, assuming attorney fees and legal expenses are recoverable. If they or someone like myself would be willing to be a plaintiff in a lawsuit, putting up the filing fee costs, etc. as a beneficiaries cost adjusted risk. In my opinion we need to make the government perform all the necessary functions to keep registrants notified of laws concerning themselves, as to not notify us of such punishing laws and their criminal consequences surely is a duty of governments and negligent should they not--certain members of government could also be found personally negligent, etc. With this approach we are demanding this world they claim that exists and that all these laws are administrative in nature--we;;if I can go to prison over if I'm not in compliance with these laws, then I want a perfectly administrated system that works for the public safety of the community. It should become very obvious to them the true cost of what they've created and perhaps it's time to bankrupt some cities or council members and mayors.
David H
She sure did do the devil's work during her tenure on this earth--can't say she'll be missed by me
David H
CA--if i may--"regardless" simply means if you are convicted of a registering offense no matter (regardless)of what that offense is it (the statute) is applicable
David H
Yes thank you Janice; I am a resident of Long Beach and am unaware of any residency restrictions. In fact, I just registered this month and was not advised of any, and merely initialed the standard form. I also was not notified of any travel notifications I must provide as a result of the IML/AWA. isn't this just plain ole negligence on behalf of the city/state?
Could you please identify the restriction(s) in Long Beach you are referring to.
Kindest...
Erwin
You think Bell Gardens would have more pressing needs to worry about such as mayors getting assassinated by their wife
Roger
Janice, thanks for your tireless efforts. Without you and other dedicated CA RSOL supporters, many of us would be in the same hellish situation as the Murrieta registrant. I will support CA RSOL in any way I can, including the Oakland protest.
Punished for Life
Seems somewhat ironic to me, with all of the Murietta talk, that I just visited Murietta, CA.
While there, along with family, went to some baseball games at "Parks" in neighboring towns.
This is all entirely a crock of BS.
The laws that are being passed just make me sick to my stomach.
I went in, spent time with family and got the hell out of California within 5 days.
I think it's still 5 days? Can't keep up with the changing laws.
Robert Curtis
Assemblywoman Melissa Melendez does have issues from her past and not just for herself. We all have our own ways of dealing with hurt...some withdraw and some strike out in various ways. We are not so disconnected from each other. Hate sadly is also a binding force.
David Lambert
Our favorite California State Senator, Sharon Runner, passed away July 14th. Her replacement ought be better, since it would be hard to be worse.
Timmr
I think it is the demographic, not just the person. Not to say it can't happen, but I can't imagine a middle class suburban, Trump supporting Republican gaining office in Grover Beach.
Rambo
Static 99? I'd like to go hand-to-hand combat with that actuarial "instrument" created and used by a bunch of scam artists.
Unforgiven citizen
Murrieta is in Melissa Melendez district do we see a connection i think she has issues from her past she needs to come to terms with...
CA
I honestly believe I am not alone, with my concerns regarding these two unconstitutional bills, AB 2569 & SB 448
that is why i am asking these questions, thank you for all you have accomplished!!!!
jason
These cities are breaking the law. They should be held accountable for knowingly breaking the law....criminals
CA
Also Janice, and i really appreciate your patience, as for clarity again on AB 2569, Is it retroactive?
and what if your conviction was from 18 yrs ago?
And you were granted exclusion in 2008?
BTW, the conviction was not incest related!
CA
I know this is off subject Janice but as for some clarity, SB 448 is just for those registered citizens, convicted after January 1st 2017 correct???
BECAUSE WHAT CONFUSES ME IS THAT IT STATES =This bill would make a person who fails to provide his or her Internet identifiers, as required by the bill, regardless of the offense upon which the duty to register is based, guilty of a misdemeanor punishable in a county jail not exceeding 6 months.=What does regardless off the offense of which the duty to register is based mean?
Hopeful4all
Thank you Janice!!!
Nicholas Maietta
Wow, they just won't learn. Janice, i'd be afraid to go hand-to-hand combat with you. :)
GO GET 'EM.
Janice Bellucci
The 9 cities that have been sued are Grover Beach, Cypress, Arcadia, Murrieta, Long Beach, Gardena, Bell Gardens, Norwalk, and Apple Valley. Two of the cities have repealed (Grover Beach, Arcadia), one has significantly revised its restrictions (Bell Gardens), one has agreed in writing not to enforce (Cypress) and the remainder are pending.
Robert Curtis
Has anyone sought to get Assemblywoman Melissa Melendez to contact the city of Murrieta requesting them to repeal their ordinance? That city is in her district I believe. Probably don't want the request to be hung over the water cooler as a laughing point in the office... I guess the only other recourse is law suite... then NEXT...
jd
Janice, again, thank you for your constant effort to restore the civil rights of registered citizens and their families. Besides Murrieta, what other cities are you currently suing?
Janice's Journal: David Slays Goliath Again
Published Date : July 3, 2016
Like the young shepherd who battled the giant Goliath, Major David Ellis slayed Charles Rodrick in federal district court this week. It was Ellis’ second court victory against Rodrick, who is the owner and operator of a series of websites including three websites which identify more than 750,000 American citizens as registered sex offenders regardless of whether they are currently required to register or even dead.
Rodrick’s websites at one time required individuals to pay up to $500 to have their name, photo, home address and other personal information removed. In addition to preying upon registered citizens, Rodrick also preyed upon people like Ellis after they helped registered citizens. Specifically, Rodrick falsely stated that Ellis had committed felonies such as falsifying tests results on aerospace equipment.
Following a three-day trial this week, the jury decided in Ellis’ favor and granted him $325,000 for damage to his reputation and physical suffering. The jury’s verdict will serve as a foundation for a request for an injunction to be submitted this month to the judge. If granted, the injunction could permanently shut down Rodrick’s websites.
During the trial, Rodrick revealed that the information he posted on his websites about registered citizens was taken from another website, National Predator Database, without payment. He also revealed that he did not attempt to verify the information he took which he later found included individuals convicted of crimes such as robbery and murder.
Also during the trial, Rodrick revealed that he is currently under investigation by the FBI. In fact, the FBI has already served a search warrant upon Rodrick which resulted in the FBI’s confiscation of seven computers, several thumb drives and hundreds of documents.
This week’s trial was the culmination of a lawsuit filed more than three years ago during which more than 400 documents were filed. This week’s trial also followed an earlier lawsuit filed by Rodrick in state court which claimed that Ellis and others had harmed him after Rodrick’s name, photo, home address and other personal information were posted on a public website. The defendants in that case successfully filed a counterclaim against Rodrick in state court and were awarded more than $1 million in damages in September 2014, which have not yet been paid.
The question is: when will Rodrick learn the lesson that he cannot continue to post false and harmful information about others, including registered citizens, on the internet? The answer is: if he hasn’t learned that lesson yet, he could be facing a new lawsuit soon.
Related
Jury delivers $325,000 verdict against sex-offender websites owner
Comments
Adam Galvez
I spent quite a bit of time trying to figure out what to say in response to this post. I found your response to be the best. This is a very self serving post, that's what I got out of it. It also kinda angers me that there is no mention of the other two plaintiffs and the major sacrifices that they made. I understand that the truth might hurt the cause... Fortunately we do have one last resort and that is the FBI. If we are to see anything actually accomplished it will be because of the hard work that the special agent is currently doing. Unfortunately there seems to be a battle for a true leader in this cause and that seems to hinder the movement. I personally feel if you want to get anything done, do it yourself, if you can get a bit of help along the way utilize it but don't depend on it. A true leader cares only about the cause and not their own personal agenda.
Clark
'Public perception' or the real public deception. I say it's the deception.
The registry is like enron company stock: inflate the info, manufacture info the people buy into the stock.
Its a sham, house of cards. Its enron type public policy. The public got GOT..!
Timmr
I also read a study that the numbers of non-registrant convicts that go out an commit sex crimes (especially violent crimes, like rape) is greater that those committed by registrants, because almost all of the non-registrant type crimes have a higher recidivism rate (committing any new crime) and there are more of them.
Timmr
I think the greatest battle is with public perception and agree with I Support CARSOL, I can imagine the public outcry for the justices to resign if they claimed registration is unconstitutional at the present moment. I am not being defeatist here, just thinking we need to consider the whole social ecosystem that has developed around these laws.
The Coffey Family
WOW, thanks Janice, wow. Congrats.
O..A.R.
Agree 100%. What victory. Battles don't win wars. Killing the enemy wins wars. Afghanistan taught us that. We must completely defeat our enemy anyway possible. Guerrilla warfare, intimidation, all out aniallation. Whatever it takes.
anonymously
The statistic used in the Illinois Murderer registry article and also used multiple times pertaining to the IML lawsuit which is that registrant parolees are 4 times more likely to commit a new sex offense than non-registrant parolees is not relevant because the rate of both registrant new sex offense is so low and the rate of non-registrant new sex offense is also so low, 1/4 of the former, that the ratio of 4:1 rate of new sex offense is not important. As I have mentioned before, it's like the ratio of winning a 4 million jackpot to winning a 1 million dollar one being 4:1, but that ratio is not important since the odds of winning either is so low. Doing a little math and kicking around the numbers...If as claimed in the up until now irrelevant stat of registrant parolee's being 4 times more likely to commit a new sex offense than non-registrant felon parolees, if that study's claim is true, then the 4 felons Charles "Gilson" Rodrick, Brent Oesterblad, Oesterblad's brother who also went to prison for the same scam, and I think Oesterblad's girlfriend or maybe Gilson's girlfriend in on the scam, would pose the exact same risk of committing a new sex offense as a registrant of committing a new sex crime. These 4 felons, combined, by the logic of the stat that seems to be gaining traction, need to be outted for the felons they are, as well as restricted from normal daily life. The "4 times more likely" stat supports this.
Hopeful4all
Chris F... It's information and knowledge like this that enlightens citizens as myself to be encourage that there is hope. With all those who support this war in a possitive way and with people such as yourself and Janice taking on one battle at a time can eventually mount up in preparation for the greatest battle b4 us...SCOTUS. Thank u Chris F for an informative and encouraging post.
Chris F
Those rulings were back in 2003 when registries were much less punitive. The argument against it being a "Due Process" violation in Connecticut V Doe was based solely on the fact the government was merely providing a list of publicly available information with no inference that an individual was presently dangerous.
That argument became totally invalid the moment after Connecticut won that case when laws were created against those on the registry and different "tiers" and durations were established. The state can't now say "Hey, we aren't letting these people near schools, in certain jobs, and aren't protecting them against discrimination from employment or housing but that doesn't mean we are saying people on this list we created have any potential at all to be dangerous".
If a proper case is put before SCOTUS, they have a team of people (3 or 4 per justice) that research and offer opinions to judges before a determination of which cases will be heard. That team is made up of newly graduated law students, and thankfully, not politicians or news media. Since I have never seen a law student that researches the issue of Sex Offender registration come to any conclusion other than the ones we come to, I am not worried the case won't receive the attention it deserves. This is especially true if there are enough plaintiffs on a class action where a SCOTUS opinion is imperative.
I would hope if this does make it to SCOTUS again, that the justices allow a "friend of the court" brief from Sex Offender Treatment Providers with arguments and recommendations for how the case should be decided.
D
One of the best ways to get the SCOTUS to hear a case is to have a circuit split.
Hal
Major David Michael Ellis, I appreciate your honesty. If we only had more men like you . That is what this country needs.
Just Sayin'
The big Picture victories could happen a little more quickly, if registered citizens , and the(families of) the incarcerated could adovocate together with one another. Those incarcerated for sex crimes , like c/p, and others, have the same problems you face, when they are released. Your issues are their issues. However, you may not see it this way, but their issues are your issues, too. The sentence guidelines have been revised, upward, something like nine times, since c/p became a federal crime in 1996. The Federal Sentencing Commission has even issued its own recommendation, to Congress, with regard to the need to revise the guidelines,downward, this time. However, both Congress, and the Commission, have been bridled by ignorant, and false opinions, of the vocal public, on social media, along with untruthful facts and statistics.
This is the season where the FCS invites public opinion with regard to the 2017 agenda,those things the public considers to be a focus for the next year. If the FSC would focus on the need to revise the sentencing structure downward, that would help to refashion public opinion, about these crimes. Right now, c/p offenders are often given punishments which exceed murderers, serial rapists, along with c/p producers. This is so backwards, and it is largely due to "proxy punishments, which means that c/p possessors are being punished for what they are imagined to have done, in a hands-on manner, and what they are imagined to do in the future, with no evidence to support those imagined crimes, both of which are unjust, and not considered for any other crime.
If RCs would consider joining this writing campaign, it could end up affecting their own plight in a positive way. Numbers can speak loudly, and you could use this platform to also speak to your concerns, as well. For example, there has been much reliance on the Bureau of Prison's admitted faulty study of inmates with regard to potential recidivism.This study is called the Butner Study. There was coercion involved with the study, since inmates with a sex crime history were coerced to "remember" more past crimes than they were charged, or they would be dismissed from the study, and sent back to the general population, where their criminal history would, then, be evident to other inmates. They feared jailhouse justice., The statistics of this study were skewed, and the data false. Yet, even the FBI holds on to this study as absolute truth to this day!
Please see the Federal Sentencing Commission's website at United States Sentencing
Commission at www.ussc.gov. The deadline for these letters is 7/25/16 (Federal Sentencing), and consider adding your voice..
I Support CARSOL
First thing to remember is that the high court has already ruled that the registration is legal and not punitive. It will take a very unique case to get SCOTUS to even consider this issue again. SCOTUS does not have to ever accept to rehear this case again. They agree to hear very few cases each year and getting them to rehear a case that they already decided will take a miracle. It is not our choice if we want to fight the registry in the SCOTUS, the choice belongs solely on SCOTUS. And since the public is against us, SCOTUS is unlikely to want to hear this issue or rule in our favor. I could just imagine the public outcry if the court ended the public registry before the public became educated and sympathetic to our cause.
Robert
data and evidence are piling up on our side.....read the new Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare, June 2016 article "Grand Challenges:
Social Justice and the Need for Evidence-based Sex Offender Registry Reform"
http://www.wmich.edu/hhs/newsletters_journals/jssw_institutional/institutional_subscribers/43.2.Levenson.pdf
Timmr
Whoa! Lighten up. Just because someone disagrees or is asking for clarification doesn't mean they are bad for the movement. In fact, that is healthy. Be the Democracy you imagine, the one they want to exclude you from. If anything, we should feel free to question or disagree. That is a right they can't take away.
Kudos for those who actually stand up and speak out. Thank you Major Ellis. Thank you, Janice. Thank you Derek Logue. Thank you, Roger. Words have no force without the context of body, movement and place.
Thank you all for standing up and questioning authority.
Chris F makes a valid point. What is a marathon if you don't know the route? Otherwise, it is wandering in the desert, pacing yourself to an unknown destination.
If you want followers in numbers, not just a handful in the know, you have to lay out the route in enough detail for them to go on and not get lost.
Chris F
Janice, what you do is amazing and I wish we had someone like you here in Texas. The battles you have won will hopefully set examples to help those in other states as well.
That being said, I still wish someone would explain to me how the marathon can actually accomplish the goal of getting rid of S.O. and other registries that only serve to harm and do nothing to protect citizens. As a former high level IT manager and chess player, I've become pretty good at seeing cause/effect and figuring out how things play out in the long run.
With this issue, challenging every addition to the restrictions is absolutely needed. No doubt about that. If the next step is to nibble away at existing laws, then I am afraid at best we'll get back to where we were during and shortly after Doe V Smith 2003. We'll have made registries just less burdensome enough that any Supreme Court challenge will again side with the lawmakers and the burden placed on offenders will be seen as minimal enough that we should just deal with losing some constitutional rights even if it is only a placebo to make society feel safer.
I would assume the best time to strike at the core issue is now, when the high court shouldn't be able to gloss over all the recent absurd news stories of homeless sex offenders due to residency restrictions and the additional branding our passports with a mark of shame.
I know you are very busy, but if one of your future posts could paint a picture of the course that will be taken for this marathon to be successful it would be much appreciated.
Thank you for all that you and your supporters do.
Roger
Major David Ellis and Janice, thank you for your hard work in gaining a high-profile win against a financial predator of RCs. Major, we are honored to have you on our side.
The guys who wrote negative comments like “disgusted with celebrating these little victories” and “Good for Major Ellis but it suck for the rest “ and “never resolves the big issue” imply that if we focus only on their favorite solution--like fighting SORN or wins in the Supreme Court or whatever—-that will end the war against RCs.
You are ignoring the fact that legal victories like this one are a vital part of our success in this war because they make our lives more tolerable in the short term, and encourage us to go on fighting.
Legal victories are only one front of attack in this war. We must fight on MANY fronts: telling our stories to family and friends and others so they understand we aren’t monsters, writing letters, making calls, going to Sacramento to fight bad bills so they can see we aren’t monsters, challenging city regulations, donating to CA RSOL, posting comments, and others.
The core problem driving the creation of anti-RC bills and websites is that we are fighting a huge war of perception. The public has been brainwashed for decades by politicians to think RCs are all inhuman monsters that must be closely restricted. This causes the public to vote for politicians who beat up on us. It is a vicious cycle.
Black Americans have been fighting this kind of war of perception for hundreds of years. They were considered less than human for centuries, which allowed white society to restrict them in any way they wanted. It took blacks a century after the civil war to get basic civil rights, and today they are still fighting discrimination. They fight on multiple levels.
Instead of making negative flaming comments no matter whether we have a win or a loss, try complementing those who have worked hard. Encourage them, don’t tear them down with “armchair soldier” intellectual arguments.
If it weren’t for those fighting hard for us, our lives would be living hell of residency and presence restrictions, wearing GPS, putting big signs in our front yard on Halloween, and many other bad bills and laws Janice has won for us.
It will be a long war for us. Let’s keep fighting on multiple fronts, and encourage each other as we battle.
Unforgiven citizen
I am honored and moved greatly buy your words Sir, you are a true patriot. Your forward thinking is a mark of agreat man. I would follow you into battle without hesitation.
Regards,
LCDR,(CEC)USN.ret.
Janice Bellucci
Thank you, Maj. Ellis, for reminding us all of the "big picture". We need to work together to stop the Pendulum of Punishment that has harmed so many for so long. It will take a l-o-n-g time to stop that pendulum and therefore I urge everyone to remember that this is not a 100-yard dash but instead it is a marathon (26.2 miles).
Hopeful4all
Absolutely amazing! Well said Major. Thank you for such encouraging words.
Major David Michael Ellis, USMC (ret)
Folks reading this. This is Major David Michael Ellis, USMC, (ret). Also referred to as the "General". To be honest up front. I injected myself into your world first because I do not like bullies nor felons whom claim that they champion a cause. Make no mistake, that the battle against RODRICK and OESTERBLAD, and the ilk that they work with is wrong on so many levels. They ARE former felons, you all are former felons on some level or another. But, you all are CITIZENS, of these United States. You payed your dues and should be allowed to move on. A Felony is a matter of moral turpitude. Most have noticed that Rodrick (Gilson) and Oesterblad DO NOT show up on any mugshot website anywhere.. This costs them a lot of money. They want to extort others based on a "class". You all say to yourselves.. "what the Hell?". I agree. Ms. Janice.. does all that she can to right these wrongs. In this past Federal Case in the AZDC system, I asked to be joined. My tactical knowledge of the situation dictated that a injection of strength be portrayed to make it a WIN FOR ALL.
Let OESTERBLAD and RODRICK "spin it" anyway they want. They have NO IMMUNITIES under the laws of the United States. So this WIN, is a significant win against idiots who think they can yell "fire" in a crowded theater. That is the BIG PICTURE. SO if your reading this and have become a reformed productive member of society.. continued on your path of being a citizen.. GREAT. I made an oath to up hold and defend the Constitution of these United States to protect Citizens from all enemies foreign and domestic. As far as I'm concerned the terrorist racket that Rodrick and Oesterblad have formed needs to be eradicated. That IF THEY want to continue on the path of "name them shame them" .. They too need to be shamed for the lack of moral turpitude they both exhibited in their lives.. Gentleman and ladies.. They are no better than you.. on so many levels. Hold YOUR heads high. Support Ms. Janices cause with ALL that you can. I believe in her. She is an activist you should be proud of and support.. IF ONLY TO DO ONE THING. Put Rodrick and Oesterblad in PRISON again for violating your rights as citizens.
Rob
I was thinking the same thing.
Chris F
Please explain the "big picture" to me then. I see a game of whack-a-mole. While individual battles do need to be dealt with like Janice does, I don't see the tide changing yet.
Perhaps since she can now fight in the Supreme Court, there is a case she can fight there and change the tide. Which one though? Is it the scarlet letter on passports? Or is it a real challenge to the entire thing by attacking the registry as a whole and failure of due process for everyone?
Please fill me in.
Unforgiven citizen
You guys don't see the big picture. Continue to live in your negative world and feel sorry for your self, and most of all remember what got you here. Janice does see the big picture an is why she is fighting for our constitutional rights as well to education the rest of the world we are not all the same and should be seen as such
Doc Martin
"Also during the trial, Rodrick revealed that he is currently under investigation by the FBI. In fact, the FBI has already served a search warrant upon Rodrick which resulted in the FBI’s confiscation of seven computers, several thumb drives and hundreds of documents"
Wouldn't it be poetic justice if the FBI found CP on Rodrick's computers?
LJ
Derek, you and I see things the same way. So often the other side spins stories to demonize RSO's, then our side does the same to skew things to look like victories. This is a prime example. It was a win for Ellis, but a major loss for the RSO's. I get so disgusted with celebrating these little victories. Why? Because it never resolves the big issue. Not to mention if a law is defeated, it is altered and resubmitted to the legislature and often passed. So in the end nothing is really accomplished. The fight is for SORN and the root beimg the false premise of high recidivism. Even when some challeng those things, the attorneys don't utilize all the information available, so the big challenges are unsuccessful. So we continue to endure injustice. It is unbelievable for us who live in this subsection of society. That is my problem with the ACLU and others. They put on this persona of being fighters for the little guy, for the oppressed, but really they seek notoriety and have their own agenda. How else can they explain that they fight with a full spread of docmentation for little battles and lawsuits, but fail to do the same on the fights that actually could change things for our community as a whole? In fact, I have letters from the ACLU stating they only take on cases they are sure to win or have a certain level of infamy. One time I had twenty five plaintiffs in county jail who were not being allowed showers and being fed regularly while luving in cells that were unclean often wuth other people's fecal matter and blood as well as rotten food and mold on the walls and floors of the entire pod. That was our reply. Each and every one. Yeah, that is pretty diplorable if you ask me.
Nicholas Maietta
Rodrick appears to be hiding behind a loophole in section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996. The loophole is that he can create other websites, post the information there, then repose the same information on another website he owns. He can also utilize Oesterblad to write something, then post it himself and visa versa.
Derek W Logue of OnceFallen.com
What about the other plaintiffs? Obviously, the jury didn't side with either of them. The only thing I took away from the decision is if you are charged with a sex crime and not convicted, or if you are the mother of a registrant, the US District Court of Phoenix doesn't believe you are worthy of protection. Good for Major Ellis but it suck for the rest of Chucky's victims.
Janice's Journal: A Man Committed Suicide
Published Date : June 17, 2016
After being arrested for possession of child pornography, a man committed suicide yesterday. We can only speculate why he would commit such a desperate act. Was it because he was also charged with “exchanging sexually explicit messages with a teen in California”? Was it because he was a member of law enforcement, a deputy sheriff in Florida?
It is likely that we will never know his reason why.
What we do know, however, is that many others have chosen the same path. That is, many men have committed suicide because they could not or would not live their lives burdened by the label “sex offender”.
These extreme acts are to be viewed with compassion and understanding. For the people who committed them – our brothers, sons, nephews and husbands — did so because of the extreme duress borne by each and every person whose name, photo and home address are posted on a sex offender registry.
Their duress comes in many forms – underemployment or unemployment, homelessness, isolation from family, social stigma and/or vigilante violence.
Suicide under these circumstances is understandable. However, we cannot and should not sit idly by. Instead, it’s up to us to change these circumstances, to give men who have already paid their debt to society what they deserve — an opportunity to live in peace, to enjoy their families and to contribute their talents to society.
It’s up to us to Show Up – Stand Up – Speak Up. There are many opportunities to do so during the next month as we oppose legislation in Sacramento on June 21 and June 28, educate ourselves in Los Angeles on July 16 and protest the International Megan’s Law in Oakland on July 27. Please join us by honoring those who have fallen as well as providing a better life for those who remain.
Comments
Harry
"Maybe his death brought about attention to the travesty of what being labeled does..." I it doubt John, the way the public reaction to RC, they would like to see more.
nomore
I'm sorry you feel that way, Renny. I personally wouldn't give them the satisfaction. Dying alone is no way to go.... taking a few wholes with you, now that's class. lol just kidding. I shouldn't make light.
HOOKSCAR
You know, trust me, it crosses my mind often. I see a reason to live that trumps the thought. I cannot fathom my son not being without me. Period. I cannot fathom having the love from my "wife". There are more important reasons to live. He was narcissistic.
John
The one thing that I have learned after becoming an RSO is having empathy and compassion for others. Hearing anyone take their lives over being convicted of an SO is sad, even if he was a police officer. I can only assume that he had a family, friends, and loved ones who cared for him. There is always an impact upon others and not just about the one who took their own life.
There have been many times where I thought I was coming close to taking my own life over being convicted of a SO; yet, I have an opportunity to be part of the change for so many others who have suffered and have also wanted to take their own lives.
Maybe his death brought about attention to the travesty of what being labeled does, but there has to be other ways of bringing about change without resorting to suicide.
Alexander C. Miles
Suicide is a viable and dignified alternative to the public pillory provided in the U.S. even for minimal infractions considered sexual in nature.
No doubt it will become a federal offense to commit suicide for citizens accused of a sexual offense, in order to make sure that they cannot circumvent the humiliation the government has in store fore them.
And, in the customary manner, it will not be considered a punitive provision, but rather a regulation that furthers an important government objective.
James
This is really not a bad idea...the Business Cards with CARSOL contact info on the front, Victories on the back.
It is not intrusive to other RSO's, but also would clue them in.
The problem is that in CA we each have to register within 5 days of our birthdays and so there is no generalized date for people to show up...and thus be able to pass them out.
However, there are people on this Forum that are thinking of doing some targeted mailing and putting several such Business Cards in the mailing envelope might not be a bad idea.
I leave this up to these activists(?)...but it would demonstrate in a simple and effective way the real benefits of CARSOL.
Good Luck, James
Son of Liberty Child of Freedom
Renny, I concur fully with you following statement.
I challenge all of us to find out when our local jurisdictions hold their annual registrations and go in there and pass out a business card with the CARSOL website address on one side and the list of their victories on the other.
It is a simple & effective step to build on. Informing & educating those being directly persecuted.
Renny
I think he made the right choice in killing himself. The right choice for himself, his family, friends and his employer.
A choice I have tried to have the courage to make, yet I cannot.
A police officer who kills himself when charged with a sex crime only helps the rest of us by focusing on just how devastating living life as a sex offender can be.
Instead of being forced to choose to support him and remain in his life as a sex offender in Florida, his family only now needs to bury him and mourn him, then move on, without fear of the filthy and corrupt politicians of Florida trying to out maneuver each other with more laws that "close loopholes" or whatever other catch phrase those scum think up.
It is actually a win win no matter how you look at it. There is a dead cop in Florida, who was probably a dirty cop - Win for America anytime someone from Florida dies.
Someone considered a "hero" right up until his charge killed himself rather than live life as a sex offender - Win for those of us without the nerve to do the same.
While it is counter to everything our therapists and other people have told us, I think we know full well that empathy will never help us. If we do not go on the offensive, legally, we fail.
After all, are we not labeled "offenders?" Then maybe it's time we offend. We can use insinuations and targeted attacks on politicians. Forcing them to refuse a sex offender polygraph, getting our photos taken with them then releasing it so the attack press can embarrass them. And of course, continuing to fight legislatively.
I challenge all of us to find out when our local jurisdictions hold their annual registrations and go in there and pass out a business card with the CARSOL website address on one side and the list of their victories on the other.
There is no lower point in her life than when a sex offender is sitting in the waiting area about to be photographed, fingerprinted and looked at with repulsion. That is the time to strike, when she is low and vulnerable and get her motivated to participate and donate.
We must shed empathy for the Americans that fight to make our live more miserable than they would be with the laws at the time of our crimes. Ex-post facto non-punitive punishments are far worse than prison. Prison was easy, easier than the military by far. Living among Americans is not easy.
Son of Liberty Child of Freedom
I lament that this officer lost his Courage in the sight of Perpetual Punishment & a Unforgetting Unforgiving road that he would be forced to travel on, no matter what actions he could take for paying the debt he owed he's fellow countrymen.
As a Peace Officer he surely was a first hand eyewitness to the uncompassionate treatment for those who have been marked Unredeemable. How futile their efforts at making a willing and sincere recompense in order to merit a position of a example to others of which dark paths to avoid in life. In order to revive righteousness and the fulfilling power in the act of forgiveness that from evil good could triumph.
I lament for our Nation has lost a opportunity to forgive one of our own. For it is a reality that wings have fallen & even the Angeles, sons of the Creator can fall short, so how can we as Children of Dust hope to be forgive by our Creator for our debts owed to Him if we are unwilling to forgive each with Hearts of Stone clothed by Dark Spirits.
So as a Mortal Nation we will not forgive, where is the glory in that?
Heaven & Earth will be witness when our accounts come due.
I speak Truth
As Yehovah lives, so should we
NOYB
Thanks Janice, I know deep in my heart lives come and go, but I cannot count the many RC's or unregistered that have taken their own and just cannot stand it anymore. Now, those of you, ask yourselves, you are now survivors, but how we have thought the same when on the Inside (prison walls, for those that were incarcerated longer than over a year), have thought or came close to carrying it out, to leave this world not seeing any light or any future beyond those walls.
Many.
I am thankful for those that have endured their incarceration and still surviving out here, sometimes for some it is tougher than inside those walls (of protection)?
We have to carry on and move forward to fight with all of you to win with Janice and her team including the Professor to gaining our Freedom outside our walls that the U.S. Constitution guarantees us as individuals and as RC's.
Who will fight with us to educate the Congress, Senate, The SCOTUS, THE SAFETY COMMITTEE members, and most of all the ignorant and scared and some scarred PUBLIC.
Roger
I commit to come to Sacramento to fight both bills. And I commit to come to Oakland.
Maybe YOU are an RC like me, and maybe--like me--you are not directly affected by either of these bills, and don't plan on traveling internationally.
You and I could say "Let others waste time writing letters and making calls for bills that don't affect me." But the reality is that we are all in this together. If we only fight bills that affect each of us personally, our response will be weak and make little difference in the outcome. But if all of us fight all the bills that Janice tells us to fight (get on our email list!), our united front will eventually help all of us.
You and I could say “I’m afraid and overwhelmed by all these bills and laws. I just want to ignore them and hope they will go away.” But they won’t go away. In fact, the politicians would go back to thinking "Yes! We can beat up on those monster sex offenders and they won't do anything! Free votes!"
You and I could say “I don’t care that only a few of the 135,000 people on the registry are willing to I drive to Sacramento and Oakland. I really don't want to lose a paycheck for a couple of days and pay for gas. Let others do it.” But if none of us were willing, the legislators would think as before that there is no one opposed and they can pass all the bills they want, and those laws would reach out where we are hiding, grab us by the neck, and make our lives a living hell.
I know there are thousands of RCs who are absolutely unable to travel for health or other reasons.
But many could go, yet are afraid or don’t want to be inconvenienced.
Try asking yourself this question: if you KNEW a bill was going to be passed that would make your life hell (leg bracelet, can’t live within city limits, must post a “Sex Offender Lives Here” sign in your yard, etc.) would you be willing to take the time to come to Sacramento and Oakland to stop it? I think you would.
So treat these other bills just as seriously! If they pass, they may not affect you today, but you know that politicians love to make them affect more and more sex offenders. So that law you were sure wouldn’t touch you today may make your life unbearable next year!
Don’t take our wins for granted. New bills are always waiting to sneak into our lives.
I CHALLENGE ALL MY FELLOW RCS TO JOIN ME IN TAKING A DAY OR TWO FROM WORK TO FIGHT THESE BILLS IN SACRAMENTO AND TO COME TO OAKLAND.
If you absolutely cannot come, then I challenge you to join me in getting friends and family to write letters and make calls. Join me on our email list (click on Get Involved). Join me in making regular donations.
With Janice’s guidance we have made a HUGE difference in stopping bad bills!
We need you!
72FLH
hell yes lets push back ! sick of this sitting idle ,
Janice's Journal: Incrementalism Provides Firm Foundation
Published Date : June 12, 2016
I was recently introduced to the term incrementalism in the book, “Notorious RBG”, a biography of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The term means gradual change and it is the opposite of sudden, radical change.
According to the book, Justice Ginsburg is an advocate of incrementalism because she believes incrementalism can provide a firm foundation for change. In direct contrast, radical change lacks a firm foundation and can crumble easily when threatened.
After reading this book, I am convinced that incrementalism is the best path for our civil rights movement. We need to build a firm foundation so that the changes we make will endure.
We started building that foundation in 2012 when we successfully challenged a law in the City of Simi Valley that required registered citizens to post a sign on the front door of their home. We continued to build that foundation in 2013 when we successfully challenged presence restrictions in the City of Lancaster that prohibited registrants from visiting public places such as parks, swimming pools and libraries as well as private places such as movie theaters and bowling alleys. We are now adding to that foundation with successful challenges to residency restrictions in cities such as Grover Beach and Arcadia.
In addition to success in the courtroom, we have experienced success in the state legislature where we have stopped bills such as Assembly Bill 201 in 2015 that would have authorized cities to reinstate presence restrictions and Senate Bill 54 in 2016 that would have required registered citizens to prove there is a lack of affordable and available housing in order to obtain relief from residency restrictions.
Each of these successes is an incremental step toward the change that is required. Each of these successes is another brick in the foundation of our movement. By building a strong foundation in an incremental fashion, we will reach our goal of protecting the Constitution by restoring the civil rights of more than 100,000 registered citizens and their families.
Today there are incremental steps to be taken both in the state legislature and in the courts. You are needed in Sacramento to help stop Senate Bill 448 on June 21 and Assembly Bill 2569 on June 28. You are needed in Oakland to protest the International Megan’s Law on July 27. Together we can and will achieve our goal.
Comments
Independent Dave
Hopefully "incrementalism" will not be an excuse to advocate for a tiered registry (a "fictitious tiered registry," as some have humorously described it) that relies on the Static-99R scam. As currently proposed by CASOMB, the tiered registry will throw a lot of people under the bus. Support for a tiered registry will only give credence to special interests' labeling of alleged high risk sex offenders (HRSO) -- and how a group of people, labeled "HRSO" because of a logically flawed and inaccurate actuarial "instrument" -- in that people given the HRSO label must be treated worse than alleged low risk sex offenders (and subject to lifetime registration). Segregating HRSO labeled people in a tiered registry achieves two things: 1. It aims to divide and conquer our cause, as it will putt HRSO v. non-HRSO against one another; and 2. It diversifies special interests' -- business, law enforcement, and political -- capital invested into selling the sex offender hysteria ostensibly deserved for only HRSOs.
LJ
I agree. After all, wouldn't Dr. King be considered radical in his time? It cost him his life, but the movement created drastic change.
Bruce Ferrell
Unfortunately, incrementalism is the game being played from the other side as well.
When they came for...
And by the time it's recognized they've come for us, there is no one left.
Mike r
just want to be clear a lot of my post are direct quotes from the website sosen
Jason
"* RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. (This is a serious rule. The besieged entity’s very credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.)"
This would be a great strategy for registrants. There are so many things that necessitate an update in registration. If 100,000 registrants make a change a week, police stations would be overwhelmed.
Change your mind about your intended itinerary? IML requires that you update them! Change your mind 10 times a day? 100 times a day? IML says you MUST update them! Fill out the forms!
Anonymous Nobody
Very good analogy, Anon. You hit the point.
The main thrust of our fight must be to the core, to the foundation. It is perfectly good and even necessarily at the same time to address some other things of immediate need. But simply addressing those, and calling it incrementalism, is not even incrementalism. Incrementalism is making use of the foundational-core arguments piecemeal until you have gotten most or all of them accepted, and then use an overall case to tie them all together for the final blow. That is not what our cases have been, we have been using non-foundational arguments; we have had at least some successes with that, and that is good, but they have not been incremental to a final win some day.
And as Anon has so clearly laid out here, incrementalism itself is not suitable to our fight.
Consider another analogy, one from the generals another post here said we should follow:
In WWII, Japan attacked us, and the US went into a war fury, the public wanted blood from Japan. But our generals counseled no, do not go to battle against Japan. Japan was the smaller power, the lesser concern, the peripheral concern. They counseled that if we sent our troops against the attacker, Japan, we would lose the overall fight, as once done with Japan, we would no longer have the strength to fight the core concern, the bigger power: Germany. This is why we were attacked by Japan but waged war against Germany -- the generals counseled that we must first go after the core, only after that can we wipe up around the periphery. We were weakened by the fight against Germany, but not so much that we still could not take on the lesser power, Japan, and without pressure from Germany.
It had been the axis powers' actual strategy to try to draw the US into war with Japan, so that Germany could solidify its gains and make a final defeat. And then, Germany would turn its attention to war with the US and its final defeat. Our generals were smart, they did not take the bait. They knew that if there was to be a fight, it must be against the core, not incremental steps against Japan first and later try moving into the big leagues against Germany.
Sean
Our state legislature is a complete sham made up of people who couldn't make it to become REAL congressmen and senators in Washington D.C. (not saying that the D.C. politicians are any better, as they may be judged much worse to our cause). The California legislature even gets away, unchecked by the judiciary, with using the Static-99R, a fraud form of science. It's all madness with no end in sight.
Anonymous Nobody
He can disagree on points and still be completely supportive. I for one have disagreed on any number of points, and I could not be a stronger supporter of Janice at the same time. I will never be able to express how strongly I appreciate all she does. That does not mean I must stop thinking and merely go along.
When one expresses disagreement with a point, they are helping to push the thinking. They are providing thoughts that could make a difference to that about which they are responding, maybe raise the thinking to a higher plain. To denounce that as wrong is to call for people to stop thinking and coming up with better ideas and contributing accordingly. Some people's best contribution is the ideas they can bring, and sometimes the best ideas come from the opposition, and best best leaders will hear, consider, learn, and revise as might be called for.
There are plenty of people caught up in this registration who have been in this for the long haul already and know things from experience and long time knowledge. They have all kinds of backgrounds that can provide all kinds of contributions. That is a wealth of resources that would be a crime to stifle by insisting opposing ideas are wrong. Sometimes opposing ideas are the only right thing.
Anonymous Nobody
So you want an approach that is more direct and fundamental rather than incremental. And you do not see it reasonable to wait and suffer dearly for many decades.
SCOTUS did not make its decision based on erroneous information it had. It made its decision based on its bias, twisting the information and redefining words to accomplish the outcome the prevailing justices wanted. If facts got in the way, they simply redefined words, defining red to be blue, and that which everyone considers to to be punishment to be no punishment at all. That is the power of the court, the power of interpretation and definition. They are supposed to exercise that power honestly, but they clearly do not do so.
Chris F
While every new law that takes away more constitutional rights must be opposed, and Janice must continue that fight, I do not agree that it will result in our end goal of getting rid of the registry.
Currently, it's a never ending game of whack-a-mole.
Until a viable court case makes it to the Supreme Court and does so by an excellent legal team, not only will the SO Registry continue forever but other useless registries will keep forming and expanding.
I don't know by whom or how that will happen, and I certainly can't afford to help financially or in any way that further impacts my wife and two young kids more than they already are. I do pray that someone can step up.
anonymously
Mike r wrote "But even if the numbers are correct there are a couple of other issue that need to be brought out that are totally being ignored by the yellow journalists that are attempting to make a point by using this information. We now know through multiple studies and lots of number crunching that the re-offense rate for people on the registry is less than 1% in any given year, and that means of the new sex crimes that are committed each year 99% plus are by people that are not on the registry. If there is under-reporting then it also has to follow that particular logical progression and that is if there is a percentage of under-reporting then 99% of those unreported crimes are not done by people on the registry."
1% re-offense rate does not mean 99% of new sex crimes are committed by non-registrants, although the 99% is probably very accurate. The number used is 95+% of new sex crimes that resulted in 'convictions or maybe arrests' is what has been measured. The number 99+%, which represents is probably accurate in reality because of the difference in under-reporting of non-registrant sex crime which may be under-reported because of a false sense of security which is from over-focusing on registrants at the peril of victims of the 19+ out of 20 sex crimes committed by non-registrants.
Mike r
man if these politicians' strategies for fighting terrorists are as useless and Ineffective as the sex offender laws this country and the world is in big trouble.
Son of Liberty Child of Freedom
Mike, regarding your statement:
"Initially, the lack of well known information is what led to Justice Kennedy et al to reasoning that the registry was needed"
Could it be a false premise to believe that Kennedy simply lacked knowledge, to hold that position is really missing the opportunity to hold Kennedy accountable for the damages his actions & The Courts have caused so many persons.
Let us ask ourselves:
Is Kennedy Really Ignorant, Stupid, & Dumb or is Kennedy Pretending to Be?
The reality is that as a Supreme Court Judge Kennedy is assigned several clerks to assist him in researching the subjects presented before him.
In reading Ted Cruz's book "A Time for Truth" 2015 on Broadside Books for Harper Collins. Ted Cruz recounts the inner workings of SCOTUS from his time working as a clerk for Chief Justice William Hubbs Rehnquist. Note the following detail from Cruz.
"As Chief William Rehnquist had statutory ability to hire 5 clerks instead of the customary 4. But he usually hired just 3. Rehnquist was an "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" kind of guy. Back when he began serving the Court, 3 was all a Justice needed. And he saw no reason to. change that.
There was another apocryphal reason why Rehnquist kept 3 clerks, which was that it was perfect for doubles tennis. The Chief had not been kidding when he first asked if I'd played. In fact, it was a required part of the job to play tennis with him once a week- Thursdays, without fail, at 11 a.m."
Furthermore, Cruz states.
"My failings on the playing fields not withstanding, the Chief Justice was a wonderful boss. All nine of the justices on the Court at that time--- Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas, O'Conner, Kennedy, Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer--- were extremely intelligent."
In addition from chapter 4 of Cruz's book.
"Most of the justices had law clerks prepare long bench memos on cases"
And a final another view from Ted Cruz's book "A Time for Truth".
"This brings me back, finally, to the pornography story. The year I was a clerk on the Court, the Internet was nascent technology. The Court was considering one of the first cases challenging the constitutionality of a law passed by Congress to regulate Internet pornography.
Most of the justices were in their sixties or older. Few knew much of anything about the Internet. So the librarians of the Court designed a tutorial for them. As it happened, our Rehnquist group was paired with Justice O'Conner.
in a small room gathered the Chief Justice [Rehnquist,] O'Conner, and their respective law clerks. The librarians' purpose was to demonstrate to the justices how easy it was to find porn on the Internet.
I remember standing behind the computer, watching the librarian go to a search engine, turn off the filters, and type in the word cantaloupe, though misspelling it slightly. After she pressed "return" a slew of hard-core, explicit images showed up on screen.
Here I was a twenty-six-year-old man looking at explicit porn with Justice Sandra Day O'Connor who was standing alongside the colleague [Rehnquist] she had once dated in law school. As we watched theses graphic pictures fill our screens, wide-eyed, no one said a word. Except for Justice O'Conner, who lowered her head, squinted slightly, and muttered, "Oh, my"
Now knowing those details among many more which Cruz illustrates in his book, Let us ask ourselves:
Is it reasonable for us to conclude that Kennedy was really in a position without all the information regarding RSO's & the ability to call on his clerks to confirm the veracity of the information at hand?
I believe it is more reasonable to conclude Kennedy is Pretending to not really know the truth because it serves & justifies his actions to deny The Rights & Titles of U.S. Citizens against who he and others seek to punish without end.
Knowing this we should apply Saul Alinsky’s advise.
* RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. (This is a serious rule. The besieged entity’s very credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.)
In regard to the cause that we champion it is necessary to point out the Hypocrisy on which the various Courts stand and how they Twist & Pervert Justice.
I speak Truth
As Yehovah lives, so should we.
Timmr
If registration is like slavery, then a linear, judicial approach is not the way to success. Only an executive decision after much bloodshed is the solution. Then even, the struggle against racism continues to this day. I hope the idea of registration is not as intractable from the popular culture as the idea of slavery was in the nineteenth century. Then we are in for a real holocaust. Again. The courts only upheld the status quo until chaos erupted and blood was shed. Abolitionists tried for decades to do the slow, straight forward route by education of the slave holders and the slave profiteers, appealing to their reason and moral sense and were just heading nowhere, until Harpers Ferry exploded. I hate the words of Malcolm X, because they speak the truth and make me uncomfortable, and naturally like those of MLK jr. of peacefully marching to the promised land hand in hand. The incremental approach is the most desirable, but no one can hold back an implosion fueled by increasing rage over loss after loss of one's humanity, once someone lights the fuse, somewhere. The question is do you have control over all the factors that can influence an outcome? Hardly. You might only understand a few and can only create chaos when a system like a society is so nonlinear that even the smallest act somewhere may have broad social consequences throughout. The successful one will be the one that can create the most chaotic effect with the least effort, but that also harms the enemy and gives you the most advantage. That is too complicated for me to figure out.
Mike r
I really don't care if people like me posting or preaching as some have called it,I'm going to continue on my path and progress towards ending registration once and for all. here's where I'm at with it if anyone has suggestions or evidence or can point out any fallacies please do.
This court has jurisdiction because ________________________________________________________________
I the plaintiff ______________________do hereby bring forth this motion for Declaratory and/or Injunction relief.
Introduction.
This motion is being brought forth as a as applied challenge to the constitutionality of the sex offender registration and notification laws or Megan's law (CA Penal Code § 290, Sex Offender Registration Act) as applied to me.
I am the plaintiff in this case. I am a United States citizen who resides in Sacramento, CA.
I am a non-violent, non-contact first time ex-offender from a incident that occurred over a decade ago. There was never any physical contact between myself and any victim. I completed my prison sentence and parole supervision without any incidents or violations despite all the obstacles and conditions of parole that were placed on me because of the sex offender designation. I have been arrest free and a completely law abiding citizen since my release. I do not pose any cognizable risk to the public. I was already severely punished for my offense and have been subjected to intensive monitoring and supervision while on parole. I should not be subjected to these registration and notification laws that involve consequences that are severely detrimental to so many aspects of my life.
Issues.
(1) The sex offender registration and notification laws (CA Penal Code § 290, Sex Offender Registration Act) violate my constitutionally protected liberty interest in my reputation which is protected under the federal due process clause in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and the California Constitution’s Article I, Section 7 on “due process, equal protection and the right to travel".
(2) The sex offender registration and notification laws (CA Penal Code § 290, Sex Offender Registration Act) violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth amendment of the United States Constitution and the California Constitution’s Article I, Section 7 on “due process, equal protection and the right to travel"
(3) Sex offender registration and notification laws (CA Penal Code § 290, Sex Offender Registration Act) violate my constitutionally protected liberty interests by infringing on my freedom of movement and my freedom of association which is protected under the Fifth and Fourteenth amendment of the United States Constitution and the California Constitution’s Article I, Section 7 on “due process, equal protection and the right to travel"
(4) Sex offender registration and notification laws (CA Penal Code § 290, Sex Offender Registration Act) violate my constitutionally protected right to liberty and to be free from unreasonable, arbitrary and oppressive official actions, which is protected under the Fifth and Fourteenth amendment of the United States Constitution and the California Constitution’s Article I, Section 7 on “due process, equal protection and the right to travel"
(5) The sex offender registration and notification laws (CA Penal Code § 290, Sex Offender Registration Act) violate my constitutionally protected right to procedural due process which is protected under the federal due process clause in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and the California Constitution’s Article I, Section 7 on “due process, equal protection and the right to travel" with an irrefutable presumption of future offending that is universally untrue and which provides no meaningful process to determine such facts.
Facts.
(1) My constitutionally-protected right to reputation is encroached upon by an irrefutable presumption of future offending that is universally untrue.
The United States Supreme Court has previously recognized that a person’s reputation is a protected liberty interest under the federal due process clause. Wisconsin v. Constantineau, 400 U.S. 433 (1971) (hereafter “Constantineau”); Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (1972) (hereafter “Roth”).
In Constantineau, the State of Wisconsin authorized the posting of a notice prohibiting the sale or gift of liquor to any person who “‘by excessive drinking’ produces described conditions or exhibits specified traits, such as exposing himself or family ‘to want’ or becoming ‘dangerous to the peace’ of the community.” On appeal, the Constantineau Court recognized that “[i]t would be naive not to recognize that such ‘posting’ or characterization of an individual will expose him to public embarrassment and ridicule.” 400 U.S. at 436. The Court therefore held that a protectible liberty interest is implicated “[w]here a person’s good name, reputation, honor, or integrity is at stake because of what the government is doing to him [or her.]” Id. at 437.
One year later, the Court again recognized a person’s liberty interest may be implicated by damage to his or her reputation. See Roth, 408 U.S. at 573. The plaintiff in Roth, a university professor, alleged that “the failure of University officials to give him notice of any reason for non-retention and an opportunity for a hearing violated his right to procedural due process of law.” Id. at 569. The Roth Court reasoned that in declining to hire the plaintiff, the state had neither advanced “any charge against him that might seriously damage his standing and associations in the community” nor “imposed on him a stigma or other disability that foreclosed his freedom to take advantage of other employment opportunities.” Id. at 573. The Roth Court noted, however, that “a different case” would have been presented had the state either damaged the plaintiff’s reputation or imposed a stigma on him. Id. at 573-74.
However, in Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, reh’g denied, 425 U.S. 985 (1976), the Court clarified that “reputation alone, apart from some more tangible interests such as employment, is [n]either ‘liberty’ [n]or ‘property’ by itself sufficient to invoke the procedural protection of the Due Process Clause.” Id. at 701. The plaintiff in Paul alleged a deprivation of liberty without due process of law after the circulation of flyers publicizing his conviction for shoplifting and labeling him an “active shoplifter.” Id. at 712. According to the Paul Court, because the plaintiff’s harm was not accompanied by the alteration of “a right or status previously recognized by state law,” there was no deprivation of a protectible liberty interest. Id. at 711-12.
Paul has been interpreted to require “stigma plus” in order to establish a constitutional deprivation. See, e.g., Valmonte v. Bane, 18 F.3d 992, 999 (2d Cir. 1994). In other words, “an allegation that government dissemination of information or government defamation has caused damage to reputation, even with all the attendant emotional anguish and social stigma, does not in itself state a cause of action for violation of a constitutional right, infringement of more ‘tangible interests’ must be alleged as well”. Borucki v. Ryan, 827 F.2d 836, 842-43 (1st Cir. 1987); see also Marshall v. University of Hawaii, 9 Haw. App. 21, 32, 821 P.2d 937, 948 (1991).
Courts have recognized the serious harm to other “tangible interests” as a result of registration as a sex offender. Potential employers and landlords are reluctant to employ or rent to me once they learn of my status as a “sex offender”. See Pataki III, 3 F. Supp. 2d at 468; W.P. v. Poritz, 931 F. Supp. 1199, 1219 (D.N.J. 1996), rev’d, 119 F.3d 1077 (3d Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1110 (1998) [hereinafter Verniero]; see also In re Reed, 663 P.2d 216 (Cal. 1983) (quoting In re Birch, 515 P.2d 12 (Cal. 1973)). (8). Indeed, the public notification provisions do adversely affect my personal and professional life, employability, associations with neighbors and choice of housing. Noble v. Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision, 964 P.2d 990, 995-96 (Or. 1998); State v. Myers, 923 P.2d 1024, 1041 (Kan. 1996), cert. denied, 521 U.S. 1118 (1997); Rowe v. Burton, 884 F. Supp. 1372, 1378 (D. Alaska 1994), appeal dismissed, 85 F.3d 635 (9th Cir. 1996) (personal and professional lives); Artway v. Attorney General, 876 F. Supp. 666, 668 (D.N.J. 1995),aff’d in part and vacated in part, 81 F.3d 1235 (3d Cir.), reh’g denied, 83 F.2d 594 (1996) (employability and associations with neighbors); Robin L. Deems, Comment, California’s Sex Offender Notification Statute: A Constitutional Analysis, 33 San Diego L. Rev. 1195 (1996) (citing Jenny A. Montana, Note, An Ineffective Weapon in the Fight Against Child Sexual Abuse: New Jersey’s Megan’s Law, 3 J. L. & Pol’y 569, 580-81 (1995)) (choice of housing). In addition, public disclosure encourages vigilantism and exposes me to possible physical violence. (9)See, e.g., Poritz, 662 A.2d at 430-31 (Stein, J., dissenting); Pataki I, 940 F. Supp. 603, 608-11 (S.D.N.Y. 1996); Doe v. Gregoire, 960 F. Supp. 1478, 1485 (W.D. Wash. 1997). Indeed, [w]hen a government agency focuses its machinery on the task of determining whether a person should be labeled publicly as having a certain undesirable characteristic or belonging to a certain undesirable group, and that agency must by law gather and synthesize evidence outside the public record in making that determination, the interest of the person to be labeled goes beyond mere reputation. . . . [I]t is an interest in avoiding the social ostracism, loss of employment opportunities, and significant likelihood of verbal and, perhaps, even physical harassment likely to follow from designation.
Noble, 964 P.2d at 995-96.
The Paul Court recognized that, in addition to the interests recognized by state law, “[t]here are other interests . . . protected not by virtue of their recognition by the law of a particular State but because they are guaranteed in one of the provisions of the Bill of Rights which has been ‘incorporated’ into the Fourteenth Amendment.” Paul, 424 U.S. at 710 n.5. As an example, in Bohn, 772 F.2d at 1436 n.4, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit found a protectible interest in reputation where the stigma of being identified as a child abuser was tied to the protectible interest in privacy and autonomy of family relationships. See also Poritz, 662 A.2d at 419 (holding that the stigma resulting from notification that petitioner was a sex offender was tied to the protectible interest in privacy inasmuch as he had an interest in his reputation); Neal, 131 F.3d at 830 (holding that Hawaii’s designating of prisoner as “sex offender” without hearing and requiring successful completion of treatment program as precondition for parole eligibility together implicated a liberty interest protected by the right to due process of law).
Justice Brandeis noted that the Founding Fathers
recognized the significance of man's spiritual nature, of his feelings and of his intellect. They knew that only a part of the pain, pleasure and satisfactions of life are to be found in material things. They sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensations. They conferred, as against the government, the right to be let alone-the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men.
Olmstead v. United States,277 U.S. 438, 478 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting), overruled in part by Berger v. New York,388 U.S. 41 (1967) and Katz v. United States,389 U.S. 347 (1967).
Additionally, in an oft-quoted dissent in Poe v. Ullman,367 U.S. 497 (1961), Justice Harlan wrote,
[T]he full scope of liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution. This 'liberty' is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property; the freedom of speech, press, and religion; the right to keep and bear arms; the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on. It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints.
Id. at 543 (Harlan, J., dissenting).[4] These words "eloquently" describe the Court's role in the substantive due process inquiry. Moore v. City of East Cleveland,431 U.S. 494, 501 (1977).
These laws effectively brand me a “sex offender”, i.e., a public danger, for life. See Doe v. Pataki, 3 F. Supp. 2d 456, 467 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) [here in after Pataki III]; Doe v. Attorney General, 686 N.E.2d 1007, 1013 (Mass. 1997) [hereinafter Doe II];see also Bohn v. County of Dakota, 772 F.2d 1433, 1436 n.4 (8th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1014 (1986).
Specifically, the public notification provisions imply that I am potentially dangerous, thereby undermining my reputation and standing in the community. Doe v. Poritz, 662 A.2d 367, 419 (N.J. 1995); cf. Neal v. Shimoda, 131 F.3d 818, 829 (9th Cir. 1997) (noting that “[o]ne need only look to the increasingly popular ‘Megan’s laws’, whereby states require sex offenders to register with law enforcement officials, who are then authorized to release information about the sex offender to the public, to comprehend the stigmatizing consequences of being labeled a sex offender”). Indeed, public notification that I am a convicted sex offender implicitly announces that, in the eyes of the State, I present a risk of committing another sex offense. Doe II, 686 N.E.2d at 144.
The sex offender registration and notification laws or Megan's law is causing irreparable harm to my reputation and professional life, employability, associations with neighbors, and choice of housing.
The sex offender registration and notification laws violate my liberty interest in my reputation by making public my current personal address and current photo which is not public information and which puts me in physical harm every time I enter or leave my home and even while I’m in my home I can not feel safe. This information is also being publicly distributed on the Internet from privately owned and operated websites such as homefacts.com. That information being made public puts not only myself but my families lives and property in danger of physical harm, harassment and vandalism. These claims are not hypothetical situations or exaggerations, these claims are facts and the possibilities of these incidents occurring are real and in fact some have already occurred in my case. The Megan’s law website also displays my criminal record which is only available to authorized individuals who meet certain criteria and have a need to know basis, not to the general public at a click of a computer mouse.
These laws affect and limit employment as very few employers will hire me simply because I am on a sex offender website that is accessible to the general public. These laws also restrict or limit my ability to travel for work or to be employed by local, state or federal agencies and severely affects my ability to obtain a business licence or business loans. They also limit what professions and careers that I can pursue and affect my personal and professional relationships in a severely negative way because of my inclusion on the sex offender registry and the publicly accessible Megan’s law website. These issues are not minor inconveniences but are major obstacles to my financial stability and to my fundamental right to life and liberty for me and my family. It also affects housing because very few property owners or property management organizations will rent to me for fear of vandalism and or the loss of present or potential tenants because of the accessibility to the registry by the general public. I am reluctant to move or purchase property for fear that I may violate some local ordinance or be forced to move because of some new law or ordinance being enacted and applied retroactively. I am also reluctant to move or purchase property for fear that I will be subjected to even worse harassment and vandalism by the community in which I move then I have already endured in my present location. These laws create real fears of being the victim of vigilante attacks, harassment and vandalism which forces me limit my activities to avoid being outside of my residence for fear of being harmed or harassed. I have had to call the police twice due to my family and I being physically threatened in one instance and having threats and profanity written all over our porch on the
I have a liberty interest protected by the Constitution that entitles me to procedural due process because of: (1) the public disclosure of accumulated and synthesized personal information that would not otherwise be easily available; (2) the harm to my personal and professional life; (3) the foreseeable harm to my reputation; and (4) the statutory branding of me as a public danger, i.e., as a sex offender. I note that the “interest cannot be captured in a single word or phrase. It is an interest in knowing when the government is moving against you and why it has singled you out for special attention. It is an interest in avoiding the secret machinations of a Star Chamber.” Noble, 964 P.2d at 995.
(2) The sex offender registration and notification laws are discriminating irrationally among classes of ex-offenders which violates the equal protection clauses.
All sex offenders fall into the classification of felons and felons are a group or classification. The question is, are sex offenders being treated the same as all other felons, do other felons have to register or have the community notified of their presence after they have completed their sentence, are they being denied state and government services, are other felons restricted where they can live, work and recreate, do other felons face criminal prosecution, a felony offense which is punishable by three or more years in state prison, not for engaging in any type of criminal conduct but simply for not providing personal information to the government within a certain time frame? The answer is, no they are not. The courts have found that a distinction among members of the class of offenders is irrational regardless of the importance of public safety consideration underlying the regulations or relevance of prior convictions simply discerning any regulatory reason, however plausible, will not serve to satisfy the rational basis requirement of equal protection; relevant inquiry more properly focuses on whether the means utilized to carry out the regulatory purpose substantially furthers that end.
These laws do not substantially further the regulatory purpose or the legislative objectives of increasing public safety, reducing sexual abuse or preventing recidivism as evidenced in the following reports and actual facts from the leading authorities on this subject.
California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) End of Year Report 2014. (page 13)
Under the current system many local registering agencies are challenged just keeping up with registration paperwork. It takes an hour or more to process each registrant, the majority of whom are low risk offenders. As a result law enforcement cannot monitor higher risk offenders more intensively in the community due to the sheer numbers on the registry. Some of the consequences of lengthy and unnecessary registration requirements actually destabilize the life's of registrants and those -such as families- whose lives are often substantially impacted. Such consequences are thought to raise levels of known risk factors while providing no discernible benefit in terms of community safety.
The full report is available online at. http://www.casomb.org/index.cfm?pid=231
National Institute of Justice (NIJ) US Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs United States of America.
The overall conclusion is that Megan’s law has had no demonstrated effect on sexual offenses in New Jersey, calling into question the justification for start-up and operational costs. Megan’s Law has had no effect on time to first rearrest for known sex offenders and has not reduced sexual re offending. Neither has it had an impact on the type of sexual re offense or first-time sexual offense. The study also found that the law had not reduced the number of victims of sexual offenses.
The full report is available online at. https://www.ncjrs.gov/app/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=247350
The University of Chicago Press for The Booth School of Business of the University of Chicago and The University of Chicago Law School Article DOI: 10.1086/658483
Conclusion.
The data in these three data sets do not strongly support the effectiveness of sex offender registries. The national panel data do not show a significant decrease in the rate of rape or the arrest rate for sexual abuse after implementation of a registry via the Internet. The BJS data that tracked individual sex offenders after their release in 1994 did not show that registration had a significantly negative effect on recidivism. And the D.C. crime data do not show that knowing the location of sex offenders by census block can help protect the locations of sexual abuse. This pattern of ineffectiveness across the data sets does not support the conclusion that sex offender registries are successful in meeting their objectives of increasing public safety and lowering recidivism rates.
The full report is available online at. http://www.jstor.org/stable/full/10.
From Justice Policy Institute.
Estimated cost to implement SORNA
Here are some of the estimates made in 2009 expressed in 2014 current dollars: California, $66M; Florida, $34M; Illinois, $24M; New York, $35M; Pennsylvania, $22M; Texas, $44M. In 2014 dollars, Virginia’s estimate for implementation was $14M, and the annual operating cost after that would be $10M.
For the US, the total is $547M. That’s over half a billion dollars – every year – for something that doesn’t work.
http://www.justicepolicy.org/images/upload/08-08_FAC_SORNACosts_JJ.pdf
These conclusions are virtually the same in the majority of conclusions and reports on this subject from multiple government agencies and throughout the academic community.
(3) The sex offender registration and notification laws violate my right to freedom of movement and freedom of association by severely curtailing my ability to travel both interstate and intrastate and also international travel. With all the different state laws and local ordinances that are in place and the constant introduction of new legislation in the different states and the constantly changing local ordinances in thousands of cities and counties across the country, it makes it virtually impossible for me to travel or visit anywhere in this country without a very real fear and potential for violating one of these laws or ordinances. It is virtually impossible for a person of average intelligence to research, assimilate and abide by all the different state laws and local ordinances that apply to registered sex offenders across the country. I can not visit family or friends without extensive research of local ordinances and state laws and even after extensive research I still fear I could have missed one of these laws or ordinances. I can not attend meetings or protest that occur in places that prohibit registered sex offenders from being present. The laws effectively bar me from attending higher education institutions simply because there are day care centers on most college campuses therefor curtailing my ability to obtain a higher education. The punishments for violating one of these laws or ordinances are severe. The registration and notification laws makes it virtually impossible for me to travel to a multitude of major countries in the world as they are notified by our government of my registration status so therefore I am denied entry. These are not hypothetical situations and are not minor inconveniences of registration but are major violations of my constitutional rights to liberty. These violations will continue to cause me irreparable damage as long as I am subjected to these registration and notification laws.
(4). The sex offender registration and notification laws violate my right to be free from unreasonable, arbitrary and oppressive official actions. These laws achieve no legislative purpose as demonstrated above and are completely irrational as applied to me in my case since I currently pose no cognizable risk of re offense. Since I am a non-violent, non-contact, first time ex-offender from a incident that occurred over a decade ago there is no rational basis to continue to subject me to these laws that have consequences that destabilize my life, restricts my abilities to reintegrate into society and have been shown to actually increase known risk factors for re-offense while not achieving any legislative objective of preventing sexual abuse, increasing public safety or reducing recidivism. Since these laws have been seen as strictly regulatory in nature and not considered part of the punishment for an offense, there must be some evidence that the regulations actually achieve some legislative objective. These laws were originally designed to give law enforcement a tool to investigate and apprehend sexually violent predators, child abductors/rapist and habitual repeat offenders when such acts have been committed in the community but have since been expanded to the point to make the registration and notification laws useless to law enforcement or the general public. Just because these laws are so popular within the legislature or the public does not mean that there is a rational basis for such laws. With the facts and evidence of all the destabilizing collateral consequences I endure and all the recent research done on this subject there is overwhelming evidence that these laws are completely irrational and counterproductive especially when applied to non-violent, first time offenders such as myself who currently pose no cognizable risk of re-offense. The theory or legislative purpose for the sex offender registry that is stated by the legislative body and the courts is that there is a extremely high recidivism rate for sexual offences which has been irrefutably debunked.
The Supreme Court has fed the fear of frightening high sex offender recidivism rates that has proven to be universally untrue. It’s become the “go to” source that courts and politicians rely upon for “facts” about sex offender recidivism rates that aren’t true. Its endorsement has transformed random opinions by self-interested non-experts into definitive studies offered to justify law and policy, while real studies by real scientists go unnoticed. The Court’s casual approach to the facts of sex offender re-offense rates is far more frightening than the rates themselves, and it’s high time for correction.
The sources relied upon by the Supreme Court in Smith v. Doe, a heavily cited constitutional decision on sex offender registries, in fact provide no support at all for the facts about sex offender re-offense rates that the Court treats as central to its constitutional conclusions. This misreading of the social science was abetted in part by the Solicitor General’s misrepresentations in the amicus brief it filed in this case. The false “facts” stated in the opinion have since been relied upon repeatedly by other courts in their own constitutional decisions, thus infecting an entire field of law as well as policy making by legislative bodies. Recent decisions by the Pennsylvania and California supreme courts establish principles that would support major judicial reforms of sex offender registries, if they were applied to the actual facts.
I am asking this court to apply the actual facts submitted in reports from the leading authorities and credible experts in the fields such as the following.
California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB)
Sex offender recidivism rate for a new sex offense is 0.8% (page 30)
The full report is available online at
http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Adult_Research_Branch/Research_Documents/2014_Outcome_Evaluation_Report_7-6-2015.pdf
.
Document title; A Model of Static and Dynamic Sex Offender Risk Assessment Author: Robert J. McGrath, Michael P. Lasher, Georgia F. Cumming Document No.: 236217 Date Received: October 2011 Award Number: 2008-DD-BX-0013
Findings: Study of 759 adult male offenders under community supervision Re-arrest rate: 4.6% after 3-year follow-up
The sexual re-offense rates for the 746 released in 2005 are much lower than what many in the public have been led to expect or believe. These low re-offense rates appear to contradict a conventional wisdom that sex offenders have very high sexual re-offense rates.
The full report is available online at. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/236217.pdf
Bureau of Justice Statistics
5 PERCENT OF SEX OFFENDERS REARRESTED FOR ANOTHER SEX CRIME WITHIN 3 YEARS OF PRISON RELEASE
WASHINGTON, D.C.
Within 3 years following their 1994 state prison release, 5.3 percent of sex offenders (men who had committed rape or sexual assault) were rearrested for another sex crime, the Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) announced today.
The full report is available online at. http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/press/rsorp94pr.cfm
Document Title: SEX OFFENDER SENTENCING IN WASHINGTON STATE: RECIDIVISM RATES BY: Washington State Institute For Public Policy.
A study of 4,091 sex offenders either released from prison or community supervision form 1994 to 1998 and examined for 5 years Findings: Sex Crime Recidivism Rate: 2.7%
Link to Report: http://www.oncefallen.com/files/Washington_SO_Recid_2005.pdf
Document Title: Indiana’s Recidivism Rates Decline for Third Consecutive Year BY: Indiana Department of Correction 2009.
The recidivism rate for sex offenders returning on a new sex offense was 1.05%, one of the lowest in the nation. In a time when sex offenders continue to face additional post-release requirements that often result in their return to prison for violating technical rules such as registration and residency restrictions, the instances of sex offenders returning to prison due to the commitment of a new sex crime is extremely low. Findings: sex offenders returning on a new sex offense was 1.05%
Link to Report: http://www.in.gov/idoc/files/RecidivismRelease.pdf
More state studies;
AK 03% page 8 Criminal Recidivism in Alaska Alaska Judicial Council January 2007
https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8635&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf
AZ 05.5 % Sex Offender Recidivism Arizona dept. of corrections note bottom of page 03.3%
https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8633&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf
CA 00.8% The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) “2014 Outcome Evaluation Report“ http://all4consolaws.org/2015/08/new-cdcr-report-reduces-rate-of-re-offense-to-less-than-1-percent.
CA 05.0 % fig 12 California Department of Corrections And Rehabilitation
2010 Adult Institutions Outcome Evaluation Report
https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8632&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf
CA 03.5% table 3-2 California sex offender management Board January 2008
https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8630&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf
CA figure 11 01.9% California sex offender management Board 2012 in looking at this one I realize that this is another attempt to increase the visual concept of a higher reoffend rate than actually exists you will note in table 11 , that there are 8490 released sex offenders and that 5870 are returned to prison or 69.1% going onto figure 11. The pie chart does not represent the 8490 but rather represents the 5870 . When you take this into account and do the math. 1.9% of 5870 comes out to 111 and 111 people involved in the new sex crime, out of 8490 comes out to an actual reoffend rate of 1.3% . This is just another way that the government is using razzle-dazzle techniques. In doing their statistical analysis.
https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8943&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf
CA 01.9 % figure 11 California Department of Corrections And Rehabilitation 2012 Outcome Evaluation Report
https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8943&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf
CA 5 year study 03.2% RECIDIVISM OF PAROLED SEX OFFENDERS – A FIVE (5) YEAR STUDY
https://onedrive.live.com/?cid=A754C96E86E37F71&id=A754C96E86E37F71!8627
CA 10 year study 03.3% RECIDIVISM OF PAROLED SEX OFFENDERS – A TEN (10) YEAR STUDY
https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8626&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf
CT page 9 01,7% And prisoners with no prior sex crime are six times more likely to be involved in a new sex crime Recidivism among sex offenders in Connecticut, State of Connecticut
Office of Policy and Management, Criminal Justice Policy & Planning Division, February 15, 2012
DE Table 26 03.1% REARREST 6 offenders and on table 27 3 Offenders were not found guilty of a crime that makes the percentage of people convicted of a new sex crime. 01.5% Rearrest should never be used as a determining factor. Delaware Sex Offenders, Profiles and Criminal Justice System Outcomes, January 2008
https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8622&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf
DE 3.8% rearrest table 7 Recidivism of Delaware Adult Sex Offenders Released from Prison in 2001 July 2007
https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8621&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf
DE 5% rearrest table 8 after 5 years Recidivism of Delaware Juvenile Sex Offenders Released in 2001 September 2007
https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8620&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf
FL 4.2% page10 Figure 2 10 year follow up SEX OFFENDER RISK AND RECIDIVISM IN FLORIDA
https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8784&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf
HI RECIDIVISM/REOFFENDING BY SEXUALLY ABUSIVE ADOLESCENTS: A DIGEST OF EMPIRICAL RESEARCH STUDIES Years: 1943-2008 85 RESEARCH STUDIES MEAN RECIDIVISM RATE FOR ALL STUDIES = 7.73%
https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8619&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf
IA page 7 #4 “With the overall recidivism for sex offenses as low as 2% “ Iowa Sex Offender Research Council Report to the Iowa General Assembly January 22, 2009
https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8618&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf
IA table 4 03% new sex crime THE IOWA SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY AND
RECIDIVISM Iowa Department of Human Rights Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning and Statistical Analysis Center
https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8617&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf
IA ARREST 02.3% page 7 Iowa Department of Corrections Report to the Board of Corrections
Third in a series of reports highlighting issues contributing to corrections population growth April 2006 Sex Offenders
https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8616&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf
IN bottom of page “1.05%of identified sex offender’srecidivated for a new sex crime within 3 years.” Indiana Department of Correction Recidivism Rates Decrease for 3rd Consecutive Year
https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8935&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf
IN page 22 05.7% Recidivism Rates Compared 2005-2007 Indiana Department of CORRECTION
https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8936&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf
ME page 12 03.8% Returned to prison for sex offense SEXUAL ASSAULT TRENDS
AND SEX OFFENDER RECIDIVISM IN MAINE 2010
https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8612&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf
MI 8/10 of 1% three-year study has come out of Michigan looking at the number of people on parole that were returned to prison for new crimes they found that of the sex offenders who were released from prison and found that they were involved in the new sexually related crime at 8/10 of 1%, or in other words, that 99.2% DID NOT Reoffend in the new sex crime. And that they had the lowest reoffend rate of all the criminal classes released. the full report is here http://nationalrsol.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/CAPPS.pdf
MN 5.7 % over 12 years Table 2 page 21 Sex Offender Recidivism in Minnesota April 2007
https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8610&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf
NY 04% profile and follow-up of sex offenders released in 1986 this one is another attempt to hide the facts . I finally found this information on page 19. They state that there were 556 offenders released below that on page 19. They show a table 14 the number of people related to each of those crimes that were returned to prison. If you look at the numbers for a new sex crime. You will see that they are 5,6,5 and 7 totaling 23 , when you do the percentages 23/556 UN that with the re-offense rate of 4% . If you look at the other graphs that they have provided they have shockingly high numbers . The problem is that they are only looking at the people that are returned to prison and ignoring the people that stayed out of prison. So their numbers are skewed because they did not include people not reoffending in their statistical data.
https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8607&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf
OH report to the Ohio criminal sentencing commission, January 2006 sex offenders Sex offenders in Ohio have a lower recidivism rate than the recidivism rate of all offenders (38.8 percent). A 10-year follow-up of a 1989 cohort of sex offenders released from Ohio prisons found that only 8 percent of sex offenders were recommitted for a new sex offense
https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8604&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf
OH Ten-Year Recidivism Follow-Up Of 1989 Sex Offender Releases EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommitment for a New Crime Sex Offense 8.0 % after 10 yeaars
https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8603&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf
WA03 07% Re-offended Department of Corrections Public Safety Update What is the re-offense behavior for sex offenders under supervision in the community? •Of the 264 offenders who committed a re-offense:•83% or 218 were unemployed •73% or 192 DID NOT have stable housing
WY again I have to dig through the research to find the numbers . The end result is that between 2000 and 2005 , 545 sex offenders were released and of that 24 reoffended it in a new sex crime . That makes the reoffend charade of 04.4%
For further information and empirical evidence on recidivism rates see also,
http://sexoffender-statistics.blogspot.com/search/label/Recid%2001%25-05%25
http://sexoffender-statistics.blogspot.com/search/label/Recid%2001%25-10%25
http://sexoffenderissues.blogspot.com/p/studies.html
http://www.oncefallen.com/recidivismchart.html
http://sosen.org/blog/2015/01/12/simple-question.html
http://sosen.org/blog/2014/11/06/why-are-the-reconviction-rates-so-important.html
http://news.legislature.ne.gov/dist20/files/2013/08/NE_sex_offender_recidivism.pdf
http://therealosc.blogspot.com/2013/04/as-we-said-so-long-ago.html
https://rsoresearch.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/butner_study_debunking_kit.pdf
http://www.oncefallen.com/SOMyths.html
These conclusions are virtually the same in the majority of reports on this subject from multiple government agencies and throughout the academic community.
Recently a number of legislators and news articles have attempted to use information from a study that said that one in four girls and one in five boys have been sexually abused before the age of 18 as proof of the high re-offense rates for people on the registry and they have used the twisted data mentioned above from the 1997 US Department of Justice study to prove their point, even though that researched conclusion ha been thoroughly debunked.
First of all the student study on unreported sexual abuse has been called into doubt because of the type questions that were asked and the way that they were asked. They worded the questions on the study to get the answers that they wanted and not the facts or truth. They also biased study by using small numbers of the tested group that were chosen from specific locations that didn’t represent most groups of teenagers.
But even if the numbers are correct there are a couple of other issue that need to be brought out that are totally being ignored by the yellow journalists that are attempting to make a point by using this information. We now know through multiple studies and lots of number crunching that the re-offense rate for people on the registry is less than 1% in any given year, and that means of the new sex crimes that are committed each year 99% plus are by people that are not on the registry. If there is under-reporting then it also has to follow that particular logical progression and that is if there is a percentage of under-reporting then 99% of those unreported crimes are not done by people on the registry.
Here is the primary issue that should be pointed out, nowhere in the under-reporting study, or for that matter any accredited study, was there any proof that any portion of the under-reporting was due to people on the registry reoffending. For the media to jump to this conclusion is at the very least biased reporting.
Therefore attempting to use under-reporting to justify the existence of the registry is another myth, or a lie. This is another form of misinformation perpetrated by those who either have a fiduciary interest in continuing the unconstitutional treatment of a disfavored group or are seeking to justify their need for punishment for people who have already paid for their crime by loss of their freedom through incarceration and are now attempting to reenter society as honest citizens. When this information is placed into the public’s attention by naive media then you have to wonder if the media also falls into one of these two groups that are not truly interested in reporting the truth.
Both of these groups of people that have that type of mentality can be classified as vigilantes, bullies, or sociopaths, and are responsible for the destruction of our constitutional values and the erosion of personal freedoms in this country.
(5) The sex offender registration and notification laws (CA Penal Code § 290, Sex Offender Registration Act) violate my constitutionally protected right to procedural due process with an irrefutable presumption of future offending that is universally untrue,(as demonstrated in the above studies), and which provides no meaningful process to determine such facts. When "particularly important" interests are involved in a civil proceeding, whether or not physical restraint is threatened, the United States Supreme Court has mandated a clear and convincing evidence standard of proof and stated that, "[n]otwithstanding 'the state's "civil labels and good intentions," ' . . . this level of certainty [is deemed] necessary to preserve fundamental fairness in a variety of government-initiated proceedings that threaten the individual involved with 'a significant deprivation of liberty' or 'stigma.' " Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 756 (1982) (requiring clear and convincing evidence standard to support termination of parental rights), quoting Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 425, 426, 427 (1979) (civil commitment); Woodby v. INS, 385 U.S. 276, 285 (1966) (deportation); Chaunt v. United States, 364 U.S. 350, 353 (1960) (denaturalization); Schneiderman v. United States, 320 U.S. 118, 125, 159 (1943) (denaturalization). A registrant's liberty interest is seriously infringed in the creation of a long-term relationship with the police, in the potential criminal sanctions overshadowing that relationship, and in the stigma of notification - all penalties that are "more substantial than mere loss of money." Santosky, supra, quoting Addington v. Texas, supra at 424.
The court also too easily confines the State's interest to a single dimension. While the primary purpose of the registration statute is to protect the public from sexual predators, the State also has "an interest in ensuring that its classification and notification system is both fair and accurate." E.B. v. Verniero, supra at 1107. The State has no interest in making erroneous classifications and implementing overbroad registration and notifications. Id. See Doe v. Pataki, supra at (slip op. at 32). Contrary to the court's conclusion, the burdens on the government are great, without any likely benefit, when it holds hearings for and maintains the registration of thousands of registrants for whom there is no clear evidence that they pose any danger to the public. Requiring the government to assemble and present clear evidence of a sex offender's dangerousness would ensure that limited adjudicatory and police enforcement resources would be concentrated on those individuals who realistically may pose.threats to young children and other vulnerable populations. As observed in an altogether different context, but oddly apropos of this classification system as well, "when everything is classified, then nothing is classified, and the system becomes one to be disregarded by the cynical or the careless." New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713, 729 (1971) (Stewart, J., concurring).
Conclusion.
(1) The sex offender registration and notification laws (CA Penal Code § 290, Sex Offender Registration Act. ) as applied to me, severely violate my fundamental liberty rights to my reputation and to my right to due process.
(2). The sex offender registration and notification laws (CA Penal Code § 290, Sex Offender Registration Act. ) violate the equal protection clause.
(3) The sex offender registration and notification laws (CA Penal Code § 290, Sex Offender Registration Act. ) violate my freedom of movement and freedom of association.
(4). The sex offender registration and notification laws (CA Penal Code § 290, Sex Offender Registration Act. ) violate my right to be free from unreasonable, arbitrary and oppressive official actions.
(5) The sex offender registration and notification laws (CA Penal Code § 290, Sex Offender Registration Act) violate my constitutionally protected right to procedural due process with an irrefutable presumption of future offending that is universally untrue and which provides no meaningful process to determine such facts.
Supreme Court Justice Brandeis noted that the Founding Fathers
recognized the significance of man's spiritual nature, of his feelings and of his intellect. They knew that only a part of the pain, pleasure and satisfactions of life are to be found in material things. They sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensations. They conferred, as against the government, the right to be let alone-the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men.
Olmstead v. United States,277 U.S. 438, 478 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting), overruled in part by Berger v. New York,388 U.S. 41 (1967) and Katz v. United States,389 U.S. 347 (1967).
Law enforcement already has accessible records of my criminal record, including my DNA, my photograph and my complete set of prints and can easily locate me if they were to implicate me in a crime in the future. That process is the alternative to sex offender registration and notification laws and is the least restrictive measure that is available to the government that is related to the legislative objectives of increasing public safety and preventing recidivism. Furthermore, the government already has a meaningful process to determine if an individual poses a significant risk for re offense before ever releasing the person from custody. It is available in the states civil commitment statues. If a person is found to present a potentially high risk of re offense then that individual is confined under the civil commitment statues until it is determined that they no longer pose a risk to the public.
It is in the public best interest to grant me this relief as it will increase my ability to reintegrate into society and increase the probability that I will maintain stability in my life and be a law abiding, productive member of society which actually decreases my risk for re-offense even further. It will also allow governmental agencies and law enforcement agencies to re-direct their limited resources to monitor high risk offenders more intensively thereby increasing public safety. It will also save the state tax payer dollars that can be used for policies that have proven to actually be effective.
These laws will continue to cause me irreparable damage if the court fails to grant me relief.
No one can doubt that child sexual abuse is traumatic and devastating. The question is not whether the state has an interest in preventing such harm, but whether current laws are effective in doing so.
Prayer.
I pray the court grant me Declaratory relief and/or Injunction relief or any other relief the court deems necessary and to enjoin local, state, and federal agencies from requiring me to register as a sex offender and subjecting me to the public notification laws (CA Penal Code § 290, Sex Offender Registration Act. ) .
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to my knowledge on __________ Signed: _____________________________
D
I couldn't have said it better myself.
Mike r
this is all I have and I need more of the same, any help would be great.
These laws do not substantially further the regulatory purpose or the legislative objectives of increasing public safety, reducing sexual abuse or preventing recidivism as evidenced in the following reports and actual facts from the leading authorities on this subject.
California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) End of Year Report 2014. (page 13)
Under the current system many local registering agencies are challenged just keeping up with registration paperwork. It takes an hour or more to process each registrant, the majority of whom are low risk offenders. As a result law enforcement cannot monitor higher risk offenders more intensively in the community due to the sheer numbers on the registry. Some of the consequences of lengthy and unnecessary registration requirements actually destabilize the life's of registrants and those -such as families- whose lives are often substantially impacted. Such consequences are thought to raise levels of known risk factors while providing no discernible benefit in terms of community safety.
The full report is available online at. http://www.casomb.org/index.cfm?pid=231
National Institute of Justice (NIJ) US Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs United States of America.
The overall conclusion is that Megan’s law has had no demonstrated effect on sexual offenses in New Jersey, calling into question the justification for start-up and operational costs. Megan’s Law has had no effect on time to first rearrest for known sex offenders and has not reduced sexual re offending. Neither has it had an impact on the type of sexual re offense or first-time sexual offense. The study also found that the law had not reduced the number of victims of sexual offenses.
The full report is available online at. https://www.ncjrs.gov/app/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=247350
The University of Chicago Press for The Booth School of Business of the University of Chicago and The University of Chicago Law School Article DOI: 10.1086/658483
Conclusion.
The data in these three data sets do not strongly support the effectiveness of sex offender registries. The national panel data do not show a significant decrease in the rate of rape or the arrest rate for sexual abuse after implementation of a registry via the Internet. The BJS data that tracked individual sex offenders after their release in 1994 did not show that registration had a significantly negative effect on recidivism. And the D.C. crime data do not show that knowing the location of sex offenders by census block can help protect the locations of sexual abuse. This pattern of ineffectiveness across the data sets does not support the conclusion that sex offender registries are successful in meeting their objectives of increasing public safety and lowering recidivism rates.
The full report is available online at. http://www.jstor.org/stable/full/10.
From Justice Policy Institute.
Estimated cost to implement SORNA
Here are some of the estimates made in 2009 expressed in 2014 current dollars: California, $66M; Florida, $34M; Illinois, $24M; New York, $35M; Pennsylvania, $22M; Texas, $44M. In 2014 dollars, Virginia’s estimate for implementation was $14M, and the annual operating cost after that would be $10M.
For the US, the total is $547M. That’s over half a billion dollars – every year – for something that doesn’t work.
http://www.justicepolicy.org/images/upload/08-08_FAC_SORNACosts_JJ.pdf
These conclusions are virtually the same in the majority of conclusions and reports on this subject from multiple government agencies and throughout the academic community.
Hopeful4all
Thank you Janice and all who contribute to this site in a positive way, thank you!!!
anonymously
James said "I know people are suffering and this is madness, a societal wide madness. But I tend to the opinion that society requires someone to hate as a means of social cohesion...and we are the last definable group that it is safe to hate...racism and homophobia and sexism are all excluded, and properly so"
The way I see it is that hateful legislation directed at registrants has been used to spin-off other current hatred of other groups as seen in legislation that now targets transgenders in North Carolina, as well as the proposal to register Muslims in the US, which the media buried after Ted Cruz said he is not a fan of registries of American citizens. Ted Cruz has already been discussed, but I mention it only to point out that its not a case of registrants taking one/many for the team/society as it is registrants, like in Nazi Germany, being the guinea pigs for testing how to decimate a population to be used on other targets of hatred. In the case of Nazi Germany the same tactics of rights deprivations were used soon later on Homosexuals, Communists, Jews, Gypsies, Slavs, Disabled, etc.
Mike
Initially, the lack of well known information is what led to Justice Kennedy et al to reasoning that the registry was needed. The biggest problem is that there has been no 60 Minutes, or CNN special, or Global GPS or Full Measure program on the reality of the registry. All that is out there for the politicians or judges is myth. There is no political cover for anyone. As of now a person on the no fly list can buy weapons and they are now talking about changing the law to not allowing them to buy without an evaluation. We do not even deserve an evaluation. Thank God for Janice and people like her, but we need to get to work and grow our ranks. The clock is ticking.
Eric Knight
I actually am a critic of Ruth Bader Ginsburg's definition of "incrementalism" in her own use of the term. The part I disagree with is the fact that Ginsber specifically means changing the MEANING and INTERPRETATION of the Constitution, which is as blatantly wrong as the laws that support the oppression of registrants. While our movement is one that is trying to RESTORE Constitutional protections, incrementally or not, the purpose of progressive socialism is to deny the individual any rights in deference to the state. RBG realizes that sudden changes to meet her desired need of subverting ("creatively interpreting") the Constitution will be met with opposition, but "gradually introducing" changes will make it "easier."
To summarize, it's technically "correct" to apply RGB's incrementalism adherence to the RSO anti-Constitutional status and the need to correct the injustices, but don't be fooled: RGB and progressives wants to fundamentally transform the Constitution, and I'll be absolutely blunt: If oppressing RSO's advances the incrementalism agenda to further this cause, so be it. Keep in mind that societal changes that were mandated by oppressive leaders that resulted in World War Two, the advance of world communism, the rise of ISIS, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump were all precipitated by creating a hatred for sex offenders. Every one.
James
I think the Brock Turner case and what has and is happening to Judge Persky exactly prove that incrementalism is the only way forward. What Judge, or body of judges, now will rule in our favor in some large way?
I think people forget how extraordinary disliked we as a group are. How easy and pleasant it is for people to demonize us. This is the difficult truth of it and I have been afraid to say this here and seem to fall into negativism....I am not.
Honest people can honestly disagree but I believe one brick at a time is the only way out of this hole we are in. We must work on multiple fronts, the judiciary, the legislature, public education & opinion...I do not expect to see any change quickly....we are stuck, we will remain stuck...yet we have no choice except to endure and fight our way out of this miasma...one step at a time.
I know people are suffering and this is madness, a societal wide madness. But I tend to the opinion that society requires someone to hate as a means of social cohesion...and we are the last definable group that it is safe to hate...racism and homophobia and sexism are all excluded, and properly so...
But people are people and we are all that is left to hate...I sense they would do worse to us if they could...poor Judge Persky...his professional life may well be over...a victim of this as much as you or I.
It is all pretty sad.
Be Good,
Best Wishes, James
Mike r
if anyone wants to help me compile hard empirical data on the ineffectiveness of the registry it would be great. data with references and links or cited.
Mike r
damnnnn you for having a opinion that different than Janice's on this site. you should stop preaching and start protesting and if you don't agree with Janice's tactics you shouldn't be on here you need to start your own site or fight your own battles on your own. sarcasm. sorry that's for the people who have bashed on me. I totally agree with you with all the evidence that I presented above and am still compiling we can and will take down the registry. it's just a matter of time and a matter of building a rock solid case. it's unfortunate what's happening to that judge he laid out the punishment he felt fit the crime under the law and he's getting hammered by the mob mentality who think there majority opinions should over ride the Constitution and the rule of law. maybe he did play favorism for this guy or maybe the evidence and circumstances didn't merit a harsher sentence
this vigilante mob has no clue what the facts in the case were and don't care they just want to satisfy their bloodlust for vengeance on anyone they can. people are brutal and they strive off of others misery. sad but true.....
Anon
Under most circumstances, I agree with incrementalism. Suppose you need to improve health care in a community. You start with the most difficult problems and start to build solutions and structure. Then you go after other parts of the problem and develop refinements and better structure. You learn, you get better, you solve more problems.
But what about problems like slavery and nazism? What is the incremental approach to ending things like that? There is no incremental approach, because no foundation is necessary for building a solution. The solution is the absence of slavery or nazism. There is no bureaucracy for "not slavery".
Registration is similar in this regard. It is wrong and it needs to end. The end to slavery and nazism came with violence (which exactly the WRONG way for us), but many intractable problems came to a rapid end without violence, for example marriage equality.
I think that our approach has been wrong. We have some hope that politicians will do the right thing regarding registration, but they won't. Even if they know what the right thing is, they are not going to fall on their sword for us. Look at what happened with Brock Turner. This young guy got a lesser sentence and the world went crazy on the judge. Absolutely no one is talking judicial independence and "let judges be judges". It is a lynching.
Our salvation is with the judiciary and not with the legislature. The legislature represents the people--with all of their hopes and fears (primarily fears). The judiciary represents the law. We know that fealty to the law is a hard thing, but logic and facts are on our side. Logic and facts stand a far better chance in a court room than in a legislature.
We should be building a strong legal case for ending this registration madness. It's really the only way out.
Mike r
instead of bashing on me claiming I need to stop preaching and start protesting, because it is your personal opinion that protesting is somehow a much better tactic, I challenge any of you to help me perfect and revise this motion in preparation for me to file it in court. bash me if you want but my approach is that I will eventually get the help I can use sooner or later.
This court has jurisdiction because of the sex offender registration contractual agreement, that I was and am forced into through coercion and under duress with threat of imprisonment against my own volition, between the state of California and myself.
Statement of the case;
The defendants are knowingly and willfully misrepresenting the facts and empirical evidence with blatent disregard for the truth with statements of facts that they know or should have known are universally untrue in order to deprive me of my constitutional rights under color of law.
I am the plaintiff in this case. I am a United States citizen who resides in Sacramento, CA.
I am a non-violent, non-contact first time ex-offender from a incident that occurred over a decade ago. There was never any physical contact between myself and any victim. I completed my prison sentence and parole supervision without any incidents or violations despite all the obstacles and conditions of parole that were placed on me because of the sex offender designation. I have been arrest free and a completely law abiding citizen since my release. I do not pose any cognizable risk to the public. I was already severely punished for my offense and have been subjected to intensive monitoring and supervision while on parole. I should not be subjected to these registration and notification laws that involve consequences that are severely detrimental to so many aspects of my life.
Statement of Indisputable facts;
(1) The sex offender registration and notification laws (CA Penal Code § 290, Sex Offender Registration Act) violate my constitutionally protected liberty interest in my reputation which is protected under the federal due process clause in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and the California Constitution’s Article I, Section 7 on “due process, equal protection and the right to travel" with an irrefutable presumption of future offending that is universally untrue and which provides no meaningful process to determine such facts. See Exhibit (A)
(2) The sex offender registration and notification laws (CA Penal Code § 290, Sex Offender Registration Act) violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth amendment of the United States Constitution and the California Constitution’s Article I, Section 7 on “due process, equal protection and the right to travel" See Exhibit (B)
(3) Sex offender registration and notification laws (CA Penal Code § 290, Sex Offender Registration Act) violate my constitutionally protected liberty interests by infringing on my freedom of movement and my freedom of association which is protected under the Fifth and Fourteenth amendment of the United States Constitution and the California Constitution’s Article I, Section 7 on “due process, equal protection and the right to travel" See Exhibit (C)
(4) Sex offender registration and notification laws (CA Penal Code § 290, Sex Offender Registration Act) violate my constitutionally protected right to liberty and to be free from unreasonable, arbitrary and oppressive official actions, which is protected under the Fifth and Fourteenth amendment of the United States Constitution and the California Constitution’s Article I, Section 7 on “due process, equal protection and the right to travel" See Exhibit (D)
Exhibit (A)
(1) My constitutionally-protected right to reputation is encroached upon by an irrefutable presumption of future offending that is universally untrue.
These laws effectively brand me a “sex offender”, i.e., a public danger, for life. See Doe v. Pataki, 3 F. Supp. 2d 456, 467 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) [here in after Pataki III]; Doe v. Attorney General, 686 N.E.2d 1007, 1013 (Mass. 1997) [hereinafter Doe II];see also Bohn v. County of Dakota, 772 F.2d 1433, 1436 n.4 (8th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1014 (1986).
Specifically, the public notification provisions imply that I am potentially dangerous, thereby undermining my reputation and standing in the community. Doe v. Poritz, 662 A.2d 367, 419 (N.J. 1995); cf. Neal v. Shimoda, 131 F.3d 818, 829 (9th Cir. 1997) (noting that “[o]ne need only look to the increasingly popular ‘Megan’s laws’, whereby states require sex offenders to register with law enforcement officials, who are then authorized to release information about the sex offender to the public, to comprehend the stigmatizing consequences of being labeled a sex offender”). Indeed, public notification that I am a convicted sex offender implicitly announces that, in the eyes of the State, I present a risk of committing another sex offense. Doe II, 686 N.E.2d at 144.
The sex offender registration and notification laws violate my liberty interest in my reputation by making public my current personal address and current photo which is not public information and which puts me in physical harm every time I enter or leave my home and even while I’m in my home I can not feel safe. This information is also being publicly distributed on the Internet from privately owned and operated websites such as homefacts.com. That information being made public puts not only myself but my families lives and property in danger of physical harm, harassment and vandalism. These claims are not hypothetical situations or exaggerations, these claims are facts and the possibilities of these incidents occurring are real and in fact some have already occurred in my case. The Megan’s law website also displays my criminal record which is only available to authorized individuals who meet certain criteria and have a need to know basis, not to the general public at a click of a computer mouse.
These laws affect and limit employment as very few employers will hire me simply because I am on a sex offender website that is accessible to the general public. These laws also restrict or limit my ability to travel for work or to be employed by local, state or federal agencies and severely affects my ability to obtain a business licence or business loans. They also limit what professions and careers that I can pursue and affect my personal and professional relationships in a severely negative way because of my inclusion on the sex offender registry and the publicly accessible Megan’s law website. These issues are not minor inconveniences but are major obstacles to my financial stability and to my fundamental right to life and liberty for me and my family. It also affects housing because very few property owners or property management organizations will rent to me for fear of vandalism and or the loss of present or potential tenants because of the accessibility to the registry by the general public. I am reluctant to move or purchase property for fear that I may violate some local ordinance or be forced to move because of some new law or ordinance being enacted and applied retroactively. I am also reluctant to move or purchase property for fear that I will be subjected to even worse harassment and vandalism by the community in which I move then I have already endured in my present location. These laws create real fears of being the victim of vigilante attacks, harassment and vandalism which forces me limit my activities to avoid being outside of my residence for fear of being harmed or harassed. I have had to call the police twice due to my family and I being physically threatened in one instance and having threats and profanity written all over our porch on the second incident simply because my information is on the Megan’s law website. My family and I have had our vehicles vandalized and our life’s threatened because I am subject to these registration and public notification laws. These laws cause me severe psychosocial stresses that cause major mental disorders such as major depression and anxiety disorders which can and do affect my ability to perform job duties or perform normal daily activities and to reintegrate into society. Once again these are not hypothetical, exaggerated incidents that have happened to other people but personal experiences in my case. I cannot move forward or successively reintegrate back into society because of all the collateral consequences caused by the registration and public notification laws.These collateral consequences will continue to cause me irreparable damage to my liberty interest as long as I am subjected to these registration and notification laws.
See also for collateral damage caused by these laws.
http://sosen.org/blog/2015/05/19/collateral-damage-in-americas-war-on-sex-crimes.html
, http://sosen.org/blog/2015/02/09/spouse-of-registered-citizen-forced-to-quit-job-and-her-three-children-lose-their-home.html
, http://sosen.org/blog/2014/12/01/refugees-usa-families-destroyed-by-the-registry.html
. http://sosen.org/blog/2014/02/25/government-sanctioned-cruelty-to-over-half-1-million-american-children.html
I have a liberty interest protected by the Constitution that entitles me to procedural due process because of: (1) the public disclosure of accumulated and synthesized personal information that would not otherwise be easily available; (2) the harm to my personal and professional life; (3) the foreseeable harm to my reputation; and (4) the statutory branding of me as a public danger, i.e., as a sex offender. I note that the “interest cannot be captured in a single word or phrase. It is an interest in knowing when the government is moving against you and why it has singled you out for special attention. It is an interest in avoiding the secret machinations of a Star Chamber.” Noble, 964 P.2d at 995.
When the laws that have been passed are based on the justification of the high numbers. And they come out, in fact, be not only low, but extremely low. Lower than any other group that does not have the same restrictions or requirements. You would think that there would be a public outcry to do away with these laws but because of politicians are continuing the myth for their political gain, as well as professionals who have a fiduciary interest in the myth continuing and victims advocates, whose only real purpose is revenge. as well as Sensationalism of the news media. All these people continue the myth. Even though the hard data shows that it is a lie. What is it going to take to bring sanity back to our country and overturned laws based on lies and myths? That are in fact a springboard to passing other laws taking away constitutional rights of the American citizens.
Finally what is this lie that is so corrupting and insidious that it has destroyed lives, family’s and children. And the fear of being added to the list created by this law has caused both adults and children to commit suicide. The laws based on this lie that have stolen the constitutional protected rights of not only individuals but whole families, well the answer is real simple. The lie is that people who are involved in sex crimes, have a high propensity to do it again. And even though at the time that these laws were passed there were studies showing lower reoffend rates of those in this group than any other criminal class, the laws were passed based on studies that since have been proven false and inaccurate and all the recent studies have shown no high propensity to reoffend.
Without this issue, (the high reoffend rate) to support the states justification of the existence of the laws the rest of their reasons fall way as nothing more than rules, regulations and laws based on fear that is now unjustified.
The Supreme Court has fed the fear of frightening high sex offender recidivism rates that has proven to be universally untrue. It’s become the “go to” source that courts and politicians rely upon for “facts” about sex offender recidivism rates that aren’t true. Its endorsement has transformed random opinions by self-interested non-experts into definitive studies offered to justify law and policy, while real studies by real scientists go unnoticed. The Court’s casual approach to the facts of sex offender re-offense rates is far more frightening than the rates themselves, and it’s high time for correction.
The sources relied upon by the Supreme Court in Smith v. Doe, a heavily cited constitutional decision on sex offender registries, in fact provide no support at all for the facts about sex offender re-offense rates that the Court treats as central to its constitutional conclusions. This misreading of the social science was abetted in part by the Solicitor General’s misrepresentations in the amicus brief it filed in this case. The false “facts” stated in the opinion have since been relied upon repeatedly by other courts in their own constitutional decisions, thus infecting an entire field of law as well as policy making by legislative bodies. Recent decisions by the Pennsylvania and California supreme courts establish principles that would support major judicial reforms of sex offender registries, if they were applied to the actual facts.
I am asking this court to apply the actual facts submitted in reports from the leading authorities and credible experts in the fields such as the following.
California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB)
Sex offender recidivism rate for a new sex offense is 0.8% (page 30)
The full report is available online at
http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Adult_Research_Branch/Research_Documents/2014_Outcome_Evaluation_Report_7-6-2015.pdf
.
Document title; A Model of Static and Dynamic Sex Offender Risk Assessment Author: Robert J. McGrath, Michael P. Lasher, Georgia F. Cumming Document No.: 236217 Date Received: October 2011 Award Number: 2008-DD-BX-0013
Findings: Study of 759 adult male offenders under community supervision Re-arrest rate: 4.6% after 3-year follow-up
The sexual re-offense rates for the 746 released in 2005 are much lower than what many in the public have been led to expect or believe. These low re-offense rates appear to contradict a conventional wisdom that sex offenders have very high sexual re-offense rates.
The full report is available online at. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/236217.pdf
Bureau of Justice Statistics
5 PERCENT OF SEX OFFENDERS REARRESTED FOR ANOTHER SEX CRIME WITHIN 3 YEARS OF PRISON RELEASE
WASHINGTON, D.C.
Within 3 years following their 1994 state prison release, 5.3 percent of sex offenders (men who had committed rape or sexual assault) were rearrested for another sex crime, the Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) announced today.
The full report is available online at. http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/press/rsorp94pr.cfm
Document Title: SEX OFFENDER SENTENCING IN WASHINGTON STATE: RECIDIVISM RATES BY: Washington State Institute For Public Policy.
A study of 4,091 sex offenders either released from prison or community supervision form 1994 to 1998 and examined for 5 years Findings: Sex Crime Recidivism Rate: 2.7%
Link to Report: http://www.oncefallen.com/files/Washington_SO_Recid_2005.pdf
Document Title: Indiana’s Recidivism Rates Decline for Third Consecutive Year BY: Indiana Department of Correction 2009.
The recidivism rate for sex offenders returning on a new sex offense was 1.05%, one of the lowest in the nation. In a time when sex offenders continue to face additional post-release requirements that often result in their return to prison for violating technical rules such as registration and residency restrictions, the instances of sex offenders returning to prison due to the commitment of a new sex crime is extremely low. Findings: sex offenders returning on a new sex offense was 1.05%
Link to Report: http://www.in.gov/idoc/files/RecidivismRelease.pdf
STATE Studies
AK 03% page 8 Criminal Recidivism in Alaska Alaska Judicial Council January 2007
https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8635&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf
AZ 05.5 % Sex Offender Recidivism Arizona dept. of corrections note bottom of page 03.3%
https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8633&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf
CA 00.8% The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) “2014 Outcome Evaluation Report“ http://all4consolaws.org/2015/08/new-cdcr-report-reduces-rate-of-re-offense-to-less-than-1-percent.
CA 05.0 % fig 12 California Department of Corrections And Rehabilitation
2010 Adult Institutions Outcome Evaluation Report
https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8632&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf
CA 03.5% table 3-2 California sex offender management Board January 2008
https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8630&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf
CA figure 11 01.9% California sex offender management Board 2012 in looking at this one I realize that this is another attempt to increase the visual concept of a higher reoffend rate than actually exists you will note in table 11 , that there are 8490 released sex offenders and that 5870 are returned to prison or 69.1% going onto figure 11. The pie chart does not represent the 8490 but rather represents the 5870 . When you take this into account and do the math. 1.9% of 5870 comes out to 111 and 111 people involved in the new sex crime, out of 8490 comes out to an actual reoffend rate of 1.3% . This is just another way that the government is using razzle-dazzle techniques. In doing their statistical analysis.
https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8943&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf
CA 01.9 % figure 11 California Department of Corrections And Rehabilitation 2012 Outcome Evaluation Report
https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8943&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf
CA 5 year study 03.2% RECIDIVISM OF PAROLED SEX OFFENDERS – A FIVE (5) YEAR STUDY
https://onedrive.live.com/?cid=A754C96E86E37F71&id=A754C96E86E37F71!8627
CA 10 year study 03.3% RECIDIVISM OF PAROLED SEX OFFENDERS – A TEN (10) YEAR STUDY
https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8626&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf
CT page 9 01,7% And prisoners with no prior sex crime are six times more likely to be involved in a new sex crime Recidivism among sex offenders in Connecticut, State of Connecticut
Office of Policy and Management, Criminal Justice Policy & Planning Division, February 15, 2012
DE Table 26 03.1% REARREST 6 offenders and on table 27 3 Offenders were not found guilty of a crime that makes the percentage of people convicted of a new sex crime. 01.5% Rearrest should never be used as a determining factor. Delaware Sex Offenders, Profiles and Criminal Justice System Outcomes, January 2008
https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8622&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf
DE 3.8% rearrest table 7 Recidivism of Delaware Adult Sex Offenders Released from Prison in 2001 July 2007
https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8621&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf
DE 5% rearrest table 8 after 5 years Recidivism of Delaware Juvenile Sex Offenders Released in 2001 September 2007
https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8620&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf
FL 4.2% page10 Figure 2 10 year follow up SEX OFFENDER RISK AND RECIDIVISM IN FLORIDA
https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8784&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf
HI RECIDIVISM/REOFFENDING BY SEXUALLY ABUSIVE ADOLESCENTS: A DIGEST OF EMPIRICAL RESEARCH STUDIES Years: 1943-2008 85 RESEARCH STUDIES MEAN RECIDIVISM RATE FOR ALL STUDIES = 7.73%
https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8619&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf
IA page 7 #4 “With the overall recidivism for sex offenses as low as 2% “ Iowa Sex Offender Research Council Report to the Iowa General Assembly January 22, 2009
https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8618&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf
IA table 4 03% new sex crime THE IOWA SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY AND
RECIDIVISM Iowa Department of Human Rights Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning and Statistical Analysis Center
https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8617&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf
IA ARREST 02.3% page 7 Iowa Department of Corrections Report to the Board of Corrections
Third in a series of reports highlighting issues contributing to corrections population growth April 2006 Sex Offenders
https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8616&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf
IN bottom of page “1.05%of identified sex offender’srecidivated for a new sex crime within 3 years.” Indiana Department of Correction Recidivism Rates Decrease for 3rd Consecutive Year
https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8935&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf
IN page 22 05.7% Recidivism Rates Compared 2005-2007 Indiana Department of CORRECTION
https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8936&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf
ME page 12 03.8% Returned to prison for sex offense SEXUAL ASSAULT TRENDS
AND SEX OFFENDER RECIDIVISM IN MAINE 2010
https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8612&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf
MI 8/10 of 1% three-year study has come out of Michigan looking at the number of people on parole that were returned to prison for new crimes they found that of the sex offenders who were released from prison and found that they were involved in the new sexually related crime at 8/10 of 1%, or in other words, that 99.2% DID NOT Reoffend in the new sex crime. And that they had the lowest reoffend rate of all the criminal classes released. the full report is here http://nationalrsol.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/CAPPS.pdf
MN 5.7 % over 12 years Table 2 page 21 Sex Offender Recidivism in Minnesota April 2007
https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8610&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf
NY 04% profile and follow-up of sex offenders released in 1986 this one is another attempt to hide the facts . I finally found this information on page 19. They state that there were 556 offenders released below that on page 19. They show a table 14 the number of people related to each of those crimes that were returned to prison. If you look at the numbers for a new sex crime. You will see that they are 5,6,5 and 7 totaling 23 , when you do the percentages 23/556 UN that with the re-offense rate of 4% . If you look at the other graphs that they have provided they have shockingly high numbers . The problem is that they are only looking at the people that are returned to prison and ignoring the people that stayed out of prison. So their numbers are skewed because they did not include people not reoffending in their statistical data.
https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8607&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf
OH report to the Ohio criminal sentencing commission, January 2006 sex offenders Sex offenders in Ohio have a lower recidivism rate than the recidivism rate of all offenders (38.8 percent). A 10-year follow-up of a 1989 cohort of sex offenders released from Ohio prisons found that only 8 percent of sex offenders were recommitted for a new sex offense
https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8604&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf
OH Ten-Year Recidivism Follow-Up Of 1989 Sex Offender Releases EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommitment for a New Crime Sex Offense 8.0 % after 10 yeaars
https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8603&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf
WA03 07% Re-offended Department of Corrections Public Safety Update What is the re-offense behavior for sex offenders under supervision in the community? •Of the 264 offenders who committed a re-offense:•83% or 218 were unemployed •73% or 192 DID NOT have stable housing
WY again I have to dig through the research to find the numbers . The end result is that between 2000 and 2005 , 545 sex offenders were released and of that 24 reoffended it in a new sex crime . That makes the reoffend charade of 04.4%
For further information and empirical evidence on recidivism rates see also,
http://sexoffender-statistics.blogspot.com/search/label/Recid%2001%25-05%25
http://sexoffender-statistics.blogspot.com/search/label/Recid%2001%25-10%25
http://sexoffenderissues.blogspot.com/p/studies.html
http://www.oncefallen.com/recidivismchart.html
http://sosen.org/blog/2015/01/12/simple-question.html
http://sosen.org/blog/2014/11/06/why-are-the-reconviction-rates-so-important.html
http://news.legislature.ne.gov/dist20/files/2013/08/NE_sex_offender_recidivism.pdf
http://therealosc.blogspot.com/2013/04/as-we-said-so-long-ago.html
https://rsoresearch.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/butner_study_debunking_kit.pdf
http://www.oncefallen.com/SOMyths.html
These conclusions are virtually the same in the majority of reports on this subject from multiple government agencies and throughout the academic community.
Exhibit (B)
The sex offender registration and notification laws are discriminating irrationally among classes of ex-offenders which violates the equal protection clauses.
All sex offenders fall into the classification of felons and felons are a group or classification. The question is, are sex offenders being treated the same as all other felons, do other felons have to register or have the community notified of their presence after they have completed their sentence, are they being denied state and government services, are other felons restricted where they can live, work and recreate, do other felons face criminal prosecution, a felony offense which is punishable by three or more years in state prison, not for engaging in any type of criminal conduct but simply for not providing personal information to the government within a certain time frame? The answer is, no they are not. The courts have found that a distinction among members of the class of offenders is irrational regardless of the importance of public safety consideration underlying the regulations or relevance of prior convictions simply discerning any regulatory reason, however plausible, will not serve to satisfy the rational basis requirement of equal protection; relevant inquiry more properly focuses on whether the means utilized to carry out the regulatory purpose substantially furthers that end.
These laws do not substantially further the regulatory purpose or the legislative objectives of increasing public safety, reducing sexual abuse or preventing recidivism as evidenced in the following reports and actual facts from the leading authorities on this subject.
California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) End of Year Report 2014. (page 13)
Under the current system many local registering agencies are challenged just keeping up with registration paperwork. It takes an hour or more to process each registrant, the majority of whom are low risk offenders. As a result law enforcement cannot monitor higher risk offenders more intensively in the community due to the sheer numbers on the registry. Some of the consequences of lengthy and unnecessary registration requirements actually destabilize the life’s of registrants and those -such as families- whose lives are often substantially impacted. Such consequences are thought to raise levels of known risk factors while providing no discernible benefit in terms of community safety.
The full report is available online at. http://www.casomb.org/index.cfm?pid=231
National Institute of Justice (NIJ) US Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs United States of America.
The overall conclusion is that Megan’s law has had no demonstrated effect on sexual offenses in New Jersey, calling into question the justification for start-up and operational costs. Megan’s Law has had no effect on time to first rearrest for known sex offenders and has not reduced sexual re offending. Neither has it had an impact on the type of sexual re offense or first-time sexual offense. The study also found that the law had not reduced the number of victims of sexual offenses.
The full report is available online at. https://www.ncjrs.gov/app/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=247350
The University of Chicago Press for The Booth School of Business of the University of Chicago and The University of Chicago Law School Article DOI: 10.1086/658483
Conclusion.
The data in these three data sets do not strongly support the effectiveness of sex offender registries. The national panel data do not show a significant decrease in the rate of rape or the arrest rate for sexual abuse after implementation of a registry via the Internet. The BJS data that tracked individual sex offenders after their release in 1994 did not show that registration had a significantly negative effect on recidivism. And the D.C. crime data do not show that knowing the location of sex offenders by census block can help protect the locations of sexual abuse. This pattern of ineffectiveness across the data sets does not support the conclusion that sex offender registries are successful in meeting their objectives of increasing public safety and lowering recidivism rates.
The full report is available online at. http://www.jstor.org/stable/full/10.
From Justice Policy Institute.
Estimated cost to implement SORNA
Here are some of the estimates made in 2009 expressed in 2014 current dollars: California, $66M; Florida, $34M; Illinois, $24M; New York, $35M; Pennsylvania, $22M; Texas, $44M. In 2014 dollars, Virginia’s estimate for implementation was $14M, and the annual operating cost after that would be $10M.
For the US, the total is $547M. That’s over half a billion dollars – every year – for something that doesn’t work.
http://www.justicepolicy.org/images/upload/08-08_FAC_SORNACosts_JJ.pdf
These conclusions are virtually the same in the majority of conclusions and reports on this subject from multiple government agencies and throughout the academic community.
Exhibit (C)
The sex offender registration and notification laws violate my right to freedom of movement and freedom of association by severely curtailing my ability to travel both interstate and intrastate and also international travel. With all the different state laws and local ordinances that are in place and the constant introduction of new legislation in the different states and the constantly changing local ordinances in thousands of cities and counties across the country, it makes it virtually impossible for me to travel or visit anywhere in this country without a very real fear and potential for violating one of these laws or ordinances. It is virtually impossible for a person of average intelligence to research, assimilate and abide by all the different state laws and local ordinances that apply to registered sex offenders across the country. I can not visit family or friends without extensive research of local ordinances and state laws and even after extensive research I still fear I could have missed one of these laws or ordinances. I can not attend meetings or protest that occur in places that prohibit registered sex offenders from being present. The punishments for violating one of these laws or ordinances are severe. The registration and notification laws makes it virtually impossible for me to travel to a multitude of major countries in the world as they are notified by our government of my registration status so therefore I am denied entry. These are not hypothetical situations and are not minor inconveniences of registration but are major violations of my constitutional rights to liberty. These violations will continue to cause me irreparable damage as long as I am subjected to these registration and notification laws.
Exhibit (D)
The sex offender registration and notification laws violate my right to be free from unreasonable, arbitrary and oppressive official actions. These laws are completely irrational as applied to me in my case since I currently pose no cognizable risk of re offense. Since I am a non-violent, non-contact, first time ex-offender from a incident that occurred over a decade ago there is no rational basis to continue to subject me to these laws that have consequences that destabilize my life, restricts my abilities to reintegrate into society and have been shown to actually increase known risk factors for re-offense while not achieving any legislative objective of preventing sexual abuse, increasing public safety or reducing recidivism. Since these laws have been seen as strictly regulatory in nature and not considered part of the punishment for an offense, there must be some evidence that the regulations actually achieve some legislative objective. These laws were originally designed to give law enforcement a tool to investigate and apprehend sexually violent predators, child abductors/rapist and habitual repeat offenders when such acts have been committed in the community but have since been expanded to the point to make the registration and notification laws useless to law enforcement or the general public. Just because these laws are so popular within the legislature or the public does not mean that there is a rational basis for such laws. With the facts and evidence of all the destabilizing collateral consequences I endure and all the recent research done on this subject there is overwhelming evidence that these laws are completely irrational and counterproductive especially when applied to non-violent, first time offenders such as myself who currently pose no cognizable risk of re-offense.
Conclusion.
(1) The sex offender registration and notification laws (CA Penal Code § 290, Sex Offender Registration Act. ) as applied to me, severely violate my fundamental liberty rights to my reputation and to my right to due process.
(2). The sex offender registration and notification laws (CA Penal Code § 290, Sex Offender Registration Act. ) violate the equal protection clause.
(3) The sex offender registration and notification laws (CA Penal Code § 290, Sex Offender Registration Act. ) violate my freedom of movement and freedom of association.
(4). The sex offender registration and notification laws (CA Penal Code § 290, Sex Offender Registration Act. ) violate my right to be free from unreasonable, arbitrary and oppressive official actions.
Supreme Court Justice Brandeis noted that the Founding Fathers
recognized the significance of man’s spiritual nature, of his feelings and of his intellect. They knew that only a part of the pain, pleasure and satisfactions of life are to be found in material things. They sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensations. They conferred, as against the government, the right to be let alone-the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men.
Olmstead v. United States,277 U.S. 438, 478 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting), overruled in part by Berger v. New York,388 U.S. 41 (1967) and Katz v. United States,389 U.S. 347 (1967).
Law enforcement already has accessible records of my criminal record, including my DNA, my photograph and my complete set of prints and can easily locate me if they were to implicate me in a crime in the future. That process is the alternative to sex offender registration and notification laws and is the least restrictive measure that is available to the government that is related to the legislative objectives of increasing public safety and preventing recidivism. Furthermore, the government already has a meaningful process to determine if an individual poses a significant risk for re offense before ever releasing the person from custody. It is available in the states civil commitment statues. If a person is found to present a potentially high risk of re offense then that individual is confined under the civil commitment statues until it is determined that they no longer pose a risk to the public.
It is in the public best interest to grant me this relief as it will increase my ability to reintegrate into society and increase the probability that I will maintain stability in my life and be a law abiding, productive member of society which actually decreases my risk for re-offense even further. It will also allow governmental agencies and law enforcement agencies to re-direct their limited resources to monitor high risk offenders more intensively thereby increasing public safety. It will also save the state tax payer dollars that can be used for policies that have proven to actually be effective.
These laws will continue to cause me irreparable damage if the court fails to grant me relief.
No one can doubt that child sexual abuse is traumatic and devastating. The question is not whether the state has an interest in preventing such harm, but whether current laws are effective in doing so.
Prayer.
I pray the court grant me this motion for summary judgement in the amount of 2.5 million dollars for lost wages, pain and suffering, and the detrimental affects to my reputation.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to my knowledge on __________ Signed: _____________________________
Standing with CARSOL
Well said James! I agree with Janice's well built foundation approach.
Timmr
Well, what a diversity of opinion on strategy! My hat off to everyone for their enthusiasm and large thinking. I am glad I am not in a leadership position here, but all your approaches sound reasonable. Best I can do is help provide the tools so that the proponents of any approach may have a strong resource behind them -- empowerment of activists. I am working with a small group to develop a web based organization tool that begins with a data base of registrants and associates (family members, friends, etc.) This will be made available to organizations interested to educate, inspire and mobilize large numbers of people. The strategies for campaigns are up to the leaders.
It is a daunting task, that can't be done anyway other than incrementally, gathering names, looking up phone numbers and voting districts, making phone calls and doing mailings. It is not as dramatic as appearing before a committee or even writing a letter, but it will make those acts more dramatic in effect by sheer numbers.
Any volunteers are welcome, to gather names or make phone calls, also those who have experience in coding, websites, technical writing, newsletter creating, blogging. Sorry, it is all volunteers. Oh, and this is not limited to those in California. Those in other states are welcome to have access to the site and surely to use it to build lists and membership campaigns of their own, coordinate with leaders in other states on nationwide campaigns. [email protected].
Anonymous Somebody
I actually have read the case law--most of it anyway--but not nearly so much as Janice has. On precedent and case law alone, I'd have to venture Janice is probably better educated than any of us and no doubt it's exactly said case law and the way precedents are built (re-built in this situation) that has encouraged her long-term strategy of bringing this back to the supreme court.
But that aside, I don't think anyone is arguing that court case incrementalism is the sole solution to this challenge. That's certainly not what I believe, and it definitely wasn't what I was suggesting. In fact, it seems pretty well understood that court cases are only one facet of what will be needed to overturn this punishment regime. The court is Janice's arena. Other arenas will require other champions.
You are very passionate in your declaration of what "we" should do. I am (was?) hopeful that this passion indicated a game plan of some sort.
Standing with CARSOL
Mike r, you keep flipping for and against Janice. Make up your mind. You need to file your own case if you disagree with Janice.
David Kennerly
We should not assume that court challenges, alone, will be sufficient in stopping the degraded state of Registrants and their families today. It is, however, an essential part but one which must be accompanied by outreach, engagement with both the media and the community as well as member activism. We need to engage very actively with students and universities. We need to form alliances with academics in law, psychology and social work.
More powerful legal challenges are built upon the experience and strengths of those more modest ones that went before it. We must learn to crawl before we can walk, if you will. We're still in the crawling phase but we're about to become toddlers. We have been crawling magnificently, of late.
Organization-building takes time and past, disappointing, results are not necessarily indicative of future success. While progress is often painfully incremental, sudden, breathtaking change can come as a result of years of dogged effort and modest gains, with those gains not simply being legal success but an erosion in the bigotry and ignorance of the public.
However, the early results from CARSOL, which is very much in its initial growth phase, are very impressive.
I do have one concern with an aspect of incrementalism, however. If, in carving out reforms that provide relief to certain classes of Registrants we were to lose momentum for further reforms as a result of those classes falling away, in their contentment, then that would indeed be very bad for the more fundamental challenge to the very idea of the Registry, and to the regime of savage criminal punishment.
However, I think that is unlikely, especially if the public engagement phase of consciousness-raising is given equal weight to the process of challenging the laws.
Too, we are happily riding an emergent wave of broad-based criminal justice reform which is likely to have profound implications for how justice is dispensed in the future.
CARSOL is doing just what it should be doing within the constraints of its human and capital resources. Increasing the flow of those resources would enable it to go faster.
Joe
What is your suggestion, then?
Anonymous Nobody
Registration did not start getting challenged only with the formation of this group. Look at all the cases, probably more challenges to all kinds of details than any other law ever on the books. All that incrementalism has only resulted in the worst situation registrants have ever been in - that incrementalism has failed miserably. To make a plan to do what has failed over many, many decades is simply to show you don't understand the situation, it shows wishful thinking. There are people here who have been waiting through 20, 30, 40, 50 years of incrementalism already, to no avail! Its already been tried, it has already failed.
If I am presented with a 100-year plan that has already been proven a failure and even if it worked would not provide what is needed until long after my lifetime, then I have no use for that plan. You don't understand incrementalism if you think it is a one-size-fits-all circumstances solution. It is not a reasonable approach for this situation.
No Justice No peace
Saul Alinsky’s 12 Rules for Radicals
* RULE 1: “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.” Power is derived from 2 main sources – money and people. “Have-Nots” must build power from flesh and blood. (These are two things of which there is a plentiful supply. Government and corporations always have a difficult time appealing to people, and usually do so almost exclusively with economic arguments.)
* RULE 2: “Never go outside the expertise of your people.” It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone. (Organizations under attack wonder why radicals don’t address the “real” issues. This is why. They avoid things with which they have no knowledge.)
* RULE 3: “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)
* RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. (This is a serious rule. The besieged entity’s very credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.)
* RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)
* RULE 6: “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” They’ll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They’re doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones. (Radical activists, in this sense, are no different that any other human being. We all avoid “un-fun” activities, and but we revel at and enjoy the ones that work and bring results.)
* RULE 7: “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” Don’t become old news. (Even radical activists get bored. So to keep them excited and involved, organizers are constantly coming up with new tactics.)
* RULE 8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. (Attack, attack, attack from all sides, never giving the reeling organization a chance to rest, regroup, recover and re-strategize.)
* RULE 9: “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist. (Perception is reality. Large organizations always prepare a worst-case scenario, something that may be furthest from the activists’ minds. The upshot is that the organization will expend enormous time and energy, creating in its own collective mind the direst of conclusions. The possibilities can easily poison the mind and result in demoralization.)
* RULE 10: “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog. (Unions used this tactic. Peaceful [albeit loud] demonstrations during the heyday of unions in the early to mid-20th Century incurred management’s wrath, often in the form of violence that eventually brought public sympathy to their side.)
* RULE 11: “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem. (Old saw: If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem. Activist organizations have an agenda, and their strategy is to hold a place at the table, to be given a forum to wield their power. So, they have to have a compromise solution.)
* RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)
WantsToHelp
I so wholeheartedly second James' comment above that I'm copying part of it here for emphasis:
"A wise general picks and chooses their battles and even more importantly, prepares the battlefield in advance. These are truths known for Millennium…they are so standard it is surprising to see them questioned at all.
If some people wish to form their own group with their own agenda with their own funding and lawsuits aplenty…let them have at it."
To those who want to see something different done: No one is stopping you. Please, sincerely, please be the one to put your ideas into action. This fight needs as many people actively involved as possible.
Anonymous Somebody
You say, "Instead of beating around the periphery, we need to go for the throat, go for the heart of the matter." Who is this "we" you speak of? Have you begun spear-heading a team to do this? Laying the groundwork? Building the mechanism? I would be quite excited to hear the details! How phenomenal that there are others out there throwing their gloves into the ring! ... or ... please tell me I'm wrong... do you mean the metaphorical armchair quarterback style of "we"?
USA
Well stated! This is no different than the Civil Rights Movement. We are fighting for our Civil Rights
Mike r
annoynamous hits on the head. we need radical change if we're going to see the end of registration in our lifetime.although I support and am thankful for all Janice's efforts and accomplishments I strongly disagree with her for the long run approach.
Son of Liberty Child of Freedom
I concur, both methods have their individual utility on a Time & Place basis.
The Adversary that standing in the path is using & has used all methods to destroy the lives of all effected. The Hostility with which The Enemy knows no bounds & bars no weapons from use.
I believe we need be Dynamic & Proactive to weather the Tempest.
Robert Curtis
You are right it does depend on the situation. We have been going at it both ways. If we had set back and let AB-201 pass we would of had to take the long boat to China via incramentalism. Instead we fought it head on and by doing so we stopped that journey. We need both. We need as soldiers to keep our ground and forward strike as need and opportunity presents itself. We are in a war and ALL of those on and associated with the registry are no longer civilians...we are soldiers. Start seeing yourself that way and together we will succeed.
James
I strongly vote that CARSOL stay firmly on the path that it is on...a wise general picks and chooses their battles and even more importantly, prepares the battlefield in advance.
These are truths known for Millennium...they are so standard is it surprising to see them questioned at all...a wise warrior also knows that they hold the lives of people in their hands...as Dear Janice knows she holds our lives in her hands.
I trust Janice, she has done us well and going forward will always take steps to protect us and move us ever closer to where we need to be.
If some people wish to form their own group with their own agenda with their own funding and lawsuits aplenty...let them have at it.
Me? I am going to stand by the ONLY person that has ever helped me....helped all of us.
Other people? I wish them well...but let us see what results they bring home to us, if anything. Then we can have a conversation...until then, not so much.
Best Wishes, James
Concerned Registrant
I think there is a place for both of these points of view and both approaches. Incrementalism does have its place. Look, a good negotiator will go for as much as he/she can get, and settle for the best they can get at that time. We've heard the expression "Aim for the stars; you might hit the moon." Rather than look to a long-term strategy of incrementalism, perhaps the response to every opportunity should be determined based upon its own merits. Sometimes the response should be immediate. And other times, depending upon the issue, there could be a more cautious approach. But in every situation aim for the highest goal, settle for what you can get, and look for the next opportunity to bring us closer to the ultimate goal.
mike
What category does the SCOTUS decision that says that registration is not punishment fall into? Sudden or incrementalism? I think that SCOTUS made their decision based on the erroneous information that they had at the time, and looked for a way to sustain state action that was designed to protect the public. I think that we need to get our ducks in a row and attack the registry itself on multiple grounds in the lower courts and move forward. However, the lack of strong membership and fundraising drives leaves us with few resources and I am an older fellow and hope that I have at least a few years left to live in peace.
Anonymous Nobody
Incrementalism or radical change is never quite so clear cut. And, a solid foundation can be created either way, there is no leaning by a radical approach to slight foundation. And either way can equally run off in the wrong direction or backfire with precedents against us, except that the incremental approach means many more chances for those negative precedents.
In our case, incrementalism guarantees that no one alive today will see the elimination of registration. And that time frame is unacceptable, and unnecessary.
Frankly, if all we are going to do is "incrementalism" around the periphery, then we are wasting our time, that will leave us under this oppression for pretty much the rest of the lives of all those alive today -- and we cannot wait that kind of time frame. Incrementalism will take many decades. It took nearly 50 years for gays to go that route. It took 10 years for black people to go that route. That time frame is unacceptable. Incrementalism on a matter such as this is just the hobbyist approach, just dabbling.
The time involved must be a major consideration in the tactics. Incrementalism cannot work for those alive today. Instead of beating around the periphery, we need to go for the throat, go for the heart of the matter. We need major change in a reasonably short time frame, not in 50 or 100 years. Sometimes simply asking permission is not good enough, revolution is required.
David Kennerly
Part of the challenge in coming to terms with the current political duopoly/power-sharing agreement between the Democrats and the Republicans (and the Right and the Left) is, and without going off too far into political analysis, that the "two sides," as you put it, i.e. the "right" and the "left" nevertheless have two things very much in common: an abandonment of the rights of the individual and an embrace of the power of the majority to shape individuals to their respective wills. So this means that there is a very big "side" missing from dominant political discourse - i.e. the two-party system - which has resulted in the loss of individual liberty.
But you're very much on target in pointing out that one of the most glaring distortions to creep into prevailing political beliefs, most famously amongst the left (but also present, on a more hypocritical level, on the right), is the conception of rights as entitlements bestowed upon the individual by governments and which can pop into-and-out of existence depending upon the current state of enlightenment of the government, on the one hand, and the virtue, status and deservedness of individuals, on the other. This redefinition/redistribution of rights has hit the "sex offender" particularly hard and it is this that is at the root of our degraded citizenship.
The concept of "victim's rights" has crept into, not just discourse, but into criminal codes and is seen as a right in competition with the rights of the accused. So you have the very pernicious spectacle of rights being created, and rewarded, as a result of victimization. This is exceedingly dangerous just as the idea that people of differing gender or racial status should have their "rights" either increased or decreased relative to one other in pursuit of a perceived state of "social justice." With the stakes so very high, it's no wonder the two parties hate each other so much: they both crave raw, winner-take-all, power.
Still, they can agree on one thing: sex offenders should have no status at all.
D
I agree with the approach of starting small and building a strategic plan to take back the rights we have been denied. I sometimes think about how both sides of the aisle are to blame for this catastrophe. The left has grown the state to such a place where the government is no longer safeguarding rights, it thinks it gives the rights. The right has gotten aboard this train putting it's hand in the cookie jar. If only we could go back to what the founders invisioned of a limited government, where individuals had rights and not the government or some collectivist notion of "the people."
Joe Mandt
Keep up the good work, Janice. the Megan's law that the SCOTUS curiously found to be non-punitive is not the same laundry list of laws that we have today and the courts are starting to come to that conclusion. oft times basing their decisions on their own state constitution. I wonder if at some point we will see a number of states who will refuse to forward their SO registry entries to the national database? One of these cases will end up in the SCOTUS soon, but I don't even trust the "liberal" justices in such matters.
Lake County
I quite agree with you Janice. Since the SCOTUS has already ruled that the Megan's Law is not punishment, we have no choice but to build our foundation brick by brick (or law by law) until we can reach our final goal of removing the public registry. Those people that think we can or should only be attacking the public registry as a whole are just not being realistic.
Janice's Journal: CASOMB Should Discontinue Use of Polygraph Exams for Registrants
Published Date : May 13, 2016
The Fifth Amendment is alive and well for registrants in Colorado due to a decision this week by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. In that decision, the Court ruled that registrants could not be forced to incriminate themselves by answering questions about their sexual history during a polygraph exam.
In Colorado, registrants on supervised release were required to participate in polygraph exams and to sign an agreement and which allowed their answers to be shared with law enforcement. In making its decision, the Court noted that the terms of the written agreement signed by the registrant had not been negotiated and in fact were coerced because if he did not sign the agreement, he would be sent to prison.
The Court noted in its decision that the source for the terms of the agreement was the Colorado Sex Offender Management Board. That board certifies treatment providers who, in order to remain certified, are required to obtain registrants’ signatures on written agreements the terms of which are not negotiable.
The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals made a wise and historic decision this week. And we are heartened that the Court protected the civil rights of registrants under their jurisdiction.
The question now is whether that wisdom will be applied outside the 10th Circuit.
California has a similar system as compared to Colorado. That is, the California Sex Offender Management Board certifies treatment providers and in order for them to remain certified, they are required to obtain registrants’ signatures on written agreements that have terms which are not negotiated with registrants.
The fact is that in California, registrants must sign three agreements – one each for sexual history polygraphs, maintenance polygraphs and instant offense polygraphs – or face a prison sentence. In just one of those agreements, there is language stating that information provided by a registrant during a polygraph exam can be used in a subsequent criminal prosecution, revocation of probation/parole, reported to Child Protective Services and/or used to determine if the individual is a sexually violent predator. There is similar language in the remaining two agreements.
There is a lack of clarity in California regarding the use of polygraphs in the treatment of registrants. On the one hand, state courts have determined that polygraph exams are and will remain permissible conditions of supervised release. The same courts have also determined that registrants may be asked questions regarding one’s offense, compliance with conditions of release and questions reasonably related to completing a sex offender treatment program.
In addition, both state and federal courts have determined that the Fifth Amendment limits the government’s ability to use incriminating statements that are “compelled” to be disclosed during a required polygraph exam in a subsequent prosecution of a new crime. Further, the courts have determined that government can require registrants to answer incriminating questions but only if the government grants immunity and agrees not to use those statements in a subsequent prosecution.
The gaping hole in California is what happens when the government does not provide immunity to the registrant. Can the government in those circumstances force registrants to waive their Fifth Amendment rights and answer questions that reveal incriminating information?
The answer to that question may in fact be different depending upon whether a registrant is on federal probation or state probation/parole. Two recent 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decisions, which apply directly to those on federal probation, recognize a registrant’s Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate himself provided that the registrant has asserted that right.
A California state law, however, provides a different answer for those on state probation or parole. That law, California Penal Code Section 1203.067(b)(3), requires registrants to waive their Fifth Amendment rights in order to participate in the state’s sex offender management program.
How can that be? How can a state law require anyone to voluntarily relinquish their constitutional rights!
Fortunately, this state law is currently being challenged and the California Supreme Court has agreed to consider four cases on that topic. In three of those cases, lower state courts decided that this state law violates the Constitution.
Until the California Supreme Court renders its decision, the California Sex Offender Management Board and the treatment providers it certifies should discontinue the use of polygraph exams for registrants on state parole and/or probation.
Related
Polygraph Requirement Violates Registrant’s 5th Amendment Rights
Read all of Janice’s Journals
Comments
TBar
Guess what Mr. Stone IPA?, California Department of Corrections (and jokingly, Rehabilitation) have their own people administer the Static-99. These people are mistakenly called correctional counselors. They are not trained mental health professionals who have to be re-certified like clinicians do. They do not follow the coding rules set forth and endorsed by CASOMB. As a direct result, I personally was mistakenly given a Static-99 score after having been in the community with no sexual or violent offenses for almost 20 years. The 2003 revised coding rules state anyone in such circumstances is ineligible for scoring unless they pick up a new sexual or violent offense. They specifically state that DUI and Failure to Register do not count against someone. So they put me on three years of parole, treated me like the worse of the worst when I should have been put on one year of community supervision.
I'd like a good lawyer who sees the potential in this lawsuit.
TBar
State Parole would see that as a refusal to "participate", earning you a violation in the very least.
Anne Morehead
I am not a sex offender. But I do know what probation is about. No matter how white bread normal you are. No matter how "neatly" and non mean messy your crimes was committed. Not even taking into mind how perfect your record is from your time in jail. And especially no matter how low and humble you act to the probation officers. No matter how you grovel and keep your eyes on the floor showing them they are the alpha's and you are nothing...they still know everything about you from your pre-sentencing report. Everyone knows your good family supported you, you had the best attorney or you have an incredible pre-prison resume, talents and contacts that they could never dream of ever achieving in their lifetime. Perhaps even in prison, while normal sex offenders are targeted somehow you were not. So as with sex offenders who manage to make it through prison making friends, not getting beat up and killed, your probation officer, counselor and others who were going to be in charge of you on the outside already didn't like you, because of the fact that you didn't get your "punishment" from the other inmates. Or didn't like what was described about you in your pre-sentencing report. And as they start to work with you they find out you won't just be reliant on them, but your family especially maybe your wife, stood by you and are helping you lead a normal life on the outside, it's about control. They will control you as long as they can, anyway they can. And the more normal a life you seem to be making for yourself, the more knives they want to stick into your armor. Because you are supposedly the worst kind of criminal. You supposedly should not clinically be able to have a normal life with out everything the state provides them to oversee for you. Yet no matter what they tell you to do, you do it, humbly and go back to building your new life. So they put extras in your way. Extra visits to their office, extra drug test and enough costly poly graphs that maybe they'll break your bank. After all they went to college to be better than the people in there "Charge" and those people can't ever be allowed to think they are better than their probation officers or anyone else who is supposedly needed to help you the ex prisoner to run their life on the straight and narrow. So the more you have your life together and the less anything they ask you to do phases you because you have a life to get back to when you let them have their latest fun. Well it drives them crazy! They want to be in control of you. Your always supposed to have a worse life than them but you don't. You've moved onward and upward and there life hasn't! So they keep trying to control you and you keep giving them what they want and going back to your new life and building upward and onward! It's the only way to beet them. Don't play their games. Play by their rules, than just leave and each time make yourself do one thing more to make you're life better. Apply for a higher job. Make yourself introduce yourself to just one more possible connection. Ask one more person out. Whatever it is, just try one more life bettering thing (no matter how hard) every time you leave from them doing one more humiliating thing, trying to beat you down. Force yourself to do one more thing to bring your life up!
MichaelRS
First off, the polygraph is snake oil. Junk science at its peak.
If you would like to learn more about the polygraph, and turn some of that knowledge to your advantage, check out:
Antipolygraph.org
Back in 2004, when I was forced into "therapy" and it take a polygraph while on probation, the polygraph examiner had you sign a statement that you were there of your own free will, that you're not on any mind-altering medication and there was one or two other Provisions I can't remember.
I initially refused to sign because I was not there of my own free will.
I was there obeying the terms and conditions of my probation enhance the order of the court to do so.
Also, being depressed out of my mind re the whole situation, I was on antidepressants and anti-anxiety medication.
So I told her I'm not going to sign this waiver comma but I am presenting myself for the polygraph exam. But she would not examine me without my signature on that waiver form. And reported me as being "uncooperative".
So finally, under threat of being jailef by my probation officer, I signed the thing.
I answered every question truthfully. But when the results was given to my "therapist", a former County probation officer who turned PhD and sunk his claws into the sex abuse interest industry racket, he said I failed two questions and therefore I feel the whole polygraph and so that was a black mark against me so on so forth.
He would never tell me what questions it was that I, supposedly, failed. But when I ask them who it was that set the standard as to what failure meant he finally admitted in so many other words that was arbitrarily and he set the standard.
It's just like if you're eligible to go for a Certificate of Rehabilitation. Mine was originally denied in Orange County so I'm going through the appeals court process at this time.
But during the arguments at the original hearing the deputy district attorney said there is a very high standard for sex offenders to meet to get the Certificate of Rehabilitation.
Well that is complete and utter BS. There is no high standard. There is no low standard. There is only THE standard that is outlined by the law.
Petitioners in these matters should not be subject to arbitrary whims from the bench to have their petition granted or not.
In my case the judge said he didn't think enough time had passed. Well it had been ten years and a few months since the conviction and 12 and a half years since the actual offense.
And the legislation, and that's the clear legislative intent, is that you have to wait 10 years. That total 10 years is longer than you have to wait for a COR from murder conviction.
Another thing that Deputy district attorney said was that there was a high rate of recidivism for sex offenders.
Again not true. If you're talking about sex related offenses. The only ones less higher than sex offenders is murders.
But yet the Orange County District Attorney's office is allowed to stop this nonsense in open court and nobody does anything about it. My public deffender did not even address those issues.
In fact he even tried to talk me out of appealing the decision.
In Orange County if you are going for a COR apparently they give you the least experienced person in these matters to handle your case under their new Leaf program. When it comes to these matters an attorney is not an attorney is an attorney.
And if you're seeking a COR in Orange County you're better off hiring a private attorney, if you can at all afford it. Because the Orange County Public Defender's Office it's practically incompetent when it comes to it
Joe Mandt
When I was on probation, i was required to take these polygraphs once a year. For starters, there is a HUGE difference between polygraphers looking to see if you are being truthful and ones that have made a living, typically working for the Feds, by trying to trip people up. I had that guy for my first couple and finally my PO had me go to another honest, one. Yes, there is such a creature out there, but I suspect that they are one step below unicorns on the rarity scale. :-D. She actually bothered to ask me if I had any issue that might impact the polygraph, I told her that I had significant anxiety issues even before my arrest that were worse, so she did a baseline test. Unadjusted, the machine said I was lying when I said that My name was Joe, we were in Largo, FL and that I was currently sitting in a chair. She said that the anxiety, plus my tendency to over examine/overthink the question to make ABSOLUTELY sure of my answer were the likely culprits. She made her adjustments and I passed the next 3 polygraphs with flying colors. The only good news is that the law said that the state could not use anything discover during the polygraph exam in court to violate or prosecute you. Unusual considering it was Florida.
RP
You would do better to remain calm and respectful. Yes you should assert your rights on camera and among them is providing a business card of a lawyer and stating you are represented by counsel, and all questions they have for you should be directed to them. Not only are you telling them off you are doing it in a way that they can get in trouble if they violate the rules regarding representation .
David Kennerly
I would say "I reserve the right to remain silent."
8675309
This will be my 1st year in this crappy state (CA) that I have to register and am NOT on parole. I will tell you if the Sheriff's department comes to my house they will have a surprise coming.. a CAMERA in their face, me telling them off and to get out of here, Ill tell them to READ the 290.015 LAW as I have and to get LOST Ill also have a witness with me, once I register and show my residence document with address, that this is harassment, im NOT talking to them, Ill call their stupidvisor, and also file a complaint with any and all agencies I can. Them coming to your door when you are NOT on parole is plain evil and NOT covered in 290.015 as part of registering, as my address has ALREADY been verified. Or even I wont answer the door as I DO NOT HAVE TO. If I do prolly will tell em I DONT TALK TO COPS/ANSWER ?'s and unless they have a warrant get lost.
Timmmy
Then why not have him answer everything with "I Refuse To Answer On The Grounds That I May Incriminate Myself"?
8675309
As I recall in the State of CA in the title 15 for people under CDCR/Parole it says the STATE pays for the mandatory poly. I know someone in so cal that is on parole/290 and they DO NOT PAY, they have threats all the time "if they fail they will have to pay" I have a 2013 title 15, I may just check it ;)
Ka
My polygraph was a week ago I passed all of mine that is 6 out of 6. But this last one was a question about using the internet without authorization. I use email at work and our management system and that is it. This is even written by a third party. So now what do I do? Expect a ride to my house like other guys have said because they missed a question? Also the polygraph admittedly by the APA is 50 - 85% accurate, but no one takes that into consideration. It's about the money just like debtors jail. We're still doing it to 2016 Karma times have not changed that much since the Middle Ages. And how many courrs how many jurisdictions need to play into this before there's a ruling? He threatened me with having to pay but haven't done so yet. I've recovered my life about 65%. I'm putting away money for retirement so not a burden on society or living in the bushes. Enough with this please support Janice!!
T M
I had to do this. I was scared cause when they strap you in, everything and I mean everything is running through your head. From the time you were a kid to now. But I focused on what I had to answer. Luckily I passed.
Now am I saying should we take it? Not even in the slightest. The problem is, as you said, violates our 5th amendment. And to top it off, the damn thing is expensive. You have to pay to put yourself in this 50/50 prison time or face the time without even paying.
And I get the treatment. There are people that are considered SVP's. But there are people that don't even rank in the harmful. If anything, they're harmless. They've made a huge mistake in their lives and I can bet if you looked out on the street, you'd never guess who was one.
I wish I wish I WISH they'd really look at this setup. And I mean really look. It's just nonsense and hoop jumping to stay in the lines in the eyes of the law.
jd
Update on my husband's polygraph nightmare: One of the PRE-TEST questions asked if he had had any contact with minors. He mentioned that, on ONE occasion, two kids came up to him when he was walking our dog and asked if they could pet the dog. He told them that the dog didn't like to be touched by strangers, so the kids moved on. On ONE OTHER occasion when he was walking the dog (Mind you, he's been walking the dog three times a day for the last nine months), a kid asked him for directions. He gave them to her, and she moved on. NOW his probation officer's supervisor has decided that another condition must be added to the list---that he cannot walk the dog alone. We tried to challenge this by taking it up with his P.O., the P.O.'s supervisor, and then the P.O.'s supervisor's supervisor, but to no avail. The law has given these people unlimited power to abuse their authority whenever they wish. Anyway, we consulted a lawyer, and when this is over (I believe we're down to 80-something days now), we will file a report with the watch commander. It won't do anything for my husband or me, but maybe, just maybe it will help someone else in the future. This abuse needs to stop.
James
Dear Rocky and Ivan, this sounds so impossibly horrible that I am left speechless...I could never survive what you ares are going through...what is really odd is that I had such a great Therapist and therapeutic experience...
I am actually looking for a therapist now on a voluntary basis...just because I think it will be good for me...and it damned well better be.
What you guys are doing seems an entirely different beast...maybe at the next Los Angeles meeting, if I am in town, someone will be able to explain this to me.
I just don't get it
Good luck Gentlemen
Best Wishes, James
MS
Didn't take me long to figure out what the "treatment" was about. It was, is, and will continue to be about the money. First order of business each week I went was always collecting the money from everyone. If you had the money...it was happy times. If you didn't have the money...you got reminded in a not so friendly tone that you better come up with it. Get the money however you need to get the money. If not...you're not welcome to attend the "treatment" which means you are in violation which means you will be going back to court and then jail. There was no or very little empathy for those without their money in hand. The therapist seemed to take it just a little too personally. Made me think that if you didn't pay...it came right out of their paycheck or something.
Dray
Janice, can you please put a voters guide up to help us now if any one is on our side is up for re-election?
Ivan Diaz
I'm in a group sessions in the city of Bell with people on probation and parole and that is incorrect. It doesn't matter if your on probation and parole they both have to pay out of pocket for test and its up to the state funded therapist decision on how soon you have to take the test. Where i go the therapist makes it a requirement to take the test within the first three months of treatment, and they even go ahead and set up everyone to test on a certain day letting you know to come tomorrow or next week whatever slot is available and bring $300 that's how much this polygrapher they use charges. Only takes cash no payment installments, if you don't have the money you don't take the test and have to reschedule and now how to bring $350($50 for rescheduling test) and if you still don't have the money and don't take the test and 3 months are up your in violation and they report it to your probation or parole officer, so they can then take you to court and give you custody time. Doesn't matter if you just got out of jail or haven't been able to find a job, in the therapist words "It's your problem deal with it, the judge doesn't care if you don't have money or can't find a job. Pay the fees or go to jail". so they pretty much threaten you with jail and don't care if you'll be left with no money to eat or take the bus. One guy told me he had to sell his food stamps so he can come up with the rest of the money to pay for the test. The therapist also said in a condescending tone the state is thinking about creating a funding program to cover the cost of test but will only be for a limited few but they haven't done anything yet so you guys have to pay. There are cheaper places you could go for test but when you calculate the expense for travel and amount of time it pretty much equals the same if not more. No one really cares about the success of treatment or what hurdles sex offenders have to endure. It almost feels like extortion give us everything you got or will send you to jail and when you come out of jail you got to start program from the beginning again.
Rocky
"Required"? Oh yes: we were coerced into giving up our our rights by threats of a violation if we did not sign the waiver. I, as many, declared next to our signatures that "we were forced against our wills to signed here" then initialed it.
anon # 213046232-23820202-327
Robin: I think (in CA) that is ONLY the case with PROBATION... as for Parole the state pays. Same goes for IF your on probation you have to pay your restitution or a jail violation... state doesnt do anything... I BELIEVE the reason is: Probation is run by the COPS and COUNTY and they want it to cost them NOTHING ...so they can violate you, also make you pay for your therapy... remember probation... ran by the county sheriff, and jails are ran by the same fools, same with the "county" courts and judges etc etc.. see the ponzi scheme ? I dont think (someone correct me if im wrong)... I dont think on CA PAROLE anyone has ever gotten charged (or can) for a poly.
Robin Banks
Not only are the polygraph exams compulsory - the registered citizen is required to pay for them out of his/her own pocket. And let me tell you, they're not cheap.
anon # 213046232-23820202-327
^^ You forgot Risk Assessment... Not scientific :)... all of it is OPINION's which are like...well never mind...;)
Lake County
Remember, his "court-mandated therapist" is not a lawyer and only desires to protect their paycheck. I sure wouldn't believe anything they said related to legal advise. Although there is risk, I wouldn't participate in a polygraph exam in California at this point. I truly believe California will have to declare polygraphs to be optional with no consequences if you refuse. Remember also that Janice cannot give you advise here on what you should do. You must hire an attorney for legal advise in your case. The public defenders office might help you. The ACLU could also help, but since they have limited funds, they may not be willing to help.
Will A
The reason why is to make them money. And also to prop up a charade that they are doing something useful. That's it. They are likely also little people who need to control other people in order to make themselves feel better.
Mr. Stone IPA
Polygraph? Not scientific. Static-99R? Not scientific. ABEL? Not scientific. What do these things have in common? They are all endorsed, despite their inaccuracy, by the California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB).
jd
YES! My husband and I have had to shell out money for these bogus exams TWICE in the last six months because my husband keeps "failing" despite the fact that he has not violated the terms of his probation. The polygrapher admitted that he might be experiencing a "fight or flight" response to questions that were about "sexual thoughts," that the question itself might make my husband uncomfortable as every thought he has--sexual or not--could be possibly criminalized. Still, he was told he may have to take the test a THIRD time. My question is: Why? With a few months left on his probation, what, exactly, is the point? According to his court-mandate therapist, nothing in the polygraph could be used against him in court (to revoke probation or to bring new charges against him), but that doesn't seem accurate according to what you said about California.
Janice's Journal: May You Live in Interesting Times
Published Date : May 3, 2016
May you live in interesting times is a saying attributed to ancient China. Some have interpreted that saying as a curse, others as a blessing. Regardless of its negative or positive connotation, the saying applies today to the lives of almost a million Americans who are required to register as sex offenders as well as to their family members and supporters.
What else can explain why a powerful politician admits that he inappropriately touched several young men and is sentenced to only 15 months in prison and not required to register as a sex offender after hundreds of thousands of individuals have been sentenced to many years, sometimes decades, in prison and required to register as sex offenders for the rest of their lives?
What else can explain why Congress passed the International Megan’s Law that requires the addition of a “Scarlet letter” to the passports of hundreds of thousands of Americans based upon a myth that those convicted of a sex offense involving a minor will engage in child sex trafficking or child sex tourism while overseas?
What else can explain why an articulate spokesman for our movement is sued because he dared to criticize a group of private individuals who harassed registered citizens during government-sponsored compliance checks?
What else can explain why an intelligent spokesman for our movement reportedly violated conditions of his probation by sending hundreds of text messages to a minor?
What else can explain why a sheriff in Vermont hired a registered citizen despite the criticism of his peers and community?
What else can explain why a minister in Florida provided housing for registered citizens until that housing was closed by the government?
What else can explain why California Reform Sex Offender Laws continues to challenge laws that limit where registered citizens may visit and/or reside?
What else can explain why I have devoted my life to protecting the Constitution by restoring the civil rights of registered citizens?
It’s time to face the facts. Good or bad, we live in interesting times. Let’s make this time in which we live even more interesting by continuing to shine the light of truth….through education, legislation and litigation.
We are and will continue to educate the public about the truth of registered citizens, including their low rate of re-offense. We are and will continue to oppose legislation that threatens the Constitution by denying registered citizens’ civil rights, including the right to good jobs and safe housing. We are and will continue to litigate by challenging laws including the International Megan’s Law, up to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary.
Yes, we live in interesting times. Together, we can make it a blessing, not a curse.
Comments
R.C. for 29yrs ,still paying daily
Thank you Janice for all your hard work and for caring
Harry
T you said "they are blinded by what the media tells them they need to be educated so they can stand up and say these laws are not just". Christians not only should stand up against these laws for RC sake, but for Christians, as we are NEXT on the hate list.
t
Steveo you said it very well I am a Christian myself and I agreed about the Judgmentmenal attitude of our fellow brothers and sisters in Christ I posted a comment similar to this about not wishing harm on Sharron Runner you can read it in the post where it talks about Sharon Runner not pursuing the bill because of health issues. I mentioned things about Christian ideals and to follow What Jesus said in the sermon of the mount about not wishing harm on people who curse us and mistreats us to show love to them even when they do these things to us. And that ties into your comments on the other end our Brothers and Sisters in Christ need to do the same and not to judge us yes they can watch us so that we are not alone with a kid hat is not ours but accept us and welcome those of us who changed their life's preferable changed by accepting Jesus as their savior. but I agree stereo on those comments and it's not just Republicans remind you since 1994 when Clinton signed this in the office, and from then till now no democrat or republican has been able or willing to step up and challenge these laws but you are right in your comments we Christians need to educate our fellow brothers and sisters in Christ about this because they are blinded by what the media tells them they need to be educated so they can stand up and say these laws are not just
Mike r
heres a great peice by sosen..The other thing that hasn’t been brought up yet is the fact that not only can they be sued, but they can be charged with a federal crime under Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 Conspiracy Against Rights and Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242 Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law
Under section 242 it lays out quite plainly who can be held accountable for the attempt to deprive a citizen of their rights. This would include individual legislators and city Council members etc. who pass laws with the intent to deprive a citizen of their constitutionally protected rights.
This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S.
This law further prohibits a person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation or custom to willfully subject or cause to be subjected any person to different punishments, pains, or penalties, than those prescribed for punishment of citizens
“Acts under “color of any law” include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the bounds or limits of their lawful authority, but also acts done without and beyond the bounds of their lawful authority; provided that, in order for unlawful acts of any official to be done under “color of any law,” the unlawful acts must be done while such official is purporting or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. This definition includes, in addition to law enforcement officials, individuals such as Mayors, Council persons, Judges, Nursing Home Proprietors, Security Guards, etc., persons who are bound by laws, statutes ordinances, or customs.”
Steveo
I'm the president of a tech startup that has international customers. We also had additional funding lined up, but we had to travel to a South American country and grow our business from there. They give money, equity free to stimulate their economy, and we would use the funding for further runway to grow out business. When I say we, it's me, my wife, and 2 adult children, who are all involved in our startup.
Then I found out about the IML, and my heart sank. They did it to us again. My offense was nearly 25 years ago, and I have been off probation since 2004. I was hoping to move on, and build a new life without the dark cloud of shame, and now, our government has really set back our family.
So now Christopher H. Smith can say "Thank you Lord that I'm not like those sinners", and all of the graceless, and self-righteous Republicans (with their acceptable sins) that pushed this bill through, and which was signed into law by the hypocrite B.H. Obama.
Here is the one thing these allegedly Christian men will account for, and that is that some of us evil sinners who at one time did evil things (1Cor 6:11) that they deal with so unjustly, some of us ourselves belong to Jesus Christ. Yes, he not only has the power to save wretches like me, but also even the ability to change someone, to strengthen them, and to cause them to stand (Rom 14:4), so I know that some day justice will occur, even if it's after this life. So these guys can equivocate and convince themselves that they are erring on the side of caution, or whatever, but their law is unjust, and simply dishonest, and that is the truth.
They can even set themselves up as God, and say "these offenders deserve what they get", but good news... They are not God. he judges perfectly, and without our bias. IF I had signed this law, as a Christian, I would be afraid. I would not have, in good convenience been able to sign it. No honest man would have. They are corrupt, and they have written and signed off on a corrupt and evil law.
Just Sayin'
Registered citizens are a class of people, in which Constitutional violations have been the most numerous and egregious. Beginning with the first accusations of a sex offense, it becomes nearly impossible to receive due process, to the point that most, who serve their time, and end up on the registry ,have never been convicted of their crime in a court of law, as guaranteed by our Constitution. There is no due process for them, for the most part!. Especially in the federal system, those accused of sexual crimes are pressured into accepting a plea agreement(not a deal; because there is no deal), If they go to trial, and lose, which they have a 90+% chance of doing, the prosecutor will see to it that the sentence doubles.
These crimes have the bar raised way beyond guilt beyond reasonable doubt, to proof of innocence. The sentence for these crimes, in particular child pornography, are based on non-empirical,faulty logic and revenge motivations, in which the guitly are being sentenced for imagined crimes of the past, along with forecasted crimes he/she is expected to commit in the future.If one could ever imagine a group of crimes, where the Constitution is wholeheartedly ignored, it is this group. It is a waste of breath to educate legislators, let alone the public, on the low recidivism rate, (and that is not factoring in those who, because their crimes have been made public, are framed by the public, and law emforcement alike, for repeat fantasy offenses). There is no place, in our current system, except by further lawsuits to protest these laws of faulty logic, and emotional bias, where an individual, with these kinds of charges can obtain relief, whether it is relief from Draconian sentences, lengthy probation, or the finger tight grasp of the registry. There is no other group of people in the United States under such stigma, and ostracism. Thank you Janice Bellucci for all you do, and have done, and may you be cloned many times over!! Troy Sabenow, a federal defense attorney is also offering contributions on behalf of those who have been charged with sexual crimes, with research, which he has previously shared with the Federal Sentencing Commission. Benifits in the states will help the federal convicts and vice versa.Keep fighting against the public registry. Stay positive. It is a war worth the winning!
Eden Perry
Thank you Janice and your team! We will donate whenever we can.
Cyran
My son viewed child porn taking place over the internet and actually recorded it. He was charged and pled guilty to production of child porn. He is awaiting sentencing. As soon as he is sentenced by federal court in Calif. the feds are taking him to Florida to charge him with conspiracy to produce. So he is being prosecuted a second time for the exact same acts he pled guilty to. Justice? I think not.... There is a witch hunt going on these days for anyone committing sex offenses. Everyone knows this but it is a political thing, so any reason or justice will never enter this area.....Interesting times...no...abusive governmental times....yes....
Tim Lawver
What else explains it? Gov't use of an electronic database. Big bro got a brand new toy, plain and simple. What is the worst thing big bro could do with the new toy?
1. Indenture citizens to it.
2. Legally compel them to maintain the property.
3. Jail them if they refuse.
4. Use database to impose affirmative disability and restraint.
5. Provide a sense of political integrity/security.
6. Collect long term funding and proceeds.
Roger
I agree. Janice, without you and others who are willing to take action, our lives would be a living hell. We’d all be wearing ankle bracelets, living outside of most cities due to residency and presence restrictions, and have our email addresses and website accounts registered. I consider it a privilege to stand with you and our little group in the California Assembly and Senate committees, waiting to give opinions on poisonous bills.
FELLOW RCs, JANICE CAN’T STAND UP FOR YOUR RIGHTS ALONE. At some bill hearings in Sacramento just a few of us RCs have shown up out of over 135,000 (!!!) of us who are registered!
Do we expect that someone will save us from these bills if we aren’t willing do our part?
If we think it is too much work to come to Sacramento, consider a world where we were homeless and jobless due to these laws. HOW MUCH TIME AND MONEY would we be willing to do to get rid of our ankle bracelets and to live where we want?
I know it seems scary. I never thought I’d put on my suit and drive to Sacramento to oppose these bills. But it’s not scary anymore, because I’ve seen our efforts work!
I know you have to make a living, but so do I and I show up. I know it is difficult to occasionally take a couple of days off to drive to Sacramento, but I go because the alternative is a nightmare.
I found that it is not hard to say one sentence: “My name is ____ from [city], and I respectfully ask you to oppose this bill.” That’s it! No speech required. Believe it or not, that one sentence impresses the committee members because they were used to NO ONE showing up in past years to oppose these terrible bills.
Even if you choose not to say that one sentence into the mic, at least sit with us in the audience and see how these bills go through a committee and what we do to oppose it. When you hear the committee oppose a bad bill, you will positively float out of that room in happiness, knowing you had a part in stopping it.
If you won’t come to Sacramento, at least have your family and friends write letters when Janice posts an action alert on the website. And of course your financial support pays for Janice’s travel expenses to stand up for your rights.
Join with us. It will help us feel less like powerless victims of bad laws and more like empowered citizens!
New Person
Thank you, Janice, for being that light that will never waver. I cannot thank you enough for you, your team, and this website. Thank you for giving hope despite the murky weather.
MM
Thank you Janice for your tireless dedication to the cause.
Rob
Credible source,
I’m not sure what the heck you are trying to say or imply?
Your right Janice we do live in interesting times, to say times are confusing is an understatement.
With Trump being the nominee, things will get a lot weirder.
David
We can also be supportive of each other.
a credible source
what else explains why mr. casomb vice chair waits w/ 3 grand while getting hammered at the hilton financial district hotel lobby bar on saturday nights? i hear its so he can perform something SICK called the TOBIN PILEDRIVER?? maybe this saturday we all go to the lobby bar and surprise him and ask why he is a hypocrite!
G4Change
Thank you, Janice, and team, for all of your continuing efforts.
I can't wait to die
Janice,
Thank you so very much! I'm in Florida and on disability and will be donating a little bit as every little bit helps. I would love to see some other attorney's across the nation start to stand up to these laws like you have been doing. Hopefully soon some others will and help almost a million people and growing every day.
Even though i'm in Florida, your work has a great impact on the Nation although i wish Florida would someday wake up. Heck, i think Florida is the only state now where a convicted Felon can't vote unless they jump through great big hoops while clapping there hands and stomping there foot; thus it makes sure republicans stay in charge of things. what a crooked system!
Andrew
Thank you for all that you do for us Janice.
USA
Well stated! I'm in awestruck to think how Florida is treating registered citizens. It's hateful and it's honestly similar to the Jews of Nazi Germany. Germany created hatred by propaganda! They portrayed these people in a way where they where viewed as evil and less than human. It's sad to say, but Florida and many other states are creating more harm than good.
TG
From the bottom of my heart, and that of my wife and two young boys, thank you.
Dray
Thank you Janice for all you've done you are our hero.
Janice's Journal: This Wall Will Fall
Published Date : April 23, 2016
In our community of registered citizens, the wall of injustice is thick and high. It is thick due to the public’s failure to see the truth and it is high due to laws that have been passed for more than 50 years.
Why does the public fail to see the truth about registered citizens? After all, there are hundreds of studies and reports published by leading authorities in both the public and private sectors which conclude that individuals convicted of a sex offense are unlikely to commit another sex offense.
For example, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation has concluded that the rate of re-offense for a registered citizen on parole is less than one percent. And Dr. Karl Hanson, who has studied this topic for decades, has concluded that individuals who committed a violent sex offense such as rape, but who have not re-offended for 17 years, are no more likely to commit a sex offense than someone who has never committed such an offense. He also concluded that individuals who committed lesser offenses reach the “point of redemption” in as little as five years.
Perhaps the public cannot see the truth about registered citizens because of fear, a siren song sung by the media on a daily basis. And why does the media sing that song? To increase their ratings or readership. They do so with little or no regard for the truth, the truth that more than 90 percent of those who harm children are not registered citizens, but instead are family members, teachers, coaches and members of the clergy.
And why has the government at every level continued to pass laws that violate the Constitution by denying the rights of registered citizens such as Congress’ recent decision to add a Scarlet letter to passports? Legislators do so because they mistakenly believe that their introduction of one more sex offender law will help them get re-elected. Their colleagues vote in favor of those laws because they are afraid that if they don’t vote for the laws, they will be defeated in the next election.
The common ingredient to the public’s failure to see the truth and the number of unconstitutional laws that have been passed is FEAR. The antidote to fear is TRUTH. Because when the truth about registered citizens is known, fear will vanish and the wall of injustice will fall.
It’s a simple formula but the path to truth may not be easy. Instead, the path may include steep climbs, such as the creation of a tiered registry in California, and death defying falls, such as the final ruling this week by the Kansas Supreme Court.
Although the path to truth may not be easy, it is a path work taking for it will ultimately lead to the destruction of the wall of injustice. There have been similar walls in the past….for African Americans…..for Jews……for Japanese Americans….and for gays. Those walls have tumbled and our wall of injustice will as well.
As we travel down the path to truth and work toward the destruction of our wall of injustice, the words of hip hop artist Biga Ranx may help us on our journey: “No they can’t keep the people under control – this wall will fall – despite the suffering we got to stand tall.”
I am standing tall knowing that we are on the path of truth and that the wall of injustice will fall. Please join me to hasten its demise by Showing Up, Standing Up, and Speaking Up.
Comments
Bailey
After months struggling to find work as a 290, I stumbled upon a solution. There are student loans, up to 10K a year and pell grants. You can even do all school work online and never set foot on campus. This can be a substantial amount of money and if you're near retirement/or never make enough taxable income, you never pay it back. Check it out on your own. Since the taxpayers spend money to keep us out of work via the registry, use the laws against them.
Timmr
I think law law enforcement favors simple, mechanical solutions like Static 99. Just punch in a few numbers and there is your answer. Really, nothing is going to get any better unless the penal solution is recognized for its constitutional limits and the problems of sexual abuse are looked at by people trained to handle complexity and offer individualized solutions that don't always have to have punisment attached to them.
Chuck
Good point Erwin. I don't think the Static-99R should be used. The thing has a credibly intimidating name, but that's about as credible as it gets. It's a cheap and shallow way to predict a person's future.
Timmr
Indeed, everyone is unique, and no one should be judged by what Mr. Gardner did except Mr. Gardner, and his behavior is extremely rare.
Erwin
I remember reading this article awhile back and was able to dig it up again.
http://www.ubspectrum.com/article/2015/05/former-ub-student-struggles-as-level-2-sex-offender
This college student got bumped upped to level 2 because of a "non-contact" "stranger" offense. New York State won't admit it but they, pattern their registry point system after Static-99R.
Article also says (now you got to love this)
"Had officials probed into Daniel’s case, they may have learned Daniel, who was never accused of touching anyone in any way, has a higher level sex offender ranking than some offenders who have molested children"
The ironic thing is this kid was coming from the home country of the creators of Static-99R. But I will say Daniel better thank his lucky stars he wasn't sent to prison for his offense
Inquisitor
So he got ZERO points for a contact offense (molesting her), whereas if he exposed himself or did a peeping tom offense to her (a non contact), he would have got 1 point? Then because the victim was female he got ZERO points, rather then 1 point if the victim was male? Then ZERO points because she was not a "stranger." Anyway in the Response to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's Request for Review (a report by ca somb), the guy scored a "2" on the Static (which translates to "low-moderate" risk). So he turned out to be pretty "low-moderate," eh? In sum, the Static-99R is bogus fraud. I just wonder how many false-positives exist for those unfairly classified "high risk." And how many truly dangerous ones are classified non high risk by the Static-99R fraud (or as one of you suggested, we just call it Static-99R SCAM).
anonymously
Webster said "If I am not mistaken, the man responsible for committing the crimes behind Chelsea's Law had a first offense of molesting an underage relative"
Wiki says it was a 13 yr. old neighbor, not a relative.
Mel Blanc
I would be interested to hear of any information about China and if anyone has been there and back.
Erwin
Static99R is pure garbage. Non-contact sex offenses make you "higher" risk. Unrelated victims make you higher risk. Which means someone who physically committed a sex offense against a relative who's a minor is less riskier than someone who only viewed a picture of a minor who you didn't know. If the victim was male, then you are higher risk. If you never lived with a lover for over two years, you're higher risk.
......there's nothing scientific or accurate about static99. Canadians who invented the test had to know the American penal system is much more draconian. You better hope your state doesn't use it
Webster
Timmr, you said: "Those who have the family related contact crimes have such a measure of unbearable shame, akin to murdering family relationships that it acts as a deterrent to future acts and have generally lower re-offense rate." Do you have a study or scientific source to corroborate your claim? If I am not mistaken, the man responsible for committing the crimes behind Chelsea's Law had a first offense of molesting an underage relative. He was convicted, scored low on the Static 99/R, and went on to rape and kill two teens. My point being every person is unique. And your claim rests on the premise that there is "not without an intuitive logic" behind the Static 99/R "developer's" claim when the Static 99/R creators have never even released its sample. Indeed, R. Karl Hanson, etc. say their conception is a "...trade secret...", but it could very well be a fraud (because independent statisticians are not free to scrutinize the statistical methodology behind the Static-99R).
Tobin's Tools
The Static-99R will sometimes prove right, sometimes wrong. Sort of like a flip of a coin or a random guess. I am convinced the "99" in Static-99R represents "99% bull$*!*". The Static tests are in use to make the risk assessment process seem more scientific than it really is. People -- and human behavior -- are not "static," despite the claims of Kamala Harris' Department of "Justice" and Tom Tobin's CASOMB. Each person has the ability to change, learn, and evolve for the better. None of the Static-99R's so-called "Risk Factors" (there are 10 of them) even take positive effort and/or even treatment into account. So in a sense, by accepting the Static-99R as truth, the use of the Static-99R invalidates and dismisses efficacy of sex offender treatment when studies show treatment as greatly reducing recidivism. In sum, acceptance of the Static-99R invalidates the millions spent (by taxpayers) on mandated sex offender "treatment" programs as useless.
Timmr
No, not more right, just less likely to repeat, that is where they are coming from. Whether their statistics are accurate I don't know, but it is clear that is the measurement they are looking at. And it is not without an intuitive logic behind it. Remember, the most horrendous crime, murder, has the lowest re-offense rate. Those who have the family related contact crimes have such a measure of unbearable shame, akin to murdering family relationships, that it can be said it acts as a deterrent to future acts and have a generally lower re-offense rate. I can see your point, the registry is a form of punishment and as such it seems unfair to punish someone longer for a no contact crime than for a contact crime. That is the reasoning behind the Adam Walsh Act. And the courts still can't see that it is all based on punishing certain crimes. You have just made that very case.
Wondering Why
So is the Static 99R accurate or not accurate? There are some studies claiming it is accurate, while others claim the Static 99 and its "revised" version is not accurate. I just find it interesting that based on 10 questions, Karl Hanson and his Canadian Static 99 cohorts claim to have ability to predict one's future. Being released at age 60 or older, for example, would automatically give a person a -3 score (note the negative number). So Ted Bundy, Charles Manson, and the other extreme cases would score fairly low at present day. Really does not make sense at all. But then again, the "experts" at casomb say the Static 99R is "very accurate." Maybe the experts at casomb are not so expert? Just a thought.
The Unforgiven
Not sure how I missed that. Thanks. Even makes less sense now. So if I actually made contact with my sister, female cousin, aunt, grandmother, etc., I’d be at a 0. So by rating the two scenario's, the one that would be considered more wrong is actually right. Keep it in the family??
STATIC 99R "scam" Opponent
Well said, David. I was once a proponent for the tier of sex offenses, but when I researched of how it relies on a measure of alleged risk determined by the STATIC 99R "scam," I no longer believe a tiered registry is a good alternative. As I read in a different post on this website a few months ago, a tiered registry indeed aims to divide and conquer our cause. I also read somewhere that about 30 or so percent of registrants are designated a 6 or higher score, so that is about 30% of registrants still subject to lifetime registration under the tiered registry scam REGARDLESS of crime. Then add all the other many crimes still requiring lifetime registration under the tiered registry scam regardless if one has a low STATIC 99R score, it seems we'd still be left with an oversized registry. Then remains the lucky ones, who still have to wait 20 or 10 years (depending on crime AND assuming they don't score more than 6 on the STATIC 99R scam). That's not "justice." It's bad science and bad policy.
Phil
I want to stand up and fight... but i fear that when and if i do... local authorities or even federal authorities will hound me, find reasons to pull me over, make up stories or vigilantes will hurt my family or myself. I have tried very hard to get my family back, in a safe environment. I am a lucky one who has skills that are in such high demand that i was able to get back on my feet... I am grateful i spent so many years in front of the computer as a child...
My name is already blasted in the media and of course they only reported the juicy stuff but failed to report anything when the truth actually came out...
Even still as a convicted felon... I can not own a firearm to defend my family... I have no protection... except for defensive things such as alarms and having certain people on speed dial. I occasionally once every so often get calls from the agents who prosecuted me asking for information or help.. I feel like i am constantly being watched... One of the main reasons we moved out of the state i originally lived in.
This is life as i know it now... and it's just getting worse and worse every day. The thing i do notice however is people are actually starting to see things and how wrong this is... mostly because it's affecting their families as well.
The Adam Walsh Act needs to be reformed... along with the IML and others... I have a feeling that eventually we will all have nowhere to go....
My goal is to fight, however, with young kids I have to protect them to make sure my past isn't the reason why they are harmed... how ironic these laws are...
James
Well, yes....but a real Risk Assessment...by a Court or a live person, not this Static 99r BS.
If society wants to punish us this much, then it must invest in making real and honest evaluations of us, individually.
Doing so would face few objections from most of us...and besides, doing so would be called....Justice.
Best Wishes, James
David H
My thoughts only without knowing any facts-- A tiered system is preferred to a statutory assignment of risk as there could be many stuck at the 288 level, for example, that will all be considered risky--without taking a number of factors into consideration. I personally want risk assessment
James
Pedro, people seem to want certainty...where there is none. But I have thought on your Paris problem while driving, and here is an elegant solution:
(though I caution that I think you should just go with your wife and you will be fine...bu this is an alternative...)
Buy two tickets, you flying to Paris 36 hours early. God forbid you get turned around, Your wife can cancel her ticket. As an added benefit, if there are no problems in Paris for you, your Wife can make last minute internet reservations at hotels and whatnots that you might have planned, or will need (ie be sure to buy a Paris Museum Pass).
Here again, there is no advance money to be lost, (except your ticket) if your wife waits and makes reservations after you clear customs.
Just an idea.
Best Wishes, James
PS I have set something like this up with a friend that will make the necessary reservations if I clear Customs in Rome.
Informant
I think it would be sweet to file lawsuits against the California Department of Justice, as well as the Static 99 developers (Hanson, Thornton, etc.). They endose and created the Static 99 which seems intimidatingly scientific at first glance; but beneath its facade, the Static 99R is nothing more than junk psuedo-science. I say let's hold California and the Static 99 developers accountable for creating false misrepresentations in their Static 99R scam. The Static 99R has undoubtedly harmed many lives and its unfair!
Daniel
The Unforgiven: You would actually be scored, at minimum, in the Moderate-High category -- as you also earn 1 point for your crime having been "non-contact." See Question Number 7 of the Static-99R scam. Don't worry. I am also Moderate-High risk under the Static-99R scam. It would be a good idea, as mentioned above, to sue the creators of the Static-99 scam. I Googled Andrew Harris, Amy Phenix, Karl Hanson and David Thornton (the so-called Static-99R scam developers) and noticed they are all Canadians whose Static-99R scam is imposed on U.S. Citizens. As Wilbur suggested, can a class of people harmed by foreign citizen's scam be sued in American courts? Also, this makes me wonder if the Static-99R scam uses CANADIAN or American samples to base its data off of? A lot of questions I now have.
Janice Bellucci
It has been reported that the 26 Schengen nations in Europe allow registered citizens to visit even after receiving notifications from the U.S. government. A list of those nations is available online.
kelnothiding
Religion is full of storys about guilt, sin, and Blame" , but what about the rest of it? all the positive forgiveness , and love , some chose to use the parts of religion as some kind of a prejugdement stick to beat people with, and to wash there hands of people they eather hate or dislike for what ever reason ,but on the other hand there are people that look at the same book and then look inside them selfs , and look for ways to forgive and look for ways to help because as a spiritual person you must look in side them selfs for what they should do to bring others up rather than kickem when there down , two whole different critters
kelnothiding
TierdO ,, I don't get what your saying , you say you Blame" religion, well religion is all about guilt, sin , and Blame" and spiritual" is about responsabilaty , your responsible for what you do in life , no blame" so some people can be into religion" and be spiritual " and not be anything like what you might call Religious" in anyway shape or form, spiritual you hold your self responsible, look in side your self , so Blame" needs to stop , or we end up being just as bad as the people that Blame" you, rather than putting all people in the same box that happen to be spiritual" and don't be leave anything like someone that is religious" so even if there was no religion " people would find a way to blame" plenty of Blame going around and around. so the people that are passing unjust laws do not and will not take resposabilty for there actions , just passing the buck , and the everyone else is pointing the finger at each other ,Blaming , an easy trap to fall into , because fear + blame can = hate , sad really because blame is much easyer than forgiveness and peace seem to be
Karl
I also feel a "risk-based" tiered registry is even worse. It's even more stupid than a conviction-based registry because a "risk-based" registry assumes truth to the STATIC-99R scam. A passage of a tiered registry bill will give unfeathered credence to the STATIC-99 tests and such would be intellectual dishonesty and a disservice to public safety. I have actually thought of suing the "developers" of the STATIC-99 tests (Andrew Harris, Amy Phenix, R. Karl Hanson, and David Thornton). I want to sue because like many of you, I feel the STATIC-99R is not accurate in having labeled me a "high risk sex offender." Harris, Phenix, Karl Hanson, and Thornton should be held accountable for the many misrepresetations of the STATIC-99 tests!! The STATIC-99 tests have destroyed many lives. And when the STATIC-99 "developers" are so secretive of the underlying data to call it a "trade secret," it makes me wonder what's really going down behind the scenes...
Erwin
The baby boomers are dying off & I have to disagree that they're primarily responsible for the new draconian laws. They didn't need a sex offender registry back then....everyone knew who the neighborhood perverts with the dirty magazines were. My baby boomer parents just told me to stay clear of them. No need for the govt to torment them like today. Although they were like to be more cuddled by their parents, it's not the fault because they're too young in their careers to have any significant affect on other people's lives. The fault mainly lies squarely at the feet of generation x who peaked their careers in the 2000s. My generation. That's where you find most of the fear mongering politicians, prosecutors, and victims rights groups especially in middle America. Just look at the incoming freshman of the 2012 House elections. Sex offender hysteria went really went on steroids after those generation Xers got in office.
David Kennerly
Static 99 is an arrow in their quiver to use, selectively, to support their position, when convenient.
None of their "forensic instruments" are very good but they are necessary to providing the illusion that there is a semblance of scientific rigor undergirding their pseudo-science.
The Unforgiven
I was part of an internet sting, no real person. I’m in the Low-Moderate category, only because of the very last three questions. Unrelated, Stranger, Male. So if I tried to hook up with my sister, female cousin, aunt, grandmother, etc., I’d be at a 0. Does any of that make sense??
New Person
If it's any consolation, the Static 99 doesn't really help low levels at all, or at least in my case. I have to register for life despite scoring as low risk.
I really don't know what the point of the Static 99 is if the courts don't use it as their scientific test.
Wilbur
So I have a question. Does any other state have a tiered or other sex offender registry that relies on "risk" as opposed to actual offense? Is California trying to be novel in pretending "risk" is a better alternative to determine if one must be required to register for lifetime? Because if "risk" is determined by the Static-99/R scam, it seems hardly better than the current system. At least the current system relies on the objective factor of an actual conviction, whereas a tiered system would rely on a number (they go into the negatives now, lol) set by the Static-99/R scam! Relying on the Static-99/R fraud science, which is what a tiered proposal suggests, is NOT an improvement from the current system. I actually feel a tiered proposal would be a step back, as it encourages society to blindly accept a scam as true statistical science. When you look at the facts behind the Static system, you will begin to see the type of hocus pocus fraud the State of California has imposed on its people.
Pedro
Janice,
Are there any countries in this world we can travel to without rejection? I wanted to take my wife to Paris for the first time. I've been battling this crazy world of uneducated people for 34 years when I had my first and last offence. But every year i register people think its my first offense. I am saddened for all the guys and gals that only have 1-5 years of this tragic label. Gods blessings to Janice and all you young people in this family. I pray for intervention from God and someone in this world to destroy these terrible laws that Bill Clinton and Obama have placed on our society. They have made the internet a nightmare for our life.
Pedro
David H
You know, I'm a baby-boomer and thank god the millennials have been reported recently as having become a larger share of the population! And I never thought my generation would be such a conservative group of nut-heads; after all we lived through our own social revolution!
But you're right PK it appears as a whole this Millennial generation has their heads screwed on much better in many ways..
scotusaveusnow
even better NY has a statute called "Forcible Touching" that requires one to "forcibly touch" and there are people convicted whose Registration sheets say Force used: None.
Explain that?
Aaron Z.
I walked out of the probation office after two days in county jail from a 10 day sentence for a SINGLE MISDEMEANOR count of indecent exposure. First time (and trust me - only time) offense. I am given papers to sign, and on the top it is marked "HRSO". I ask my P.O., "What does this mean?" She says it means High Risk Sex Offender. I could not believe it!! I ask how? She says its based on "sophisticated" science called the Static 99. Apparently, I have a score of 6. And apparently, as I do more research, I am learning the Static 99R is a complete and utter fraud. We should call the Static 99R the Static 99 scam! I have to do more "therapy" sessions because of the Static 99 scam inaccurately labeling me high risk. Apparently, my county probation does not look at any other factor except for whether one is HRSO or not! Each "therapy" session cost me $50 and believe me it adds up! I cannot stress how much the Static 99R is a complete bogus scam!! A tiered registry would require me to LIFETIME registration!!
David Kennerly
Keep in mind that the term "violence" has been re-defined in criminal statutes and by the child sexual abuse lobby.
"Violence" can simply mean that the "victim" was under some arbitrary age, e.g. fourteen.
Use of force or coercion is completely unnecessary now to finding that a sex offense is "violent" or that the offender is a "sexually violent predator".
It's a great way to inflame the emotions of the public and to misrepresent, decidedly non-violent, individuals as something akin to the Night Stalker or Ted Bundy or John Wayne Gacy.
This "violence" done to the English language has been essential to the success of the anti-sex offender juggernaut. It guarantees that the unaware (which is virtually everyone) can hold not a modicum of sympathy for the offender.
wil
I've witnessed Janice's work evolve in this movement since the beginning. This cause needs a fighter like her. While virtually all of the remarks in this journal entry are spot on I do take issue with this paragraph.
"The common ingredient to the public’s failure to see the truth and the number of unconstitutional laws that have been passed is FEAR. The antidote to fear is TRUTH. Because when the truth about registered citizens is known, fear will vanish and the wall of injustice will fall."
The public has seen the "truth" of all discriminated people groups the world over for eons. Exposing "truth" does not remove fear nor will it stop the plight of the registered citizen. Only a look back in history whether recent or distant reveals human nature does not stop punishing humankind even in the face of the evils against various groups.
The only thing that seems to topple the atrocities of one group or another is to threaten the political leaders who allow them to happen. Fear must be placed in the lives of the power structure and its ongoing quest for power and wealth. Until we chop off the heads "figuratively" of political leaders and threaten their power the laws and the battle will continue to rage.
WIN
Much needs to be done to utilize all forms of media to promote and detail the truth. Television (those outlets that will give unbiased reporting, NPR and RT). The internet, YOUTUBE. All print media. Publications produced by RSOL. An entire focus on media and the message. Dedicated focus on visually and literally presenting the truth. RSOL should have an entire staff devoted to legal and media issues. A new point of reference is needed based on real people, real lives, and the devastation that the registry and all the subsequent laws has created. The promotion of trust.
HH
I definitely am sensitive to all here. As I am also here fighting this fight with you all. I don't comment very often but I try and stay in tune with what is going on on the board. Many people all continue to make very similar points. Yes , each is us is being punished one way or another by registering or by having a family member register. I urge you , if you want to make a difference continue donating , continue writing letters , get involved some way some how. Myself and a few others here are working towards a way to really get those not knowledgable of this site and our fight , knowledgable and involved. Tell yourself , donate a $1 per comment :) something manageable . The only way we can win this fight is if we work together in NUMBERS. Can you imagine the power this group would have if even half of the RC in Ca were aware of this site , even half donated $10 a month , half wrote letters and made phone calls. They could not and would not be able to pass these outrageous laws. Janice cannot do this alone. Skip Starbucks today , donate towards your future !
HH
So what does that mean if a tiered system
Were to pass and there's a ton of people who never took the static 99 , where do they fall ?
Researcher
"Point of redemption?" Is that a math statistic term (because it sounds more evangelical Christian to me)? As for Karl Hanson, he is one of the creators of the Static 99. I feel the Static 99 grossly exaggerates recidivism and unfairly lumps non-violent and violent offenses together. In fact, the Static 99R perversely gives 1 point for non-violent offenses and 0 points for violent offenses. There are many more flaws to the Static system, but to predicate a "tiered" registry on it is foolish, arbitrary, inaccurate, and not scientific. Personally, I feel the Static 99 is a scam. And Hanson, Thornton, Phenix, and Harris are snake oil salesmen trying to make a name for themselves. I mean none of the Static 99 "developers" (they try to make themselves SEEM so scientific) are even statisticians! Yet they are peddling a statistical model veiled in complete secrecy. I mean the data has never been verified because Hanson et al. claim their Static 99R a "trade secret." The Static 99R is a complete fraud I tell you!
steve
I think there are many who never had to take it, myself included. If it's been longer than 10 years since your conviction you can't take it.
HH
Does anyone know when the static 99 is taken ? Can it be retaken ? What if you never had it performed on you ? i guess I am a little confused. My husband said he never took this or had ever seen it. Obviously the answers to the questions 15 years ago are different than they are today. If anyone has knowledge on this it would be nice to hear.
Agamemnon
If the public continues to only be exposed to the worst examples of sex crimes and RCs by the media, then they'll continue to assume that's what all RCs are like.
kelnothiding
Jonah ,, I know your right , and thanks for saying it , I am kind of sick of this whole so called science that they have been basing this tiered system on bunk stats , when I was doing time I seen people leave and be back on new charges in no time flat , and the ones that would get out that were levl 3 would get on and do what the PO said and all that , and if you did see them come back it was always prole set back , and all levls of prol 1 2 3 where hard , but the levl 3 was super hard , , but a lot of these crimes that were levl 1 should not have even been a crime , so I am happy to see anyone get off this crap ,but not at the expence of being called the worst of the worst , and put in the postion of being stepped on and over because some RC's are levl 1 and everyone going by the real stats say, well ok the old science is bunk so we will change it for levl 1 , but the rest , hell with them, they are all the same these levl 3's are , lol what the hell is that ? also if your a lev3 it is so easy for the cops to target us and get a new case , and use that worst of the so called worst against us , no case by case judgement , nope its the once fallen you must be good for it , even if you did have to play lets make a deal on your first time down , its all just BS , they need to stop treating all of us like live stock
kelnothiding
I agree , cheers
jo
Justice is blind, but legislators are not. While the court system punished us and let us off after our punishment, legislators have picked up the ball and added restrictions, another word for punishment, to further punish us. This punishment will continue until someone somewhere along the lines re-establishes that once we have served our sentence, we are no longer to be punished. The list of restrictions is growing by the day, and it has to end.
Jonah R.L.
The Static 99, as well as the Static 99r, is a lot more INACCURATE than you'd think. Some of the most violent sex recidivists scored fairly low on the Static system. Hence, a "tiered" registry is flawed because of its assumption the Static 99r is true science. The Static 99r is not true science (and there are many studies & reports to prove this).
kelnothiding
I see what your talking about Mike , hell it hard to get anything going even here in CA to where we can do something that everyone can be part of , even if they don't have money, some kind of get together that could generate some money as well have a little fun maybe , poor people cant afford to drive , ride a bus , to LA or SD to even make a meeting , and be able to eat out and leave alittle money , it sucks , I cant speak for everyone else but it would be great to meet other RC's , maybe a week end camping , and it would give everyone a chance to give sound ideas on ways we can go to do what ever it is that we need to do , lol if that makes any since, but we could all use some fun and laughs , and fun and laughs makes more money than just meetings , now I know we cant do that like every week, but it would help a lot in helping people pull together , maybe someone could show me how to really use this lap top lol, but I" think it would be great to be able to really talk to some cool folks, as well as my wife , because I try to tell her whats up and in the wind with all this RC stuff , but it would be great if she knew another women in the same boat , if its hard for me I know it is for her , when I get jumpy I know she feels real fear , like the other day I took my dog out , and this guy ask me if some of the kids here had put up a swing in the tree I like to set under at night , I told him I had not seen one and I don't care because I don't own this place anyway, he just laugh at me , most here know I am RC , well I walked my dog out there and looked around wial my dog was taking care of biz , and I seen a rope , so I thought Dang I guess I have to find me a new space to chill at night because I really don't need to be set up or something like that, so that night I went out to my tree with my cup of coffee , and really got a good look at the rope , it was a noose , and it was not some little kid that made that , at first I just went cold , then I got mad , I looked around and there was like 5or6 people standing out looking at me ,some getting a good chuckle at me , I just stood there looking at the rope in my hand , well I could see it was really good rope , new matter of fact , so I grabbed my old bucket that I sit on most of the time and got on top of it and un tied the rope , and undone the noose and walked back to the parking lot and tossed the rope in the back of my truck , at that very moment I thought about my wife , I thought I cant tell her about this because it would scared her , as well as make her feel so sad , she don't have that coming , so I guess our days are yet again numbered here , the land lord likes us but he is a slum lord and don't make waves over no RC , and if something was to happen to me I don't want her stuck here with all these cold drug infested pimps and hookers , in this bed bug motel, I am just not real sure where to go, I guess it don't really matter as long as we are together , but any way it would be nice to get together with some folks that have to live this RC life , and have alittle fun as well as relax ,
Mike
We have to get the truth out. To do that we need a plan. Every state needs to be aggressive in reaching out to all on the registry and their families to join both their state association and the national RSOL. From there we need to seek monetary help. It does not have to be large donations as there is strength in numbers but a consistent program of contributions for both legal challenges and maybe more importantly, a well conceived PR campaign. Maybe also a concerted letter campaign to our national legislators to push for a comprehensive study on the effectiveness and the costs of all things Registry centered. Some national researchers and representatives of national victims groups as well as members of RSOL, Carsol and other effective groups could come together to develop guidelines to guide the project. At any rate we need a plan.
Chester the EX Molestor
As my herro Roneld Regan said, "tier down this wall!" I am four a teared registry. MY STATIC SCORE = 0. BOOYA! SO NO LIFE REG. FOUR ME!! :) :) :)
kelnothiding
Thank you Janice , I can tell by what you right that you truly do listen to the RC , and that you talk to us rather than at us, and I am sorry for all of the times that you have had to carry on your back some of the many things we may have , or may not have done in our life , all the same you go and stand before what I think are some of the most evil people there are on this world , many of us RC's know this because we stood before them and seen first hand , that all they wanted to do was judge us to better fit the long portfolio of victims they need for more power , and not even care if there was ever a fair trial, they try us in the news papers and TV ,in many cases we are beaten in the jails by the thug cops as well as thug inmates , and we are to go in to courts with black eyes a striped or baggy jump suit stinking for the jail , bond post are fare to high , yet someone that just shot someone to death walks out on OR",,,,i preyed to GOD for safty and understanding , now I am not religious , BUT I am a spirtul person , and I beleave,, Have Faith" that if we keep pulling together we will pull this wall down , please keep up the great work ,, my wife told me to say hi , so HI !
David Kennerly
Yes, there is definitely a generational issue here. Remember, the Millennials grew up in an utterly paranoid environment, strictly confined to cohorts within several years of age of one another, completely unexposed to unauthorized adults (and, of those who were authorized, they were overwhelmingly women) thoroughly programmed to distrust strangers and especially men, maniacally cosseted and constantly assured of their "specialness" and continuously reminded that the reason that they couldn't play outside or could not be given the slightest modicum of independence, well into their teens, was because of kidnapping child molesters.
So, is it any wonder? Is it any wonder that children who were loathe to talk to strangers grew up to be narcissistic, entitled, hostile adults who, by the way, are now adults who won't talk to strangers?
I notice this in my own neighborhood, an increasingly upscale and trendy San Francisco neighborhood where $4,500 a month might get you a one-bedroom apartment. I don't even say hello anymore to my professional young neighbors, most of whom have graduate degrees, if they are under, say, thirty. I know they won't answer. If anything, I get a dirty look. Not so with older neighbors who are always cordial and exchange greetings.
Yes, this is a "special" generation and one to be afraid of, I think. There are exceptions, thankfully, but not nearly enough.
Timmr
I think you are all right, but I think it is only a few fanatics that are really afraid of and really angry at registrants, like the Books, the rest could not give a damn about us either way. Out of sight out of mind. Because they know people do not give a damn, the politicians can come up with almost anything to punish registrants. It derives an almost no risk political dividend for them. Few are going to risk questioning it, because it does not affect them at all if they say nothing, but if they speak out then they will also be shamed -- for supporting people they care nothing about. Where's the win?
Only our families, a few friends and some legal professionals care, because the laws affect what they care about and is close to their hearts. I might add some compassionate therapists. They care because it affects them closely, and they feel our situation. Sex offender laws do not affect the vast majority of people down where it motivates people, in the gut, in their day to day existence. If they feel anything there, it is hatred, because that is the ready made, packaged response to get you loved by your peers. Nothing more. Acceptance by one's peers not any biological response to sex.
We need to find out what is important to people and to show people how the registry plays into that. Is it wasteful government spending? Is it really about protecting children? Is it about growing the corporate police state? These are the questions, if presented with answers to what people care about, that may hook people's interest in our cause.
James
I still think of this as a definitionial problem, (of course what drives the passion to change the meanings of words may be...religion or well meaning social justice efforts...but as oft noted, The path to Hell is paved with good intentions.)
I mean it in this sense...if every person under 18 is a child, (a wild conception if ever there was one!), and if a child can, by definition not give consent and therefore every sex act, major or minor, is ipso facto a child sex molestation w/o consent...then of course, this appears to be something horrible.
The truth is more nuanced...as is real life. Not everyone one under 18 is a child, often not nearly so, not ever sex act is w/o consent...often it is wildly chased after by this person that is far from being a child...
I'm not saying that falling into such a disaster in waiting is right or excusable...but it is not the height of perversion that this is most often made out to be.
And, of course, if above definitions are honestly applied, there are 20 million more arrests that need to be made this year (40m pop 12~18, 50% of whom will engage in some sexual activity this year!), and this society better get on with these mass arrests and additions to the Registry.
Following the prevailing, though wrong, logic.
We need to change the words back to their proper meaning.
Best Wishes, James
PS I sometimes also forget that many RSO's are convicted of what really...are thought crimes...there is no sex act at all.
All the above is just crazy.
EnemyWithin
I find it incredibly ironic that the same man who signed the IML into law a short time ago spoke this weekend on the urgent need to justice reform in the US.
Your efforts are not without deep appreciation.
PK
"I think the reasons for hating “sex offenders” goes beyond fear: it’s hatred and disgust and the need to have a despised minority that everyone can feel superior to."
Your typical Millennial in the United States today. And yes I would single out the United States and not other countries in this regard. I've dealt with plenty of them in my business, and I can tell you there is a huge difference in the level of "nastiness" and an "air of hatred" in their attitudes, compared with those Customers that I dealt with in the mid 1990's.
They absolutely LOVE to HATE groups of people that they feel superior to.
TiredOfHiding
I blame religion and the need for punishment of "sins" and what is the greatest sin of all - SEX!
Therefore, what more perfect target of hate than SEX OFFENDERS...tie that in with CHILDREN and you have the perfect storm! "If it saves one child" "Better to error on the side of caution" and all the other oversimplified sound bites we hear year after year.
That is why they (political "leaders" and religious "leaders") have made every effort to make it one and the same in public's mind.
Please do not be fooled that there is the remotest reality of the separation of church and state. They are fully integrated and America is one of the most conservative and fundamentally religious of the so-called developed countries.
We even have it on every dollar we spend "In God we trust" just in case you might forget it for a second.
Fight the ignorance of religion and this abuse and lifetime punishment might change...not holding my breath however...as David pointed out, having a hated group is part of human evolution and has contributed to our dominance as a species on this planet.
You really can't change millions of years of evolutionary history in our primitive innate behaviour no matter how intellectually stupid it might actually be.
James
Dearest Janice:
It is only a small help, but I have...not made a donation, this is not charity...but rather sent a contribution for the Future of everyone.
Just the whole idea of a Registry is bad....reintegration into Society where people have a stake is still the goal.
Though this does not directly relate to RSO's, they are mentioned in this BBC Story. This is how to treat prisoners...as people.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36067653
I am not saying there are not compulsively dangerous people out there, but they are the rare exception that however get all the attention without noting that they are an exception to the general rule.
In any case, thank you for fighting my fight for me and all of us.
Best Wishes, James
David Kennerly
I think the reasons for hating "sex offenders" goes beyond fear: it's hatred and disgust and the need to have a despised minority that everyone can feel superior to. I suspect that fear is not even the primary reason for the hatred, but an appetite for rage.
The need for an enemy is, without doubt, deeply entrenched in the psyches of most humans. The removal of so many acceptable hate-objects, such as racial minorities, Jews, homosexuals, etc., has left a deficit in the supply cabinet of the "rightly-hated".
Who's left? Well, there's always pedophiles or people whom we imagine must be.
And then there's the weird, suspiciously obsessive, preoccupation with the sex lives of others...
Janice's Journal: IML - Court Denies Request for Preliminary Injunction
Published Date : April 13, 2016
Today the dragon won. That is, the federal government was given permission to continue its implementation of the International Megan’s Law (IML).
The U.S. District Court in the Northern District of California denied our Motion for Preliminary Injunction which attempted to stop the government’s addition of a Scarlet letter to the passports of American citizens as well the government’s notifications to foreign countries that citizens intend to travel there.
The court’s denial was based, in part, upon the legal concept of ripeness. That is, whether the issue was ready (or ripe) for judicial review.
The court declared it was not. Why? Because the federal government has not yet determined the appearance or placement of a “conspicuous unique identifier” on a passport. In making this declaration, the court avoided the broader issue of whether any identifier placed on any part of a passport could pass constitutional muster.
The court’s denial was also based, in part, upon the legal concept of standing. That is, whether the plaintiffs in the case have identified a “certainly impending” future injury caused by the IML.
The court declared they have not. Why? Because any injury that plaintiffs suffered could not be traceable to the IML. In making this declaration, the court failed to consider the harm already done to plaintiffs in this case as well as to thousands of others including the inability to live with one’s spouse, assist an elderly parent or conduct lawful business overseas.
Although today’s decision was not unexpected, it is disappointing. It is one more decision in which a court ignores empirical evidence and relies instead upon myths.
The big picture is this. Today the dragon won. Tomorrow we fight again. Our challenge to the IML will continue.
Decision
Read all of Janice’s Journal
Related Media articles
Judge won’t block passport marker law involving sex crimes – ABC News
Too Soon to Fight Sex Offender Passport Mark (Courthouse News)
Judge tosses out challenge to sex offender passport law (SF Chronicle)
Comments
Brubaker
Keep on Rockin 'n a Free World....
Fundamental rights are at issue and the Constitution commands they be addressed fully in trial.
Any restriction to liberty must be afforded Due Process.
Freedom of Speech is at issue and must be allowed strict court address through trial hearing.
Other major issues must be addressed through trial hearing on that iml.
Fundamental Rights are involved and they are being violated in this iml.
When the United States is the gate keeper of Fundamental Rights/Human Rights then this court must allow a petition to address those issues further in trial hearing.
PK
This was all discussed in great detail, on this very blog, back in February when this Law was enacted.
PK
No?
Allen W
doesn't the AWA prevent a RSO from marring a foreign national?
Allen W
Not for Class A offenses.. there is no getting off.. ever....
Allen W
I was wondering who do I notify too... I found the answer. You notify the office where you register. I live in Washington state. Washington state didn't opt into the AWA act because they already are more strict. In RCW 9A.44.130 Registration of sex offenders and Kidnapping offenders, it says; (3) Any person required to register under this section who intends to travel outside the United States must provide, by certified mail, with return receipt requested, or in person, Signed written notice of the plan to travel outside the country to the county sheriff of the county with whom the person is registered at lease twenty-one days prior to travel. The notice shall include the following information: (a) Name; (b) passport number and country; (c) Destination; (d) itinerary details including departure and return dates; (e) means of travel; and (f) purpose of travel. If the offender subsequently cancels or postpones travel outside the United States, the offender must notify the county sheriff not later than three days after cancellation or postponement of the intended travel outside the United States or on the departure date provided in the notification, whichever is earlier. The county sheriff shall notify the United States marshals service as soon as practicable after receipt of the notification. In cases of unexpected travel due to family or work emergencies, or for offenders who travel routinely across international borders for work-related purposes, the notice must be submitted in person at least twenty-four hours prior to travel to the sheriff of the county where such offenders are registered with a written explanation of the circumstances that make compliance with this subsection (3) impracticable.
Joe Mandt
Florida has required notification for at least 10 years, but only if you were going to be out of the country for more than 5 days (nights) More recently, the instituted a 21 day rule, but did provide for unexpected travel which only requires that you notify them as soon as possible. In the past I gave them a heads up, but kept my trips to 5 nights or less, so no paperwork was required. for the one or two trips where I was gong to be gone longer, i just filled out the form.
After I was pulled aside in Brussels in November 2013, I asked the deputy who was doing my 6 month registration update in December if they had sent my info to CBP? He said no, they weren't sending it anyone. CBP/Angel Watch got the information from the passenger list of Delta Airlines. That was the first time that I was required to give my full name as it appeared on my passport to Delta when I bought the ticket online and not my first, middle initial, last like it appears on my Florida Drivers license and every other card that I have. I was a bit wary at the time as to why they were asking for that info and in hindsight, with good reason.
My question about the IML is if you live I live someplace like Vermont where as of this year, I am no longer required to register by operation of statute or Georgia where I can be removed from the registry by court order, who would I report my travel to? As I live in Florida, I would still be up on their website with my last known address listed (the state actually went to court to be able to keep people on who had left the country) but under absolutely no legal obligation to maintain my registration unless I came back to Florida. I naturally follows that my old registration would still be somewhere the national registry, but Florida would not maintain/update it once I was gone and in the case of a state like Vermont where they will "pre clear: you before you even move there and as such, I would have never even registered, they would not even report me to that central clearinghouse.
B
It is also likely a convenient test for the creation of world wide law enforcement mechanisms. Inter jurisdiction enforcement in the same spirit of trade agreements like TPP NAFTA etc. Parts of the U.S. ruling class are trying to create a one world government like the Germany of Hitler. America is a republic that is being manipulated and controlled like a democracy at the expense of the minority. What happened to inalienable human rights?
PK
Hi I don't live in PA and I'm not reporting ANYTHINGGGGG
Soon I will be leaving here FOREVERRRRRR
Anon
I don't know how other states are doing it, but PA, which is a SORNA-compliant state, requires that the notice be given at the same place and in the same manner in which normal status updates are made, which for us is the state police, for the most part. The state police process feeds a central database, where the "real" compliance monitoring is handled. This centralized division of the state police notifies the U.S. Marshals, so the registered person's job is done when he reports the information at the usual place.
Also, if you look at the U.S. Marshals' site where it deals with this matter, the language they use appears to be aimed at jurisdiction authorities and not individuals, so it seems to me that the registrant's duty is complete upon reporting the intended travel to the usual authority.
Drew
I am a host and run my own dedicated server. I'm more than willing to provide free hosting if someone will want to take charge and manage it. I've got so many things on my plate, I just can't put aside the time to do so myself, but I believe it's a good idea.
PhilAZ
There should be a online forum setup so we can all communicate and better know how many of us there are and this would allow a place to store and better search for information. phpbb or otherwise software. I would be willing to donate my hard earned money to host such a forum.
Drew
But that's the thing. The general public already knows politicians are bigots and liars, but do nothing about it. It's like voting. Everyone complains about the establishment, the people elected to office, the crooks, the liars and two-faces. Yet, when it's time to vote, everyone still votes for those very same people and use the lousy excuse of "the less of two evils". Well, I say, do not chose either! Fill in your own candidate, or don't vote period!
LeftCalifornia
I need to read the bill again. Somewhere in the wording of HR 515 I believe I read it was to be implemented within 90 days of b'n signed into law.
PK
My guess is October- that's my drop dead date. After that time, I will no way in hell ever return to the United States.
LeftCalifornia
PK...just curious why you feel October may be the drop dead date. Also, I've asked the DOJ where I'm registered if I would be allowed to sign out and sail the Caribbean for an indefinite amount of time. The response was 'yes'. I'm registered in a SORNA compliant US territory. What I don't know is even if I sign out and sail away would they still consider me when it came time to revoke passports. Any input?
Harry
'...is, can/will it achieve anything?" It will expose Governments and the host of fear mongers that they are bunch of liars and bigots.
Rob
David,
They post it under is under the media link and then click on Webinars.
I just went there and they have now posted last weeks conference call.
David Kennerly
The previous conference, which I was not able to monitor, and in which Janice was present, seems not to be on RSOL's website. I would like very much to listen to it.
PhilAZ
I think we are gonna stay put for now... IT doesn't look like it goes into affect until July 2017.. And they added some more provisions whatever "dangerous exploitation offense against a minor" would mean and if that would include federal offense? it's all so freaking vague i hate it.
We are eyeballing oregon as a potential... but i think for now we are gonna stay put. Like you said my employer knows my history, i have a home for now signed lease for 2 years.. i don't show up on background checks anymore.. only when people google my name has it ever been an issue.
I do want to go to St Martin sometime soon.. I wonder if i would be turned around.
Drew
Harry, if this was doable, I would be the first in line. The bigger question is, can/will it achieve anything?
Lake County
The conference call did not include Janice, so not much info was given. See Janice's post earlier.
Harry
Why can't all these governments entities (US Gov't. lawmakers, cabinet members, State/local governments)and sex offense hysterical celebrities, like J Walsh, PFML, Runners, Book and etc. be sued in a massive class action for fraud and harassment?
David Kennerly
Where do they post that? I had tried to find the audio from the previous meeting, which I had missed, but without any luck.
David Kennerly
I agree! There are many assumptions being made without empirical evidence, not only from the comfortable high-ground of the 'non-offenders', but from within our own community of the damned, as we are reminded by several of today's comments.
Many of those assumptions will be accommodated by a perceived need to divide that community which does, indeed, consist of very different people with very different reasons for landing on the registry. The mistake they always make is in assuming that, because there are those here whose actions were rightly sanctioned by the state, that our only realistic hope is in finding ways to accommodate a regime of continuous - and unconstitutional - oppression by exempting their own favorite subclass (which they, invariably and coincidentally, happen to occupy) from its obsessive and draconian attentions. This appeal will always be made in the spirit of practicality as in "Let's get real!". They can "get real" all they want but the remit of this organization is to challenge a broad class of injustice, not to carve out exemptions for their favorite 'offense' subcategory from the unwanted attention of the state.
I am all for making distinctions between acts and, as a constitutionalist, insist that our laws must do so with far greater precision than is being done now and that demonstrable victimization must be the basis for any criminal laws. However, the Registry, itself, is an unconstitutional beast, at its core, which must be slayed for the benefit of everyone on it.
Therefore, we should not expect others to remain within its confines as a means for OUR desire for relief.
This group does not apply a means test for entry based upon an historical accumulation of behavioral assets and must not narrow the scope of its advocacy to exclude their representation.
wonderin
I agree Bill and even though I have not read the report you linked to it has been obvious to me since day one that the registry holds as much logical evidence as religion.
And fighting against the perpetuated myths of the religious and the psychological community bear a similar resistance. However, I believe strides can be made with constructive arguments and strategies.
Too many so called constructive arguments (like sex offenders are wired to commit sex crimes and need a stable job, home and etc. to keep from re-offending ) only perpetuate value of a registry.
If something is true, it can be demonstrated. The claims about sex offenders can't be demonstrated by any factual arguments or empirical evidence.
It's time to insist that those supporting the value of the registry either put up or shut-up!
rob
Drew,
There was just a conference call a few days ago on the 14th.
I was away skiing and couldn’t listen in. Hopefully the audio will be posted soon on the national rsol website.
Drew
Janice, so what are the next detailed steps? Will this information be posted somewhere or will there be a conference call on this? How can I get involved aside from donating money?
Off topic, does anyone know if this IML will effect pending AWA cases? I have my wife's immigration (2nd attempt) pending due to the AWA. I just hope the IML somehow does not jeopardize it.
Mike r
PLEASE Janice et el challenge the Court to justify these laws using the current data. I find it very difficult for the Court to come up with a viable rational reasonable reason to justify encroaching on so many constitutional rights and what their justification is for all the regulations being put in place for rc when the recidivism rates are practically nonexistent.this could be a blessing in disguise that could actually topple the entire registration scheme.YOUR HONOR WHAT IS THE RATIONALIZATION REGULATE,RESTRICT, AND ENCROACH THIS CLASS OF CITIZENS WITH A PRACTICALLY NONEXISTENT RECIDIVISM RATE!!!!!!!!!
Erwin
That's a bummer......I had a feeling this legislation would go thru. But don't be discouraged.
The good thing is you have a job and your employer knows about your past. Plus you have a place to live.
As far as I know, there's no RSO residency ordinances in Arizona. Yes, your picture and info may now pop up on the public website but the only ones who care about it are busy bodies & families paranoid about there kids. Remember it's a crime if someone harasses you. So I wouldn't worry too much Phil
But if you're really concerned about you and your family, there are still 4 states left that don't list level 1 offenders: Oregon, Minnesota, Massachusetts & New York (it's no coincidence they're all blue states) Oregon & Minnesota only list level 3 predators. Unfortunately, all of those states are either cold or rainy, but they're good livable states
I wish you the best in whatever you decide to do
PhilAZ
@Erin looks like it was passed by both the house and the senate... and most likely going to get signed into law... Just great....
extremely depressing.
Robert Curtis
Fighting creates hope.. by design the systems are there to discourage and still hope. For the sake of freedom and justice not just for those on the registry but for all freedom loving Americans we fight even for those that would rather have us in a hole somewhere chained by the neck.. Why? Because freedom lost by anyone is to risk the freedoms of everyone.
Unforgiven citizen
We, or at least many, believe those who commit this class of crime do more harm to the victim than do murderers. Is that some distorted thinking or what? Yet, all one needs to do is begin to question those around them and it will not take long for a respondent to voice just such a belief. Crazy, huh? As is the case with actual children who have been needlessly terrified by an imaginary evil, all attempts to bring forth the truth and enlightenment are met with great resistance. Once a belief is formed and reinforced over and over again facts contrary to those believes are rendered irrelevant. Fear-based, emotional beliefs are the most difficult to overcome. Whenever people, especially those behaving as frightened children, those experiencing strong emotional reactions to a subject, particularly one felt so strongly as sexual threats, the ability to reason logically is all but lost. As a result, we turn to our protectors, for relief - just as children turning to their parents do when faced with fears they cannot control. The problem is our protectors are in the business of exploiting our fears. Our protectors further their careers by responding to perceived threats, often threats which are intentionally greatly distorted, with what is nothing more than 'feel good' legislation. They, our protectors, present themselves as champions intent upon addressing and resolving societal protection, but in reality this is not their primary motivation for any steps taken. Opportunities to earn favor with the children they entrusted to protect, i.e., professional attainment, maintenance, and advancement, is, in reality, what they seek most. Furthermore, it is easier to control a fearful group than one free of fear and allowed to think clearly. And because we, the children, are so very consumed by our fears, despite those fears being more imagined than real, we never seem to notice that the protections being offered are also a mechanism which unavoidably leads to the limiting the freedoms of all - not just those who we fear. Today our constitutional protections against expos facto legislation is under attack due to the retro-active nature of current sex offender registration laws. Those convicted of having committed past sex offenses can and are being forced to comply with laws restricting their freedoms enacted long after conviction - long after the date of the offense.
Unforgiven citizen
We are a society of people lied to, purposefully mislead, and manipulated via our emotions. We are consistently and purposefully lead to believe the dogma put forth by self-serving legislators and highly-biased victim advocacy groups. Like scared little children we believe all the terrifying stories intentionally told us relating to the ever-present, 21st century 'Boogey Man', i.e., the sex offender. We never question the veracity of those who claim this boogey man is everywhere and always waiting to exploit any opportunity to snatch away and/or defile our children. We believe he cannot control himself nor can he be controlled. We believe he is a forever threat. We are offered all the proof we need of the Boogey Man's existence, as well as his predatory nature, via sensationalize and intentionally misleading media coverage. Each and every high profile case is used to further frighten the already frightened children - children who only appear adults. Emotionally, most of society responds on a level comparable to that of a pre-schooler when the Boogey Man is thrust upon us. Each and every mention of the Boogey Man results in knee-jerk, emotional reactions. Our society vacillates from hysteria to near hysteria when it comes to issues related to our modern-day Boogey Man.
PhilAZ
Also, I love Arizona... being a level 1 i only have to respond via mail and thats it... nobody bothers me.... its warm, not cold,(the way i like it) my employer knows my history and supports me and wants me to grow... people here are for the most part wonderful.
PhilAZ
Thanks.. i will keep a very close eye on it... I have participated in a couple of Janices calls... even asked some really good questions publicly... I have a very interesting story and it wound me up on the list and all i did was run a internet provider. I accepted responsibility for my actions did my time and working for the airlines now i have flight benefits... i would like to use them but this bill really put a ding in those plans.. I will be honest with people on here... this really has had me depressed at times severely... almost to the point were i just feel like at times life might not be worth living... but i certainly try and fight as much as i can.. my honest opinion is unless a major political figure has to even deal with this... chances are .. it's a very steep uphill battle....
Any little glimer of hope... is good.
Timmr
Great argument, but how is this? Say you bomb a town in the Middle East that is known to have 5% of the population as active terrorists and randomly kill nearly everyone. That would be really, really immoral don't you think? Now you bomb a town with 90 percent terrorists and end up killing the five percent who mean no harm. That may be more practical as far as national security, but would it be more moral? I don't know. I am only asking. Now if 90% of people on the registry or 5% of people on the registry who never harm again are subject to discrimination in hiring, in obtaining shelter, in being a target for vigilante wrath, is it moral to punish a crime that has not been committed, no matter what the ratio of possible offenders to reformed?
Just my take, the Supreme Court had put off these questions by claiming that registered citizens should be regulated as commodities with statistical qualities, rather than people having inalienable rights. I suppose that we may be found to be not so dangerous commodities, but will we be classed as people again? Sorry, it is an important distinction to me.
Timmr
Coming up with money is hard for us, in the mean time actual words talk. Comment at the related media sites, articles, write letters, speak. Education is free, well almost. Flood the sites with comments. The media will see a great interest in these issues and have more stories related to them. Like the secret vote of Congress to pass IML, silence is our enemy.
Mike r
I really hope the courts get challenged on their justification for these laws since the recidivism rates are so low that's what really needs to be addressed
Steve
So let's say the court rules in the Feds favor can an appeal be made the court failed to take into consideration any real facts? I know this is a simplistic question and there are many variables.
John
Money talks! We need to donate including me. I just gotta figure out how.
Paul
Unfortunately, after reading so many sex offender stories on other websites it seems to me that the public has one general thought: "Facts don't protect lives." Nor do facts tell them what they want to hear. I made a comment in the past about legislators using "Wikipedia facts." And it seems to be very true, but then I was told that I falsely assumed lawmakers actually look at facts at all. And it got me thinking...when I was in college and was assigned a paper to write, I had to cite any fact that was given. I couldn't just give a random number based on my own personal feelings about the topic. I was required to go great lengths to find scientific journals which were peer reviewed by no less than 5 of the authors colleagues. Now, I know that writing papers in college could be described as being "trivial," not really having a large impact on the lives of people. But then I see lawmakers coming up with some asinine information regarding sex offenders...my question to congress/senate is this, "Why aren't you requiring the lawmakers to supply even more citations when they their stats?"
These laws have such an impact on the lives of the offender and the offenders family and in some cases it has cost the offender their life.
Unforgiven citizen
Thank you Janice for bring actual facts to our justice system. The truth will set us free, and hopefully will stop these unscrupulous politician rallying the momb, spreading more lies and hysteria for their own selfserve attempts for votes. Education is how this will be won and then our media will be force to report facts not lies, and only then society will stop buying the hype. My dream is one-day society will stop lumping us all into one category not just a pack of rabid animals they need to put down.
All we're asking for is true justice to be served as every US Citizen deserves.
My grandfather always said, "You keep kicking your dog,it will one day bit you back"...
I am done hiding in the shadows my voice well be heard.
Timmr
Facts really do take a long time to sink in,especially when they are based in a type of religiosity to the orthodox view, and when the powerful have invested much capital in the existing theory and would lose much of their authority if shown to be wrong.
Such, after 200 years of Copernicus presenting his evidence that the planets revolved around the sun, Galileo was forced to recant his support of the heliocentric cosmos.
Humans still think that they believe are the center of the Universe and therefore truth emanates from them. We have had decades of the myth of the roving sex offender danger and its solution, the sex offender registry, and the myth became very compelling because it reinforced the myth of the sacredness of innocence and childhood. Who knows how many more years to untangle the myth from the fact and still convince people you are not overturning their most sacred beliefs. When all is said and done, falsehoods are not going to protect children, but for the same reasons people would not want to see the Sun made the center of the Universe, they will have a hard time accepting that facts are even relevant to the discussion -- indeed, at present, even questioning the registry and the punitive model is heresy. It would be a step in the right direction to get those in power to admit that it is not simply a matter of believing in children or not, many of us even have children we believe in and want to be safe, and move on to at least discuss what is known.
Steveo
And the fact that they lie and say convicted! Diferred adjudication is NOT a conviction. Words mean things, especially in the law. Or they are supposed to, and this is our government, clearly lying! How can God bless America when, left and right they purposefully deceive to get the effect that they want.
Janice Bellucci
The documents we have filed with the court so far are full of references to "facts" such as those found in the article mentioned. We contrast those "facts" with the myths surrounding our community. And we will add more "facts" as the case moves forward hoping to educate the court. This case has the potential of challenging the Smith v. Doe case in that one of the plaintiffs' claims is ex post facto. We all need to be patient. This is a marathon, not a 100-yard dash and it could take a few years to reach a final decision in the case.
Timmr
I don't think registration itself will ever be ruled unconstitutional, per se. Having it ruled as a form of punishment will change the whole picture, though. It will then be a requirement of your sentencing and will have a set list of conditions and time limit that can't be changed wholesale by the legislatures or applied to people that haven't had that as part of their sentencing. This would result in registrants having varying conditions applied to them, based on the particulars of their case and the registration laws at the time, creating a mess for law enforcement to manage. It is already a mess for law enforcement and costly to the public, some law enforcement, like the ones on the CASOMB are recommending it be whittled down.
But as long as this is still not considered a punishment, the legislatures will extend the time and the restrictions on even a tiered registry.
Eventually registration will be looked at like banishment is today. Banishment, as is shaming, is still a constitutional form of punishment, but it is looked on as a petty, archaic and cumbersome way to enforce laws, and so will registration one day be looked at as petty retribution and cumbersome to enforce, forcing resources away from more legitimate aims, such as helping victims or catching criminals.
PK
That may soon change Renny.
mike
People make decisions on the information or evidence that they have on hand. When new information becomes available, then it is prudent to rethink a previous decision. It used to be common knowledge that the world was flat, but new information became available and ideas were changed. The registry was and is based on very flawed information. Now two decades into the registry, there are two basic flaws. One, we now know that the recidivism rates are very low and maybe even more important is that the registry has not reduced the overall rate nor reduced the recidivism rate. It is bad public policy.
I think we need to go after the registry itself, especially if a moderate or liberal judge is appointed to the Supreme Court. I am in my sixties and do not have a lot of time left.
mike
If you look at many of the states laws on registration, nearly all start with the stated premise that recidivism rates are very high.
New Person
Because in Doe vs Smith, the US Supreme Court ruled registration was not a punishment. Because it is not a punishment, there is nothing anyone can do. Which is why more and more punishment can be levied upon registrants b/c the classification isn't a punishment.
So by winning all these "edge" cases, it proves under law that something is contradictory. At least that's how I think this is going. You can't go to the Supreme Court to say, "hey you screwed up, but we lack any legal proof that contradicts your ruling."
By winning the smaller battles, we may find something that drives a wedge to break this wide open. The IML case could be just that - especially if Angel Watch was proven to be unconstitutional and never should have been implemented a la internment camps.
I don't want to lose hope. Hope is all I have left. =[
Lake County
The problem is that SCOTUS has already ruled that the registry is not unconstitutional punishment. The (false) facts presented during the hearing needed to be contested at that hearing. Getting the court to change their ruling afterwards is almost impossible especially since SCOTUS gets to pick and choose what cases they want to hear. Getting the court to hear a case with similar issues will take a miracle and will have to be an exceptional case with exceptional plaintiffs. As much as we want to go for the home run, we will have to be satisfied with base hits. We will have to first change public opinion which will take many years as misguided beliefs are very hard to change. We must ensure that any 290 case going before higher courts have sympathetic plaintiffs with proven scientific facts. We also must ensure the wrong lawyer doesn't try a bad case that could screw up future cases. We can't just decide we are only going to fight the largest battle first. It's not up to us even if we had the funds to do so. Despite what we want, we must start with "baby steps" and I think Janice has done an exceptional job so far. Changing CA residency laws by local communities was a major win for us.
Timmr
You're right, it used to take a couple days for one's posts here to be pushed off the recent comments column. Now it happens in a few hours or less. Either more people come here to comment or the same people using changing names are commenting more often -- most likely the former. This growth is good if that turns into more action. I think it is leading that way.
Timmr
The colloquial phrase "Sex offender" must be losing some of its shock value.
PK
IML has residency restrictions?
I agree with you that SORNA and other State Registries are based upon bogus facts.
However, the SORNA Registration needs to be challenged in pieces, not the entire thing.
The Lawyers are doing their job.
Timmr
Ha! Much better way to say it.
Timmr
Hmmm, the court granted the preliminary injunction to halt implementation of the internet identifier provision of proposition 35. It was not (knowingly) in affect, but it was stopped before it happened, because the harm, chilling of free speech, was seen as likely to happen if the law was implemented. The danger was ripe enough to cause potential harm in that case. Don't understand the difference, except the judge's discretion.
Put simply, the judge did not see the IML doing any harm to registrants. From the point of view of a registrant wishing to travel or already traveling, the harm is already ripened, the threat of more harassment, a letter sent to a foreign country enhanced by a visible mark on the passport. That is BS about the mark only being in a chip that only some can see. Clearly the authors of the bill's intention is for the mark to be recognizable for all to see. It is a stopgap measure to foil any registrant changing his itinerary. When the harm of passport identifiers becomes ripe by being enshrined in law, by that point it will go beyond ripe and become rotten to use this stupid imagery.
Bill Arthur
I have read the entire Ellman article, and I still don't understand why Janice and the other advocates you read about in the blogs are scratching around the edges (challenging the IML, residency restrictions, etc), when the entire system is clearly based on bogus facts. Why isn't registration itself challenged? It seems quite evident that it's completely indefensible.
You can read the article here. Click on Open PDF in Browser at the top.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2616429
Bill Arthur
Could someone (Janice?) get this article on the judge's desk? Seems the entire sex offender registry scheme (and all the other ensuing restrictions) originated with a Psychology Today article that was based on no empirical evidence whatsoever, but has been quoted by innumerable judges and politicians, starting with Justice Anthony Kennedy in 2002.
A forthcoming article in Constitutional Commentary notes that Kennedy’s words about the recidivism rate of sex offenders — "frightening and high" — have been cited 91 times by courts around the country. The scary thing is there’s no empirical data to support Kennedy’s oft-cited phrase, and the statistic Kennedy cited is paper thin and demonstrable false.
Justice Kennedy likely found the reference in the single source for the claim, an article published in 1986 in Psychology Today, a mass market magazine aimed at a lay audience. That article has this sentence: “Most untreated sex offenders released from prison go on to commit more offenses– indeed, as many as 80% do.” But the sentence is a bare assertion: the article contains no supporting reference for it.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2015/08/20/how-a-dubious-statistic-convinced-u-s-courts-to-approve-of-indefinite-detention/
Mike r
it's nice to see a lot of new names posting on here maybe the words getting out to a lot more people
Robert
My passport has the RFD chip. Back a year ago I used my passport for identification. It was scanned through a machine like they use in immigration and at airports. I ask what what information does the RFD chip hold and the man who scanned it turned his computer screen to show me. All it shows is the same info as what is on the inside cover.Your info and picture and no other markings or other writings.
Erwin
Hi Phil,
The politician trying to get level 1 offenders listed on the Arizona Registry is Republican State Senator John Kavanaugh of Fountain Hills. The proposal is under Senate Bill 1286
Here is a recent article on the proposal:
https://woodnicklawchildcustody.wordpress.com/2016/03/02/proposed-senate-bill-wants-to-add-omitted-offenders-to-sex-offender-database/
Another hysterical article in the Arizona Republic mentions the proposed bill
http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/arizona/politics/2016/02/10/arizonas-sex-offender-registry-omits-many-child-molesters-rapists/79841342/
Now I live in Wisconsin, not Arizona Phil, so I can't help you much with support groups. Although I've been thinking about moving to AZ with my family. From what I gather, I don't think there's an active Arizona RSOL chapter or website. But there is this resource site: http://www.sexoffenderresource.com/arizona/
Now Kavanaugh's bill is just a proposal so far....so don't panic. It has to get thru both houses and signed by the governor. The legislature being GOP controlled is a bad sign however Arizona does have a libertarian streak which could prevent some of the GOP lawmakers from ramming thru another useless law
Good Luck!
PK
I had a question about this passport chip.
Is this thing programmed when they submit the new passport?
Can this chip be updated remotely somehow?
Commenter1
Whether it's marked on our foreheads or programmed into a chip isn't it still a violation of the first amendment? After all it would still be compelled speech albeit one that is carried in digital format.
TiredOfHiding
I would like to point out that the identifier will in all likelihood be data stored on the electronic chip which is in all new passports. It doesn't need to be visibly printed on the outside.
If the Nazis had had the technology to "chip" people they would have done so. Instead they forced them to wear a star symbol which was an identifier that they were a member of a monitored group...and of course, they also give them a physical tatoo as a permanent marker.
Since a passport is required for travel across borders what this new "law" does is effectively CHIP us just like a dog so we can be identified. We are being marked just like dogs.
Make no mistake about it. If they could get away with it they would actually implant the chip within our bodies and most likely the next step in the ongoing abuse and punishment that is added yearly. This virtual chipping is just as insidious.
Think I am taking this too far? Well, did you ever think that our freedom of movement would ever keep us locked in a virtual prison within the borders of the USA? Did you ever think that a simple sentence would result in a lifetime of punishment with no possibility of ending?
Well, just look at what has happened and is there any reason to think this will stop? NOT AT ALL
Make no mistake about it. We ARE considered second class citizens and this unprecedented destination should make every American quake in their boots!
These are dark days for the once great land of the free.
PK
"The lawsuit should be directed to stopping the Angel Watch notifications, which are as illegal as the IML"
I would tend to concur although I'm not an Attorney. It seems to me that this program was operating illegally, and that it probably would have been a good place to start with the Lawsuit. That's not to say that I don't think that the entire IML Law is horrific, the plaintiffs were injured to to the pre-existing Angel Watch Program, not the new IML Law.
I was told by Galen Baughman from the Washington Lawyer's Committee who said that he thought the Lawsuit was too broad. At one point, that Law Firm was only considering challenging the passport provision of IML and nothing else. In the end, they did nothing because they couldn't get a ACLU Coalition.
Bill Arthur
It seems to me from reading the travel comments, that fighting the IML is by now useless and irrelevant, since Angel Watch is already doing the job in all of the countries where they accept the myth that previous sex crime convictions are a warning for future behavior, or where they are so beholden to the US that they do whatever they are told. I guess that was the judge's point. And Angel Watch does this, apparently, with no legal authorization. The lawsuit should be directed to stopping the Angel Watch notifications, which are as illegal as the IML. Will overturning IML stop Angel Watch? They are doing it just fine with no benefit of IML.
Why is Janice and CA RSOL the only fighter in this battle? Why are there not many suits in many states to tie up the State Department in multiple depositions and maybe get them to cry uncle? I read on RSOL, for example, that ACLU is fighting a registry rule in Illinois and taking a case to the Illinois Supreme Court that does not sound any more significant than the fight against IML. Doesn't anyone reading this have any contacts within local ACLUs which can be recruited? Sounds to me like we need much more firepower.
PK
I love how they conveniently changed it up:
from: "Sex Offender"
to: "convicted child predator’s intent ..."
Chris F
From ICE's web page:
***
Through Operation Angel Watch, HSI uses publicly available sex offender registry information and passenger travel data to strategically alert foreign law enforcement partners through its HSI attaché offices of a convicted child predator's intent to travel to their country. In Fiscal Year 2015, HSI made over 2,100 notifications to more than 90 countries.
***
Has a lawyer reviewed the list of 2100 notifications to confirm that is what they are doing?
What is their definitions of "child predator" that makes them so likely to engage in Sex Tourism? I can see if they were doing it only to those convicted of Sex Tourism, but we know that's not the case at all.
What countries do they consider likely destinations?
I wouldn't consider England, Australia, Canada, Japan, France, or Germany likely destinations and not needing to be notified even under their vague wording, but I bet they still notify them.
Doesn't it violate "due process" to blacklist any registered sex offender without the slightest bit of review on our side?
By the U.S. sending any "warning" or applying a "Scarlet Letter", that puts the burden of diagnosing an individuals threat and liability if they are wrong on every other government a person ever travels to instead of it being done just ONCE here, through a fair evaluation. Obviously, that will result in complete denial of entry for everyone marked because other nations aren't going to wast the time/money or take on that liability when they can simply deny entry.
Heaven Forbid if they ever identify a specific gene in the human body that makes sex offense more likely, because with the type of logic the government is using that will justify those people being marked as well.
someone who cares
So, they are saying that the plaintiffs could have not shown any damage done to them yet since the identifiers have not been placed? I thought they were good at imagining how things would be? Like, they can imagine a sex offender re-offending, even after having been crime free for decades, yet they can't imagine the hardship this will cause the registrant AND their families? Sounds pretty hypocritical to me.
MarkSF
Will a transcript / audio recording of the March 30 IML hearing be posted onto the CA RSOL site here for us to read and/or listen to the proceedings? I am not in a financial position to order.
Here is information on how to order a transcript or audio recording of March 30 initial IML hearing in Ninth District Courtroom, Oakland, CA:
US District Court, Northern California Ninth District – Clerks Offices (San Francisco and Oakland locations)
http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/locations
Transcripts Procedures and Requests
http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/transcripts
US District Court, Northern California Ninth District – Home Page
(Cases of Interest shown on Home Page do not include IML)
http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/home
Phil
I need information on this political person so that i can follow this and get involved with local attorney's etc... If this goes into affect I will most likely have no reason to stay in Arizona... I hope they do not succeed. But if you can email me the name of the political person i want to get involved. this is extremely important to me.
[email protected]
Phil
Sorry it has taken so long for me to reply... I just need help with getting involved i'm in the information technology industry if you want to e-mail me feel free to do so at [email protected]
I want to fight but it just doesn't seem like there is any hope at all.
Kevin
I think it is important to remember what a preliminary injunction is designed to do. It is to stop the action of the government right now before too much harm is done to the plaintiffs. Firstly, as of the time the case was heard, the government was not yet labeling passports, thus the plaintiffs could not show any damage done to them. Furthermore, the identifier has yet to be designed so the plaintiffs cannot show how damaging it might be. That's why it wasn't deemed "ripe". Perhaps by the time the injunction is heard it will be ripe. Secondly, the Angle Watch program has been in place for some years now. With the implementation of IML there is no significant change to the notification program that has already been going on. Thus, the plaintiffs are no more damaged then they were before IML became law.
If you think about it that way it's not a surprise that the injunction was denied. At some point the passport identifier issue will become ripe and there may still be a chance for success against it. However, since the Angel Watch program was not law prior to its implementation, I'm not sure an injunction can be granted against it. How do you stop the government from doing something that it has not been authorized to do by law? Perhaps someone with legal knowledge can answer that question.
James
Gentlemen!!!...lol (anonymously & Timmr)
Great arguments by you both, and in time there will be future hearings, opportunities to present our case and sharpen the evidence before the Court.
In time this will happen...today was a request for a Preliminary Injunction, Preliminary...Remember, The successful Journey begins with the single first step.
We have taken that step...I don't know if it is 100 more paces or a thousand.
But we have begun...this seems almost miraculous to me.
There was never this kind of coming of together of RSO's before...all this is new...and we will get there, in Time.
Be Good and Good Luck,
Best Wishes, James
anonymously
Timmr writes "The judge clearly believes that sex offender literally means sexually offending in the present..."
Which makes as much sense as saying a drunk driver is on the road, when it is someone who was once convicted of a DUI 30 years ago and hasn't had a drink since.
anonymously
Stephen wrote “I can’t knock the judges reasons on the fact it hasn’t taken place
on passports yet. But I can tell she would rule just being an RSO is reason to reject entrance into a country, and not IML fault for listing a true fact.”
I can also tell that too, that she would illogically come to that conclusion since she did not acknowledge the Government’s lack of nexus of registrants being involved in child sex trafficking and child sex tourism. The Judge does not point out that these statements I list below that the Judge repeats from the Government response do not show registrants engage in these 2 crimes, child sex trafficking and child sex tourism.
Decision states “The IML was enacted to “protect children and others from sexual abuse and exploitation, including sex trafficking and sex tourism.” IML, Preamble. In enacting the IML, Congress noted that “[l]aw enforcement reports indicate that known child-sexoffenders are traveling internationally.” IML § 2(4). Congress found that “[t]he commercial sexual exploitation of minors in child sex trafficking and pornography is a global phenomenon,” with millions of child victims each year. Id. § 2(5). ”
She nitpicks plaintiffs but let’s this nonsense stand. A nexus was not established of registrants and child sex trafficking and child sex tourism, in these statements. The Judge also does not scrutinize the Government where in their response , they only mention child sex tourism and child sex trafficking. The Judge could have said the Government should only be concerned with sending notifications and establishing passport identifiers for those convicted of those 2 crimes, since those were the only crimes mentioned in the government response. The Judge took it upon herself to mention whats mentioned in the content of the title, that mentions 'other' sex crimes other than those 2 only mentioned in the government response.
Since the Government in their response mentioned only those 2 crimes, and it’s reasonable to assume the Judge would be questioning the government in their response to plaintiff’s stated case as to why they are not defending notifications and passport identifiers for those convicted of sex crimes other than child sex trafficking or tourism, pointing out you are not opposed to notifications or identifiers for those convicted of the 2 crimes, trafficking or tourism, only re-enforces that the government is not defending notifications or passport identifiers for those not convicted of trafficking or tourism. In my opinion, the Judge did not make a fair ruling, by ignoring these things and selectively applying logical scrutiny. I also take issue with her using Chris Smith’s statement on country-hopping registrants. She just accepts Chris Smith’s fantasies as worthy of inclusion in her decision. Theres not only no nexus for the notification, but also she offers no support for a nexus for a need for a unique identifier since Chris Smith’s statement is unsupported.
Timmr
The judge clearly believes that sex offender literally means sexually offending in the present, and that if you are on the registry you are dangerous. Therefore, she justifies the government's actions. She is apparently unable to conceive of the situation that so called sex offender is traveling on an innocent family vacation or legitimate work travel. Despite appearing to know the law by all the cases she site, she has no concept of the real situation and the reality of those she is making a judgement against.
James
Mike has this correct...it is the Angel's Watch Program, previously unauthorized, now permanent and sanctioned under the IML, that is the problem...what government wants to take the risk of letting someone in...when they have advance notice that the person can cause serious headaches to this person doing the admitting, the agency that supervises foreigners entering, and that government itself?
Even if it is only 1 individual out of 250~500, a very low percentage proposition....allowing us in is still extraordinarily dangerous for that government...Why?
People love talking about sex, here and abroad...it is a primary topic of the media and every day we see new cases...that excite and inflame the masses.
I can read through the BS, but some of the cases really are bad...the difficulty is extrapolating from these very few, but in a population of over 300 million, still frequent stories, to all of us...it is that linkage that we need to break...if possible.
And this is an uphill struggle...I was a little distressed to see some people almost giving up because of the Court's ruling...I tried to tamp down expectations a little in advance...but maybe not sufficiently.
Do you see the Named Defendants...John Kerry, Sec of State, Loretta Lynch, Head of the Department of Justice, etc...this is the United States Government we are suing...!
This is a hard fight...but remember, we have no choice in this matter, we must fight, and this is our strength.
And thanks again to Janice, she and the CARSOL staff are...so precious to us.
Let us not forget this.
Best Wishes, James
Timmr
There was about 30% who didn't approve of Jessica's Law and I think 20% who didn't approve of prop. 35. I probably got them backwards, but I think I am close enough to say about a quarter of the population does not go along with endless punishment of people once convicted of sex crimes. That percentage would probably be higher if the public knew more about how this is affecting us and our families, the cost and the lack of results, basically had information about what is going on. I remember, I was not a tough on crime type of guy, a bleeding heart liberal is what they called us, although I admit I was greatly ignorant of what was really going on until I entered the system.
PK
I think you all still have a little time to escape the United States if you're serious about it. However, I would not take chances after the end of October.
Mike
No the real problem is the green notice. The warning that the the RC is likely to commit a crime in their country is the big problem. When I tried to get a tourist visa at the border I told him why it was taking a while to get an ok from MX City. The agent told me that it was the alert that was the problem. Saying that this person has a record is one thing, but the statement that I was likely to commit a crime is the reason that I was denied, according to the agent.
unknown
no one knows anything right now... They have not issued guidelines or implemented the law yet... all that is starting to take form now
James
Unforgiven:
Travel notice? To where, for how long? I gave notice to my local agency for Europe, for three weeks.
They told me there was no requirement of notice now, but if I wanted to send a letter that was fine.
Instead, I went back East for a Funeral. I stayed a week, the amount of time allowed in that state before I felt it was necessary to register...even as a temporary transient...or visitor. (I will note an attorney in that jurisdiction insisted I had 37 days!)
At some level I am inclined to think each of us has to figure this out for themselves.
But in general, talk to your local agency...it can't hurt and shows to some degree your sincere desire to stay compliant.
However, don't be surprised if you don't get the hard answer you want.
Good Luck
Best Wishes, James
Stephen
I can't knock the judges reasons on the fact it hasn't taken place
on passports yet. But I can tell she would rule just being an RSO is reason to reject entrance into a country, and not IML fault for listing a true fact.
American Detained in America
I'd have to agree completely. The church I attended while on parole was very supportive, and the church I now attend is as well. My current pastor was molested as a child by a catholic priest and yet he knows my situation and is very understanding and non-judgmental. He sees me as he does anyone else, someone who isn't perfect and needed grace just like everyone else. I've probably told over 100 Christians of my standing as a registered citizen and why and not a single one has chosen to judge me or be prejudice against me.
The problem isn't Christians and those who do not believe, conservative or liberal. The problem is people believe the loudest voice and so far that has come from those who persecute us for their own gain, whether political or monetary.
Timmr
Funny, that excuse of "you should have complained earlier when this first began" just doesn't fly with any other victim situation. Imagine if the judge said that to a victim of rape. Imagine the petitions to have her removed from the bench! Or even if she said it to a victim of a con man. No, this judge does not care for us.
Unforgiven citizen
Does any know who we to give travel notice to in california?
Paul
I agree. Obviously, it would have been nice if the judge had granted the injunction. That said, this case still has a long, long way to go before a final decision is ever made. And the door is open to an injunction at a future time, when it becomes more ripe.
It's easy to get discouraged, as we all had our fingers crossed that this would go our way, right from the start. But we should all count our blessings that we have someone who is willing to go to bat for us. Most of the states are not so lucky to have someone like Janice, and their rights are being trampled on left and right.
Terry
Read and reread judge's decision. I can see her point about waiting til things are a bit clearer as to who will be hurt and how. She obviously believes in the good intent of legislation and legislators. We know better! She seems oblivious to how these laws have grown to grotesque proportions, and how bureaucrats expand and build on the original law's or regulation's intent to cover more and more types of crimes, and more and more types of people. We have seen and KNOW how each state has expanded the punishments and restrictions, and seen the day to day realities of the registry. She has taken the road of logical extension instead of common sense. The Justice system is too often like that. Logic is a dangerous thing when you compare slightly different situations to each other...and the more you do it, the farther you move away from the original common sense point of view, until you end up, logically of course, with an insane conclusion bearing no resemblance to common sense. I argue these things with my lawyer brother all the time.
Unfortunately, we pay the price and the judge enjoys a nice glass of wine in the evening!
Well we have Janice, and she's fighting the good fight, and we have to applaud her. It will be a long war, but criminal justice reform is starting to be a thing, and hopefully we'll see the day...
Lake County
About a 1/2 hour into the conversation, I read your post. So I just hung up the phone. I only called in for the first time to hear directly from you about IML. Sorry they screwed that up Janice. I hope maybe you can arrange another phone call session about IML threw them or perhaps just do your own broadcast.
Steveo
I'd like to see an updated list as well. Can someone post a link to places that a RSO can travel to?
Erwin
I live in WI but hopefully the O.P. Phil can answer those questions as well as get involved in a group in Arizona. He has one good thing going for himself.....he's level 1 and not listed on the public registry. So Phil shouldn't give up an uproot his family and try an move out of the country. Get involved, and make sure politicians in AZ don't make life any worse for RSOs
Mallory
And just to stir the pot a little more, our elected politicians are only doing what we, the people, elected them to do. They are a reflection of the majority of their constituents. And if we were all honest, we would admit that before we got embroiled in this issue, before either we or our loved ones learned all about the registry and what it does, we favored "law and order" government also. Think way back...before...if one politician said he would make tougher laws to protect children from predators and his opponent said that he thought laws against those called predators were too harsh already and he wanted to show some leniency, which one would you more likely have voted for? Be honest. Perspectives change on the other side of the fence.
PK
I think it's a valid question. I don't see why they would have a different Judge for every proceeding, but I guess anything is possible.
I'll just assume that the case will move forward with the same Judge and there is no way to change that fact.
I wish there were more words of encouragement.
David H
PK:
But are we continuing with this judge??? I didn't have that impression!
kelnothiding
David ,, that is strong stuff ,, but we will win in the end ,
Jon
Of course they ruled against it. The US doesn't want us here, but doesn't want us to leave. They want us humiliated, ostracized, and bared from civilization. They want a front row seat for their efforts, to watch us die alone, in a ditch or under a overpass as far away from civilization as they can push us, with nothing but our shame and humiliation to keep us company. They claim that they don't want us going to other countries to commit new crimes, which is absolute BS. They don't want us going to some other country because they know that there we might get a fresh start and a chance at living a normal life, and that would ruin all of their hard work to watch us suffer under their thumb.
So many people are so quick to point the finger of blame and hate. So quick to judge and hate anyone that has even just been accused of a crime. Those are the real danger if you ask me. Those are the people who turn vigilante and take the law into their own hands. Maybe out of frustration to begin with, but soon enough that turns to enjoyment, self riotousness, and satisfaction. Why not lock them up? Those are your serial killers right there. But I guess murder is OK unless someone sees you naked when you do it. Then you have to pay for life.
PK
"Because plaintiffs are not challenging the pre-existing notification provisions, they
have not shown that an alleged injury resulting from implementation of the IML would be
redressable".
I think what the Judge was saying that Janice did not challenge the pre-existing notifications in her Motions.
PK
"The fact he’s still flying into countries without a problem, so it seems, is an issue. The only real affects so far are people being turned away. Yes, that’s bad but not serious enough for the judge to grant this injunction"
I'm not clear if that's actually the case where this pilot can still continue to fly to any country.
Actually- the "real affects" are a little more for some people than just simply being turned away, as you put it. SOME people cannot see their spouse or family who live i a foreign country. OTHER people cannot conduct business in a foreign country.
I irks me when people post things on here, that really don't have a clue or are just making blind assumptions.
Son of Liberty Child of Freedom
One should not be so easily discouraged.
The current developments are a opportunity to exercise ones Discipline which is composed of:
1. Impulse Control:
Can be defined as ignoring your own emotions, feelings, the human heart.
2. Delayed Gratification:
The ability to resist the temptation for an immediate reward and wait for a later greater reward.
These skills must be mastered in order to develop one self into a Mature Being.
This is the time to Steel your self & prove your Character, demonstrate your Faith is True & Reliable to the end.
As Yehovah lives, so should we
steve
I think this would have been a lot different if the John Doe who was a pilot was fired from his job because he can't fly his cargo plane anywhere. The fact he's still flying into countries without a problem, so it seems, is an issue. The only real affects so far are people being turned away. Yes, that's bad but not serious enough for the judge to grant this injunction and she's right that we have no idea what this "identifier" will look like.
I believe we should have fought the notifications when they first started happening. The judge, it seems thinks so.
good question
Washington State.... you will have to register here but there is a process you have to go through to petition to get off. It requires hiring an attorney, taking a polygraph, getting an all clear from a pyschologist, etc.. lot of hoops to jump through, but it is worth it.
PK
Paul, there are still a few countries in Europe that RSO's can travel to.
Paul from RTAG created an Excel Spreadsheet, several months ago, which detailed many of those countries.
I kind of wish he would update that list.
David Kennerly
"Let’s be honest. Would you rather get convicted of a sex offense in a red state like Alabama or Florida or a blue liberal state like Massachusetts? "
Well, I think that's a different issue. It goes to the retributive vs. rehabilitative models of punishment which do align more along conservative and liberal lines.
So, of course, I would not wish to be in a Southern, bible-beating state. However, having said that, Massachusetts, said to be one of the most "liberal" states, has ghastly prison conditions for sex offenders. Many have been murdered and beaten there with the complicity of staff. What's more, they continue to convict individuals using such discredited theories as "recovered memory", critical to the conviction of Paul Shandley who languishes in their dungeons to this day. Recovered memory is more of an artifact of feminism, by the way.
There have been several out-and-out witch hunts in Massachusetts such as "Fells Acres" and the personal destruction of Bernard Baran. Martha Coakley, a "liberal" and a feminist, was responsible for prosecuting the Amiraults in one such witch hunt.
California, a "liberal" state, has a long history of prosecutorial misconduct in sex cases, as you know, perhaps most notoriously the McMartin Preschool case and also the Kern County travesties.
Janet Reno, a Clinton appointee and a "liberal" was responsible for similar career-making prosecutions, such as of Frank Fuster and 14-year-old Bobby Fijnje while Florida State Attorney.
But all of that is apart from the lengths of sentences and the more fundamental shift in sex offense legislation, both at the state and federal levels.
I would give only the slightest edge to the Democrats here as a less-responsible party. Really, I find it almost indiscernible when examining such things as sentence length and the sheer proliferation of criminal sexual laws.
My greater point is that the juggernaut would not have been possible without the broad-based support of, and the drift towards authoritarianism in, both parties over a period of forty years.
This is why this issue is best framed in terms of authoritarian vs. anti-authoritarian rather than Republican vs. Democrat. The trend in both parties has been towards authoritarianism.
Jason
Well like it or not the court used the facts to deny the injunction so lets watch and see if they use the facts to dismantle IML once implemented!!!! Keep up the Great work RSOL and ALL involved....
Erwin
You make some good points but we have to agree to disagree. Republican Jim Sensenbrenner is the person who introduced the Adam Walsh bill in 2006 under George Bush.
Yes, Megan's Law & Jacob Wetterling were part Bill Clinton's anti-crime bill in '94 but remember that's when the GOP took the control of the House. So Clinton in his "triangulation" efforts worked with the new incoming GOP freshman. I'm not making any excuses for Clinton who did pander to victim's rights groups but my main point is to look at what's happening on the state level.
Let's be honest. Would you rather get convicted of a sex offense in a red state like Alabama or Florida or a blue liberal state like Massachusetts? It could mean the difference between getting probation or serving a life sentence just for getting caught with CP. Florida is really harsh. Plus blue New England & Northeastern states have in effect threw out local RSO ordinances. SORNA & Adam Walsh ultimately depend on what the states do with it
Mike
Does AZ have a strong state group? If so they had better get to work. Has there been some high profile cases were RC's not on the public registry have created problems? From perusing the news clips, it seems like every time we win some sort of victory there are ten more attempts to further erode our lives. The root of all of this is the registry. We are not even putting a band aid on the worsening situation. We need to be much more organized and raise a lot more money.
Paul
http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/14/europe/air-passenger-data-sharing-terror-europe/index.html
In an effort to combat "terrorism", and "trafficking". I'm thinking our days of traveling to the EU are coming to a close. It certainly won't be long before the IML stuff finds its way into this mess! Especially given the IML goal of obtaining reciprocity from other countries.
Paul
My lawyer suggested Mexico as a place to live...but I have 0 knowledge of Spanish.
Paul
Haha, well I wouldn't be opposed to marriage, but it's doubtful I'm going to attract anyone while on the registry...so there's that.
Janice Bellucci
I am not participating in tonight's phone call, organized by national RSOL, because I am not available. National RSOL did not ask me to do this prior to sending a notice that I would participate. My first knowledge of the phone call was receipt of the same notice that others received. After receiving that notice, I informed national RSOL that I had a prior commitment. Please note that the attorney in Rhode Island is also not participating in the phone call. I can only guess that national RSOL did not ask him if he was available prior to sending out the notice. As a result, someone who is not an attorney will be speaking about both cases.
Erwin
That's the whole point of the new law. RSOs won't be able to move out of the country now given all the green notices sent out and the word "sex offender" plastered on your passport. I don't know what countries will take you. Many of the low cost undeveloped countries in Asia & Latin America (like the Philippines & Brazil) have been turning away American RSOs left and right according to some reports on this forum. Europe may be the best option (although it's more costly plus they have an immigration crises) However the "unique identifier" passport hasn't been tested in Europe yet so no telling what they'll do in the future. Arizona isn't so bad if you're a level one because your name/photo is omitted from the public website. HOWEVER, a Republican politician in AZ is currently working to get that changed
PK
Like I mentioned:
My gut is telling me that it’s going to be a disappointing legal journey with this Judge. I don’t see how any Lawyer could continue with the same motivation and enthusiasm that is required to win. It is so obvious that this Court does not want to base her decision on the law. This Judge based her decision and will base all of her future decisions- on politics. I don't think we're going to win with this Judge. She could perhaps win on Appeal, but we're talking years.
I just the email that Janice won't be able to attend tonight's phone conference.
PK
Mexico is all about the Family Unit, above all else. I got married there.
However, that doesn't mean they are going to simply hand you a visa.
It's yet another legal process that I will endure to prove to Mexico that NOT Everyone on this "list" is a danger and out to traffic children.
Rob
Erwin,
Yes in Florida you will be on for life even after your 15 years is up.
David
A interesting comment left as a review from the book.... A memory of skin.
All alone in the world, hiding in the shadows of society, part of an ever-growing mass of exiles electronically shackled to a society that despises and shuns them.
Who are these modern-day lepers? And why are almost a million of them in America? What if sex offending is a symptom of a malfunctioning society, and these men are just the canaries in the coal mine, carrying the burden of society's shame? What if the Internet is the snake in the Garden of Eden, and pornography is the forbidden fruit?
The deeper ironies of a culture that condemns man for life, even while turning its children into dehumanized sexual commodities. The punishment becomes profound loneliness and isolation, alienated by the digital age, the inability of people to get beyond false facades to truly trust and connect with each other.
Fear of outliving family only brings near total isolation on a virtually deserted planet called earth. One can't help but feel like a shipwrecked survivor on a island. The reminder of others existence only comes in form of hatred and distain. How can strangers have so much hate? Every individual is surly different. Every case must have different variables of guilt. Not in today's digital world. Even after death peace will not be given. The red dot on the map will still exist.
Sex offender registration—a kind of social death sentence. Entire families sentenced to social death.
Since when did the general public trust and believe anything the government has said?
The hypocrisy of the sex laws... Written mostly by sex offenders. Foley, Hastert, Walsh, Lungsford, Schwartzenegger.
Immortal sole, electronic prisoner of war.
JJ
Step backward (ahhhhhhhhh) how about a hop skip and a jump backwards "signed sealed and delivered "it's over"
PhilInAZ
There is no hope... why even bother going forward? it's just a waste of money and time.... i try to stay positive and have some sort of hope... I just don't see any more hope...
I'm seriously thinking about having a long conversation with my loved ones tomorrow about actively looking to move out of the country.. I'm not seeing much hope coming from Janices team her past posts seem to have some sort of hope and her arguments seemed super strong too...
Is there any other district that would have a better chance at this? I'm in Arizona I am a level 1 offender here they base things off of the individuals risk and if your a level 1 there is no notification, and your not on the public website... I still have to check in once a month via mail or if i move or buy a new vehicle.. otherwise i am left alone..
If i had the legal knowledge and an attorney that was willing to fight that battle here in this district i would do it in a heart beat its worth my money...
David Kennerly
Well, you're both right and you're both wrong.
The sex offender hysteria has gone through a number of phases which overlapped the risings-and-fallings of the fortunes of both dominant political parties.
Both parties, at various times, have taken the lead in the war against sex offenders, starting perhaps with Walter Mondale (a Democrat) more than forty years ago which is the approximate starting point for the current hysteria which rages still.
However, it was then a political landscape with far greater cross-party support for such things as "child abuse" which, at that time, had not yet seen "sexual abuse" come to completely dominate all discussion of "child abuse" to the exclusion of non-sexual abuse, as it has now.
Back then, the efforts were more likely to be bipartisan than the most recent efforts of IML in which the Republicans have clearly been the driving force, but Democrats and, most particularly Bill Clinton and his Democratic supporters in Congress, were quite terrible for us, too. Still, that was very much more of a bipartisan effort than today.
It is very difficult to separate out the naked political motivations for anti-sex offender legislation from the ideological ones.
Republicans are more likely to derive their hatred of us from the Bible while Democrats' beliefs are more likely to have been forged in the cauldron of unchallenged feminist dogma which has come to be central to a contemporary humanistic credo.
The truth is that neither party has been kind to us and neither should be counted as our friends. Indeed, they really hate us a whole lot.
And that's the point: these laws have come into place precisely because the dominant political forces have found them to be equally useful, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama no less than George Bush (either one of them) or Chris Smith.
This makes having a favorite political party, for us, a pretty futile and silly exercise.
As Tom Lehrer once said in a song: "And everyone hates the Jews".
We're the "Jews".
Frank
For the most part Rocky, I believe that the real followers of God are a compassionate group of people. I honestly think its a group of the far far right wing radicals who you are thinking of.
There has been such a brainwashing of the mainstream of society, that you can't nail it down to any one group now. I find that much of our punishment is coming directly from the Liberals equally with the more Right ideology.
And these lawmakers will go to the ends of the earth to buy votes. Many are looking at a 4 or 6 year stint, and they receive a lifetime of income as a result. Many don't read the "Bills", and many times they don't even discuss what's in them before they vote on them. Those willing to continue to punish and the louder they get, the more I believe they have something to hide as well.
It's a very stressful life we live. We need to live clean, accept our mistakes and hope and pray that cooler heads will eventually prevail.
Lake County
I'm sure if we all sell our houses we would have enough money to buy or take over a county with our 850,000 votes in a small farm state. We could build a wall to keep politicians out.
Brubaker
This injustice to free Americans is for all the world to see.
This wrong can be corrected... Can be righted.
There are issues that are yet to be argued and set forth that can win.
For all free Americans , NO one should be treated in this manner. '...Not only an offense against history, but an offense against humanity"... .
The Berlin Wall came down...so can this.
James
There is always Marriage!
I considered it, but...Nah, been there, tried that, been there, tried that...rather stay in the USA....lol...(than be married again)
Actually my London wife has suggested this...but I married her once...heeheehee...can't do it again, but for someone else, this could be an answer on how to get out of the United States.
Best Wishes, James
Frank
IMHO the only way this "identifier" will ever go away is like this: Every convicted felon, no matter what the offense, should be required to register for their mistake.
This registration will be mandatory and failure to register will result in a prison term.
There names will be published with details of their crime for all to see. Any travel out of the country will require a 21 day notification and the destination country will be notified of the high risk and danger of the traveler engaging in a similar crime upon arrival to the destination country.
As well, there should be an "identifier" on their passport.
That would put an end to all of this unconstitutional ex post facto bull-*rap.
And it would end in a hurry when one quarter of the US citizenry all of a sudden
feels the punishment with these type of laws.
Paul
Unfortunately, no family in Germany to speak of. So I guess that's out.
G4Change
One step backward. Now let's prepare for two steps forward!
Thank you, Janice, et al for continuing to fight this ugly fight!!!
Robert Curtis
Depends if the the state took on SORNA to whether you must register. My conviction was in CA but Tx. Law doesn't require my type of conviction to register.
kelnothiding
timmer you right on the money , every word , lets have a hell yes!
Matt
The judge made a decision to not make a decision.....Pass the buck; kick the can down the road; etc. Just like everybody in power does. No standing. We don't know yet, so we can't make a decision. This should be no surprise to anybody. Every once in a while, we see people in power take a stand for what's reasonable. But that's rare. This argument was to stop something similar to a policy adopted by NAZI GERMANY! And it failed. The FBI calls that, "A clue."
Timmr
The only way it makes any sense is it exists as a social welfare program for the law enforcement industry. They are the only ones benefiting from these laws... oh and the politicians they lobby, they profit off of the ignorance of the general population.
Jason (There may be two of us)
Do you happen to have family in Germany? Spouse? Child? I suspect that would help your chances tremendously. I believe I heard someone here (PK maybe?) mention that a foreign court ruled in favor of and RSO letting them stay in the foreign country permanently to "preserve the family unit" or something like that.
Steveo
What state could a person move to that requires no registration, where another state requires lifetime registration?
PK
"If you read the law, they call anyone on the list a criminal, and they tell other nations this"
Not only that, they actually send Notifications that are FALSE and misrepresent the conviction. That happened to me in Mexico. They sent them a Notification that I was convicted of Sexual Assault! Which is complete and utter BS and a COMPETE FALSEHOOD!
PK
Go ahead and try it then!
Steveo
Exactly. You are still on the list. The IML considers you and calls you "convicted".
Steveo
I always though the whole marker on the passport thing was more of a red herring, or a symbolic part of the International Meagan's Law. The real issue is that they inform other nations that anyone on the US Registered Sex offender list is a criminal. It does not matter if they were ever found guilty of a crime or not, or if they received deferred adjudication, and therefore NO conviction. If you read the law, they call anyone on the list a criminal, and they tell other nations this. That is the REAL issue, because all the mark on the passport would do is confirm the list they already have you on to not let you into their country in the first place.
Erwin
I'm just curious. I'm pretty sure some folks may have beaten this question around on this forum but I can't find it. What if your "convicted" state doesn't require you to register for life but only 15 years. You then take a 2 week vacation to Disney World in Florida that requires folks to register for life. You check in at the local cop shop to register but you tell them you're only their temporarily to see Mickey Mouse. Does that registration stay on Florida rolls for life even if you returned to living back in your home state?
Rob
Notgivingup
Are you signed up for the monthly call in tomorrow night? If you are not you should head over to National RSOL and sign up. Janice will be there among others.
The session is usually very informative.
Yes any conviction of a minor below 17 will have a notice sent to the travelers intended country even after you are done registering. This is from the wording of the bill. You just won’t have the passport identifier on your passport which will not really matter if you can’t get into a country.
Whats really bad about the bill is there not calling a 17,16,15 year old a minor, there calling them a child and labeling us as child sex offenders, who are deemed a risk to engage is child sex tourism.
Joyful sounding isn’t it?
I imagine if you have no conviction on your record you are good. Did you ever have to register?
That said I cannot answer that question. It might be a good question to ask at the call in tomorrow night.
Paul
I was told that after 10 years I could petition to be removed from the registry...that being said I am looking to get out of this country. I lived abroad several years ago (should have stayed) and would like to go back. I know the laws in each country are different, but if I wanted to move to Germany, let's say...what are the chances? My hopes are that during the 10 years on the registry I can try to say enough money to move away, but would Germany even accept me?
This country is ran by a bunch of cowards and I would rather be a citizen of another country than allow the government to prevent me "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."
any help with that would be much appreciated.
Erwin
You're quite wrong
If you look at the places where most RSO residency ordinances have popped up, it's mostly in red Midwestern & southern states. Here in my state Wisconsin, more harsh penalties for sex offenses & laws against where RSO's can live have went into overkill ever since GOP took control of the governorship & assembly in 2010.
On the other hand, New England blue states have the least restrictions for RSO's. Pennsylvania courts have also overturned local ordinances. The state of New York may have longer registration periods, but at least they no longer have the residency ordinances except for the worst violent offenders. In addition, level one offenders in the state of NY aren't listed on the public website. A California court has also overturned local RSO ordinances. However, Sharon Runner, a state republican senator, is on a crusade to put those ordinances back in place. A republican lawmaker Christopher Smith is the creator of this latest bill that ups the restrictions on International Meagan's Law. You may have some libertarian minded states with small populations like SD that don't have harsh laws against RSO's but that would change very rapidly once a politician decides to exploit the issue. For instance Arizona for a long time has hidden level one offenders from their public registry. But that's about to chance rapidly with GOP Sen. John Kavanagh's bill to make public the names & pictures of previously omitted level offenders. And I'm willing to bet you the AZ GOP controlled assembly will let that bill sail thru & be signed by the governor.
......yes both parties have pandered to the sex offender hysteria but the GOP has pandered way more. For what it's worth, RSO's are basically on their own & the few friends and allies they do find tend be among liberal, some libertarian minded people as well as family members
John
I'm pretty sure any registration is a Hit List on its face. Thus must I say it? Punitive! Is it possible we could all chip in and buy this island they all want to send us too. Because I will happily go to it.
good question
sorry..forgot to mention.. I was not convicted, got deferred adjudication...it still applies? I dont think so
deferred
I had deferred adjudication... have no conviction.... still registered in my previous state, but not registered in my current state. I changed my name legally and did not nor do I intend to provide it to my previous state... I cross the Canadian border all the time and never have any issues. I served on juries, registered to vote, and have passed background checks for major companies I have worked for. If you are not CONVICTED, then you SHOULD be fine. The law clearly defines the word convicted in the passage of the law
Lake County
Everyone has bias, including judges. And all Lawyers and Judges have different interpretation of the law. So just because we don't agree with her decision, we can't appeal based on bias. Now if the Judge was related to the Fed's defense attorney, then maybe you could make a claim of bias or conflict of interest, but even that issue would have required us to make a conflict of interest issue prior to the hearing. This issue is not over as we still have our case in chief. It just would have been nice for us to have a win at round 1.
PK
"She has to be stopped. Someone else has to look at this case" that's what my suggestion was and my previous question was about-
If this entire case will be heard by the same Judge or a Jury?
What about an appeal for the Injunction? Same Judge?
PK
Yes they're going to confiscate your Passport and then put an Identifier on a new one that you will pay for. It's Registration in ANY STATE.
You're not going to get away mister.
I'm in the exact same situation: not required to register in my current state, but am so for life in my conviction state.
someone who cares
There are so many good questions here. Can we appeal the decision based on a biased judge? When will they stop making decisions without ever looking at the facts? What if she decided that anyone who ate red meat was a murderer? Does she not have to have some evidence to prove this? Same with "sex offenders". If the statistics show that those on the registry are NOT the ones committing these imaginary crimes, then she should not be able to make her decision based on what she has heard. She has to present the facts when making such a detrimental decision. So, is anyone who looks at pornography already a rapist? She would probably say yes. She has to be stopped. Someone else has to look at this case.
Notgivingup
So Rob what you are saying is anyone convicted of a offence against a minor 17 or below will have a notice sent to whichever country they are traveling too even if they no longer have to register? Next question would be what if they had deferred adjudication probation, then when they successfully completed it the charges were dismissed and have no conviction on their record, just shows they were arrested? And many have no conviction but are still required to register, wonder how that would be handled? This would also apply to the gun law that they might get passed, what to do about people with no final conviction. What a mess this country has become, we can pay taxes at every level but they continue to strip our rights away one bill at a time.
Notgivingup
See this is the part that I am still not sure of, “Only individuals who have been convicted of a sex offense against a minor and are currently required to register under the sex offender registration program of any jurisdiction” I have to register but do not have a conviction, can vote, own firearms, serve juror duty etc, so I will guess I will still have passport mark? I wish I could get a clear answer, lol, I bet we all would like that. Anyway another disappointing day and more BS from our government.
Renny
Is there a poll-system that is worldwide? We should pose the following question to the people of the world:
An American woman, traveling alone, comes into your shop to purchase good or services. As is customary you require her identification to verify her credit card. When she opens her passport you see in bold red letters the words "SEX OFFENDER" above her photo and personal information.
What is your response? Keep in mind the rights of an American do not follow them outside the US.
Will you serve her?
Will you notify others of her sex offender status?
Will you have the urge to harm her?
Will you charge her more for the goods or services?
What if it was an American man, also traveling alone.....
Renny
If you have a NY conviction, you cannot unregister no matter where you go, in some cases that includes your grave, because New Yorkers are the most incompetent and corrupt scumbags on the face of the earth.
If you escape the US and renounce your disgusting citizenship of this filthy nation, New York still requires you to register.
If you fail, they will file a warrant and the next time you have police contact anywhere in the world, you could be arrested.
Renny
Now THAT is a good idea! They are useless anyway.
I tried to sell mine on eBay, but they took it down.
Renny
My response to this ruling will be offensive to many.
I am going to start talking. I know things about what "Americans" do when they travel posing as teachers, electrical contractors and other trades.
I know that right now in Thailand, Americans "working" as electrical contractors for Marubeni drink and drive on the streets of Thailand, which is essentially attempted murder of Thai children.
I am going to write a letter to the leaders and papers in EVERY single nation, telling them that they should refer to the DOJ website for statistics on Americans that are not convicted greatly outnumber those convicted and that every American is a potential child rapist, corporate or government spy, identity thief, drunk driver, arsonist and serial killer. The only way to protect their children is for every American to be escorted 100% of the time by an official from the host governments and that all electronic devices should be seized from Americans upon arrival and returned when they leave. Any American caught with electronic devices should be arrested and charged with espionage and/or child sex trafficking.
I will also point out the factual evidence that allowing an American into their country attracts death, as an American citizen is to a devout Muslim terrorist as sugar water is to ants... when these countries allow Americans in, they take the risk that their own people will be killed as the devout Muslim terrorists try to kill Americans.
I am tired of waiting and losing. I am going on the offensive.
kelnothiding
I think there already built , , we can be peaceful and make our point , see you around john , keep on keepin on !
PK
Exactly TiredO- even without IML the Country is STILL a cesspool.
Un-registering is probably not possible.
NY doesn't allow people to un-register even if you don't live in the state or work in the state. I heard that Florida is the same way.
Anyway do you think I would somehow "trust" that they wouldn't try to confiscate my passport anyway? The US Government does whatever the hell they want period.
Anonymous Nobody
Another reason the judge might have wanted to wait to see what is proposed for the identifier is what I said in a previous comment in the original thread: It might not necessarily be visible to the eye, it might be part of the RFID chip on the passport card. And if it is, it would seem this judge will have no problem with it, but it still will get you denied entry to other countries.
That's what I have been pointing out too, that it is the information being sent that is far more dangerous than the identifier - they will be contacting the state and the police department where you register and getting all the criminal background info on you (and in the process notifying those agencies) -- and what reason would there be other than to send it. That info alone will get you denied entry, even if the additional notice is not sent for your offense. I still think this lawsuit is too limited. I'm afraid even if we wink e are still going to be denied entry to other countries, and when the Feds and state and even locals are notified and take a close look at you, you better hope they don't find some excuse to come after you -- its none of their business that we might be taking a little trip, and that notice to them is also wrong, there is no justification for it.
These details are easy to overlook. The devil is always in the details.
good question
I am in the same boat.. I, not required to register in my current state, but am so for life in my previous state. I hope someone can answer
PK
How would you win the war with a Judge that is determined to take the "coward's way out"?
John
I think I'm done with all this stuff... if all 800,000 of us just stop listening to this crap and rebel they will have to do something else. Unless they build a prison to house all 800,000 of us
Anonymous Nobody
Rocky, actually, much of all the sex offender crap has been imposed by the Democrats and moderates - gee, it went nationwide under Bill Clinton's administration and Attorney General Janet Reno, not a Republican conservative. Obama imposed this notice crap years back, and it wasn't done via legislation then, it was done by executive power, and he isn't considered a conservative. The California Legislature had added tons of crap onto registration, and it is overwhelmingly Democrat.
kelnothiding
TiredO ,, I think your right , we have to stand up some how in big numbers , and raise alittle hell ,
Friend of RSOL
The judge was uninformed about Angel Watch. She assumed that there was a law in place that authorized it. There is no such law. She also made comparisons (somehow, and I'm not sure why, since it doesn't seem relevant), with the Mann Act, way back when - 1916, I think? In both of these instances, she also made an appeal to precedent. I'm not saying there is a legitimate precedent for either the notifications or the passport stamp - just that she thinks she is relying on precedent.
The sex offender registry itself is a precedent based on myths and lies, and she relied on that as well.
Regarding PR, education, etc. People are trying. A few activists and writers exist- journalists, human rights activists, sex offender specialists, and a few lawyers here and there. And there is CARSOL and its counterparts - and for what it is worth, that's something. Otherwise, we have to just give up. Those of us who can't get out are essentially screwed otherwise, and short of suicide, we need to do whatever we can. Bullies pick on people who can't fight back.
If I can get out, I will.
Jason (There may be two of us)
If you can "unregister" by moving to the country where your family is at, then you will no longer be "required to register". Not being required to register means no passport mark. (as stated elsewhere in the thread)
TiredOfHiding
Predictable and pathetic - just want you would expect.
I can't wait to find a way to escape this cesspool of a country the USA has become.
Our government is actively fighting us and marginalizing us more each year and yet we are supposed to remain optimistic.
You only have to put your hand on the stove one time to learn you will get burned...how many time do you have to be burned by the government until you will realize that nothing is going to change.
Lies and more additional punishment year after year is all we have experienced and there is NO reason to expect anything else.
This just proves the point.
Spreadtheword
You can read the Judge's Order online at the link provided. You can come to your own conclusions.
https://www.scribd.com/doc/308438358/IML-Injunction-Denied-by-Federal-Court
James
I am with Rob....seriously not a good day. And yet nothing has changed for me...except maybe the world has gotten a little smaller. But then, it was the old unauthorized Angel's Watch thingy that killed me anyhow....long before the IML, so at some level the IML was a non-issue in a practical sense for me.
Colorado just scares the crap out of me. Geeze, if that becomes generally accepted practice...we will have problems far beyond what we know now.
California is a big place...lots to see; Oregon has a 10 day presence requirement, as does Arizona. And I will attempt Europe...
There seems to be a virus like thing attempting to crush all hope...of people continuing on and living decent lives. This is entirely contrary to what Social Policy should be...
1. Reinforce successful reintegration of the RSO's back into society
2. Promote job and living stability
3. Protect the Family life of RSO's and their family members
4. Establish a path for RSO's to have a stake in Society, something to lose should they re-offend.
This would be intelligent social policy...why it is not followed is beyond me. Current policy is just stupid and counter production at best, at worst, it creates a very large sub-class of disenfranchised people entirely unmoored to their...world, their society.
This so doesn't make any sense at all...
So yes, a distressing day...but this is a fight we have no choice except to fight, to resist, to champion our very real humanity.
Good Luck All
Best Wishes, James
PK
***
However, at the hearing, plaintiffs’ counsel indicated that plaintiffs would not
oppose the passport identifier “if it were limited to [those with] convictions for child trafficking and tourism.” In other words, plaintiffs do not necessarily seek to enjoin the entire passport identifier provision. Plaintiffs’ counsel reiterated that the purpose of the IML was to address child sex trafficking, which she asserted was not what her clients were convicted of and not what resulted in their being required to register as sex offenders.
For these reasons, the court finds that the claim regarding the passport identifier is
not yet ripe for resolution. The consequence for purposes of the present motion is that
plaintiffs cannot clearly articulate which acts they seek to have enjoined, or why.
Accordingly, plaintiffs fail to show a likelihood of success on the passport identifier claim.
***
I see that this Judge is twisting the wording and what Janice was implying in order to rule against the Injunction.
It's like what Friend of RSOL mentioned:
"that courts seem to argue from petty points of law instead of greater principles".
My gut is telling me that it's going to be a disappointing legal journey with this Judge. I don't see how any Lawyer could continue with the same motivation and enthusiasm that is required to win. It is so obvious that this Court does not want to base her decision on the law. This Judge based her decision and will base all of her future decisions- on politics.
T
Well in my opinion and mind u it's just an opinion this judge is gutless and took the cowards way out. There was plenty of information in the motion to support our complaint but chose to ignore it. I think she was much more worried about her reputation than our rights. Thus making a cowards decision to protect her reputation. But our right is not over we will re- group and right on. So fellow registered citizens keep your head up and keep calm and right on. Janice is not going to let this deter us from our fight. We lost the battle but not the war.
PK
Can she switch Judges?
PK
I feel like I got punched in the stomach today.
For me this situation regarding the Passport Mark is more distressing because I have family out of the Country. Yet I must return to the U.S. for medical treatment.
For me, this is not just for international vacations.
So the question becomes which one do I give up?
Rob
Shawn,
-If you do not have to register anymore then you will not have the unique identifier on your passport.
-If you do not have to register anymore but your crime was against a minor, the government will notify the arriving country of your visit.
Paul
I saw the gun rights thing, and I'm with you. Same boat.
The only small solace I have is that the idiot proposes that law every other year, and it never goes anywhere. That's not to say that it eventually won't! IML took years to get through! But maybe, just maybe, the idiot's law won't survive this year.
Paul
Here's an interesting paper on "certainly impending". Made even more interesting by the fact that it actually focuses on the Northern District of California. It appears our little judge went against the precedent set by her peers. How very nice of her!
http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/files/standing-iii.pdf
Doc4Justice
Can't you appeal the judge's ruling? This is normal action in a majority of states. Judges do whatever they want not following the rule of law. Ultimately more lawsuits need to be filed so this issue goes before the USC. To me this is normal course of action. Most judges wipe their ass with the Constitution throughout the USA. It's really a meaningless document.
Shawn
2 questions:
1) Since the issue isn't "ripe" now, will an injunction request be filed again once the creation of the passport scheme is complete?
2) The law says:
"Only individuals who have been convicted of a sex offense against a minor and are currently required to register under the sex offender registration program of any jurisdiction”
Today I live in a jurisdiction where I don't have to register. But I would be required to register in California. I assume I am no subject to the passport requirement since I'm not "CURRENTLY" required. But if I moved to California and then I applied for a passport, I'd get the mark. But if I moved back to a state where I'm not required to register, then I wouldn't get the mark. OR does the language mean that since there exists a jurisdiction where I'd be required to register, I get the mark no matter what?
Rob
This site is seriously depressing me today.
IML, colorado, New York, Taking away my gun rights to protect myself ughh
Chris F
Wait, what??? I read the decision and don't understand this part:
***
However, at the hearing, plaintiffs’ counsel indicated that plaintiffs would not
oppose the passport identifier “if it were limited to [those with] convictions for child
trafficking and tourism.” In other words, plaintiffs do not necessarily seek to enjoin the
entire passport identifier provision. Plaintiffs’ counsel reiterated that the purpose of the
IML was to address child sex trafficking, which she asserted was not what her clients
were convicted of and not what resulted in their being required to register as sex
offenders.
For these reasons, the court finds that the claim regarding the passport identifier is
not yet ripe for resolution. The consequence for purposes of the present motion is that
plaintiffs cannot clearly articulate which acts they seek to have enjoined, or why.
Accordingly, plaintiffs fail to show a likelihood of success on the passport identifier claim.
***
The judge makes it sound like the law may not apply to the plaintiffs once everything is finalized, but it does as long as they were convicted of a sex offense against a minor.
Questions:
1) Were the plantiffs convicted of a sex offense against a minor???
2) If someone is given deferred adjudication and probation but is a registered sex offender and the original charge involved a child, do they get the passport identifier and is Angel Watch notifying other countries too even though they were not convicted???
The IML states "Only individuals who have been convicted of a sex offense against a minor and are currently required to register under the sex offender registration program of any jurisdiction qualify as covered sex offenders for purposes of this provision"
brunello
Does anybody know if there is any kind of precise legal definition for the standard “certainly impending” that the judge used? IMHO nothing in human affairs can be said to be predictable with absolute certainty. So is there, say somewhere in case law, a notion of how closely to 100% certain something can come to merit the word "certainly" in a legal sense? I know this sounds nit-picky but a few weeks ago the SCOTUS justices were arguing about the plain meaning of some words and phrases in a law. Shouldn't she have used "likely" rather than "certainly"?
PK
Yea, so I'm guessing that this case would be decided by this Judge, not a Jury correct?
Is there any way to switch Judges?
I think Janice needs a Team of Lawyers to help her on this.
PK
"My overall impression of the judge was that she was uninformed and misinformed, like the majority of people in this country. As you said, they are building upon precedents of myths and lies. Untangling this mess needs a multi-pronged approach – PR, education, RC involvement and organizing, legal coalitions, whatever we can muster up."
How could this Judge be uninformed?
Janice's Complaint and Preliminary Injunction explained everything in great detail.
Any 10th Grader could see the differences between Janice's Motion for Preliminary Injunction and the Government's Response. They had no response, except for to recite the facts about the Sex Offender Registry.
You mentioned that the Judge was building upon precedent, myths and lies.
I don't see anywhere where this Judge relied upon any previous case or precedent.
"Untangling this mess needs a multi-pronged approach – PR, education, RC involvement and organizing, legal coalitions, whatever we can muster up".
Who is going to do all that? education, PR etc? NOBODY.
I thought they already tried to get a "legal coalition" and no other legal firm was interested.
My prediction is that this case could possibly take from 6 to 8 years to be resolved.
"whatever we can muster up" I'm not mustering anything up, but getting the hell out of the United States and staying out! FOR F******** EVER.
Mike
Does Janice's lawsuit clearly target the notification process with its language of the RC is likely to commit a crime in the foreign country? It is very clear that we need to go on an aggressive campaign to grow each state's memberships of RSOL groups. The longer that we wait, the more ridiculous laws will be passed. We need more members and a lot more money to not only file lawsuits but maybe more importantly, to promote a PR campaign where facts are emphasized so that even Federal judges have a clue. This judge seems to already have her mind made up as to the merits of the case. Either that or she is gutless.
PK
What do you mean, what do you mean? Because they're going to revoke it!
Nobody knows when, and I'm sure they're not going to make some huge announcement.
anon
We should have a passport burning event !
Rocky
Right, because god really cares who wins the war..."not". But I don't doubt that our conservative's actions are motivated by their religious beliefs.
steve
So what does this mean. We need to challenge pre-existing notification law, which actually isn't a law.
"Because plaintiffs are not challenging the pre-existing notification provisions, they have not shown that an alleged injury resulting from implementation of the IML would be redressable. Further, any injury that plaintiffs might be asserting relating to such notifications would not be fairly traceable to the IML, and cannot be said to be “certainly impending.” In light of these facts, the court finds that plaintiffs cannot show a likelihood of success on the notification claim."
Paul
I think you can use up until the time they revoke it.
What you need to be more concerned about is predeparture notification! 21 days in advance. Who do you provide that notice to, and how do you provide it? Currently, there is no method providing the scheme (currently, there's no state law mandating it). But just make sure you provide that notice! Even if you can't provide that notice, just make sure it gets done!
Welcome to our world!
TG
PK, why do you say that?
PK
I'm confused about the Judge's argument:
"Since the marker provision has not yet gone into effect, deciding whether to block it over constitutional issues would be premature" so therefore it is not yet ripe.
However, "Hamilton also rejected a request to block the notification provision, saying federal authorities were already notifying countries when sex offenders travel there".
Isn't that part ripe enough?
Paul
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/judge-block-passport-marker-law-involving-sex-crimes-38367796
http://www.gettysburgtimes.com/news/national/article_be736263-f5db-545f-a008-283da91a3cda.html
http://www.courthousenews.com/2016/04/13/too-soon-to-fight-sex-offender-passport-mark.htm
PK
I would use it with caution TG.
TG
So, what is the next step?
Also, I have six years left on my passport. Does anyone know if I can I use it until it expires?
Friend of RSOL
Horrible, just horrible. The analogy of the dragon is apt. In Christian symbolism, the dragon represents the devil. It seems as though the devil himself is energizing lawmakers and the federal government. And the most pathetic thing is some (not all - many are simply cynical) believe that they are doing good.
What is also twisted is that courts seem to argue from petty points of law instead of greater principles. Upholding the Constitution has been reduced to nitpicking at fine points - straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel.
Somehow, biblical metaphors seem to apply here. David and Goliath, etc. etc.
My overall impression of the judge was that she was uninformed and misinformed, like the majority of people in this country. As you said, they are building upon precedents of myths and lies. Untangling this mess needs a multi-pronged approach - PR, education, RC involvement and organizing, legal coalitions, whatever we can muster up.
Janice's Journal: It’s Over, But It’s Not Over
Published Date : April 2, 2016
It’s over, but it’s not over. What do I mean? The hearing for the Preliminary Injunction requested in the International Megan’s Law (IML) case is over. However, our challenge to the IML case is not over. In fact, it has just begun.
It is always difficult to argue a motion in federal court. No matter how well you prepare, the judge can and does ask questions for which you are not quite ready. For example, in this week’s hearing the judge asked a question about the use of a passport. It’s only used when one enters a foreign country, right? Wrong! Passports are used continuously during a trip overseas – starting with entry, but also when you rent a car, check into a hotel, change money, etc.
The judge also asked why the addition of a “conspicuous, unique identifier” to a passport identified an individual as someone who has engaged in, or is likely to engage in, child sex trafficking and/or child sex tourism. It is because of the title of the law, the findings in the bill that became the law and statements made by the bill’s author on the floor of Congress and elsewhere.
Some federal judges do not like to tip their hand, that is, to expose their feelings and/or beliefs during a hearing. And perhaps that is what happened this week. However, if the judge’s questions did reflect her feelings and/or beliefs, I am not optimistic about the outcome. The judge has taken under submission the Motion for Preliminary Injunction, the same action she took with regard to the first two motions she heard the same morning. She will issue her decision when she is ready to do so and there is no deadline for her decision.
While we await the judge’s decision, we will not remain idle. Instead, we will begin the discovery process in order to reveal the inner workings of Operation Angel Watch. For example, how many notices have been sent to foreign countries regarding individuals who are no longer required to register? The government admitted in court this week that they made one mistake when they sent such a notice to a foreign country regarding John Doe #3. It’s easy to believe that if the government made one mistake, they’ve made many more.
The one federal government mistake we need to prevent is the addition of a Scarlet letter to even one passport belonging to a U.S. citizen. We will have many more opportunities during the next few months to do so including when the government issues draft regulations explaining what the Scarlet letter will look like and how it will be applied to passports.
So stay tuned. We may or may not have lost one battle due to this week’s hearing. We have many more battles to come. The IML war is far from over. In fact, it has just begun.
Read all of Janice’s Journal
Comments
MarkSF
Will a transcript / audio recording of the March 30 IML hearing be posted onto the CA RSOL site here for us to read and/or listen to the proceedings? I am not in a financial position to order.
Here is information on how to order a transcript or audio recording of March 30 initial IML hearing in Ninth District Courtroom, Oakland, CA:
US District Court, Northern California Ninth District – Clerks Offices (San Francisco and Oakland locations)
http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/locations
Transcripts Procedures and Requests
http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/transcripts
US District Court, Northern California Ninth District – Home Page
(Cases of Interest shown on Home Page do not include IML)
http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/home
Richie
Worse than a scarlet letter. This reeks of the Nazis putting yellow Stars of David on the identification papers of Jews. Then they can tattoo the DoC numbers on our forearms to make it complete. If there is not protection in the Constituton against having to provide the government your travel plans, under threat of incarceration, and being made a separate class because of a past crime for which the sentence was served, then the Constitution is broken. It certainly is oppression and tyranny, and is worsened anytime a politician or script writer wants some easy points.
James Townsend
Hello Janice, I don't get to this site to much since I am here in Virginia. Yes, I'm the one that sent you the Christmas e-mail greetings.
Janice dear: all this is a sign of the mark of the beast. Pretty soon a sex offender can't go from State to State.
As far as international travel its a political tactic. Now if you tell me my house is going to burn down to the ground and it happens two months latter by some known arson than I owe you one.
Are sex offenders no better than murderers? When I'm out to dinner with friends or associates I don't know if they are a sex offender or not. Their a sinner just like everybody else.
You know these sex law's are getting to out of hand. The internet sting operations net lots of money and really who's conning who? First and foremost law officers are suppose to protect and serve. They are not protecting a child on the internet as would the is mislead in all this.
Now 100% is 100% and truth is truth. Anyone politician can make up some ordinance or strive to get that past but they hinder more than they help. Janice use your law and stand your ground.
Two wrongs don't make a right. Now what if they don't let them board the plane or when they get to the destination show the passport than are detained or murdered or something. Well that throw's the good ole US government off the hook and makes things a bit better. For who?
If people would think about all this instead of jumping to mass hysteria in all these sex offender laws and rules and restrictions maybe there would be no cyber crimes or more punishments like this passport crap.
PK
Mike, or the Passport you have now could disappear?
Mike
You might consider making a photo copy of your current passport. In Mexico, most of the time after the border, you do not have to show your passport but a photo copy. I do not know about other countries.
James
Hey, DS...that is a very valuable idea. Hummmm
I will think on this...thanks!
Best Wishes, James
PK
DS could you indicate when exactly you received your new Passport?
I'm trying to figure out how much time I have left before they try to steal mine.
DS
I'd like to comment on requesting a new passport before an identifier is decided upon. I live in CA and just renewed my passport (the prior one expired in 2017, but because of the IML I submitted a non-expedited application). I received the new passport in under 10 days. There are no visible markings that I can see. Having something in the chip is something that I am unaware of (if it even exists).
I'm not planning on traveling outside the US until 2018 and will keep close tabs on what happens.
As I'm new to this website, and after reading quite a few comments, I too want to thank Janice for all that she is doing. I'm extremely happy with her efforts, and especially with her communications, in this long fight.
Chris F
Funny you mention that, because Utah just came out with a registry for those that committed certain types of financial fraud.
I don't know if that is good or bad for the cause of getting rid of a Sex Offender Scarlet Letter or the SO public registry.
On one hand, perhaps it will get challenged (hasn't yet that I saw) because of the constitutional violations and we can use the same arguments.
On the other hand, it will become a new and accepted practice and public humiliation that prevents rehabilitation will start popping up for most crimes.
If the latter is the case, it's time to move...oh wait...we can't with the new passport scarlet letter imprisoning us in the U.S.
You can find lots of good examples of past court decisions regarding public shaming, as well as lots of other info here:
http://texasvoices.org/wordpress/articles/CARPENTERv2.pdf
Erwin
Are you talking about a passport or passport card? Because the card only allows western hemisphere travel to Canada & Mexico and some Caribbean nations. So a unique identifier on a passport card would be useless since Canada & Mexico already share a US criminal database that flags RSO's from entering those countries. And I have a feeling that most Caribbean Nations are also hooked up to the criminal database. The present RDIF chip on the passport card will expose that info
Anonymous Nobody
BTW, be aware that the identifier might be put in the RDIF chip on the passport card, not something visible tot he eye. Make the legal arguments cover that too.
Anonymous Nobody
And I note, this is being done under executive power, not by Congress. That is, this is what Obama wants, he did this singularly, quietly, behind the scenes.
Mike r
i would like to see someone challenge the Courts with facts and statistical data on recidivism rates and see what justification the courts can come up with for continuing to uphold these laws.there is no justification they can use to explain why a class of citizens with a near 0 percent reoffense rate is subject to registration and others who have extremely high recidivism rates are not subject to anything after they serve their sentences
PK
I never in a million years plead guilty to this BS Misdemeanor, had I known they were going to pull a fast one on me.
I actually have it in writing that if I plead guilty it would be a 10 year requirement to register.
Now 16 years later still on the Registry.
Timmr
The time to give you the option to apply for a Megan's Law exemption is at sentencing, not years later after you already got it and they say, opps, we have to take away what we gave you or add on more restrictions you thought you had left behind. Sorry.
But isn't that the story of this registry.
ProvenU Wrong >23yrs
What is the re-offense rate of those other groups..?
Don't you think people would plead guilty to being a 'sex' offender like you did to be "exempt"..?
There sure was NOT a 'level one' or 'exempt' at that time back.
Pleading guilty to lesser offense is the reality to 'level 1' 'exempt'.
Pleading guilty to lesser offense can also have one not even on registry as is not a 'sex' offense.
Your comment comes across 'better than you'...and I say humble down.
Erwin
That's not good. And I thought CA was moving in the right direction when a court overturned the restrictive residency ordinances throughout the state. Seems like they took one step forward and another step backward. But CA still isn't as bad as here in Wisconsin where many towns & cities (including Milwaukee the largest city in the state) are totally off limits to offenders no matter the tier level
PK
Nicholas if you reallly wanted to leave, you could do it, it is not that hard. Didn't the Pilgrims come here like 100 years ago? You could always charter a boat.
Nicholas Maietta
If i don't like the laws here because of how it constricts my freedom of travel, freedom of association, freedom of speech, et cetera, then my option would be to leave this country.
However, that is becoming impossible.
So besides suicide to end this perpetual post-prison punishment, what other options do i have? Nothing.
This is torture. One slipup and i'm in prison.
David Kennerly
The difference between the Puritans of the 17th Century and now is that the Puritans were, at least, honest about the scarlet letter being punishment.
MatthewLL
Chris,
I am sorry to hear about how Texas is treating you. At least you are off in three years, and if you are blacklisted there, you should leave the state at some point. There will be some other states you could move to after you are off the list in Texas that will not require registration, but you would need to check on which states that would be at the time to make sure.
Your question about Smith v. Doe is the same question many people are asking. That decision was twelve years ago and a lot has changed. Many more restrictions and burdens have been imposed since then, and all of these new restrictions since Doe have yet to be reviewed by the US Supreme Court. I think most courts are taking Smith much further than the opinion reads. However there are many states that have ruled now their registration schemes are punitive, but that just means every new SO added to the list after that point can have those restrictions imposed.
Most people may not realize, but the Alaska Smith v. Doe case that the Supreme Court ruled on was decided by the State Supreme Court to be punishment and therefore could not be applied retroactive. That however does not mean it is not constitutional to apply retrospectively.
I do not know what the answer is for fixing this mess. The courts can only go so far in addressing the ex post facto claim. At some point we grow out of that. We need to work on the legislatures to some how reverse course. It may require another boogeyman to take the place of sex offenders, for it is human nature to hate someone.
Timmr
No California will be next, because there is a bill already submitted by the vice chair of the Assembly Public Safety Committee to put those who have a waiver from the Megan's Law website back on the public shaming list. These people are not technically level 1, because California does not have a tiered system, but they do receive the waiver due to a low risk assessment from the court appointed psychologist, and given a suspended sentence, sounding a lot like the level ones in Washington. They are generally a group that has a lower than average re-offense rate.
Anonymous Nobody
The entirety of the registry is a scarlet letter, from its very basic concept of simply registration itself. That's why even the foundation of registration must be attacked more fundamentally. The concept of registration itself is a scarlett letter -- I've used that term for it for decades, since even long before it ever went public. The mark does not need to be visible to the public, you are marked regardless and suffer from it.
Gee, the assertion that registration itself is not punishment is blind justice -- it has been considered to be punishment at least ever since Hawthorne wrote the book. To be put on a list of people to be hounded is punishment, whether forever or not, and regardless of whether that list is made public. No one has ever argued it as such.
Chris F
I really appreciate what Janice is doing and wish I could afford to donate.
I am an RSO in Texas. Granted, it's not a SORNA state, but the restrictions make some things impossible for my wife and two young children. We have no laws preventing anyone from discriminating against us for any residence or services. My wife just tried to enroll our children in a swim program, and was denied simply because our address shows up as having an RSO. I was not on the application at all and would never have gone to their location.
We can't afford our current house since I lost my job, but can't move because rentals won't rent to us. It's too hard to find an affordable house that is not within a restricted range of schools, parks, daycare, or any other place where children could congregate. The only appartment in the Dallas area that rents to RSO's has over 16 living there (I wouldn't want my kids there) and charges higher rents for RSOs. Neighbors hate us and complain that we bring their property value down. Even low risk offenders here like myself are put on the website and maps.
Of course, it's impossible to find a job, and even though I should be off the registry in 3 more years, I've already been blacklisted by all the major employers in my field. I was required to keep applying in order to get 6 months of unemployment, and as ordered by my PO after that.
In regards to International Travel, most of the country doesn't understand the issue.
RSO's were never judged on an individual basis to be a threat to children in another country. Simply telling another country "here is an RSO" means other countries won't let us in at all. It's not like other countries are going to put in the effort and cost of finding out if I am a threat when my own government won't. This also means instead of my own country doing it once, every other country in the world I have to travel to either has to perform an independent evaluation or, most likely, just deny me.
Prior to being an RSO, I traveled a lot in Europe with my wife a couple times. What happens when you take trains, busses, or planes between countries that pass through other countries? I know on train trips, we had to show our passport at most borders to an agent that borded the train. Does that mean even if you get into Europe as an RSO that you could be stuck somewhere, arrested, or sent back simply because you traveled between countries and went though one that rejects RSOs? What about hotels that require seeing your passport? They could discriminate as well and an entire family stuck with no place to stay due to needing advanced reservations during busy times.
A scarlet letter on a passport is the worst idea imaginable.
In Texas, we already have one year driver's licenses which is a secret "scarlet letter" in itself for RSOs. There is nothing to stop businesses from discriminating against us once it becomes well known.
I sure hope someone can have luck in winning cases against Scarlet Letters. I thought we all learned in grade school how bad that is. God's speed.
Question:
If in Smith V Doe 2003 the US Supreme Court held registration to be constitutional because the Alaska requirements at the time did not impose any disability or restraint on the offender, wouldn't a scarlet letter on a passport with no due process to evaluate an individual's potential threat be exactly that, a restraint on the offender? It's common sense that the country looking at the scarlet letter will not invest time and money to ascertain the level of threat. There is also no safeguard to get un-banned from another country once an individual's registration period is over if they tried to enter that country while an RSO.
Another interesting case: Doe v. Moore, 410 F.3d 1337, 1340 (11th Cir. 2005) (concluding that registrant has no fundamental right to be free from registration requirements because such requirements do not infringe on any right that is “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition”)
Most interesting article covering major SO cases I've read:
https://www.fd.org/pdf_lib/WS2011_06/fine_print.pdf
Thanks again!
Chris F
G12
I also just confirmed with the NY DOJ that it's 10 days and they don't require you to register there as long as you're not there for longer. However, doesn't CA require that if we leave for longer than 5 days (I think it is), that we have to notify our local PD? At least, that's how I understand it after reading it. However, I called CA DOJ and they told me not to worry that if I'm only going for 7 days, I don't need to notify my local PD. With all the new rules and punishments coming out every day, I'm paranoid that I'll unknowingly break a rule.
Erwin
Touche Matt. Wow! I didn't know things have changed that fast in Washington State. I was pretty sure level 1 offenders were protected from public websites. But now that the high court ruled in this woman's favor, I can see potentially thousands of lives (including juveniles) disrupted by the new changes. Arizona will probably be the next domino to fall because some politician there has been pushing a bill to get level 1 offenders listed. Your take on new the international notification law is very informative. I wish you nothing but the best success in May
MarkSF
Here is information on how to order a transcript or audio recording of March 30 initial IML hearing in Ninth District Courtroom, Oakland, CA:
US District Court, Northern California Ninth District - Clerks Offices (San Francisco and Oakland locations)
http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/locations
Transcripts Procedures and Requests
http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/transcripts
US District Court, Northern California Ninth District - Home Page
(Cases of Interest shown on Home Page do not include IML)
http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/home
cool CA RC
There are some poping up here and there. Soon, we will have more than enough willing to help
MatthewLL
The Washington State Supreme Court just today released an opinion reversing the Superior Court's injunction preventing release of information regarding Level I offenders. So now those names are not keep confidential and potentially thousands of people will soon become unemployed and homeless when this crazy woman puts all those names on her website. The court ruled the information can be released under the public disclosure law. The legislature recently rejected a recommendation by the state sex offender policy board to make that information exempt. At this moment I don't know whether that will include address information as well,
PK
"this is the good oll’ USA… God bless America" No
PK
@MathewLL I would probably pursue a legal fight, however, the United States isn't really Home anymore for me. I have no attachments except a few family members. Besides I don't really like the way people treat each other in the states, and I can speak for the people in DC- they are not very nice.
Even though there is a Federal Action that I'm considering enjoining, I will have to think long and hard as to whether I will want to devote resources that I will definitely need in the future.
Timmr
I applaud you for filing the case on your own. I imagine every defender, whether an organization or individual will filter out cases for one reason or another.
Not really related to IML, but if California puts me back on the public registry, I will look for a lawyer to challenge that or if that doesn't work, look to see how I can challenge it on my own.
Even if many RSO's may think it is unfair to have the exclusion in the beginning, it is still unfair to put myself and family back on the hit list after 10 years of being off, for no probable cause. If the legislatures can reverse decisions that benefit us without any challenge, it will just be that much easier for them to do it next time.
Steveo
I totally agree. The way they get around this is, the registration is tied to a never expiring statute of limitations of the crime that you were charged with. It's a bit of spurious legal maneuvering, and it's part of what makes the International Meagan's Law so wrong, because they report an RSO as someone guilty of a sex crime. If you received differed adjudication, you are not guilty of a sex crime. You are just a person who was charged with a sex crime being forced to register because of a never expiring statute of limitations tied to the definition of the crime you were charged with.
If other countries knew the facts of this, they would probably not understand it, because they have laws that are about justice. If they did understand it, they would probably laugh and say no, so the US tricks them into cooperating by calling us "criminals". That word they understand. It is of course dishonest, and slander, but hey, this is the good oll' USA... God bless America
cool CA RC
Does Washington State RSO meet monthly like CA does? if not, I would encourage you to start one.
MatthewLL
Erwin,
The issue last year regarding release of level I offender information was about a woman requesting the information under a FOIA request. There were several cases filed in court by registered offenders who did not want their information released. The ruling was not just an ACLU supported effort, but a concerted effort by many.
Washington is a bit different than most states, for your level designation is based on a risk assessment performed by law enforcement and the duration of registration based on the offense ifself. You can be a Level I and have to register for life or a level three with a 10 year registration period. (RCW 9A.44.140 & 4.24.550)
As for the new international travel notification and waiting period requirement just past(SB-5154-2015), this applies to all registered sex offenders in Washington. It is not narrowed by offense or whether the victim is a minor, and it applies retroactively. As of right now, all registrants in the state have to provide three weeks notice before leaving the country.
Timmr
What is more fraudulent is using statistics to sentence anyone to more restrictions. It is not due process at all or will it ever be. It derives from viewing people as commodities with certain traits determined by the group set, rather than individuals with a choice. 5%? 90%? what relevance is that anyway? When the people start punishing you for someone else's offense, we are at the end of society as we have known it.
There is a simple way to affect adherence to the Bill of Rights and to protect victims of crimes and that is education and awareness and voluntary treatment as is done with alcoholism and other social problems. Registration is not the only answer or even a good answer to achieve legitimate goals. Have other options been tried? Not really. The studies that show the registry has failed should be the main statistic used against the registry. Other measures that promise better results and don't require mangling the wording of the Constitution can and should be applied.
MatthewLL
PK, I am so sorry for what happen to you and understand some of what you are going through. My offense was for a misdemeanor (originally charged with a Class A felony) and in Washington I am not posted on the state web site. I was never outed by the news, so nothing shows up on a google search with my name. So I am fully employed and very thankful for it, but this is not the case for all and it should be.
Even though I am not known as a SO in my community, am fully employed, and only have five more years on the WA registry, I have decided to fight this tooth and nail. The reason is because when it is over in WA it is not over everywhere. The Idaho Supreme Court ruled last year that my offense was one that required registration in Idaho (which is BS) and would make me register for life. So it is never really over even if your state releases you, for some s***hole state will likely require lifetime registration.
There was an appellate decision last year in CA regarding the same Washington State offense, which ruled (in a weird partial publication ruling) that the offender had to register in CA, even though Washington State did not require registration. The case appeared to be terribly represented by plaintiff counsel and was a bad ruling. There did not seem to be a lot of precedent in that ruling and with the right case could get it over turned.
My legal costs are my time, copy expenses, and filing fees, that is it. We can add to the fight without a lot of costs if we work together. Filing complaints in many jurisdictions using the same legal arguments and briefs. Make the state and federal governments spend time and money fighting. They can't force pro se litigants to band together into one case, can they?
PK
"There was a case in NY about this, that almost resembles my case exactly:
Doe vs. O’Donnell 2011"
As a result of the Nichols Case in Kansas, this Doe Plaintiff from NY is moving forward with a Federal Action.
I may enjoin on this, as Doe's circumstances are nearly identical to mine.
Erwin
Matt,
The new law doesn't concern level one sex offenders. The ACLU has done a lot for RSO's in Washington State. There was a push by some legislators to allow level one offenders to be listed on the state public website. The ACLU pushed backed and level 1 offenders will continue to remain anonymous. That is a REALLY BIG DEAL Matthew. And the ACLU should be thanked. You must be a higher level offender. Just because the ACLU couldn't help your cause doesn't mean they haven't helped many others. RSO's have very few allies as it is so don't burn your bridges with organizations that are trying to help. You won't always get exactly what you want but take what you can
AJ
I believe the registration of sex offenders should never have been applied retroactively or first time offenders period. The EX POST FACTO CLAUSE OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION IS CLEAR ON THIS. THE CASE ARGUED BEFORE THE US SUPREME COURT IN 2003 WAS PRESENTED WITH FRAUDULENT STATISTICAL DATA BY THE U S SOLICITOR GENERAL. FALSE EVIDENCE PRESENTED TO THE JUSTICES TO MAKE THIS HORRIBLE DECISION. THIS WILL BE ADDRESSED IN COURT IN THE FUTURE THAT IS A GIVEN.
SCOTUS SAVE US NOW
As long as the judge wants, typically I'd say 30 - 60 days in the federal system
SCOTUS SAVE US NOW
I know for a fact NY is 10 days to register or 30 days total within a year.
Greg
Thank you soooooo much Janice!!!
MatthewLL
Rob is right, just go and don't worry about it. All states have some grace period and I believe NY is 10 days.
PK
Does anyone have any idea about how long an injunction decision should take?
Timmr
Yeah James, maybe we need to move our minds away from the idea that we fight them only when we think we can win and start to fight them because fighting them is the only right thing to do.
James
PK....I know what you are saying...I understand that I am lucky in this regards...but how to help people in your position is a....concern of mine.
What can I do? I don't know yet, but I like what MathewLL did....I wanted to send him kudos even if he loses in May.
More of us need to do this or things...not necessarily you, PK, but others of us...that may in the end help you also.
Best Wishes, James
PK
@James, an RSO aint got that kind of money to file expensive lawsuits. I would imagine most don't even have jobs. How do you figure any RSO would have a decent job with people's pictures plastered all over the Internet as dangerous Child Sex Traffickers?
For my little s*** Misdemeanor for hooking up with someone who was 16 and lied about their age, I will never have a decent job in the United States again. I worked for a large Government Defense Contractor up until 2009. I figured with my skills, switching jobs would be easy. Ha! think again. A simple Google Search tells all about my horrible crime. Whatever! I gave up even trying looking for a decent job in the US long ago. Actually I gave up on the US long ago.
James
I wanted to Commend MatthewLL for filing his own lawsuit...if 850,000 of us did so and maybe associated family members, the system might crash.
The Florida Action Committee Lawsuit also was great....
I also saw when I was traveling some appeal to Civil Disobedience or Protest....Eventually, Yes, I am not sure we have the critical mass yet of members willing to go out on a limb like MathewLL...
But I have been wrong on a lot of stuff, maybe now is the time....so Good on Everyone taking an active and Activist approach to these injustices.
Best Wishes, James
Rob
Jae -
Just go, NY has a longer time in order to register. I go there several times a year, and never stay longer than a week, never had any issue.
The impossible, Became possible
Hay! I noticed your comment. Janice totally is a God send, but their are many lawyers who work to make Parole and life on the Registry easier and Chance Oberstein is also one of them, and countless others it's just praying we come into contacted with a great lawyer who understands what we go through on parole and the registry. I pray things work out it's a lot we go through being registrant. Good luck on your quest friend. Just in case you needed another one of Gods angels to help you with anything now you know 2 Chance Oberstein and Janice Bellucci
Michael
It seems to me that a valid argument against such a mark in one's passport is that the laws across our land, and the world, are very different. For instance, having been convicted of breaking a law in California, it may very well be that my actions would not have been illegal in other states of the U.S., much less in many parts of our world. Therefore, any universal "scarlet letter" such as one included in an international passport, is cruel, and certainly ridiculous.
The impossible, Became possible
I was facing 20 years on parole. I was sentenced to 3 yrs, but a new law had passed. I was told this was it. It could never be over turned. We get so many letters in the mail promising that they can help us. Lies!, but by the grace of God I found Chance Oberstein # 1-949-3656-5842. I'm glad I took a chance On him best money ever spent. Because I'm no longer doing 20 years on parole. He was the only lawyer who knew what he was talking about. So if your looking for a Lawyer who knows what he's talking about I sincerely recommend him. Thanks Mr. Oberstein your honesty, and support was appreciated.
Jae
Hi Janice, I was wondering I live in California and have to travel for work to New York for 3 to 4 days. I'm done with parole but still have to register. Is there anything I have to do legally? Or am I ok to just fly out there do my business and fly back?
Janice Bellucci
Filing a Motion for Preliminary Injunction is not the same as being granted a Motion for Preliminary Injunction. As a result, there is not a "temporary hold" on passport identifiers. Instead, the State Department is moving forward to design a passport identifier and to determine how such an identifier can be affixed to a passport. Only IF the judge grants the injunction will there be a "temporary hold" on passport identifiers.
FedUp
Janice,
So technically if I do not have a current passport, ( I am eligible to get of probation in approx. 6 months, FYI) would you advise applying for a passport immediately since the Motion for Preliminary Injunction that was filed has put a temporary hold on the Identifier? I fear that even with an expedited passport request, it would not be issued before the decision was made, if indeed the motion fails. Asking for your personal opinion of course.
kelnothiding
Concerned Citizen , all of what you just said made my day ! and I too would like see the statistics on the real damage from the punishment , Keep on Keepin on
Janice Bellucci
You've asked a lot of good questions, Catch22, and I will answer the ones with which I feel comfortable. In my personal opinion (not a legal opinion), you did the right thing by getting your passport now. The IML forbids the Secretary of State from issuing new passports without the "unique identifier", but only authorizes the Secretary to revoke existing passports if he/she feels it is necessary. My best guess is that it will take the government a lot longer to revoke existing passports than it will be to add the identifier to new passports. Because the law was signed by the President, it is now technically in effect but it has not yet been implemented because of the Motion for Preliminary Injunction that was filed.
I can't wait to die
Thank You so very very much Janice!!! i wish there would be others with your legal knowledge to join the fight as much as you are. The ACLU should be ashamed, very ashamed that they are not constantly fighting these unjust laws that affect so many! Here in Florida I can't even vote!
Again, Thank you so very very much!!! you are the only hope for so many!!!!
catch22
A little off topic but still relevant to IML . I renewed my Passport early just before I was convicted anticipating something like this , my passport says its good until 2023 did I avoid any trouble here by doing this ? I was convicted of pc 261(a)(4) I have 14 months left on parole and I want to travel after that (no other convictions) Do you think they will ask for the passport back ? I am in Calif would I have to announce my travel plans ? When would this law go into effect ? Are there any other states taking this to court like our RSOL ?
MatthewLL
One of the argument against the Washington State notification and waiting requirement is that it violates equal protection. Visiting sex offenders who are not in Washington long enough do not have to register and therefore are not bound by the requirement. However as a registered sex offender in Washington State, if I am temporarily in a state that does not require notification, or even require me to register for my misdemeanor offense, I still have to give Washnimgton notice before leaving the country form that state.
There are lots of problems with the law, but sadly it will take the appellate court system, perhaps the state Supreme Court to rule to get justice. Elected judges don't always follow the constitution if it is too controversial.
PK
"Why you would be required to register in a state in which you do not reside (given that the whole purpose is strictly to enhance public safety by informing others of your presence in their neighborhood)?"
I've posted the same question several times on this Blog, and no one seems to have a clue.
There was a case in NY about this, that almost resembles my case exactly:
Doe vs. O'Donnell 2011
They say that the Registry has a "Dual Purpose" which includes "keeping track" of RSO's. I've never heard of such a dual purpose, I always was under the impression that it is there to protect the public from those RSO's WHO LIVE AND WORK near those poor petrified and paranoid parents.
"If an RSO moves out of state and is no longer required to register in his new Home State, then 'how in the world would law enforcement be able to keep track of them?'" Basically what they wrote in their opinion.
This was a NY State case, and the Plaintiff has yet to escalate this federally. He was represented by well-known SO Attorney Kathy E. Manley.
Joe
@PK - yes, Washington state, as MatthewLL specifically took the trouble to clarify.... huh?
Why you would be required to register in a state in which you do not reside (given that the whole purpose is strictly to enhance public safety by informing others of your presence in their neighborhood)?
Good question. I would lean toward "perpetual punishment" but SCOTUS tells us that this is not the case.
PK
This is for the State of Washington.
As Janice mentioned, for non-SORNA States, there is no mechanism in place for those RSO’s to provide notification, to anyone for anything. And for those of us who are not required to register in their home state, but still required to register in their conviction state which is non-SORNA state ? No mechanism.
A whole different issue btw: Why force an RSO to register in a state that they no longer live, work, or pay taxes in.
Joe
http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2015-16/Pdf/Bills/Session%20Laws/Senate/5154-S.SL.pdf
Sec. 3 (3) - p.10
5 second google search
Rob
Matthew -
Where do you get your facts? Please give legal citation. If you do not live in a SORNA state, which CA is not, you have no one to give this notification to, and there is no requirement to report. I have travelled out of the country many times and have NEVER told anyone.
MatthewLL
All registered offenders no matter the offense must provide written notice 21 days before leaving the country. In a family emergency, or for "routine" business travel, you can provide a minimum 24 hour in-person advance notice with the county sheriff, providing a written explanation why it was "impractable" to provide 21 days notice. Of course the sheriff registration office keeps bankers hours and is not open weekends. Only one office in my county I can go to.
Need to Know
Many would make the case most liberal circuit in the U.S. This is one of our best shots. DC would also be a good option.
MatthewLL
Here is the relevant section (which refers to all registrants no matter the offense):
(3) Any person required to register under this section who
10 intends to travel outside the United States must provide, by
11 certified mail, with return receipt requested, or in person, signed
12 written notice of the plan to travel outside the country to the
13 county sheriff of the county with whom the person is registered at
14 least twenty-one days prior to travel. The notice shall include the
15 following information: (a) Name; (b) passport number and country; (c)
16 destination; (d) itinerary details including departure and return
17 dates; (e) means of travel; and (f) purpose of travel. If the
18 offender subsequently cancels or postpones travel outside the United
19 States, the offender must notify the county sheriff not later than
20 three days after cancellation or postponement of the intended travel
21 outside the United States or on the departure date provided in the
22 notification, whichever is earlier. The county sheriff shall notify
23 the United States marshals service as soon as practicable after
24 receipt of the notification. In cases of unexpected travel due to
25 family or work emergencies, or for offenders who travel routinely
26 across international borders for work-related purposes, the notice
27 must be submitted in person at least twenty-four hours prior to
28 travel to the sheriff of the county where such offenders are
29 registered with a written explanation of the circumstances that make
30 compliance with this subsection (3) impracticable
Mike
Matthew, I was trying to find the text of SB 5154-2015. What are the cliff notes on this law?
PK
Why do you say that the 9th Circuit is our best bet?
Out of curiosity, does anyone have any idea about a time-frame if this thing were to end up in 9th Circuit Appeals, or even the Supreme Court?
MatthewLL
BTW, the suite filed against Washington State regarding Senate Bill 5154-2015 has been filed in King County Superior Court, not in federal court. Just wanted to clarify it is a case filed in state court.
MatthewLL
If this is the only complaint within the country, best that it was filed in the Ninth Circuit. If we can't create a split that ensures a Supreme Court review, then the Ninth Circuit is our best bet. If some savvy pro se SO wants to file a complaint in another federal district court using the same arguments as Janice is using, it would be hard for the government to force that to be moved (hardship for the plaintiff) and be joined with the current case.
As for other so called civil rights organizations, I won't name names but use their initials (ACLU), they are mostly a waste of time on this subject. In Washington State last year the State pass SB 5154-2015 and imposed a 21 day notification and waiting period requirement for all registrants. I asked the ACLU here to assist but they declined, so I filed action on my own. In my amended complaint I took portions of Janice's arguments and language. We go to trial May 23rd. Over the last six months I failed in getting appellate review for a preliminary injunction and now am fighting a motion for summary judgment and dismissal, which i should win.
This is all happening on a shoestring budget without help from our friends at the ACLU. Even if I make bad law, at least I am fighting something worthy. In five years I am off the registry here anyway, so losing is not the end of the world for me.
Since Janice is doing the heavy lifting here, remember she needs our donations. Give generously, for she looks to be your only hope. God bless that woman, for she is a saint in my eyes.
Concerned citizen
Absolutely. I'm not a lawyer but this admission that they have been institutioning this policy far beyond what was thought opens the window to challenge it in court. One cannot protest or challenge what one does not know exists.
Concerned citizen
You are a very courageous woman and I admire your strength and will. You have given a voice to the voiceless. The pendulum is swinging in the other direction. I wish that other lawyers would join you as this issue goes far beyond the civil liberties of ex-sex offenders in my view. It is a question of the simple undermining of the Constitution of the United States. Another troublesome trend is the implementation of new laws and then applying them ex post facto as they just did last year in one case I have been following. People charged with sex offenses, especially if they are charged in a very public manner in the press, have a very hard time defending themselves because the public shaming and pressure is so great, and the financial demands to pay to defend oneself is prohibitive to anyone not wealthy, they simply fold and take plea deals to stop the torture. I hope that your supporters grow in ranks. Your fight is not only for these men and women unjustly persecuted on the list, but also for the integrity and soul of our nation and our Constitution. Thank you for fighting for all of America.
Concerned citizen
It is swinging back. I was not aware of this issue until late last year. Since then I have spoken to a multitude of people and the vast majority, (in fact only one who believes there should be some sort of list), The vast majority believe that once someone has done their time and probation/parole, the punishment should stop. There should be no list. When they start to realize that this is only the first list in a series of others that would come down the pipeline and soon everyone can be on a list for one reason or another, they start to understand the danger to all of society. I know many of you have suffered for years. You have paid for your crimes and alleged crimes (for public urination is surely not one in my eyes amongst other ludicrous reasons people are put on this list). Do not dishearten. You speak of kook-aid? I read somewhere that a woman who works at a suicide hotline got a multitude of calls from children whose parents are on the list as well as other loved ones and "offenders" themselves. I wish you had data of statistics on this to present for this is real damage and punishment. I will, for my part, continue to spread the message about this list and it's true meaning. To keep feeding the industrial prison complex that is supported by elected officials, DA's, Judges and prosecuting attorneys. To make private prisons profitable they have to be full and sex offenders are the easiest target in my view since they same them into not defending themselves. Fight on. And hold your head high. This will end.
JohnDoeUtah
This case is pretty much the case. because we are challenging federal law, any additional suits filed could be joined with this one. I would not put it past the government to request joinder in this case, so they are not fighting the case case in 5 different locations.
From the date the law was signed, you have three years to sue, so unless this case wraps up in less than three years there is not much chance to create a circuit split.
Lake County
According to this gov website:
http://www.uscourts.gov/services-forms/federal-court-reporting-program
After a federal hearing, transcripts may be obtained after the 90-day period has ended, the filed transcript will be available for inspection and copying in the clerk’s office and for download from the court’s CM/ECF system through the judiciary’s PACER system
Lake County
Thanks to Janice, the pendulum is swinging back. It's just that justice moves very slowly. The fight has only just begun.
New Person
I can't speak for Janice, but I can give my take.
When Smith vs Doe passed, registration isn't a punishment. Technically, there's nothing to be done about it any longer because it's not punishment. You need contrarian proof to prove punishment. One can do that by using recent cases that a state of federal government deems as a punishment, unconstitutional, or both.
Janice, Chance, and the rest of the team has already won with residency restrictions as well as have them deemed unconstitutional under California law, "in re Taylor". (Well, it's unconstitutional for parolees. Hopefully, it will get extended to all registrants.)
And now the IML and passport identifiers, when proven unconstitutional, will provide yet another feather of unconstitutionalities - plural.
"In re Taylor", restrictions were akin to banishment. That's a form of punishment as well as being unconstitutional.
Should Janice and team win the IML case, then that's their second victory, but this time against the federal government. With several Doe's on the case, there are several punishments to be identified, denoted, and to be rule unconstitutional.
IMO, Janice and team are piling up punishments - court supported punishments. And in doing so, bring empirical evidence. That's how "in re Taylor" was ultimately won - on empirical evidence of banishment as 97% of available rental housing was unavailable to registrants on parole.
Similarly, the US government is forcing other countries to banish registrants from travelling to other countries. In fact, one of the Does is no longer a registrant, but will still be banished. Doe 3 is no longer a registrant and does work abroad. That's two strikes against the IML because it directly affects Doe's commerce and is no longer a registrant, but is subjected to the passport identifier and all of the IML other rules.
Courts want evidence. That's how "in re Taylor" was won as it revisited the restrictions as punishment that was first brought up in People vs Mosley. So Janice really is attacking Smith v Doe head on, but from an empirical and constitutional evidentiary aspect. Similar plan to "in re Taylor", but on a much larger scale. Proving the IML is unconstitutional undermines a lot of what Smith v Doe represents - a litany of punishments the government cannot refute as administrative.
American detained in America
we only wish it were so easy
MarkSF
Yes, it would be great to have a transcript of the entire Feb 30 hearing start-to-finish for all to review here.
Also: Aren't there any other federal injunction suits now filed or being filed in U.S. against International Megan's Law (IML)? New York? New Jersey? D.C.? Massachusetts? Florida? Colorado? Oregon? Michigan? Shouldn't there be 30-40 suits filed by now in the U.S. against this?
Aren't there civil and human rights organizations that could and should be filing? What about national ACLU (I know there has been hesitance by ACLU to join in CA reform advocacy – for whatever organizational or personal reasons against RSOL or registrants present and past)?
What about other rights organizations who advocate for registrants present and past and their loved ones all over the U.S.? Not one is stepping up, too, to add volume to the pressure on this federal/international human rights issue?
What about civil and human rights attorneys with federal court experience, and large law schools' civil and constitutional rights programs? There's not even one other federal injunction case brought by anyone with actual federal court experience in the entire country? T
What about those of some wealth who are directly or indirectly affected by such law? Can they fund individual or class-action suits (with aggressive case-argument-experienced federal litigation attorneys) against IML?
If this sole case is the only one in the U.S. – and others are standing-by, likely for years, awaiting decisions and outcomes from this one case – what opportunities for reform are being missed?
Asking these questions is to press for others with direct federal case experience to join in, not necessarily question or fault others who've stepped forward in good faith to help.
MarkSF
Be great to have a transcript of the entire Feb 30 hearing for all to review here.
Wayne
I don't know what relieves this might have but I fall under exclusion privilage from the public websit as my record as been exsupuged have applied for a pardon from 290 registration requirement as well but as my victim was a minor, I have very little hope this will ever happen, and to stress me out worse this could change as there is a bill in committy this month trying to elimate this exclusion privilage. if this happens my life will be over. I know US customs aware i am a RSO, as I am sent to secondary every time I cross the boarder. I have faith that the IML will be revised but my believe it's never going away as this is just the beging, my believe is the federal government wants to track all people's movement between our states and our countries boards.
We are easy targets to start this process and to profect the means to do so. Welcome to the new world order
kelnothinding
Thank You Janice for the great job your doing , in many ways I see this up hill fight as a good thing in small as well as large ways, like my oldest son , just went out and got a small part time job on top of his main job , just so he could afford to give me more money to send in for this very worth while fight , I feel so proud of him , its like he just opened his eyes thank you Janice , and thanks to everyone that gives ther time and hard earned money , thanks to all of the people that leave comments , because it helps me understand so much better as well as so many others just want to here another voice besides there own
David H
The government could put up any nit-wit to argue this issue because they believe anything wont be seriously challenged. You send an idiot when you're certain you have nothing to lose; had they sent their star attorney I'd been impressed
David H
Was your case involving a minor?
David H
All the status quo tells me is now we know why people are being banned from countries--We didn't know that before nor could we challenge it if we didn't know!
David H
Could be they're watching... some good lessons can be learned here! And that's right, I think there have been intentionally ill prepared cases brought forth over the years to build this rotten foundation we have
Timmr
I do not unfortunately recall the exact dialogue. And I have been out camping for the last few days making the most of a long drive. My mind doesn't have that sort of memory for dialogue. I would like to have recorded the session and don't take notes fast enough. That being said, my impressions were that the judge was much less happy with the answers of the government's lawyer, and cut her off tersely in the middle of making one last point. She had basically been reading off the government position already on record. I remember the judge asking "are you finished, yet?" Yes she was a little patronizing and doubtful with both sides. Maybe it was her way of keeping a impartial posture. I love to have a transcript to refresh my memory. I remember much better the actual body language of the participants. The government lawyer came off weak, even stuttering at some points. I got the impression she was an newby to all this. Janice came off very strong in the end and actually made at least a couple of people say "yes!" at the last remark. The judge had mentioned many times that there were laws already backing up the travel notifications. She kept asking Janice questions along the line of what was different between what is happening now and what will happen with the IML. Seemed to be her main point of questioning. When Janice mentioned that there were no laws backing up the present program, it seemed to undercut the whole basis of the questioning. Nor did the government defense jump in and mention at least one law that authorized what they had been doing.
Tuna
This is great to hear. Exactly the kind of on-site info we need. Thank you.
PK
Timmr, did the Judge ask the same tough questions of the Government Attorney?
Timmr
Janice, glad to have the opportunity to watch you at work. The judge did have some tough questions, but what made the day was at the very end. She had spoken all through the hearing as if there were laws already in place that justified the present notifications, and therefore IML was just a continuance of those laws. One could see she was taken back when you mentioned you didn't believe there were any laws to justify what they are doing. She began quickly shuffling through her papers as if to find that law and couldn't. Check.
Janice Bellucci
Please do not confuse the Motion and the Case In Chief. The status quo is a factor in the Motion, but not in the Case In Chief. We have contested and will continue to contest whether the government had the authority for Operation Angel Watch which the government now admits they have conducted since 2007. Stated simply, the government cannot continue a program that violated the Constitution.
James
Everybody needs to step back and take a deep breath...
I know you are injured, hurt and worn down by the daily grind of what an unfair system is imposing on you...
But it is not like you have a choice this damned thing. If there were any way we could walk away from this we would...
But we can't....and oddly, this is our strength...we have to endure, fight the good fight, keep the faith, (especially in each other), and work towards a better day.
None of here would mind, I think, a fair hearing on each of our current individual circumstances....if my society gave me a fair hearing as to my danger...and there was an independent determination that I needed to be on this list...I think each of us would accept this.
If our society dealt with us fairly, justly, I suspect that it would be a very small registry that was left.
And maybe that list would do some good...again, treating the members of this disfavored class fairly...yes, this is a Registry I could support.
Until then, this current battle is just one of many to come...but this one still has to be fought.
I think it is going well.
But I know that pushing rocks uphill is always a difficult task...
And I thank Janice and her support staff more than they can know.
I want them to sleep well...they are truly, though it seems odd to say this, doing God's work....trying to bring a little Justice to this poor world.
I am with you all the way.
Good Luck to everyone...remember, our job, (and as I like to think, the best revenge), is living as good and full and loving a Life as possible,
If we do that...and support Janice, we will be fine.
Best Wishes, James
Jeffrey McBride
Janice,
With the passage of the IML, the spectre of the scarlet letter being added to our passports that will no doubt further discriminate RSO's from traveling freely abroad; residency and presence restrictions being introduced annually at every state legislative proceeding; background checks becoming a routine requirement to rent a hotel room, let alone an apartment and in obtaining a home mortgage; in addition to proliferating in the employment screening out process and at every layer of local, state and federal lawmaking is the constant addition of barrier after barrier to mere survival in the United States...
... I am wondering: wouldn't it be more prudent to attack the head of the monster, Smith v. Doe, and concentrate on quashing the antiquated Supreme Court decision that sex offender registration is merely regulatory and non-punitive in nature, rather than going after one of the monster's many limbs?
Do you think we have enough evidence and/or resources, pooled nationally, that the Ex Post Facto Clause and/or the 1st, 4th. 5th, 8th, 13th or 14th Amendments are being violated to build a persuasive argument and take it to the Justices now?
I would be most interested to hear your opinion; and that of other scholars,lawyers and laymen; and from especially those who would be willing to be a plaintiff, like myself, should a federal civil rights complaint be raised against the burden Smith v. Doe so tacitly dismisses as "no more onerous than applying for a Price Club membership?"
I am ready to lend my name to that lawsuit today, simply from how my privacy has been totally obliterated allowing my identity to be stolen from being publicly identifiable on Megan's Law.
Lake County
Tuna, if you don't think Janice is doing a great job, you are free to hire an attorney and fight this or any other 290 issues on your own. Just because Janice files a lawsuit for her clients, doesn't mean that anyone else can't do the same. If you have the ability to file your own lawsuit, please do. I assume since you're being critical, that you have at least sent your financial donation to do your part.
Harry
"...the pendulum is swinging back”. Citizen of the world, these “authorities" are correct. I have been in this 'sand trap' for 28 years and it was not until recently RCs started to get real legal support, we've hardly seen pro-RC articles, which, are now popping up more frequently and more courts have started to respond more favorable toward RC causes. Yes, there is along ways to go, however, favorable sand is moving.
Harry
As, I posted on another thread, on this site, this lawsuit is the first real opportunity for the facts and the truth of RC issues and the registry being aired in the mainstream, which, will expose the lying egg on many peoples faces and these peoples will fight to keeps these lies a float, at all cost. We have already a victory. because, every time Janice and team enters a court room, truth will get the spot light. Good job Janice, I got your back in this war.
Wayne
I have a question more then a commit as a RSO l living in tijuan Mexico and Married to a Mexican Nationals, I also keep a residence in California to keep my registration current. I work in the US and cross three times a week. I have applied for my Mexico resendece visa and have starting the process for the Adams act waver. All this said, how do I comply with the notication at this juncture.
Note
As of to date I have not been stop by Mexico custom Or has US customs said anything to me. If anyone has any information it would be appreciated greatly.
Stressed out
PK
The same kind of logic would imply that in an unannounced series of government actions, the police have been forcing RSO's to forfeit their bank accounts for years. Since they've been doing that without any legal basis, and not telling anyone, they should be allowed to continue to do that, because it's the status quo.
The passport provision is especially horrendous for any RSO who already lives outside of the United States, but still needs to return to the US periodically for medical treatment (since the US is the only country who has advanced treatment for things). So does he risk having his passport stolen by the CBP, and probably not be able to return to his new foreign homeland? Or does he risk dying due to lack of medical treatment, because he doesn't want to take the chance to return to the United States and become a virtual prisoner?
PK
I haven't seen many people talking about that. I'm wondering if the Judge asked the same type of challenging questions to the Government Attorney.
I wish Janice had more help with this. There was supposed to be a Law Firm in DC involved in opposing this Law. They interviewed me as a potential Plaintiff, and indicated that they were considering filing their own action in DC Superior Court. They said that sex offense types of cases are "sort of on the fringes" of the types of cases that they represent. Nevertheless, I haven't seen any such action from them.
Mike
The status quo as far as the notifications are concerned, was an unannounced series of government actions. The status quo was a sneak attack. If it had been announced prior to its implementation, perhaps there would have been a legal response. For the judge to say, that it was the status quo, and thus should continue does not smell right. If allowed, then any government action, once started is the status quo and should be allowed.
The notifications are much worse than the passport identifier, even though the identifier is horrendous.
Tuna
it left that impression, at least with me. and i would love to be wrong, believe me. would love to see a transcript so we can see the entire proceedings.
PK
I don't think Janice was implying that she stumbled on the 2 questions.
Lake County
Thank you Janice, thanks also to all those that attended the hearing and thanks to those who were able to donate.
Tuna
I'm sorry, and I appreciate all Janice is doing, but the two reported questions, should have been easily anticipated. The question about who would see the marker, although incredibly stupid on the judge's part, had been discussed here and I believe in the brief, although I have to go back and read it. With respect to the notification provision, I recall posts where it was stated that a decision where the judge allowed notifications to continue would be the 'status quo' and thus likely, clearly indicates the likelihood of a question on this issue.
Citizen of the world
I hear from my therapist, my legal counsel, and other "authorities" that " the pendulum is swinging back". And that ,"the public and others are seeing the injustice!". Really? Don't see it happening. I think the people holding the cards would be happy only when we pull a "JonesTown" . What flavor Kool-aid is everyone's favorite?
Frank
Thank You for everything you are doing for us Janice!
David
Many thanks to Janice! And while we are anxiously awaiting the judge's decision, let us be very thankful for who is on our side: CARSOL and Janice Bellucci, defender of civil liberties extraordinaire!
Jason
I got in trouble in 1998 when I was 21 years old for statutory rape. I did 5 years in prison and five years on probation. I am now 39 years old and have been off probation for 10 years. I own my own business and am a tax paying law abiding citizen with a family. Now I am hearing that a represenitive from New Jersey wants to pull my passport and mark it with a Scarlet Letter out of the blue. I feel the judge will see that this is wrong and uncostitutional and will give us the injunction and overall we will win this fight. Again I have been off probation 10 years and own my own business and now they want to call me in and mark my passmark? No judge will stand for this.This needs to be heard under regular circumstances and not suspended rules....This is wrong and the Judge will show that the system does not work like this(UNDER SUSPENSION)..............Thank you Janice. EX POST FACTO
Janice's Journal: The Calm Before the Storm
Published Date : March 18, 2016
It is the calm before the storm. We have filed our final document in support of a Motion for Preliminary Injunction and we are awaiting an opportunity to explain in court why the federal government should not add “conspicuous unique identifiers” to the passports of American citizens and to notify foreign governments that American citizens are coming to visit.
It is perfectly obvious to many that the federal government should not brand its citizens by adding a “Scarlet Letter” to their passports. Even though the International Megan’s Law authorizes them to do so. Because doing so falsely identifies those citizens as people who have engaged in, or are likely to engage in, child sex trafficking or child sex tourism.
We must explain in court that the federal government has never in the history of this country added any type of identifier to the passports of American citizens. And we must explain that the only countries that have added such identifiers were Nazi Germany and Communist Russia.
It is also perfectly obvious to many that the federal government should not notify foreign governments that American citizens – even citizens declared to be “rehabilitated” and removed from their state registry — are coming to visit. Because very few, if any, of these citizens have ever engaged in, or will engage in, child sex trafficking or child sex tourism.
Why must we appear on March 30 to state the obvious? Because the U.S. Congress and the U.S. President have struck a crushing blow to the U.S. Constitution by eliminating the protections of that document to hundreds of thousands of its citizens.
Join us on March 30 to state the obvious.
***
Read all of Janice’s Journals
Comments
David
I feel the same way Frank. I'm almost fifty years old now and I remember first getting on this registry when they decided to post my picture on it. It was just a name and address before. Now 15 years later it has grown way beyond what it started off as.
What on earth am I suppose to do when I get elderly and they are running around handing flyers of me out? This is insane! After a few decades I think it's time to let people move on.
Timmr
How many women and children were also raped in the chaos caused by that unfounded war? Whoever voted for it is responsible for the misery caused there. If there is such a place, Chris Smith can not Megan's Law himself a place in Eternal paradise.
J. Guerrieri
How can the court say that the only persons seeing the identifier on the passport will be that country's border agents? When traveling in a foreign country you are subject to be asked to show a copy of your passport for banking transactions, hotel check-in, stopped by local police for driving infractions, etc. I hope that there is a chance to address that reality before a final decision is made by the court.
Joe
More disturbingly, this bill was created and relentlessly promoted by Rep. Smith, the same great protector of children in foreign lands, who not only voted for but co-sponsored H.J.Res. 114 - the "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002".
As was suspected then and is confirmed now, this military action was based on faulty data or, for lack of better words, lies.
Exactly how many children have been killed(!) directly by this action remains unclear as "we do not do body counts".
Below is a brief summary of the direct and indirect long term and short term consequences for the children of the region.
Yet Rep. Smith is bound and determined to save that one underage prostitute or even a 15 year old above the age of consent. How does he sleep at night?
-------
A survey published in January 2008, conducted in August and September 2007 by Opinion Research Business, a British polling firm, in conjunction with Iraq’s Independent Institute for Administration and Civil Society Studies found that about 20% of households surveyed had lost at least one member, and estimated that 1.03 million people had died in the war with a 95% certainty for a number of deaths between 946,000 and 1.12 million.
The deaths of so many men, women and children have had an enormous impact on Iraqi society. According to the Iraqi government,around 4.5 million children have lost one or both parents (almost 1 in 3) and approximately 600 000 children are living on the streets. Child labour has increased with 15% of children under the age of 14 now working. There are now between 1 and 3 million widows in Iraq, many struggling as heads of households and living in extreme poverty.
In 2012 102 children were killed and 310 injured in the violence.
http://childvictimsofwar.org.uk/get-informed/iraq/
Trying to live a better life
The fact that this was signed by a president who has killed hundreds of children with his drones as part of his Muslim genocide, and supported by a Congress that lets children die and be abused everyday through the lack of health care or secure housing just shows this bill is a piece of hypocritical crap.
Good luck in court today Janice. Sorry I can't be there to support you. I'm living in exile after constant harassment by US border agents even though I haven't offended for 19 years and am not listed on the registry for a misdemeanor.
steve
R. Karl Hanson
Tim
Hey does anyone know that study (has Link) that concluded that RSOs which have not reoffended in 16 years are at no higher risk then those who haven’t offended.
Do you Know the guy behind it?
All I know is it is some guy out of ASU but cant find it.
Thanks
greg
We have strength in numbers!!! NO matter what the outcome on the 30th let us not forget.. we must grow our numbers to defeat this madness.
is it not possible... for each of us on here to start a grassroots campaign to get more RSOs involved>>> I mean, look on each states registry, send an annuomus letter to 3 people u pick, telling them about this site.. tell them to tell everyone they know...
we MUST grown our numbers!!!
Ive did my time,my parole, my treatment, NOW, i just want to be free.
David Kennerly
Well, she would, wouldn't she? Lots of people were falling all over themselves to create distance from positions they had held before the war.
The truth is that eugenics was an enormously popular element of a whole slew of authoritarian impulses that had taken hold in the Progressive Era. That was a period in which individual liberty greatly suffered in the face of a rising authoritarianism said to be scientifically informed and enlightened.
It was a period in which the Ku Klux Klan could be counted a reliable ally of U.S. Presidents and women's rights, alike. Prohibition, anti-miscegenation laws, restrictions on Jewish, Chinese, Italian and Eastern European immigration (our first immigration quotas), anti-child labor, anti-masturbation campaigns for boys and girls, social purity drives, the recently acquired habit of government proscription of all narcotics, the income tax, the U.S. entry into the Great War (not to mention the horrendous injustices of U.S. occupations of Hawaii and the Philippines), Jim Crow laws in the South and racially restrictive real estate covenants in the North were all part-and-parcel of a new era of an expansive government and fewer individual liberties.
Hitler was inspired by America's slide into fascism and despotism, not repelled by it.
Sure, Margaret Sanger may well have been a moderate along the continuum of America's experiment in fascism but she was on it.
In my opinion, America has never gotten off of that continuum. We're on it still.
Timmr
Probably not the best example. I don't think she was ever for forced sterilization. Eugenics basically fell to the wayside as a movement in the United States after the war, but I believe its offspring, social eugenics, or labeling undesirables and basically excluding them from society, is reappearing today in this registry movement.
anonymously
Timmr said "True, the model for the Nazi mass sterilizations came from the advocacy of Eugenicists like Margaret Sanger in the US and laws passed during the teens and twenties of the last century."
Once Margaret Sanger, who founded Planned Parenthood, found out about the Holocaust and saw the consequences of it, she rejected her past views supporting eugenics. She was disgusted by the Holocaust. Chris Smith, borrowing Nazi-like ideas from Hitler's playbook, seems inspired by it.
Timmr
As I heard Janice's statement, the periphery argument may be the only argument that will win, at least for the injection phase. One point gained in the beginning is better than no points, and will gain the plaintiffs arguments some legitimacy. The passport identifier is a new thing that has not been tried before, at least here in the US, so therefore a justification, both politically and legally, for the judge to stop it, pending further review of its legality.
Your arguments make perfect sense to me otherwise as the layman I am.
Timmr
True, the model for the Nazi mass sterilizations came from the advocacy of Eugenicists like Margaret Sanger in the US and laws passed during the teens and twenties of the last century. Indeed, the Supreme Court decision, Buck vs Bell, that upheld the forced sterilization of a women deemed an "imbecile" still stands. Along those lines, I think we are now being socially euthanized with all these exclusion laws. Extermination of the undesirables has been with us a long time. Look at the extermination, both of the bodies and the culture of the indigenous peoples that culminated in Wounded Knee.
ProvenU Wrong >23yrs
And I Completely & In your Face Disagree with you (p??k).
There are issues that need to be addressed. You surely don't understand so keep doing as you're told...you surely understand that. Have a nice day.
James
You know, Anonymous Nobody, you might want to get a passport right now...this thing will be tied up in the Courts for a long time, (I think), and while there are places you can't go, there will be places you can.
And it is good for 10 years, or until they confiscate it, (as I expect to happen to mine, which expires next year anyhow). I sense that I can do some traveling now, (being on this board forced me to call my registration agency...something I don't like to do, but was favorable in this instance).
On the other hand, if this Lawsuit works out well, then you will be happy to have it.
On writing the above, I am not sure I should post this....but I assume that you will read this in the spirit given.
Maybe also a general question...has anyone filed a Freedom of Information Act on themselves with the US Marshal?
I pushed my application for the Global Entry program awfully hard...(denied), ...and they were very stingy with information.
I think this is something I need to fire up again and I was curious how this went for anyone else.
Best Wishes, James
PK
Hi, sorry I got confused. I only use my passport for when I travel internationally, not for the checkpoints you are referring to "here in America".
PK
What are you talking about?
Mike r
Also what about that motion filed by Janice about megans law website doesn't provide all the info that it is required by law?
Mike r
I have to agree with anonymous although i completely support janice and team the real issue here is the notificationnotification and the self reporting that we all have to do of our inteneriary and god only knows what else because all these laws are so ambiguous and over broad that even judges lawyers and law professionals have a hard time understanding them and their requirements. Does anyone know what is happening with the WAR motion thatcwas supposed to be filed last fall?
David Kennerly
There has also been an RFID chip in U.S. passports since 2006 (nearly ten years now, the duration of a passport so now almost all passport-holders have this). This can have all sorts of information embedded within it such as NCIC (National Crime Information Center) numbers, FBI numbers, etc. along with links to Internet-accessible databases.
These can be read from several feet away without physical contact.
Mike
There are a number of things that we need to do. We need to get as many RC's in local groups as well as the RSOL. Then in a systematic way, we need to raise as much money as we can, not just for legal measures, but maybe more importantly to hire a PR firm and start campaigns to raise awareness of the draconian measures now used in this country. If 60 Minutes did a show would raise awareness. I truly wish I had a solution to lessen the media induced fear that in a large measure, triggers these legislative remedies. I realize the fact that we are severely impoverished, dampens our ability to raise funds, but it is an absolute necessity. If we were in contact with more RC's and their families, even $5 or $10 a month would go a long way to funding more of our objectives.
Anonymous Nobody
That notice is a separate thing from the record being sent. That notice obviously has to be stopped-- even aside from its constitutionality, what has been reported at the Website for what the notice says is flat out prima facie libel, libel on its face. But that notice is for only the select offenses listed. But the record will be sent for all registrants, although not all will have it accompanied by that additional notice.
The Federal government does not have the record - they stopped holding those records years ago. They will be notifying the state about your travel and getting the record from your state. The law also calls for the feds to notify the agency or agencies with whom you register.
As for the passport for domestic air travel, you are presuming California will update. It has known this requirement and deadline for more than a decade, and here we are coming up to the last minute and California is NOT doing anything to update its driver's licenses. It remains to be seen if it will get it done or not. I don't know what the updating requires, so maybe California has a good reason to oppose it, who knows.
Anonymous Nobody
I wasn't reminding of checkpoints in foreign countries. It is making more checkpoints here in America by notifying your local police department where you register and notifying the state to send over your record, which of course they will review first and consider, both when you apply for a passport and also any time you seek to use it.
Actually, I am not clueless; I have a LOT of law background.
Anonymous Nobody
Thank you David. But as far as no notification going but the mark remains, any defeat of the notification via sending the record would have to also apply to notification by mark. But not the reverse.
As for secondary ID, I have never had a situation where a simply credit card would not serve as sufficient secondary ID, the passport is not needed,
Americans do not even need to have one until they leave the country. I don't even have a passport, but I wanted to get one NOW to fulfill a decades long promise to visit some old friends overseas. Now I can't -- and have to try to explain to them something I dare not mention.
Nonetheless, I do not WANT a mark on anyone's passport. I'm talking about priorities and getting to the point of this issue, not focusing on the periphery. The mark is not acceptable, but the other points are far and away more important. And to apparently make our top priority being this mark rather than the more seriously damaging things is -- it communicates that the mark is all we care about. It gives the OK to the rest and to build more bureaucracy against us -- and once you build a bureaucracy, you will NEVER be able to get rid of it -- and more checkpoints of our status and compliance, and that will only be used to harass us.
Rob
For all the thing we say about Nazi Germany and the holocaust and how we are better then them and something like that could never happen here, I take it with a grain of salt. A large portion of the population before Germany attacked England and France supported the Nazi’s. As a country we could have saved the lives of many more jewish, gypsies and other undesirables. Instead we only let in small percentage of Jewish people into this country and of those people, they were people who offered something to the U.S or had money to pay there way in. We denied entry to most jews during world war 2. With the jewish people allowed into this country many towns where they resided did not welcome there presence.
As a country we often hold ourselves to generous standard of openness and of personal freedom but we give ourselves to much credit. From the Native Americans, slaves both african and Chinese, jewish people, Japanese, women’s rights, gays, immigrants from european countries and now Mexicans and muslims we have discriminated against almost everyone. Am I surprised that RSO’s are being treated this way? absolutely not, people that are shocked America could do this, just have to look at history which isn’t that old.
steve
Jakub,
Excellent read
http://harvardcrcl.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/435-4821.pdf
Concerned Citizen
Your courage and perseverance is a powerful light in the darkness that has been caste upon this group of people and their family and friends who spend every day, every minute, living with this condemnation. I have spoken with many people around me about this law and how this registry works and I can assure you that once they understand the implications of it, they too are outraged. At the rate this registry grows, American will have over 1 million very shortly and will go far beyond it if it is not stopped. Once someone has paid for their crime it should be over. Period. As I stated before, ALL of my friends and family who are not effected by this directly feel exactly the same way. I now warn my friends with teenage sons to sit down and have a long talk with them about the laws in California for they too can be condemned for life. These mothers of sons also want change. We are not Nazi Germany...yet. I will be there with you in spirit and solidarity and burn a candle bright for your victory. Thank you for fighting for these men and women Janice.
Jakub
I am in your corner too Janice. Praying for you and all stakeholders. Thank for doing this for all of us!
I have a question and two comments:
On 30 March, is this a day for arguing the case, or just the day the judges decision will be declared?
What is interesting, as I am personally knowledgeable about this, is the bar code at the bottom of the data page in my passport-has a specific code that alerts ICE to some special status. Each and every time I enter the US from abroad, I go through secondary inspection. The US shares its database with a couple of countries like the UK and Canada, I believe.
I encourage you all to read some legal reviews by Law Professor Corey Yung, Univ. of Kansas https://law.ku.edu/yung because he wrote a great piece (in 2010), about the criminal war on sex offenders.
MatthewLL
JA Washington State:
I too am in Washingtn, King County, and looking for others in the state or area. Please email me if you want to chat. I have a legal case going on right now regarding SB 5154-2015 dealing with State international travel notification requirements.
[email protected]
MatthewLL
Harry
The one positive thing about this is it is the first real stage for the facts and truth about RCs to preform. This is the first light exposing the deceptive deeds of the US Government and the 'so-called' pro-victim leeches. The Ca-RSOL is an army and all RCs/family/friends are drafted and have a divine role to play. Yes! We will see hand-to-hand combat and there maybe some casualties, however, we have only the option of getting up on our knees and feet and engage the next battle. Our mighty pen, voice and check book are the weapons we have. Retreating is not allowed.
Joe Shmo
The PI will be decided for sure. But I think Scotus might be confusing the PI Motion with the case against IML on merits which won't be decided on March 30 (pretty sure it will not even be heard on that date).
Frank
We are grateful for what you are doing. Thank You
James
Really...This is a Long Game.
I know that people are a little on edge, and rightfully so, their lives are being harmed, and they would like to see this stop or be stopped.
But time and chance happens to everyone and everything...lawsuits are like life itself, they take odd turns, there are twists, things work out well despite our worse self destructive efforts, or badly, no matter how hard we try to make things turn in a proper direction.
If there is no ruling...while the Judge ponders, don't be upset.
If there is an adverse ruling, don't be too furious, there will be an appeal and an ever sharpening of the Record that is being developed.
If there is a favorable ruling, even written on sheets of gold with impeccable logic, the Government will appeal.
Be patient, be brave, be a better person...don't let these bastards defeat you...turn your face up into the sun and smile at everyone...that pure open green valley is just over the next rise.
And if it is not you are still a better person...
I know that this is a hard-hard road for many people here...unbelievably difficult...turn the other cheek, be the better person.
I am sorry for your trouble...but in time, with patience, the world will be tending to a better place.
(See England insisting that every Registrant be actually interviewed and evaluated...Now that might be fair...The Tiered System would work better for me...but if they are going to brand and cage us...the least a Just Society could do would be grant me a Hearing!)
Now.
Yesterday.
Justice would not be too bad a thing to have.
Best Wishes, James
Janice Bellucci
What I remember saying is that it is more likely the judge will grant our request for a Preliminary Injunction for the passport identifiers because doing so will maintain the status quo. By comparison, the status quo with regarding to notifications is to allow them to continue. Please know that we will be making our best arguments on both issues on March 30 and no matter what happens on that day, the case will continue.
Frank
Mike- None of it makes any sense. I used to love California. I owned a home and loved to work there, live there and enjoyed salt water fishing and going to the beach. In 2001 I opened up a map and a big red dot was hovering over my home.
One week later I put my home on the market and got the F*** out of California.
Every new law that is passed is ex post facto punishment on us.
I worry that someday the powers that be will pass a law placing us all in a gas chamber. Not for the newly convicted, but for all of us. That's how all of the new laws are enforced. What a country we live in?
PK
I think that Janice pointed to a worse-case scenario in what could or could not happen.
Mike
I have read some comments where Janice was alleged to have said that the notifications would likely stand, with much dismay. The green notice is a critical part of being denied into a foreign country and who can blame the foreign country? For the government to be able to send a notice that a registrant is "likely to commit a crime" in their country should trigger a denial. For that part of this law to be legal is beyond reason. No due process, only a notification that is not based on fact. Can someone with a legal mind explain how a court of justice can permit something so arbitrary and capricious?
The identifier is bad, the notifications are the meat of the law. 21 days prior notice is arbitrary, where does that come from? It seems as if we are sheep. The government can kick the crap out of us with ever increasing severity and we just take it.
Terry
I agree with PK. When you travel you get asked for your passport all the time...not just when you enter the country. For a customs agent to get an Angel Watch notice and decide whether to let you in his country...that's bad enough, but a one time thing. To have every cop, hotel manager, ticket agent, museum worker, and admitting nurse know you are a sex offender, is hell on earth!
And no offence, Anonymous, but when you lead the charge in a Federal case at the cost of several hundred thousand dollars, I'm sure we will all sing your praises, and stand behind you. Until then, maybe you could just enjoy the free ride!
I too wish we weren't such a revenge seeking "Christian" nation. I have long felt that public access to criminal records is akin to a life sentence...background checks for housing, employment, government contracts, licensing, etc. is brutal and unfair. Cops shooting to death a naked screaming guy with a knife who doesn't know what planet he lives on, is brutal treatment of the mentally ill. If Janice could expand her law suit to include these issues, I would be incredibly happy. But we fight the war one battle at a time, and this is a very important battle. So, for now, Janice is my hero!
rob
Anonymous nobody,
The injunction is not just going after just the unique identifier but also the notifications that are being sent, from what I gather. A main part of the lawsuit is the fact that after you do not have to register, you will still have notification’s sent. Janice i believe is addressing this.
The case will certainly go beyond an injunction. This is just to have them stop the train from running. This case will be decided in the courts one way or another.
A passport will not be required to travel domestically in two years. There are about 4 states that are not in compliance with the updated licenses. They will certainly be updated by the time the requirement goes into effect and if not then i’m sure the government would extend the timeline. Almost all states have the Real ID in place.
PK
I think you are a little clueless. You are not supposed to have a broad injunction. In fact, the law firm in DC only wanted to consider filing a lawsuit against the passport provision and nothing else. Also, you don't need to remind us that the notification is extending the check-points to other foreign countries- we get that.
Anyway, I completely disagree that this injunction and associated lawsuit is a "half measure".
Moderator
We did not and never have censored your comments for pointing out weaknesses in any course of action undertaken. Your comments are always thoughtful and substantive, so we are not sure what happened. Perhaps they got stuck in the spam folder (this sometimes happens and while we try to review and revive the incorrectly quarantined submissions sometimes they do not).
As a rule we recommend composing comments off-line and pasting them into the comments form here, just in case. ***Moderator***
David H
I have to disagree with you on the marking part of your post while agreeing with much of the rest.
A passport is a legal form of ID and in cases here in the US could be used as a secondary form of government ID. In those instances, I do not want sex offender on my passport. Furthermore, when I do travel and a country does allow me to enter I again dont want sex offender on my passport. Last should I ever be lucky enough to transit through a country and destination without notification I do not again want sex offender on my passport
marking the passport is Hugh!
Anonymous Nobody
I an offended that for yet another time, I am being censored here when posting. Again, you have withheld my post from the forum, although nothing in it was improper, it was simply pointing out the weaknesses. Perhaps you don't want the other readers to know about the weaknesses.
In abbreviated form:
To get an injunction against a mark on the passport is a 100% waste of time, it accomplishes absolutely zero. The problem here is not a mark that serves only to backup the information being sent anyway. The problem is that anything is being done at all for people no longer in custody (parole is custody), for people whose rights are supposed to already be restored, or otherwise supposedly have no restrictions on their travel. Even without a mark on the passport, your record is being sent, and that is what will bar you from entering another country, not the irrelevant mark on the passport. In fact, I would suggest it might have been strategically put in the law to distract any challengers to focusing on it instead of on the more serious core of the matter.
The injunction is going after the superficial, and letting the substance remain. Nothing of this bill is acceptable, and what this injunction is not addressing is far, far more serious than a mark on the passport. The mark on the passport is NOT the significant thing here, it is merely the most obvious.
More significant is that this is making yet another major checkpoint for registrants by running deep background checks on all registrants, by notifying their locale where they register that they are traveling or that they are applying for a passport, by notifying the state they are in and any other state where they might have a record (thee only way the feds can get a criminal record is from the states - the FBI no longer holds criminal records, they instead have only an index to lead them to the state). And as with any record check, you should realize it will include taking a close look and seeing if they can trip you up on anything and maybe even send you to prison. It is even setting up all registrants for automatic harassment at the US border. This law is NOT limited only to the registrants about whom an additional notice will be sent telling the receiving country that you are traveling to their country for the purpose of committing a sex offense. This is additionally sending info on ALL registrants, not just those previously convicted of the offenses for which that extra notice is sent. They are not simply looking at some federal list of all people registered; they are going for the full criminal record and THEY will decide who should be registering and will send along their record.
This law is extending the checkpoint from beyond when you travel to even simply when you apply for a passport. And mind you, there is the possibility that in two years, Californians might need a passport simply to fly domestic! Yes, because our driver's licenses have not been raised to the standard that will be required by the federal government in two years in order to board a plane for even a domestic flight, a passport would have to be obtained instead, and subject us to the checkpoint simply for that.
This is INTENSE scrutiny, and intense scrutiny must raise the court consideration to a much higher level of review. In fact, intense scrutiny can make all the difference to whether it is insignificant or rises to the level of punishment. (In fact, this is an additional reason when compliance checks would be illegal.)
We keep doing this with various things, doing half measures that fail to get at the core and fail to say none of this is acceptable, instead say only this one little item is bad, we feel the rest is legitimate. We keep going at the periphery and leaving the heart and core of the horror intact.
It is not too late to amend that filing to expend its reach. To go after simply the mark on the passport will only undermine us, as that is the only thing the media and others understand. Once that is gone, the rest will not be touchable by us.
PK
Sorry, but it looks like you have been misinformed.
According to several phone conferences held by Janice, this Preliminary Injunction WILL BE decided on March 30th.
vox clamantis
Thank you Janice. We wish you success. Meanwhile, as a registrant who travels frequently I am contemplating Plan B.
First, I have obtained a Real ID driver's license from my State which will allow me to pass land and sea border crossings into the U.S. without a scarlet letter passport. I urge other registrants to do likewise.
Second, I am considering whether I can affix an unobtrusive removable sticker over the scarlet letter (whatever it may be) on my passport without violating the applicable statute against defacing United States' property. If nothing else, it will allow me to make a statement that the State Department has already defaced my passport worse than I ever could.
SCOTUS WAKE UP
March 30th it will be argue - It won't be decided most likely for several days/weeks/months.
Justice Advocate Washington State
Regarding the fitness of Representative Chris Smith to push through HR 515... "A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing." He's not connecting the dots in his speech to Congress...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHepol0MS6A
He's making an assumption that RSO's are the cause of child exploitation when as shown above and by so many other studies, the fraction is far less than 1%. Listen to Rep. Smith speak and you can sense the inefficiency of our judicial and congressional systems. Such misdirected efforts hurt and completely evade the core and substance of exploitation... and sadly delays forward progress. Frustrating!
David H
Anonymous-- thanks for proving my math...
Incredible isn't it??? in any other matter they would incessantly apply equation upon equation to prove their point. But in our case they cannot prove their twisted beliefs with numbers. There just isn't any logical or credible way for them to come up with their conclusions, except that they conclude out of fear and hate!!
anonymously
David H writes “the .0063% is probably as low a rate then as compared to the American population as whole: in other words, take all US citizens and divide that by the number of global sex tourism cases; and I bet the subset sex-offender is no higher then all American passport holders; they keep getting their math wrong with us!!”
lets compare them to their demographics groups sub-categories and then generalize the group as a whole. One case I thought involved a registrant, but really didn’t, in the Philippines as I reread the story and new charges came after the sex tourism arrest. So, 3 cases is now my estimate. Single men of 3 distinct Census age categories, 1 was 41 ( age group1 is 40-44 age range ), 1 was 59 ( age group2 is 55-59 age range), and one was 73 ( age group3 is 70-74 age range ).
3 registrant cases/ 850,000 registrants = .00000352, .000352%
assuming, 70 more cases, that would be 2003-present, 140 cases, 3 of which were registrants
137/ ( 15052798 men in age group1 + 15562187 men in age group2 + 7740932 men in age group3) X 2 ( constant that assumes half them men in the US are married )
the equation becomes 137 / 19177958 = .0000071436, .000714%
these raw calculations indicate it is more likely for an unmarried man in the age categories 40-44, 55-59, and 70-74 to commit child sex tourism than a registrant. Now of course, both numbers are far under 1%. Registrants .000352%, relevant sub-category of all Americans .000714%. I did not originally state the registrant rate to compare it to another number far far under 1%. I mentioned it to show that is very close to zero. When something is zero, it is not a major problem that requires collective punishment. Kind of like what are your chances of winning 100 million dollars in a lottery compared to your chances of winning 200 million in lottery. That’s how low these odds are. Would anyone go around saying that they are so happy of their odds to win 100 million dollars in a lottery because their odds are better than the odds of winning 200 million dollars in a lottery? Since its not yet a proposal to ban travel of single men in the age groups mentioned, it makes no sense to ban registrants. And being another rate far far under 1%, it also makes no sense to ban all Americans from all travel, based on the small rate under 1% of all Americans who will commit child sex tourism.
Justice Advocate Washington State
The carelessly implemented IML is bringing unbalanced and disproportionate justice against 850,000 RSO’s who themselves are being targeted and victimized. Congress has not exercised responsibility and fairness in passing a law that does nothing to actually stop the problem of child exploitation. We live in a country that supposedly promotes due process… yet thousands are being unfairly restricted.
Why? Legislators are more concerned about pleasing their constituency than voting logically. The IML community is emotionally pursuing revenge for horrific crimes against children… such anger is certainly justified! But this important cause will be most effective when rationally focusing on specific causes and specific individuals rather than whole groups of people.
Those who get tagged and placed on the registry have become scapegoats for American society… we are not a ‘protected class’ and the draconian laws that so impair our quality of life are freely implemented with the caveat of protecting potential victims. Bottom line… meaningful problem solving is misdirected.
We must defeat this legislation and work on balanced and proportionate guidelines for offenders… and refocus lawmakers to investigate and identify the roots of exploitation so that effective solutions can be implemented.
With deepest appreciation to Janice!
Justice Advocate Washington State
The carelessly implemented IML is bringing UNBALANCED and DISPROPORTIONATE justice against 850,000 RSO’s who themselves are being targeted and victimized. The congress has not exercised responsibility and fairness in passing a law that does nothing to actually stop the problem of child exploitation. We live in a country that supposedly promotes due process… yet thousands are being unfairly restricted.
Why? Legislators are more concerned about pleasing their constituency than voting logically. The IML community is emotionally pursuing revenge for horrific crimes against children… such anger is certainly justified! But this important cause will be most effective when rationally focusing on specific causes and specific individuals rather than whole groups of people.
Those who get tagged and placed on the registry have become scapegoats for American society… we are not a ‘protected class’ and the draconian laws that so impair our quality of life are freely implemented with the caveat of protecting potential victims. Bottom line… meaningful problem solving is misdirected.
We must defeat this legislation and work on balanced and proportionate guidelines for offenders… and refocus lawmakers to investigate and identify the ROOTS of exploitation so that effective solutions can be implemented.
With deepest appreciation to Janice!
Timmr
" but she was like one who has discovered the sweetness of the twisted apples, she could not get her mind fixed again upon the round perfect fruit that is eaten in the city apartments."
We are like those apples. We have gone through a life of worry and stress and self loathing since our arrest and often show the scares. Despite that or maybe because of that, we distill the good we have left inside us and it becomes potent. We try harder because of it. The public is looking for simple answers presented to them in an attractive looking package -- things, ideas and especially people. If it appears ugly or involves too much thought or empathy or education (everyone is so busy nowadays with their own me-ness)and if everyone else is telling them it is worst than worthless, they throw it out and never taste its worth.
Agamemnon
May all their hearts and minds be open. It must be remembered that we will not just be judged by how we treated our favored, but by how we treated our faulted as well.
PK
March 30th it will be decided unless there is a continuance.
Commenter1
Janice,
Do you expect the judge to issue his ruling on March 30th as to whether the preliminary injunction will be granted or is that something that would take a few days or weeks to decide?
Terry
Go get 'em Janice.
Having read all the filings under Tags HR515 above, I am very confident you are going to kick some tail! You clearly have this carefully analyzed and do not need additional help from us. I always find it sort of funny (in a sad, pathetic way) how ridiculous the arguments become from someone trying to defend an indefensible point of view, whether it's big tobacco, big oil, the medical device industry, climate change deniers, etc. Our situation is very similar to the latest bullroar...the anti-undocumented immigrant ads screaming that one killed somebody somewhere. Twenty thousand murders in the US, and they found two by illegals to prove their point...all of them are murderers and rapists, just as all SO's are traffickers and child killers. And let's not forget the Muslim terrorists!
A quick read about humanity that sort of explains our screwed up tendencies is the prologue to "Winesburg, Ohio" by Sherwood Anderson called the Book of the Grotesque...just a couple of pages, but it says it all. It can be found on Google.
Best wishes on the 30th!
David H
the .0063% is probably as low a rate then as compared to the American population as whole: in other words, take all US citizens and divide that by the number of global sex tourism cases; and I bet the subset sex-offender is no higher then all American passport holders; they keep getting their math wrong with us!!
Rob
**Is there any live audio feed for this hearing?**
Janice and her team have put together a great case and if the government thought they were going to roll over and succumb to there power, then they are wrong. We will fight this to the end and I’m glad we have people fighting for us that believe so passionately in basic human civil liberties. I believe we are on the right side of this fight, no matter the outcome.
I wish I could be there but I live across the country, I will be there in spirit.
While I’m nervous about what will happen on march 30, even with all the facts supporting our argument, I know anything can happen.The judge could just rely on previous precedent’s and the fact she doesn’t want to over rule the Obama administration. The battles after this ruling will be significant wether we lose or win.
My thoughts on the new law.
-The wording on this bill is appalling. Instead of using sex offenders it’s “child” sex offender.
-The bill requires notification to countries by warning them that a dangerous child sex offender is coming to there country to commit a crime, even if they are not a threat. Add a unique identifier and entry become's impossible. So we are allowed passports but we can’t use them. It doesn’t matter the degree of the crime wether is was a misdemeanor consensual relationship or something worse, everyone is assumed dangerous. It doesn’t matter how long ago a crime was committed, they are assumed not to be rehabilitated. That said no RSO should have to face these new restriction’s. If someone has participated in sex tourism, then the government might have an argument to not issue them a passport.
-When RSO’s have been relieved from registering which is not easy to do, the state is in effect saying that they are no longer a threat but notifications will continue even after not having to register. If this is not cruel and usual punishment , I don’t no what is.
-Passports are currently restricted for people who owe a certain amount of child support. The difference is RSO’s who have completed there sentence and probation and duty to register cannot over come these new restrictions. People that owe child support can pay it and receive there passport and then travel freely.
-There were no facts, studies and debate that justified this new law from congress.
- The government is subjecting it’s citizens to harm by traveling to these countries. If they are let into a country and people find out about them, this will inevitably cause harm to an individual and family.
-This law makes it’s own citizens prisoners of there own country and takes away the ability to overcome there crimes and live a fulfilling life. It restricts there freedom of movement.
-This law separates families. If you have a parent/kids from another country , you cannot go see them. If you travel for business, now you can’t and this causes economic harm. This prevents any RSO from traveling for pleasure with family, friends or by themselves.
David
Thank you, Janice, thank you!! God willing you will prevail and all of us will, as a result, win. My biggest fear is that the judge will lack integrity and courage and will simply whimper, "Yikes!! Scary, scary sex Offenders! Make any laws at all! Forget that old Constitution."
anonymously
There have been zero cases of registrants being international child sex traffickers. For some reason, 'sex trafficking' is in the government response. 'Sex trafficking' is in the governement response to this bill when zero cases have arisen with registrants being perpetrators of child sex trafficking. This might as well be science fiction. I have read of only 4 'child sex tourism' cases involving registrants in 7 years from 2003-2009, and zero cases from 2009-present. With these numbers, I see no need for this new bill to be introduced all quickly, then given emergency status, not discussed and voice voted on with 6 members present in the Senate. Registrants have a less than 1% re-offense rate, but since zero registrants have been convicted of international sex trafficking and only 4 registrants have been convicted of child sex tourism out of all the 31,500 ( a theoretical calculation where 4500 pasports per year , and 7 years of this) new passported registrants from 2003-2009, there is no nexus of registrants to child sex trafficking or child sex tourism. Thinking in terms of 2003-present, with 4500 new passports per year, thats 14 years of this. So its 63,000 passports and zero cases of international child sex trafficking and 4 cases of child sex tourism. Thats .0063% of those registrants with passports arrested for child sex tourism. 99.9937% of the passport holders not arrested. Registrant re-offense is under 1% and never are for international child sex trafficking and virtually never for child sex tourism and that's for parolees. It's even less for those off parole. Taking away the right of travel from registrants will never balance any rights of children around the world when it is not registrants who are doing these crimes.
Joe
And the rest of us be your cutman...
Go Janice. Thanks for all you do.
James
Dear Janice:
It is like you are entering the Ring for a fight and we, all of us, family, friends, male/female, spouses or children are your corner managers, rubbing your shoulders, whispering in your ear...it is the numbers, certainly there are single anecdotal cases, terrible crimes even, but the vast, vast majority of your clients have nothing to do with anything like this...why in God's name punish the 98.5% for what a tiny minority commits...but most people are redeemable, rehabilitation is, or was, an American Goal...how have we wandered so far from that path?
Then we gently tap the crown of your head and say...Go get 'em! And good luck...
In Your Corner, James
Timmr
My wife and I will be there, one way or another.
HOOKSCAR
And don't forget to mention the fact that the public was lied to by them saying that it was passed by a majority of congress. This legislation was passed by a "suspension of the rules" and was voice vote only. No debate or conversation. No record of how a congressman voted. Where is the proof that a majority voted for this? It doesn't exist. A lie.
Janice's Journal: Hope on the Horizon?
Published Date : March 2, 2016
Is there hope on the horizon? The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments yesterday in Nichols v. United States, a case that pitted the federal government against a registrant who left the state of Kansas in order to move permanently to the Philippines. The government argued before the Court that the registrant violated the law by failing to notify Kansas of his departure before he actually departed.
That argument is not hope. Instead, hope came in the form of pointed questions and statements made by several Supreme Court justices during the oral argument.
For example, Justice Anthony Kennedy quizzed the government’s attorney about the meaning of the word “current” and asked how Kansas could be considered the registrant’s “current” residence when he in fact already resided in the Philippines. And surprisingly, Chief Justice John Roberts joined the fray by suggesting that a 10-year sentence for violation of the law was too severe.
The comments made by the justices yesterday could be a signal that the Court will not uphold the government’s decision. That, too, brings hope. That the Court will allow the registrant to avoid a 10-year prison sentence and return to the Philippines.
Such a decision is not guaranteed, however, and if it is rendered, it may or may not be a harbinger of things to come. Why? Because also during yesterday’s oral argument, a few justices made derogatory comments about and/or references to registrants.
For example, Justice Samuel Alito uttered the words of most concern when he used the terms “sex offender” and “pedophile” interchangeably. He also said that Congress’ passage of the International Megan’s Law “evidenced a belief that the United States should not be exporting its pedophile problems to other countries.”
Compared to Alito’s comments, the comments of Justice Elena Kagan were not as strident, but they were still offensive. She said “when sex offenders leave the country permanently the attitude might be like, good luck and good riddance.”
Yes. There is hope on the horizon. There is also doubt. Doubt that the U.S. Supreme Court will correct its mistake, Smith v. Doe, which determined in 2003 that the requirement to register is merely administrative and not punishment. The Court may be given an opportunity to correct that mistake if and when it reviews a challenge to the International Megan’s Law. Will the Court then decide that a conspicuous, unique identifier added to a registrant’s passport is merely administrative or will the Court recognize that a unique identifier on a passport is indeed punishment?
Related
SCOTUS: Justices skeptical about government’s interpretation of sex-offender-registration law (Analysis)
Read all of Janice’s Journal
Comments
mch
I drove in and out of Mexico at the San Ysidro crossing last week, and without incident. I did have to go to secondary which is expected, and that took all of 15 minutes this time. I have made monthly trips fr the past 5 years.
Anonymous Nobody
What you say about pedestrians is my understanding. It is not clear what they are doing immediately about those driving -- but I certainly expect they will nail them too eventually even if not immediately.
I'm also not clear if they will let you leave from any location if you don't have a passport. With the new bridge at one location near the Tijuana airport, the US is requiring a passport. Until now, Americans did not need a passport to cross into Mexico, you don't need that until you get 60 miles in, and even then you can get a visitor's permit rather than use a passport.
With the passport requirement and what they are doing with passports re registrants, they can now interfere with all registrants who want to cross into Mexico.
D. Tennet
I have to ask, because I feel like people here are preaching to the choir and not much is changing to any substance of the requirement(s). Is there a better place to post our opinions that will actually change things, if poster's were to point out facts in a clear concise way, that might cause a second look at this current approach. If the facts showed the way society has reacted and taken action; installing a sex offender registry for life, denigrating all offenders equally, to the point of making them unemployable or house able, which creates more potential danger to society, etc. Is there a forum or public place to voice opinions that would influence change; based on the facts?
Is society interested in making it a safer place, or are they content with the political dog and pony show which professes it's obscure success and (false) reduction in crime?
David H
correct me if I'm wrong but it is my understanding pedestrians, unless there is a long line, are 100% screened--you can get across unchecked driving through???
Citizen of the world
A sex offender/ child molester was arrested in Cambodia for soliciting families for sec with their children. He was sent back to L.A. where he was also charged with failing to register.
It's S.O.B.S like this that make life impossible for the rest of us to get things changed.It gives them a solid reason for B.S. laws. I want to go to L.A. and chop this guy's nuts off myself.
catch22
Sadly the more there are of us the better . soon we will reach a million , hopefully we will become "unwieldy" and enlightened LE budgeters will start making changes . We can help ourselves to become more unwieldy . It will be the "interest stories" that will drive this , kids sexting and becoming RSOs , the pretty young teacher given 15yrs for having sex with her HS student, the RSO for skinny dipping etc .
I am a new RSO and I have to participate in the group therapy for another year and a half. Most of us on this site are somewhat intelligent , my education on 290 started the day I found this site . So far I have encountered probably 20 other RCs in these meetings and shockingly everybody is clueless about this site . Lately I have been handing out 3x5 cards hand written that say.
For the best information on
Your situation go online to
californiarsol.org
Participate and support
the group leader thought I was handing out my phone number until I gave her a card.
If any of you are on Parole you should enlighten your classmates in this manner
the other important thing we can do is when you discover events that would relate to our issues , in the most civil manner participate in the comment section . We know what to say and we know how to say it and its all about re educating people .
Anonymous Nobody
From those comments cited, I don't see hope they could rule in a manner that might provide some wiggle room and something for registrants to use. I see it as suggesting they are looking at this case as one to decide on very precise and limited specifics only, which would make it applicable only to Kansas because they will decide on the basis of something no other state specifically has.
For instance, I do not presume that other states have a 10-year prison sentence or longer for failing to tell you have moved out of the country. Maybe that is 4 years elsewhere, or something else. And mind you, that 10 years might be too long doesn't mean that guy will not be going to prison, he might get five years. So, the whole law goes down because 10 years is so long as to be cruel and unusual punishment. Then the lawmakers pass a new bill with a shorter sentence, and nothing is gained. I see nothing here to suggest the justices will rule that a registrant can't be forced to go in and de-register if they move out of state or, as in california, simply move anywhere. That kind of win would be a terrible waste of resources and distraction from something else that might really go somewhere. We will see.
The problem here, as Janice has rightly pointed out, is that the so-called "liberal" justices are not that. That should be no surprise. In fact, the more oriented the women are to the women's movement, the more likely they are to be against us and support registration. The women's movement is behind a lot of this crap that has come down. The woman's movement gets called liberal, but it is anything but that. (And please do not misconstrue my comments. I am 100% in favor of complete gender equality and good and respectful relations too. I like woman; I don't like what those leading the women's movement have been pushing through. They say "equality" but they have not been pushing equality, they've simply been pulling the wool over people's eyes.)
(That is even a pet peeve of mine. There are no liberal justices on the high court, there are only fanatically deranged right wingers, a moderate-leaning right winger -- that is farther right than a moderate -- and the rest are all moderates, yes, even Ginsberg. It is decades since we have had a liberal on the court. And I have been telling all this to people for decades).
As for the passport issue, sorry, I appreciate the concern, but to think the mark on the passport is the problem is missing the point and real issue. Mark or not, they are tracking you all over the world, they are sending info about --not clear, at least certain offenders, but that is more than the rap sheet, I think they will be sending a rap sheet minus that notice. That rap sheet being sent is all that matters. They are creating another checkpoint for registrants -- when they apply for or renew their passports (you're going to love sitting in the passport office with some guy and having to tell all about your offense and why you should not be looked at as a pervert, because he is asking) -- and running a background check on them that other people are not subject to, all those agencies thus being informed of what you are doing -- at least the state -- that's where they have to go under the new system to get the record, the FBI no longer holds records, they have only an index listing -- possibly also your local police. (BTW, the FBI doesn't even handle its records any more, that has been outsourced to the private Western Goals, a company linked to the fanatically right wing John Birch Society.)
The bottom line is, all registrants will be undermined by this. To simply focus on a mark on the passport is meaningless, as all registrants will still be just as subject to this, and the info will go so the mark won't matter, they already will know.
We need to take a deadly strike at the foundation of the law, not just some loose hair.
Oh, I mention, for those not aware, the California border with Mexico is being locked up. They're going to start checking everyone leaving the country, show passport or whatever they require, possibly just citizenship. What's new about what I'm saying is it is going to be done with even pedestrians walking across the border now, you will be checked on the way out. No registrant will even be able to cross to Tijuana without getting checked and found out. So, any thought of using a clean passport to walk across and fly to another country from Tijuana so as to avoid all the crap otherwise is being blocked. And the emphasis seems to be Tijuana Airport, so I'm thinking this is aimed directly at registrants who had this idea.
PK
He may be allowed to re-enter the Philippines if he is allowed to take up a civil action regarding his immigration issue in the Philippines.
I know that 1 other country is in the process of deciding this very question regarding RSO's being denied Visas, despite the fact that they are married to a national, and have had a prior Visa within the Country.
I want to remain silent for now as to which country is in that process, until I find out about the resolution of those cases. I have a vested interest in those cases.
PK
I searched "offenders"; "sex offenders"; "ny sex offenders" and I couldn't find any recent news about this.
I think what you are referring to were news articles from January and February, about Level 1's coming of the NY Registry.
This issue was discussed at length on another Thread of this Blog.
A few lawmakers with sense realized that Level 1's have an extremely low recidivism rate.
They have not passed any legislation, and the bills that were introduced to increase the time from 20 years, died basically.
If you could provide anything specific, about a new Law that has passed, or a Bill that they are talking about passing, I would love to see it
Timmr
I won't risk a few thousand dollars on a trip to another country, under a vague threat of being turned away, as would I am sure many others under these circumstances. It chills the desire to travel (which I am sure the government thinks is a good thing), especially of those who are on fixed incomes.
Timmr
No, I didn't get a response. But I was thinking today, how about approaching PBS Frontline? They do some off the public radar documentaries. I would like them to investigate how a few high profile horrendous crimes lead to the government's extreme response, resulting in endless sex offender laws and sweeping up hundreds of thousands of low level offenders into the registry.
Approaching a rather narrower audience one might try Link TV or Free SpeechTV. I remember they had a sympathetic segment about an attorney who committed suicide after being "stung" on the show "To Catch a Predator." They showed how, as the cameras rolled, the TV crew and police showed an obvious callousness to the fate of the man who shot himself in his house as the camera crews were attempting to enter his house. And then there is the Intercept. They might be interested in that Wikileaks document Robert was talking about. I agree it would be valuable to have a dedicated documentary film maker or public relations person pursuing the sociological avenue, who was like Janice professional and non-RSO.
SCOTUS WAKE UP
Right to travel cases provide a final example of the chilling effect strategy.
The seminal case in this line is Aptheker v. Secretary of State, in which the
Court invalidated a statute prohibiting any member of a Communist
organization from applying for or using a passport.134 Aptheker sounds very
much like a First Amendment case because the statute conditioned the right to
obtain a passport on surrendering the First Amendment right to join a political
party. But the Court did not hold the statute invalid under the First
Amendment; it found that the statute unconstitutional because it prohibited too
much travel.135 The statute “swe[pt] too widely and too indiscriminately” and
was “supported [only by] a tenuous relationship between the bare fact of
organizational membership and the activity Congress sought to proscribe.”136
In sum, the statute was substantially overbroad, and thus facially invalid.
...
To uphold the statute as applied to the party
leaders, and leave the statute in place until a better claimant brought suit,
would chill the constitutional rights of absent party members to travel. The
statute would chill all manner of travel raising no legitimate security concerns,
such as a trip “to visit a relative in Ireland, or to read rare manuscripts in the
Bodleian Library of Oxford University,”141 as well as all travel by unknowing
or uninvolved Communist Party members whose relationship to the party was
tenuous at best. To prevent this chilling effect on travel, the Court allowed the
top-ranking members to raise the constitutional rights of all affected party
members, and invalidated the statute on its face as overbroad, thus preempting
case-by-case adjudication. The chilling effect strategy is plainly at work
here
New Person
I would like Justice John Roberts to complete this thought to completion:
"
And surprisingly, Chief Justice John Roberts joined the fray by suggesting that a 10-year sentence for violation of the law was too severe.
"
...a 10 year sentence for violation of the law was too severe... A PUNISHMENT?
I think this statement, or rather, incomplete sentence is huge! Why? Punishment can vary in degrees. A 10 year sentence for a violation of the law - except even then, Justice John Roberts was incomplete in thought. A 10 year sentence for violation of "an administrative process" is not a law.
After getting sentenced, one can get sentenced to prison or fine. If prison, then the person can go to prison or be sent on parole/probation in lieu of prison. If on probation, violation of those terms can send you to prison. All that is punishment. Those probation terms are not law, but administrative items. Those terms are not similar to those no longer on probation. Therefore, it is not law.
Failing to register does not apply to all Americans. So registration is a special condition, not a law. It was deemed administrative... but to what ends? How does this differ from Parole/Probation terms and conditions made for a specific person or group. Violating terms and conditions puts one into prison. That is punishment. Whether half a day detention or a 10 year sentence, the result is punishment.
IMO, Justice John Roberts has created his own contradiction. Is a 10 year sentence a punishment? Can an administrative process punish? The only administration process that can punish is called Parole/Probation. There is no in between. Once a person has served their time, then they should have the ability to be integrated into society. Registration is placed on top of the state's judgment of punishment. Violating terms on Probation, you go to jail. Violating terms on Registration (all varying from county to county, state to state), you go to jail.
I am missing something here.
But then this goes back to a very, very select group who only have to register. It avoids registering every convict. Is there a law that says a DUI failing to register will put one in a 10 year prison sentence. Or a burglar? So this isn't a law that applies to all convicts? It's administrative for a particular crime - so probation/parole.
Too severe... a punishment. A less severe punishment is still punishment. Justice John Roberts contradicted himself.
SCOTUS WAKE UP
If I remember right RBG voted that registering is punishment in Smith v Doe. Its the others we need to cross over
Son of Liberty Child of Freedom
Good looking out Friend of RSOL
The Stone you have brought to light can and should be taken to build upon the foundation of the Just or Injustice placed on the shoulders of the People.
David
@ PK, if you search Google News using the keyword "offenders", you will see news articles on what they're trying to do to delay offender from coming off their registry.
Friend of RSOL
Very interesting arguments by Ruth Bader Ginsburg and her female colleagues on the abortion case the Supreme Court is hearing now:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ruth-bader-ginsburg-texas-abortion-law_us_56d78d8ee4b0000de403673e
Some of these apply to IML, for example:
"As I understand it, this is one of the lowest-risk procedures, and you give a *horrible* from Pennsylvania, but absolutely nothing from Texas," Ginsburg said. "As far as we know, this is among the most safe, the least-risk procedures -- an early-stage abortion."
(Side note - I think the term "Parade of Horribles" is perfect for our situation:
From Wikipedia:
"A parade of horribles is also a rhetorical device whereby the speaker argues against taking a certain course of action by listing a number of extremely undesirable events which will ostensibly result from the action.[4] [5] Its power lies in the emotional impact of the unpleasant predictions; however, a parade of horribles can potentially be a fallacy if one or more of the following is true:
The action doesn't actually change the likelihood of the "horribles" occurring. The "horribles" could be unlikely to occur even if the action is taken, or they could be likely to happen anyway even if the action is avoided. This is an appeal to probability, and can be viewed as a non sequitur insofar as the action has no causal relation to the "horribles".
The argument relies solely on the emotional impact of the "horribles" (an appeal to emotion).
The "horribles" are not actually bad.
The "horribles" have a low probability of occurring when compared to the high probability of good occurring.
A parade of horribles is a type of hyperbole, because it exaggerates the negative results of the action, arguing that "If we do this, ultimately all these horrible things will happen".
Back to Ginsburg....
Then she pressed: *"So what was ... the problem that the legislature was responding to* that it needed to improve the facilities for women's health?"
"What's the need" for the law, Sotomayor wondered, that *"the slightest health improvement is enough to impose on hundreds of thousands of women" in the great state of Texas the burden of traveling hundreds of miles to reach an abortion provider*. Kagan piled on with *facts and figures* on how Texas women today are farther from a clinic than they were prior to H.B.2's passage.
If only they would do this level of argumentation with IML!
Cool rc
No, we are talking about returning to the Philippines. Since Philippines banned all RSO/RC from visiting the Philippines he will not be able to go back if he is clear of all charges.
Friend of RSOL
Timmr, I made the suggestion on the same site you did. I signed up as well. I didn't mention the topic - just said I had a really good one that was both controversial and absurd and would benefit from John's treatment.
Did you get a reply from HBO? Their reply to me was formulaic. I think John Oliver and Co. would do a fantastic job with the topic, if they knew about all the craziness. He's great with highlighting absurdities, and he's also done a lot of shows on criminal justice.
I wish I could contact some of the people I know who could probably make an impact, but I don't want to tell them I'm an RC.
I do think having some sort of media relations person would help us a great deal. This person would need connections, credentials, experience, and non-RC status.
Renny
I personally would prefer that the US government not only stop blocking Former Citizen Detainees from leaving and renouncing their citizenship, I prefer that they would assist us in leaving the US, for good.
Would that not truly make American children safer in the eyes of politicians?
I am confident Iran could make good use of my knowledge of US Naval operations in the gulf once I am an Iranian citizen and no longer officially an American Pig Dog. They would make sure I am not hiding behind camels to rape children too.
At least I would have a purpose in life beyond festering hate and disgust for all things American.
So maybe there is hope. Hope that Americans will push their legislators to help us leave instead of forcing us to stay.
Timmr
I made the suggestion to John Oliver on a site specifically for that purpose, an HBO site to have people propose topics. You don't have to be an agent, just pick a HBO user name and password. The guy probably told you that to put you off. I don't understand this hesitation to look into what goes on with sex offender issues. The are good stories there. It's just not rational.
PK
People can be charged federally and separately and through the state. This happens all the time.
ch
Double jeopardy??
Friend of RSOL
I agree that the vast majority of people in this country are uninformed about what is going on. They just assume that the Constitution and our "system" in general is doing its job.
The only people that seem to have a clue are the people who keep cooking up bizarre laws and the rocket surgeons who try to obey them. (And of course, a handful of brave souls like Janice.)
Many attorneys and judges (not just the Supremes) can't keep up.
We need a multi-pronged effort to build awareness. Unfortunately, as RCs, we can write letters and comment on blogs, but we can't get a topic onto 60 Minutes or John Oliver.
Mike
I received no response. It is dismaying. The words used by Alito and Kagan illustrate the ignorance of even the Supreme Court. Again it is not because they are stupid, it is because that they, like nearly of of the people in this country are uninformed.
David H
yeah I found Aleto to be the antagonist throughout
Timmmy
It turns out he violated Kansas law for not informing the state he was leaving, not federal law. So when his federal conviction is overturned, he will probably have to face that.
PK
That's going to be difficult for him. He would probably have to take up a civil action regarding his immigration issue in the Philippines.
PK
"Look at New York. The NY legislature keeps moving the time low-level offenders will drop off and now they’re poised to move the goalpost once again so as not to appear soft on crime or unwilling to protect children."
Where do you get that assumption that NY is poised to extend the time again for Level 1 Offenders?
Cool California RC
will the registration be able to return to Philippines? Did they ban all registrant from Philippines?
steve
Very interesting I have thought many times about 60 minutes, however I am "in the business" and I'm guessing whoever they talked to it was a PA and not understanding Mike's email. It almost seems like they thought Mike was a producer. Not sure if Mike actually mentioned he is a RC. If he didn't they are assuming something. Somebody has to PROMOTE Janice as the main focus of the story. "Civil Rights Attorney fights for despised group" that's a story.
K
I too have hope. It's just my nature, I suppose. I think that the only realistic way of correcting the injustices in the registry system will be found in the courts. As we've seen many times, very few politicians would ever vote to lessen the severity of registration.
We hope that California will adopt a tiered registry. But this is very unlikely without judicial intervention. Can you imagine the politicians response to newspaper and radio reports that thousands of ex will-offenders be instantly dropped from Megan's website. They will run from it as fast as they can.
Look at New York. The NY legislature keeps moving the time low-level offenders will drop off and now they're poised to move the goalpost once again so as not to appear soft on crime or unwilling to protect children.
The next President will likely nominate 2 or 3 SCOTUS justices. I've almost always voted Republican (from the libertarian perspective) but no more. Trump/Cruz/Rubio would mean 2 or 3 more justices who would rubber stamp any registration requirement regardless of how onerous or ill-conceived. I almost hope Trump is the Republican nominee, because he might sink the GOP and cost them the Senate as well as the White House.
Our salvation will be found in court, and I believe Hillary will promote more judges that are willing to consider the effects of laws, not just narrow interpretations that harm real people and families. At least I hope so.
Margaret Moon
When I read the various comments of the justices my immediate reaction was the thought, "so much for a SCOTUS that rules on the constitution. Oh, and maybe some facts." Instead, their rulings are obviously based on their own prejudices, political power groups, and public opinion (read stupidity).
I just have to pray that somehow a small spark of correctness, constitutionality, and courage will ignite in the Supreme Court, and will prevail.
Hopefully Yours,
Maggie
Harry
Nichols vs United States and CA RSOL vs United States are two different apples in two different buckets. Nichol's is dealing with technical issues, were as CA RSOL will be directing focus to the roots of the apple tree. The SCOTUS had some appearance of favoring IML superficially, however, when the structure of the law is expose and showing the rot, this could educate these Justices to the really of the dirty water that IML is floating in and could direct attention to all of the other rotten apples, such as, AWA and all other SOR base laws. By the time IML gets to SCOTUS, there will be, at least, another player on board. What is encouraging, that the SCOTUS did have a, un-usual, RC lean in Nichol's.
steve
I really believe Kagan's comments were not derogatory towards our group, although it seems that way, I feel she was mocking the law almost like "this law is stupid why would you care so much that they leave". I am only guessing but it just seems way to cavalier to make a comment disparaging a group of people especially a person in her position.
Friend of RSOL
Mike - I'd be interested in the response you receive from 60 Minutes. I sent a request to John Oliver about a potential subject for his show and was told by HBO that they don't take ideas from the general public. You need an agent. Not sure why they do this - maybe afraid of lawsuits saying they stole the idea from somebody?
In any case, we should try to get some kind of publicist or media liaison. I would be willing to contribute to a fund for such an effort.
David H
Thanks Janice for any words of hope...
David H
going way back to my beginnings on this thing, adding more to the rolls has always been my hope for myself. At some point we're going to become an expensive proposition and budgets will prevail! and yes outcry's of the many will aide in that, as well
David H
time! Statutorily without a risk assessment, I wont get off the fed's hit list until I'm 70. I guess I have two reasons to be happy on my 70th bday: 1) Sorna 2)I lived long enough to make it to 70.
Mike
What we need are programs on 60 Minutes and similar programs, where the truths not the myths are exposed. SCOTUS is not immune from ignorance. They are not stupid, and in fact are very intelligent but they have been exposed to the myths like everyone else in America. We now have 20 years of data that we must find a way to disperse to the public. I have written to 60 Minutes but that is just one call for investigation. The facts are all we have to change the oppressive conditions that we now face.
ma.concerned.citizen
For some reason this passage stuck with me in my reading of the transcript (page 33):
JUSTICE KAGAN: So you can say well, he's supposed to keep it current, and -- and that's right. He is -- he should keep it current, because we would all like sex registry. But the statute provides very specific details about what it means to keep it current, and it seems to me he has conformed with every single one of those requirements.
I'm not sure if she was just putting words into Mr. Gannon's mouth, but the line "because we would all like sex registry" suggests to me that Justice Kagan is FOR a registry. Am I reading too much into this?
David
It's unbelievable that justices on the SCOTUS take such cavalier attitudes toward their duties and toward parties involved in such high-level legal disputes. What reckless attitude leads them to think they can pre-judge which people are throw-always vs. which may be worthy of justice?
David
Well, Harry, time supplies one other thing to us: more registrants. Each day, the criminal system adds more people to the rolls of "sex offender". And each of these individuals - just like you and I - have families, friends, coworkers.....people who will understand how all these laws are unjust torment.
Lake County
I don't think Janice's post is false hope. I think she offered an opinion of some hope, which is always better than no hope which is what many of us have. I also read the entire transcript yesterday and I think she is correct on both the positives and negatives. I only wish Justice Clarence Thomas had spoken again to help us determine how he thinks. I think the plaintiff in this case will win, but it's really not a win for any of us as the confusion in the law in his situation can be easily fixed by congress for future cases. As SCOTUS said, with IML, this notification of travel or residing in another country issue may now be moot as all Registered Citizens will required to give a 21 day notice.
Harry
My hope is not so much in the courts system, alone. It is in that we have facts and the truth and time is our friend. Government's lies and hatred to toward us are becoming more apparent, everyday and this will erode their legal foundation for SOR, AWA, IML and all other SO laws and controls. What the Government has is garbage and more time passes, garbage stinks. One day, the courts will want to get rid of this foul odor.
Janice's Journal: Silver Linings to the Dark Cloud of the International Megan’s Law
Published Date : February 12, 2016
International Megan’s Law is a terrible law. Its notification provisions trap registrants in a country that continues to punish them and its passport provisions expose them to significant risk of harm due to the addition of a “Scarlet letter”.
Having said that, however, there is a silver lining to that dark cloud — our community came together and we acted in concert for the first time. We did this by attempting to prevent the International Megan’s Law from being passed by Congress and signed by the President.
Hundreds of people throughout the nation came together and sent messages to elected officials in letters and E-mails as well as phone calls and tweets. And although our efforts to change the votes of elected officials were ultimately unsuccessful, we succeeded in establishing a unified message that was shared with the public via worldwide media coverage.
Our message was published in newspapers across the nation including the Monterey Herald, the Washington Post, and Al Jezeera America. And we earned the support of the Los Angeles Times in a strongly worded editorial that described the bill as “vindictive” and “wisely rejected numerous times in the past”.
And after the bill became law and a legal challenge was filed in court, the media continues to spread our message in newspaper articles as well as television and radio reports which refer to us as registrants and a civil rights movement instead of sex offenders. Their messages are being read and heard by the public, the very public we need to educate.
There is another silver lining to the dark cloud of the International Megan’s Law — it is possible that our legal challenge to this unconstitutional law will end in the U.S. Supreme Court. If it does, we may have the opportunity to overturn the Court’s Smith v. Doe decision, which erroneously determined that registration is not punishment, but merely an administrative requirement.
This is not a time for despair. Instead, it is a time for us to recognize that we are now unified and that with a lot of hard work, we shall overcome. We shall overcome the ignorance and prejudice that exist today and once again live in peace and harmony knowing that the inalienable rights provided by the Constitution are indeed available to all.
Read all of Janice’s Journal
Comments
Frank
My wife and I planned to do a little travel in our golden years. Learning right here about "Angel Watch" and the rest of the crap this country is doing to our family, no travel in our near future.
They have incarcerated my entire family. Soon we will be restricted to our State. Then our County. Then our City. "If we can save just one child"
Timmr
Thank you James. You know this law makes me want to travel now, when before it was just a passing thought.
PK
"One way or another I am going to get out of here this year"
High Fives !!
James
Dear Timmr, just for your general information, Spain is very cool...I was quite surprised since I was prepared to not like the place. No entry problems in 2014. I lived there for a couple of weeks...very nice.
One way or another I am going to get out of here this year....and I'll let you know how it goes...but, even with all this terrorism problem, I honestly think you would be good.
I am less sure about India since you have to get a visa, e-visa, an internet application.
We will see.
(I do know that you can get a visa to Brazil, and still be deported upon arrival....damn!)
Best Wishes, James
PK
He's not on the Registry- that's how. However he stated that he was convicted of a sex offense.
Timmr
We may not know the reasons you were not denied entry to Dubai or India until you see the correspondence between the various agencies involved. Same with everyone else. Whatever algorithm or dart throwing they use is not revealed. It is just speculation, but maybe your medical research had a deciding factor. I do not have the money to gamble on taking a trip to India or Spain, both of which countries I would like to see, and to be turned back and lose my savings. Excuse my ignorance, but I do not know what an e-visa is, I only traveled internationally one time a long time ago, but it sounds like it would be some type of approval to enter a country, without taking a leap of faith?
HariBol!
I am uncertain whether or not the local agency forwarded any information at all to Dubai or India. My pass through Dubai customs lasted all of about 30 seconds. India took slightly longer, but, then again, everything in India takes a bit longer. The fact that I got an advanced e-visa did speed up the process considerably and actually passed through faster than Indian nationals as I was only one of about 5 people in the e-visa line.
Just speculation, but perhaps UAE and India are not yet on-board with Angel Watch or any other type of electronic checks for such things while other countries, such as Columbia, are. UAE cares a great deal more about things like drugs, prescription or otherwise. IF you are planning a trip there for any reason, check the banned substances list before going through screening-it is very extensive-no antidepressants, pain-killers, many sleep aids, etc...
I will be planning a trip to Jamaica next year to visit a friend and will provide an update at that time. Seems like this site could be a great forum for reporting first-hand experiences from RSO travelers.
Let's hope the litigation going through the courts helps put an end to this.
James
Dear HariBol!
Thanks for the very complete responses. Everyone's situation is different, and it would be nice if they treated us like the individuals we are.
Personally, I think I am a little too paranoid on the travel issue...this is why the Sweden trip looked interesting...a flight for $442 rt from the West Coast looked great even if they turned me around...and it would be a means of testing my situation.
I think I will do Europe first...but India would be....as you discovered, very interesting!
I think I would apply for a visa first again to see what happens.
FWIW, I did go get Certified Copies of my court paperwork....surprisingly, I did not even remember that I got a withdrawal of plea and dismissal of the case back in the 1990's.
For those individuals with less serious offenses...(not me)....carrying around what you were convicted of may be helpful.
They may deport me, but I am going to document it pretty well...and force them to do likewise.
Nothing ventured, nothing gained...this world is not for the timid...so I am going to give it a shot.
Thanks for the positive report.
And good luck in all the things you do in this life.
Best Wishes, James
Terry
A little help?
Sorry to ask for info that everyone on this site appears to know, but...
What is the public registry, I guess as opposed to being an RSO? And a DOJ exemption? How does that work? Also, what is 647.6? Federal or State and where do you find it?
I agree that on return to USA, a little extra hassle is small potatoes, unless you only allowed one hour for your connecting flight. Being denied entry to your travel destination and sent back at the cost of maybe thousands...well.
Maybe US Marshal's sent HariBol's info to Dubai and India, but given that it occurred in 2001 and was a misdemeanor, those countries allowed him through. That would be great to know because it means countries are receiving more info than just "registered sex offender is travelling to your country with likely intent to commit crimes" sort of notice that we have heard about. Any first hand info of travel success or failure will enlighten us all.
For my part, I traveled to Ecuador in 2013...no problem. Tried to travel to Colombia in 2015 and customs pulled up Angel Watch on the screen, and sent me home.
Thinking Europe now, so any experiences other than those already mentioned would be most appreciated.
HariBol!
Hi Joe,
I am not on Megan's law website. I am an RSO, however.
As I mentioned in an above response, yes ICE does have our entire criminal histories at their immediate disposal.
I used the automated kiosk for re-entry. I was not flagged and when passing through immigration only asked where I traveled, the purpose of my trip. where I work, and, I assume, because I work in medical research, asked what I researched. That's it.
HariBol!
Hi James,
I have heard nothing about travel to Sweden as my focus was on Dubai and India. For Dubai, I obtained a visa directly at the Dubai International Airport. It was good for 30 days. For India, I obtained an e-Visa, also good for a single entry into India and also good for 30 days.
Despite some of the nonsensical rhetoric written in response to my travel (not yours, of course, James as you seem quite positive and rational), the fact remains is that I was not flagged or questioned in any non-standard way for re-entry to the United States. That is simply a fact. I am unclear why anyone would find it productive or useful to negate a factual experience with contrived logic to the contrary.
Regardless, and to be clear, I am an RSO and I do not appear on the public registries due to the DOJ exemption for certain offenses, for which mine falls under.
Is ICE fully aware of my history when I go through customs? Of course they are. All other suppositions are speculative.
I am quite sure that many people have had difficulties traveling internationally. I am just not one of them. I felt it important to relay that so that those who are considering travel should pursue it and have their own experiences to report.
My account is a firsthand account. It is not what we often see in these forums of hearsay.
I must admit that I was quite nervous about the whole trip but it was uneventful with respect to the authorities. When I went in to announce my travel plans, they actually changed my address to Dubai, U.A.E. and changed it back when I returned. No detailed questioning about who I would stay with, no requests for addresses, contacts, or otherwise.
As a point of information I had an excellent vacation, experienced a lot of awesome and oft overwhelming sights and sounds in India. Loved it.
For others making arguments against the case for traveling, if you wish your life to be governed by fear and that prohibits you from attempting travel, then that is your dharma. Pursue it and stay comfortably nestled in your home town wherever that is and enjoy the fruits of your paralysis. Fear mongering has no place here. There are important and relevant legal battles that must be fought with vigilance and the type of hype being promoted by some is not helpful.
@James-enjoy your travels!
PK
Secondary Immigration Inspections and International Travel Notifications are 2 different things entirely. One has no affect on the other.
James
PK...no, I haven't heard anything positive regarding Sweden, but as I have noted, I did travel Europe extensively in 2014....I was looking for a flight to Paris, maybe Rome and stumbled on this Stockholm flight at a ridiculously low fare...
I doubt if I will take the flight, it will be early May regardless. In any case, I will of course report back any experience, good or bad.
I was reading the Gov's Response to the March 30 Hearing...and I got a sense that I maybe will be good all this year...after this, not so much.
I was too busy to travel in 2015...as I am now, but I think I had better start making time...2016 may be my last good year to travel.
We will see, but I will keep this good group of people informed on how it goes.
Best Wishes, James
Joe
My point is that a person not subject to Secondary Inspection by US Customs / Immigration is (most likely / 100%?) NOT required to register as a sex offender.
Such a person may travel wherever they please without notification, including the UK, Australia, and Singapore. That is how he 'succeeded'. But that is only what I am surmising from the information presented.
PK
Joe, I would think being subjected to Secondary Immigration Inspection would be the least of our worries. They suck and they always will suck, who cares about that?
I'm just miffed on how he succeeded in traveling to the UK, Australia, and Singapore. That's really the bigger issue.
PK
James,
Have you heard any travel reports about Sweden?
Please do report back here or with Paul Rigney about the outcome of your journey, as that would be helpful for everyone.
Joe
@HariBol! - I too am confused about your account. How a registerable sex offense conviction - even a misdemeanor, even from 50 years ago - does not lead to the kiosk spitting out a marked receipt and result in secondary inspection upon returning to the US is contrary to everything I have heard.
And you must be talking about 647.6 - Annoy and Molest a child under 18 - which is eligible for exclusion from the web site but registerable nevertheless, and NOT to be confused with L&L Conduct with a child. One would think that anyone convicted of a mere 647.6 would know the difference
Joe
By "registry" do you mean the Megans Law website? A conviction for 647.6 will land you on the registry, but can easily be excluded from the public web site.
Customs / Immigration has everyone's entire criminal record at their disposal. It is not driven by who is listed on the Megan's Law website.
It is my understanding that a current requirement to register as a sex offender will always lead to being flagged for secondary inspection by ICE/CBP.
James
Dear HariBol!
Thanks for the response...I suspect that...well, PK has it right, the Misdemeanor aspect saved you...and a very good attorney.
I am glad that this worked out for you...I found an extremely inexpensive flight from the west coast to Sweden last night...like under $500 rt...I am thinking, if I can find the time, to just jump on a flight to see what happens.
I know I can't go to Latin America or Asia....but I still think Europe is good; being a history buff this is nice....lol
Thanks for the feedback...should I, or may I ask, what is a DOJ exemption? Were you on federal land or something?
Good luck,
Best Wishes, James
PK
I was also convicted of a Misdemeanor in 2001 in New York. However I AM on the Registry.
I'm wondering if it is the case that you're not on the Registry, was a benefit for you to travel without disruptions.
LK
If you're going to make stuff up, please make sure you know that 647.6 is not lewd lascivious w/ minor. Does the (f) stand for April Fools Day? Looks like the trolls are here.
HariBol!
Yes, I am a registrant. Have been since 2001 for a misdemeanor 647.6(f)- lewd or lascivious act with a minor. I am not in the public registry due to the DOJ exemption, but I suspect this law does not care so much about that nuance.
With respect to the below comment, nothing suspicious, just my experience. I traveled for 3 weeks during February and March of this year. I just returned.
Anyway, I hope my positive travel experience might lower the anxiety of others who are planning international travel.
PK
That seems suspicious. Are you an RSO?
You mentioned that you previously traveled to Australia, Singapore, and Britain.
When did you travel to those countries?
James
Wow a positive experience with this....we all have to be a little careful putting self restraining fences around ourselves.
But we need good stories like this.
Some links for you
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/515/text
http://ojp.gov/smart/index.htm
Thanks for the positive travel report...but are you a Registrant? Why would your experience be so different than others? This is not criticism...this is analysis...to help others.
Congratulations and Best Wishes,James
Hari Bol!
This is the first I am hearing of this law. Can someone provide a reference to the law?
I recently obtained a passport and traveled to the Middle East and India without any obstructions, questions, or otherwise. Previously traveled to Australia, Singapore, and Britain. Upon return to the US, I used the automated kiosk for re-entry and, unlike many others in line, did not get a big "X" on my receipt and was able to walk right through.
Have they started enforcing this law?
Joe Shmo
Janice---in your response to the Defendants you specifically (and accurately) state that this lawsuit and motion for PI is not about the SO registry in general but only about the IML and its provisions. If the case is decided in your favor (especially on the ex post facto and due process claims), will that statement preclude the decision from being used to support a new suit against registries in general?
Timmr
That's for sure. The closest anyone in power comes to being liberal on criminal matters is advocating for shortening the sentences for certain low level "non-violent" drug offenses and decriminalizing marijuana. Yay. According to Michelle Alexander and others studying this matter, that is not going to solve the prison overpopulation. Certainly no one is now going to reduce punishment for any "sex offenses" no matter how low level. They are increasing that.
As a 60's type liberal the current efforts to reduce the prison population induces in me a big yawn.
David H
Dont expect anyone to be "Liberal" on this topic!
Frank
Obama is the most Liberal person we've had in office since Jimmy Carter. He signed this POS legislation we are debating now. Maybe a Judge who really follows the rule of the "Constitution" will give us a better chance.
Janice Bellucci
Thank you for your kind words and your financial support, Terry!
Timmr
Same with Uber. You can have committed murder and after seven years it is not an automatic exclusion from hiring, but not so with registrants. Read the Washington Post article on the Uber shootings today. The shooter didn't even have a criminal record, let alone a sex crime, yet the writer of the article on the safety or lack thereof concerning Uber's drivers made a big point of crediting Uber for excluding all registrants as drivers. The driver/shooter had obvious anger issues, which didn't trigger any red flags, even though one passenger had previously called 911 about his behavior. But this country can look back 20 years into a crystal ball and see that someone streaked in front of a group of cheerleaders or something like that, and therefore they are a worst danger than someone who is presently taking out his anger on the job. This country just doesn't get it.
Jonathan Merritt
We have become a demonized class of individuals by society that has been spoon fed every conceivable lie and who swallows it readily since they already hate and condemn us.
The word pedophile is such a term that upstanding and bigoted self righteous love to hear pass their lips as these types were always too upstanding and politically correct to use the N word.
Now they have a group that they can love to hate and feel good about it because its so socially acceptable. So long as this registry exists, We will be the N****rs!!
Jonathan Merritt
If you have any kind of felony, or even some misdemeaners involving pot possesion years ago,
Your not getting into Canada. Sorry
Jonathan Merritt
Because of the attack in Ottowa Canada last year,, I can no longer work on army bases for my employer. Before Ottowa, I was only shut out of Air Force bases. This only applies to persons on the registry and any other felony over ten years gets a pass.
So can someone explain what the terrorist attack in Ottowa has to do with a person on the registry? this means that an ex bank robber,Murderer, can work on the military bases but not someone who is on the registry even if it was for peeing in the woods.
This can not be just or legal.
Jonathan Merritt
I learned from an rsol conference that it was justice Roberts who on one hand said gay people had the right to get married and then twisted himself into a pretzel and said that the registry was not punishment.
Jonathan Merritt
A Mexican that is undeportable!
What a concept!
Jonathan Merritt
There are many people who indeed need to be civilly committed until they demonstrate that they have been rehabilitated.
Terry
Not being an attorney by profession, what exact legal arguments will be used (involving prior rulings and precedents) and which specific Latin words apply!, I cannot say. Janice knows these things and can argue appropriately.
But like most people, I can develop thought experiments, analogies, similes, etc. Mike gave the example of "literacy tests" as laws that sort of made sense on their face, but were used for an entirely different and diabolical purpose. Meagan's Law makes sense to many people as a way for the police to keep tabs on dangerous predators. But as with many laws, the real world application is a horror! If the concentration of effort was to track Level III violent and repeat offenders, you'd be hard pressed to argue against that. But this law, as we know, has morphed into an extreme broad generalization of anyone convicted (or not) of any crime that could, in any sense, be sexual in nature. Like branding an inattentive driver who hits and kills a traffic cop and a guy who executes an officer sitting in his squad car, both "Cop Killers!" Maybe technically true, but pretty damn misleading, don't you think?!
And for the courts to rule that being on a sex registry is not punishment but simply regulatory is like the gravity defense..."sure I shoved him when we were standing on the roof, but I didn't kill him - gravity and the hard concrete did!" The US doesn't deny travel to anyone - that's for the other countries to determine. "We only tell customs that an evil monster who will rape and kill their women and children is about to cross their border...what they do with that information is entirely up to them!"
Anytime all offenses of any kind are lumped into one broad category, all offenders are then presumed to be the worst of the worst. Regulations, purposed too often for hidden agendas, are guilty most of the time of gross over generalization. This is the inherent unfairness that even the law itself does not permit. A death by other than suicide or accident, will result in charges ranging from involuntary manslaughter to first degree murder. To not adjudicate without looking at the circumstances and calling all cases first degree murder would be insane. But that is exactly what Megan's Law and passport stamping does.
Having read Janice's suit, I believe she addresses these issues very well, and I for one, will be sending her money to help the cause.
Sorry for the long rant!
Timmmy
Like those in Waco, Texas and Ruby Ridge, Idaho when she was Attorney General?
Timmmy
It took you that long?
Doubting Since 2007.
David H
Dont think Obama appoints necessarily liberal judges, to his credit he's thinking more broadly than that. However, he has recently lost my positive view of him by signing HR 515
David H
Anonymous Janet Reno as I recall wasn't actually a fan of these laws--she I recall told Clinton that"these people have rights too"
David Kennerly
Here is who sponsored or co-sponsored the federal version of Megan's Law, passed in both houses and signed by President Clinton in 1996:
Sponsor: Richard Zimmer, New Jersey, Republican
27 cosponsors (23R, 4D) (show)
Deal, Nathan [R-GA9]
(joined Jul 27, 1995)
Dunn, Jennifer [R-WA8]
(joined Jul 27, 1995)
Fox, Jon [R-PA13]
(joined Aug 4, 1995)
Molinari, Susan [R-NY13]
(joined Sep 6, 1995)
Ney, Robert “Bob” [R-OH18]
(joined Sep 6, 1995)
Stockman, Steve [R-TX9]
(joined Sep 6, 1995)
Kelly, Sue [R-NY19]
(joined Sep 7, 1995)
Bereuter, Douglas “Doug” [R-NE1]
(joined Sep 8, 1995)
LoBiondo, Frank [R-NJ2]
(joined Sep 8, 1995)
Luther, William [D-MN6]
(joined Sep 8, 1995)
Gutknecht, Gilbert “Gil” [R-MN1]
(joined Sep 12, 1995)
Lofgren, Zoe [D-CA16]
(joined Sep 12, 1995)
Livingston, Robert [R-LA1]
(joined Sep 14, 1995)
Vucanovich, Barbara [R-NV2]
(joined Sep 14, 1995)
Foley, Mark [R-FL16]
(joined Sep 19, 1995)
Hastings, Doc [R-WA4]
(joined Sep 19, 1995)
Ballenger, Cass [R-NC10]
(joined Sep 25, 1995)
Geren, Preston “Pete” [D-TX12]
(joined Sep 27, 1995)
Bliley, Tom [R-VA7]
(joined Oct 11, 1995)
Hoke, Martin [R-OH10]
(joined Oct 17, 1995)
Walsh, James “Jim” [R-NY25]
(joined Oct 17, 1995)
English, Philip “Phil” [R-PA21]
(joined Nov 20, 1995)
Solomon, Gerald [R-NY22]
(joined Feb 16, 1996)
Pryce, Deborah [R-OH15]
(joined Feb 28, 1996)
McIntosh, David [R-IN2]
(joined Apr 15, 1996)
Jackson Lee, Sheila [D-TX18]
(joined Apr 24, 1996)
Ramstad, James “Jim” [R-MN3]
(joined May 6, 1996)
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/104-1996/h149
Janice Bellucci
According to mental health professionals, it's important to distinguish between the terms "pedophile" and "child molester". The term "pedophile" is a mental health diagnosis, not a crime and there are individuals who are pedophiles who have never harmed a child. A "child molester" is someone who has harmed a child and may or may not be a pedophile.
Dray
Steve, not all pedophiles have a lot of victims, and they two have the same low reoffense rate. So if anyone that has not reoffened for 20 years they should get off registry as well .
Timmr
I think it is the same reason that they believe any sex crime is more likely to be repeated that any other crime. The jail house reasoning is that if you are depraved enough to do it once, you are lacking any sort of sense of morals or sense of consequences. In other words, they think a person like that must be a sociopath.
They fail to see that anyone can do anything, just about, under the right combination of circumstances. That failure is actually the most dangerous assumption to have. Realizing how we handled those circumstances and internalizing those consequences is how we learn. The data shows, by low re-offense rates, of almost all the types of criminals, save one, we are the best at learning from our mistakes.
Jonathan Merritt
And it was my understanding that Civil Commitment in States like the one I reside in (South Carolina) were intended for actual sexually violent predators and pedohiles. The very fact that a registrant was never selected for an evaluation and a civil court proceeding should illustrate that such persons are not pedophiles or sexual predators.
Jonathan Merritt
Welcome!
Jonathan Merritt
Power attracts the corruptible!
Under a democratic President the powerful become wealthy
and under a conservative government the wealthy become powerful.
One is skinning from the ankle up and the other from the ear down!
Jonathan Merritt
There is such a weasel in Sumter SC who sent out letters to to everyone on the list here offering them help in getting off the registry.
50 consult fee of course. Wonder how many he lined up a day for a 30 minute talk only to tell them they have a small chance.
Jonathan Merritt
I wish you all the best in your project hope you held many people.
I do what I can to help any RSO with information on becoming a commercial driver and where they can get hired.
If you know anyone who is interested in that field of work, have them get in touch with me.
Jonathan Merritt
Why does everyone in law enforcement seem to think that the risk of reoffending goes up as the age of the victim goes down? I do believe that statistics show that offenders who had victims 13 to 16 and were not related were a greater risk to reoffend than someone who's victim was a family member and between 4 and 10. Why you might ask?
Its really simple. The lower the age of the victim the greater the shame and remorse while those with teen victims feel as though they were the victims themselves.
Jonathan Merritt
OK Rob so now you see that peter denying Jesus tactic didn't work out so great. Are you ready now to stand up and be counted among other registrants and make a difference?
Jonathan Merritt
I believe a Senator or a Governor from Ohio started Megans Law and he was a Democrat.
Timmr
Interesting findings from this blog: http://sexcrimes.typepad.com/sex_crimes/2009/05/sotomayors-criminal-law-record.html
"Average judge 7.16% of criminal appeals were decided in favor of the defendant
Average judge appointed by a GOP President 7.23%
Average judge appointed by a Dem President 7.11%
Average judge with prosecutor experience Exp 6.17%
Sotomayor 7.27% (55 cases)"
Timmmy
You mean like that "liberal thinking" Sotomayor who decided it was okay to indefinitely civilly confine sex offenders?
Jonathan Merritt
This way no Politicians fingerprints will be on the undoing of Megans Law.
Jonathan Merritt
Another silver lining is the fact that since that Court decision in 2003, Supreme Court Justices that are more liberal in their thinking have been appointed.
Justice Scalia was another Conservative Judge that has passed away last week and President Obama has vowed to appoint a new Justice. If this happens, The Supreme Court will be,I believe and Janice can correct me if I am wrong, Stacked in our favor should or when Janice takes it back to them for a rehearing with all the mountains of evidence collected since then that proves to any reasonable thinking person that the registry in its present form is nothing short of public death to many who are on it.
David Kennerly
Right. This isn't a 'right vs. left' issue; it is an authoritarian vs. anti-authoritarian issue. Guess what? The Republicans and Democrats are BOTH 'authoritarian'!
steve
It's all 100% revenge. Stats grossly inflated, mis-leading facts about recidivism. I think it's key to differnatiate pedophiles from first time offenders.The public was made to believe If you're on the registry you are a pedophile. And yes true pedophiles most likely do have a lot of victims and have a mental disorder but those are few and far between.
Anonymous Nobody
Obama is NOT going to name a liberal judge -- he never has. There is not a single liberal on SCOTUS, the media just stupidly insists that if you are not a right winger, you are a liberal. NO, there are only right wingers and moderates on the court.
Second, Obama just signed this law -- did you think he would seek out a justice to overturn it?! And neither will Hillary, she, and the women's movement generally, is one of the stronger supporters of this and more against registrants. SCOTUS is NOT going to be changed in a way helpful to registrants, no chance whatsoever.
You might as well get used to that idea, and look for other strategies than to wait on SCOTUS. If your strategy is to look for a more receptive SCOTUS, you are wasting time accomplishing nothing. SCOTUS will be no better for us going forward than it has been so far.
As I said above. Obama has been doing worse than this law on his own initiative for more than two years. The Obama Administration apparently uses an interpretation of the Patriot Act as justification to do this and to all registrants. This bill simply avoids any legal challenge to skewing the Patriot Act for this, gives it its own law to do it.
All registrants have been getting turned back at all borders ever since the Obama Administration started this more nearly 2 1/2 years ago, so everyone in the threads reports — not just Mexico. Even the most minor of offenders whose convictions might have been 20-30-40-50-60 years ago.
Anonymous Nobody
CJ, that is NOT because of this new law. That is because of the practice the Obama Administration started more than two years ago, apparently using the Patriot Act as justification to do this to registrants. All registrants have been getting turned back at all borders ever since, so everyone in the threads reports -- not just Mexico. Even the most minor of offenders whose convictions might have been 20-30-40-50-60 years ago.
With Obama already doing that as an executive action rather than a law requiring him to do it, to have thought he would veto this lesser bill was ridiculous.
Timmr
David, I do hope they prove the real intent behind the facade. If you want to know what they intended, look at what they say. I'd like to go back and see some of the testimony for laws from Megan's Law to today, and see what people said to justify those laws. See how much was concern for public safety and how much purely revenge. Anyone know how to find those archives?
Concerned Citizen
The intention of the law is to close the loophole that enabled registrants to escape having to register by moving overseas. Registration is a punishment, and this loop hole was allowing registrants to escape their punishment. But since registration is not legally punishment they had to carefully craft a law and ascribe to it an alternate plausible intention, namely reducing sex trafficking.
Janice Bellucci
Thank you for your support, Timmr, both financial and otherwise! We need more people like you in order to defeat the International Megan's Law.
David Kennerly
I believe, though I am also no lawyer, that the INTENT of the law will come into play in a court challenge. The intent of the law is clearly to keep Registrants from travel and explicitly stated by Chris Smith on the floor of the House multiple times. I transcribed his victory speech recently from a video available on YouTube and posted it on this forum in which he makes plain his intention to restrict Registrants (or "convicted pedophile's" as he has put it numerously) ability to travel and which I post below, again
Also, his dreadful cosponsor Ann Wagner has said in her speeches that "sex offenders having passports is UNACCEPTABLE". These are examples of the motivations going into the bill and which give lie to their stated, and contradictory, assertions for the intentions of the law.
--------------------------------
Chris Smith:
"It was a group of Thai TIP officials, eight years ago, came to my office and I often meet with TIP delegations, and I asked them "If you knew a convicted pedophile was coming to Bangkok, what would you do?"
Every single one of the twelve people who were in the room said there's no way he would get a visa."
That afternoon we began drafting what is now become International Megan's Law' to notice countries of destination in a timely fashion, to ensure that you, and hopefully us, if we can get reciprocity going, will say "no way they're coming here under that shroud of secrecy on the sex tourism trips to abuse our little children."
It won't stop it all but it will greatly lessen the opportunity and secrecy is what enables those kinds of opportunities.
I first got it passed in 2010 and it was killed in the United States Senate. I then got it passed last year but it was killed in the United States Senate. Hopefully this year, third times a charm, this legislation will come up.
To its credit, the Administration has stepped up a group, of an initiative called Operation Angel Watch, wonderful, wonderful group of people who are working, we want to expand it, strengthen it, statutorially put bedrock around it, under it and expand it like I said to insure that we are noticing every country and that we also follow up what happens with the notices and also, we want them to set up their own Megan's Law, tell us when the convicted pedophiles are comin' to the U.S. to abuse our children.
If we do that, we take away the possibilities and venues and that shroud of secrecy."
Just keep this in mind, the GAO found that 4,500 convicted pedophiles in 2008, one year alone, got passports.
They get on planes, they travel, they go on the aircraft and hopefully will be picked up if they're escorting someone but you can't really understand if they're just travelling without a victim in tow and they're going to these destinations.
I was in Brasilia for about a week early on working on the trafficking victims protection act strategy for them and with members of their parliament and I learned anywhere from two hundred fifty thousand to five hundred thousand child prostitutes are in Brazil. I was blown away with that number I don't know how accurate it is but I heard it so often there must be truth to it at least to some extent.
And unfortunately, North Americans, Europeans, Americans, Canadians travel as well as people in South America and Latin America and exploit the DAYLIGHTS out of these kids!
So we need a Megan's Law that is absolutely robust internationally, uh to crack down on that.
And finally, I'll just say this: you know, the people in this room, the NGOs that you heard from, all of us together can make a difference on this. Netanyahu again talked about the existential threat, the existential threat that Israel faces.
To the woman and to the child, the children who are being exploited in trafficking, that is there existential threat and by the grace of God, hard work, we can stop it. Thank you."
Applause.
NPS
That's a very good point. I think the issue should (and I'm sure Janice and co. are address this) tackle the green notice. It's inflammatory (libelous) and a denial of due process. What I don't understand is why should a foreign country be notified that I'm a visiting registrant when my neighbors don't receive a notification about my living in their neighborhood. If a person is not on the public registry, that means there isn't a notification. So why notify a foreign entity. The same goes for people who have an expungement, certificate of rehabilitation or (in other states) have fallen of the registry. It makes no sense.
Now, I'm not saying that those who are on a public registry should have a green noticed sent. That would be a violation of due process and therefore should not be sent. But the explanations above could cover those questions the defendants in this case might bring up.
Timmr
In 2003, the court weighed heavily the government intent and downplayed the effects. They could do this by using the argument that the re-offense rate was "frightening and High", backing it up by one (we know now) flawed study and creating a sense of emergency. Cessation of constitutional protections is always the unfortunate result of a perceived emergency.
The government can use the sense of urgency or emergency argument to justify the law, but I can't see the government winning this argument now based on the facts. not only is the problem hyped up, but there is no evidence that RC's traveling is the source of the problem.
Just musing here, but there are a lot of high paid government lawyers working right now on a new argument. I am confident Janice and team are analyzing all the possible arguments they may throw out. That is why I have backed them with a donation.
Mike
This could be countered by showing how this law has the effect of preventing travel which is similar to how the South used literacy tests and the poll tax to prevent African Americans from voting. The stated purpose is for one thing but the effect is for another. The law also singles out persons on the registry as many others more dangerous are not harmed, ie convictions for drug dealing, aggravated assault etc.
As far as the notices, the green notice that is sent means that the person is likely to commit an offense again and this is done without any facts in evidence.
We have nothing to lose by going forward and pursuing this case vigorously.
Kevin
One thing I don't understand is how the plaintiffs will counter when it is brought up that the US is not restricting travel at all. No one is being prevented from leaving the US. It is the destination country that is denying entry - something the US has no control over. Furthermore, one can always argue that the Green Notices are nothing more than a collateral consequence of a sex offense conviction. In essence, the notices are akin to your local law enforcement agency sending out notifications to a community that a sex offender is moving in - a process that goes on in many locals in the US.
I'm sure Janice knows exactly how to counter these arguments, but for the life of me I don't have a clue what they would be.
Anonymous Nobody
Don't mix up what has been going on with this law; this law is not that law. What has been going on has affected ALL registrants, no matter how minor an offense, even misdemeanor indecent exposure. This bill -- well, it only specifically identifies the most serious offenders as subject to it -- but there is language in it that might need interpretation about whether it applies to all registrants as far as notice while traveling is concerned.
I read the bill a while back and did not see anything in it about a mark on the passport, but everyone seems to think that is in there. If it is, I wonder if that is ALL registrants or only those for the most serious offenses about whom a notice will be sent. Gee, with such a mark, it hardly matters whether they send an advance notice, as even if they don't, there it is on the passport!
I even find it very offensive that non-registrants will have their background so scrutinized just to get a passport. If you're a citizen, if you're not on parole, if there is no arrest warrant out on you, that is all that should matter, no further background check should be required. Well, OK, I suppose if you are on the terrorist watch list maybe some more checking would be in order, that is an actual danger to a plane, but not other than that, including not a general criminal background check to see if you are or should be a registrant.
I oppose this new law no matter what. But I still would like something definitive about whether the notice part applies to all registrants or just to the most serious offenses specifically listed in the law. And whether the notice to the locale applies to all registrants every time you travel. I guess this now will be used as even a checkpoint when you apply to investigate whether you are in full compliance with registration. Gee, they will be contacting your state to get your records, so automatically you will get reviewed. We don't need ever more checkpoints, annual registration is already too much.
Anonymous Nobody
And don't expect Hillary to be any less supportive of that bill AND MORE. Unfortunately, a LOT of this push against registrants has come from the women's movement -- they fully support it, and so does Hillary. Gee, if it was under her husband's administration and Janet Reno as attorney general that the federal government started this nationwide BS.
Craig
The passport identifier is only for those who have been found guilty of a sex crime involving a child and have been deemed dangerous enough to be listed on a public sex offender registry,” Smith said.
Deemed to be dangerous to be listed on a public registry, lol that includes most anyone whether a danger or not. It really does not matter how it is done, it is wrong for anyone to have it placed on their passport.
Timmmy
Not sure how that is "good" news. It is conservative judges who tend to uphold the US Constitution. I took my issue to one of the most conservative courts in the country, and they decided with me on my Constitutional issue. Though in their writing you could tell they did not want to. Ha dot include their own personal options in the decision. Unprofessional.
Timmmy
He can tell them to F Off. Due process..Passing a law don't make it legal
New Person
Janice and all in the law suit, Thank You very much! I believe I see the silver lining you're expressing.
"In trying to prevent the thing they want prevented, the government just opened the floodgates in legal documentation."
On the surface, the lawsuit is against the Passport Identifier. But directly related to the Passport Identifier is the sex offender registry. Without the registry, then there is no one available for the Passport Identifier.
In the lawsuit, it listed the deaths as a result of the registry. That alone stopped the pursuit of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness for those registrants. It revealed a mortal consequence because of the registry. The consequence is an unintended mortal punishment that the government enacted. All the names listed are facts. Those deaths serve as a parallel to the possible consequence to the registry as does the reference to WWII identifiers.
Although there are four John Doe in the lawsuit, I will focus on one - John Doe 3. John Doe 3 had received a Certificate of Rehabilitation as well as had his case expunged. Thus John Doe is no longer a convicted sex offender and was relieved to registration in any jurisdiction. Doe 3 is restored his full rights as a citizen. Doe travels around the world to do his business as a citizen with fully restored rights.
The identifier passed put the Congress and President's signature on a binding bill to trample upon Doe's fully restored rights as a Citizen of the United States of America as the bill is written. This bill will negatively affect Doe 3's commerce as a citizen whose rights were fully restored. But it should speak volumes that the contract with the Judicial Law of California to be adhered to nationally in respect to John Doe 3 has been reneged. This is "ex post facto", a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences before the enactment of the law.
That exposes punishment in a checkmate move because it reveals the US Government will be hindering John Doe 3's commerce as a citizen with fully restored rights as declared by the State of California. And because Doe 3's commerce is affected by the US Government, similarly, Doe 1 shares the same punishment for the right of commerce. Doe 1 is still a registrant. Hence, if punishment exists for Doe 3 (a fully restored citizen), then it must still be punishment for Doe 1 (a registrant) because it affects commerce. Otherwise, it will pose an equal protection case if Doe 3 is relieved and Doe 1 is not as the US Government is now picking winners and losers in commerce. Again, a check mate move.
John Doe 2 is interesting as one of the possible reasons for travel, besides commerce, is for spiritual reasons. This implies the US Government is willing to prevent Doe 2 from travelling for religious reasons. Very interesting as one of the components the US was founded was for freedom of religion.
John Doe 4 is multifaceted as it revealed the state of Hawaii reneged on his original terms, but nonetheless he would still have to have an identifier for being involved with a minor. Now married with foreigner who is unable to visit due to visa problems, the US Government will be an accomplice to denying his right to travel in his right in pursuit of happiness, separating him from his wife. The US Government has made the US a larger prison for Doe 4 as he is prevented from venturing out of the US due to the identifier as well as sharing of information to other governments. Although Doe 4 served probation time, many of us have served behind bars and separated from our loved ones. We served our time, get out from behind bars, and want to be around our families. Yet in Doe 4's case, the US Government is essentially imprisoning him from his own wife. Yikes!
The identifier is an extension of registration. The plaintiffs show how the identifier will have irreparable harm to each respective plaintiff. Once the identifier has been deemed unconstitutional as well as "Ex Post Facto", then it will lay siege against the registration as a whole. The registration has already caused deaths, as documented in the lawsuit. The identifier is an extension of that logic.
I haven't even talked about equal protection amongst other convicts with identifiers or registration.
In short, when this bill was passed and signed by the President of the US, they knowingly acknowledge to disregard California State Law of fully restoring the rights of a citizen as well as declare that one of its residents is no longer a sex offender convict. Then the parallel here is Frank Lindsay.
While the passing of the bill left a mark, it might because it left a mark that Janice and all now have proof as well as standing in their lawsuit. I commend Janice and the four plaintiffs. I commend all of you on this website. If it were not for all of you, I would not have a glimmer of hope.
PK
Mexico is a perfect example of that. Once you've been denied entry, you're in their database.
PK
I don't think it's funny at all.
mdd
I agree, if we all could just donate $20.00 a month (a couple days without Starbucks) we could make sure Janice has the funding needed for these fights. I have stepped up and am now making a monthly donation. We all need to get off the bench and step into the game. I know we all want to just hide in the shadows to protect our lives and families, but we are the politically correct whipping posts. Only confronting this issue head on will help us. Today it is national travel, how long until it is interstate travel?
mdd
It would also be very helpful to identify those legal firms who target RSO's and give false promises of removal from Megan's list and Governors Pardons. There is a large industry out their focused on ripping off those who have already paid a huge price for their error and just want to be legitimate citizens again. A list of reputable legal firms would save many from more humiliation and further loss.
Mike Darling
It would also be really helpful to have a contact for legal services that actually help, instead of those who target RSO's with a false promises of hope. Identifying those who get paid for services they know they cannot provide (governor's pardons, removal from Megan's list, etc.). There is a big cottage industry focused on removing money from those who admit their wrongs, have paid the price and now only want to be a legitimate citizen again.
Victoria
I'd be interested in Janice's opinion about Scalia's death. Was he good or bad for 290's?
Timmr
Perfect!
Timmr
Not so, they may still send out a notice for anyone on the registry. Even so, it is rather cold, callous and cynical to think only of yourself and not to care for those who had a child related offense, some decades ago with no re-offense, and no human trafficking involved, and ignore the burden this places on families of those said.
Joe
Probably look something like this.
https://i.imgsafe.org/4ecafc4.jpg
The color scheme works, right out of the box :)
Rob
Mike The bill was just signed a couple of days ago. It will take some time for the state department to design the identifier and implement it, there is no timetable for this, it could be next week or next year.
Your passport does not have the stamp/mark/whatever they will use on it. I doubt they would go ahead while there is a lawsuit taking place but they could .Your fears are not overblown, you WILL be denied entry into many countries. You will more then likely be prevented from going on a cruise, have you read the threads on travel here? I suggest you do. You could be let into Europe though as they seem to be much much more open about personal freedoms and seem to not be turning away RSO's. That said I wouldn't go to England and flying into Europe might be easier then taking a cruise as the cruise ship itself might deny you.
USA- This law applies to everyone who has to register as a sex offender, every crime no matter what it was. It does not only apply to child sex offenders, which there is no definition for.
Mike Smith
Could anyone tell me what the marking on ones passport would look like? I just received my new passport and I don't see anything in the way of a stamp, mark or alteration of any sort. I sent my application in last Friday, for expedited service, and received it today. I have never attempted to travel out of the country for the past ten years (since being off parole) as I have worried about trying to take a cruise to Europe and being turned away at the gangway, or going skiing in Canada and being put back on the plane. Am I living in reality or an overblown start of fear?
USA
I've read the law very carefully. The law only applies to child related offenders.
“The passport identifier is only for those who have been found guilty of a sex crime involving a child and have been deemed dangerous enough to be listed on a public sex offender registry,” Smith said.
Terrance
Well..some good news for us SO's, although in a morbid kind of way:
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/us-world/article/Senior-Associate-Justice-Antonin-Scalia-found-6828930.php?cmpid=twitter-desktop
Antonio Scalia was found dead today. One of SO's greatest enemy's on the supreme court. With Obama still in office, that means a more liberal judge will take his place, hopefully, swinging the court in our favor.
My condolences to his family / friends, sucks when you have a loved one die. However, I won't be shedding any tears.
Son of Liberty Child of Freedom
"Slimy" is too abstract a word I coin a new word "Sovietness rule".
According to Lenin, the author of these quotations on, soviet rule.
"is nothing else than the organized form of the dictatorship of the proletariat." A code of rules governing elections to the soviets was framed in March 1918, but the following classes were disqualified to vote: "Those who employ others for profit; those who live on incomes not derived from their own work — interest on capital, industrial enterprises or landed property; private business men, agents, middlemen; monks and priests of all denominations; ex-employees of the old police services and members of the Romanov dynasty; lunatics and CRIMINALS." [1]
1. Klein, Henri F. (1920). "Soviet". In Rines, George Edwin. Encyclopedia Americana.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_(council)
E.S.
I give thanks and prayers to all of us who came together and worked for our cause. In a few short years we have made incredible progress. In my state, every bill in 2015 that sought to make a registrant's life even more intolerable was killed due to our legislative efforts. In the past these bills would have simply sailed on through. We will eventually have the same successes with the U.S. Legislature. Let's move on Forward. We all appreciate you Janice. I may be moving to California in the near future and if so, I will be right there with you.
David H
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Angel_Watch
David H
it's pretty much irrelevant to us as they already possess the database (I mean the foreign government)
David
Q, yes, it was slimy. But it was also flat out COWARDLY the Congress, the Senate and the President moved this legislation forward!
Harry
Sue for contempt? These agencies that are sending these notices out are doing it without authority. I believe this why it was important for IML to be put in place, is to give formally in what they have doing. Without this authority a good lawyer can sink these rogue agencies.
Paul
So, if the injunction goes through, does that mean that the Angel Watch Center will be shut down? Will the government, at any level, NOT be allowed to send advanced notice to destination countries?
David H
I think it's the "pooh" on Obama--- to believe otherwise would be to place trust in a broken court system that has already proven itself capable and ready to sign off on anything SO
PK
That kind of touches on an important point. Since it is fact that our government had already been sending notifications to foreign governments for years, how could an injunction issued by the Court force Angel Watch to cease operations? And what would be the remedies if Angel Watch continued despite an injunction?
PK
Hi CJ there is actually a Thread that deals with issues traveling to Mexico:
californiarsol.org/2014/02/international-travel-mexico
You mentioned that your roommate was detained trying to return to the United States?
Could you elaborate on that thread I mentioned?
It would be helpful for everyone to know for example if they confiscated his passport upon his return to the states. Also, did the authorities in Mexico provide your roommate any documentation or information as to why he would not be allowed in? Had he tried to fly into Mexico previously?
The more information you could provide would be helpful for everyone else who is trying to get into Mexico, and come back.
LJ
That is exactly the idea. Get people trained, employed, housed, fed and self sufficient all in a tranquil environment. Everyone has their own unit, not a bed in a room with three or four other people.
CJ
My roommate and I are both on the registry, and he was not informed of this new law being passed two days ago by his therapy team or his probation department as he left to go attend his his sister's wedding in Mexico.
Imagine the shock and horror of being pulled out of line in customs and being told he was on a "Scarlet Letter List" and shipped right back on the plane to the U.S. where he was detained yet again for trying to enter the country he is from.
While most of us acknowledge the harm we have caused, we all strive for change in our lives and this governmental over-reaction has caused more damage to his family.
I applaud all of you for taking a stand and I will personally continue the fight for change so that we can have productive lives as the rest of society does.
I am saddened by this law but hopeful that something good can come of it for all of society.
ch
I think that another silver lining would be that since they have been doing most of this for the last several years, by using this new law to seek an injunction to halt what this law describes, should also halt the previously undocumented activity that has been happening for the last several years. But after the injunction, if it happens, who will test the waters to see if the practice of notifying destinations of a "suspect sex trafficker" has really ended? If it is still happening then that is thousands down the drain for airfare, etc. Most of us that might want to travel, would most likely be on a tight budget due to the high cost to us of the public registry (lack of good employment).
t
Good luck on your endeavors. How about forming a company that produces a service or product and directly training and employing these RC's.
Rob
Jason sorry but your information is incorrect. This law does not apply to only people convicted of child related offenses, but it applies to every registered sex offender, period. Chris smith believes that any sex offender has committed child related offense and is dangerous. I myself was turned away from entering the dominican republic with a misdemeanor crime. Yes this law and even on the ICE website state they are only notifying countries of child sex offenders, but in there eyes every sex offenders is the same.....
Janice is right there is a silver lining and it brought us together as a group. I have been registered for 9 years and have never talked to another registered citizen. I live my life trying to be anonymous and fit in and hope no more laws happen against me. I haven't testified at local towns hearing on resident restrictions because of fear of people recognizing me. Now I want to help and make a difference and for the first time I feel more empowered. The fact is if this law didn't pass we would still have the green notices being sent, so i was't going to travel anyways. A tleast not we are fighting this unjust practice.
Jason
Officially, the law only applies to child related offenses.
However, I believe I've read anecdotes of people with non-child offenses getting turned away at foreign borders, so something fishy is going on there.
Also, the Hail Mary shot that the Supreme Court will rule on Ex Post Facto grounds could theoretically apply to the entire registry. (we can dream at least)
LJ
I would like to thank Janice and all those who stood up. I would also like to thank Janice for looking into my parole conditions. I have for a long time been contemplating an organization to open facilities to help the disenfranchised to reestablish their lives. Veterans, homeless, parolees and of course RSO's. Not something funded by te state or feds. A place that gives shelter and job traini.g, transitional housing and employment and eventually helps its clients to gain their own employmentvoff site and then purchase their own homes. Finally it is coming together. I think that a place where people are also suffering find hope among RSO's and learn we are not the monsters we have been portrayed to be, is one way to give people first hand education on the facts and they will feel compelled to share that knowledge with others. I am starting with one site. I know someone who is starting one in Missouri as well. If we spread this concept throughout the country how many lives can be positively impacted? Couple that with the legal efforts and maybe we can actually change tis country for the better. But we must be vigilant and courageous, because we will be strictly scrutinized. There is hope.
Timmr
It feels like 2000 feet of mountain to go -- straight up an icy cliff. Especially hard when you missed the goal we set for this leg of the journey, are battered and breathless. Now is the time to sit down and take a rest, look back and down, and see that we are about 5000 feet above where we started. Leave the rest of the climb for tomorrow.
Let's give ourselves, and especially the ones who organized this, great praise for moving things forward. We have Janice potentially going before the SCOTUS. Imagine that? I didn't think that opportunity would have arrived for years, if ever. We have respected nationwide news outlets like the Los Angeles Times voicing a supremely unpopular opinion agreeing with us. I don't think those things would have happened without all of our support. I know that the rest is uncertain and potentially dark.
I don't know about you, but my nerves have been on edge, worrying about what people are going to do, what I should do next or lamenting what I might have done or said. In a little while, I am going to sit back and toast the beautiful sunset in praise of CaRSOL, TAG, RSOL, the plaintiffs and all those who wrote letters, sent emails, made calls and donated funds. Cheers!
And Mr. President... go suck on your legacy.
BIGMEAT
Great article. So, does this only affect those convicted of child related offenses?
Terry
Thank you Janice for all your effort and your suit has teeth, so I'm hopeful. I don't necessarily trust the Supreme Court to do the right thing here, but maybe Kennedy would be the swing vote that would be needed, as in gay marriage.
Either Obama is a totally hypocritical piece of pooh, or he's a very cool constitutionalist who knew exactly what would happen if he signed the bill...that the resulting lawsuits would finally put a stop to this and other legislation like it, including the registry itself. So let the courts decide! I'd like to think the latter...but I'm afraid it might be the pooh!
Q
I appreciate your optimism even though this is yet another layer to the fight for truth and justice. I'm really surprised the main stream media is coming out in support of our opposition to this horrendous piece of legislation. The way this whole thing went down was nothing less than slimy.
Janice's Journal: We Must Answer This Grave Injustice to the U.S. Constitution
Published Date : February 2, 2016
It took six weeks. Only six weeks for Congress to make a historic decision without any discussion or debate about its significance. That decision is the addition of “unique identifiers” to the passports of U.S. citizens. This has never happened before in the history of our country and has only happened in Nazi Germany and Communist Russia.
The U.S. Senate struck the first blow on December 17, 2015, when they adopted an amendment to H.R. 515, International Megan’s Law, under a “suspension of the rules” that significantly limited discussion and debate. During that time, the Senators failed to mention the importance of the amendment and instead focused on the “alleged horrors” the bill would prevent.
I said alleged and I mean alleged for this is the “new” sex offender myth that continues to be repeated despite a total lack of facts to back it up: anyone convicted of a sex offense involving a minor will eventually be guilty of sex trafficking. Regardless of the age of the offender. Regardless of how many decades ago the offense occurred. Regardless of whether a judge has declared the offender to be rehabilitated.
The U.S. House of Representatives followed in the footsteps of their Senate colleagues today, only six weeks later. And like the Senate, they considered the amendment under a “suspension of the rules”. They did not discuss, they did not debate the historical significance of adding “unique identifiers” to the passports of hundreds of thousands of U.S. citizens.
Americans should be afraid. Very afraid. That any group to which they belong will be next. Are you a Muslim? Are you gay? Are you overweight? Have you ever been convicted of drunk driving?
We cannot sit still and be quiet. We must answer this grave injustice to the U.S. Constitution and we shall. We will file a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in San Francisco, possibly the day after the President signs the bill into law.
For if we don’t act. We, too, will be “guilty” of failing to heed the ominous words of a German clergyman, spoken in 1946:
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
Join us in this fight by showing up, showing up and speaking up. Join us in this fight by making a donation to California RSOL.
—
Read all of Janice’s Journal
Related
Congress Reschedules HR 515 Vote for February 1
Video of Hearing on C-SPAN – courtesy of Women Against Registry
Comments
Timmr
You know, maybe this is where the registry and all its restrictions began. If you can take away a right, in this case free speech, voting for issues and candidates that are meaningful to you, then why not take away other rights simply because of a conviction for which you had served your time? Why can't felons vote? The reasoning behind it is a vacuous as the reasoning that registrants can't live 2000 feet from a park. It is not reasoning but fear that is based on a misconception of reality. States with felons who vote are not less safe. Communities with no residency restrictions are not less safe.
Bill Arthur
The governor of Virginia today in restoring voting rights to 200,000 felons: “People have served their time and done their probation,” Mr. McAuliffe said. “I want you back in society. I want you feeling good about yourself. I want you voting, getting a job, paying taxes.” That would be a good quote for any politician to use when voting against the registry.
Nationally, an estimated 5.85 million Americans are denied the right to vote because of felony convictions, according to The Sentencing Project. Only two states, Maine and Vermont, have no voting restrictions on felons; Virginia is among four – the others are Kentucky, Florida and Iowa – that have the harshest restrictions.
PK
Hi Derek, I backed you up on NJ.com
Friend of RSOL
David Kennerly,
This is such a perfect storm of public hysteria, politician cravenness, media hype, vigilantism, and government overreach I can't even comprehend it.
Seriously, how do we get rid of the radioactivity? We've got to have a multi-pronged approach.
There's got to be a way. PR, media, late-night comedy "news shows." Documentaries. Foreign commentators. Human rights groups. Somebody's got to help. I think the first line of business is someone to do PR.
Otherwise, we have to write off the entire legislative and executive branches of government.
Robert Curtis
Something I wrote to one of my political candidates:
The reason We the People send our representatives to the capital is to hold government accountable to the people not so gov't will regulate and hold the people accountable to gov't.. Laws are a form of pressure placed on society for them to behaving in a certain way. When the herd has a couple of out of line bulls going the "WRONG (to them)" direction the gov't murders or imprisons them. The whole BLM thing with controlling land is a fine example of the people NOT being in control. Article I section 8 (2nd from last paragraph) US Constitution states individual states are in control of All lands within it's boarders NOT the Federal Gov't. We need to fix that. Control needs to be brought back to local gov't not held by the FEDs and their law enforcement agencies their to enforcing their agenda and not the peoples. Law enforcement should not be above the people nor the law. Law enforcement were once meant to serve the people not big companies and gov't. The murder of a good standing, hard working father and husband rancher in Oregon should be in the forefront of debates, but no media wishes to touch that hot potato nor are the candidates talking about it. That alone concerns me and screams volumes! I like your passion for what is just and right. I had the honor to see some of that at the meeting in Villa Park. I like your no non-sense approach. California and America needs your kind of spice to bring things around for the good of us all.
For those registrants and families...This war that we are in patriots make mo mistake it crosses many boundries...defining that truth is our greatest challenge. Join us on the ground, in the communities and fight. We together WILL make a difference. Show up, Stand up and speak up! You might say of yourself ...well, I'm just one person what can I do? We all have something to offer in this war no matter how small that may be friend you do matter!
Seppo
Women Against Registry is preparing two class action lawsuits on federal level.
https://www.womenagainstregistry.org/ClassAction
Timmr
Looks like they would take care of your health, which would be a concern for me as I get on in years.
Rob
Cuban's life expectancy is the same as ours, there health care system is excellent. If your a doctor or a taxi cab driver or a tv personality everyone makes a similar wage. You can buy an apartment in the downtown in a beautiful old building, that needs some repair but for $200 you own it until you die. I don't know if its better but it does sound interesting. I believe if you have the ability you should be able to succeed here but we are certainly limited by background checks in what we can do.
David Kennerly
"Do you think the Kochs would be sympathetic to our cause?"
Well, they might well be privately sympathetic, but as individuals, they would probably not be publicly so, at least in the near term.
As to whether we could attract their funding: this would require work and perseverance but it might be done.
Ed Crane is someone I've met (but do not know) and is a co-founder of Cato, along with Charles and David Koch (whom I have never met and almost certainly never will).
Of the three, I believe only David Koch is still on the Board of Directors along with three other individuals from Koch Industries.
There was a rift between the Koch's and other members of Cato's board several years ago, especially with Ed Crane who then retired from the board. It was a high-visibility, and acrimonious, battle.
David Koch is also on the board of the Reason Foundation. I know some of those people, such as Bob Poole, slightly better but still not very well. My business partner knows Bob and several others with both Cato and Reason quite well.
The best way to get support from the Kochs is probably through Cato and Reason and by creating as a compelling a message as we can. RSOL is probably the best candidate for advancing that mission.
The problem we have to overcome is our radioactivity :)
I think that will come with time and lots of effort.
PK
Yes it would be better there. I would even consider it.
I've seen several new potential threads, including this question.
None of us are going to get ahead in the United States, so what's the point?
MS
I signed it, received the email, and did the email link/confirmation thing. It should have gone from 38 to 39. Still shows 38. Maybe there is some sort of delay on the counter.
Stephen
Cuba once said they would take any American that wanted to live there, the question is, would it be any better there. For Now Look for the Areas with the Most RSO's and move there.
curiouser
Just 38? We can do better than that...we NEED to do better than that.
Jojo
Now there are 35 signed and verified on this White House petition. People, please grow this number!
EnemyWithin
The best letter to write to the President would be to simply send him the text of his Prayer Breakfast speech this morning, in which he talks about how we should not treat our fellow Americans counter the the Constitution because of fear.
Fight Back
You raise an interesting point - Maybe you can email Janice - She after all is an attorney and I am not even a full citizen in the eyes of our government based on these actions
Friend of RSOL
David Kennerly,
Do you think the Kochs would be sympathetic to our cause? That's really the bottom line for me. I would think ideological libertarians would be natural allies.
I was concerned in reading the New Yorker article that the Kochs were also responsible for funding the campaigns of decidedly anti-libertarian judges who favor harsh sentences and the SO registry. I'm not sure where that fits into their agenda, except that perhaps they are not as hard on corporate malfeasance.
Is there some way to actually solicit their financial support? It seems like we need some serious backing.
Out of all the areas of government overreach in criminal justice, SO laws seem the most egregious, and I would think any libertarian worth his/her salt would be frightened by them. They correspond very closely to invasions of privacy, mass surveillance, tracking, and other issues of concern to libertarians.
David Kennerly
Yes, I have yearned for many years for such an asylum. The reality for those with a sex offense conviction is, however, that unless we are fabulously wealthy or fantastically industrious, our best bet is to stay in the U.S. and fight this out.
I know of no safe havens for us (and I've looked). Iceland might offer some hope but it's not at all clear that they do and the obstacle course is much like the others.
Many of the 3rd World countries are surprisingly picky about whom they allow in as residents.
Timmr
That's if there is no lawsuit or if the lawsuit that challenges IML fails.
David Kennerly
They're not actually re-branding themselves, they have always (most of the time) been quite consistent on issues of individual liberty. While they are not entirely libertarian, they are substantially so, and were largely responsible for the very libertarian Cato Institute as well as the even more libertarian Reason Foundation and Reason Magazine (both of these organizations have been HIGHLY critical of America's sex offender laws and policies).
Now, to confuse matters and to shade them in ways falling far short of what could be considered libertarian and, thus, to my mind (as a libertarian) objectionable, they often hand piles of money to conservative politicians and the GOP who cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be considered 'libertarian'.
Nevertheless, they have always been critical of the erosion of individual liberty even if their money did not always hew closely to that principle.
This effort will benefit most from individuals who, regardless of their tendencies towards either the left or the right, exhibit strong anti-authoritarian convictions.
It is for this reason that I find the distinctions between authoritarians and anti-authoritarians to be the most salient characteristic of a person's politics, not 'right vs. left'.
Another term for libertarian is "classical liberal". That is what liberalism used to mean before centralized authoritarians coopted it to describe themselves and which confused the hell out of everyone for several generations.
Friend of RSOL
For me, the passport thing and Green Notices mean that it's harder to emigrate. It's not really related to recreational travel. If this registration thing got unbearably insane, I had all kinds of plans to find some place in the middle of nowhere and just have a totally boring, uneventful life, reading, calling friends and relatives on the phone, and just surviving by selling trinkets or something - even if it meant living in a high-crime, dangerous country and existing at the poverty level. That option doesn't seem totally impossible, but it's a whole lot harder now. Years ago, a friend suggested trying to find an asylum country. That seems totally farfetched, but there was that woman who was taken in by Canada when she was faced with 30 years in prison in the U.S. for a sex offense. Snowden is in Russia and Julian Assange has been hanging out in the Ecuadorian Embassy for quite a while now, but they're better off because they're not RCs.... a floating island in international waters suggested by somebody on here sounds pretty good.
Harry
Fight Back, I found this in Democratic Underground.com...
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 47 > § 1001
§ 1001. Statements or entries generally
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;
shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.
-snip-
(c) With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch, subsection (a) shall apply only to—
(1) administrative matters, including a claim for payment, a matter related to the procurement of property or services, personnel or employment practices, or support services, or a document required by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to the Congress or any office or officer within the legislative branch; or
(2) any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee, subcommittee, commission or office of the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the House or Senate.
LJ
I have thought about it too. In fact I have even researched living on an island in international waters. Build one out of soda bottles like that nut in Mexico on youtube. I am overwhelmed at this point. I was just discussing with Janice about my parole conditions and getting help resolving that. Now I wonder what usebit would be. They would only do something worse. When they come to put me in a camp they will have to shoot me. Trust me, tgis is exactly how it started with the Nazis.
LJ
Arm bands, then encampments. There is already a group of people plotting that very idea. None of this will end until we file a class action discrimination suit on all the laws the state and fed. government pass that singles us out and strips out Constitutional rights. No one has the balls to do it. O have tried and tried to find an attorney to take it on. It is always the same, it takes too much time and resources. Every lawyer from criminal to civil rights is a bloviator and nothing more, with few exceptions (Janice). At least she is willing to help as best she can manage. It just makes me sick. I am soo tired of it all. Sad thing is, there is nowhere you canget away from it. Now we couldn't leave the country if there was a better place.
steve
Here is the video of Chris Smith spewing his BS. Please add your comments on his youtube page.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHepol0MS6A
Friend of RSOL
I take that back about the Kochs. The latest New Yorker has an article about them and their efforts to "rebrand" themselves. They are partnering with the ACLU and other criminal justice reform groups, but they have also been financing the placement of pro-registry conservative judges on various courts.
Soros, however, may be a better possibility, but he mainly awards grants to non-profits. It's a long shot, but it still could work.
I am trying to assemble a list of possibly sympathetic people.
I am currently reading a book called Just Mercy by Bryan Stevenson - very inspirational.
This book was promoted in Starbucks. Howard Schultz, the founder of Starbucks, seems interested in Criminal Justice, but is mainly focused on mass incarceration and racial issues (also important). Seeming to support RCs wouldn't be good for business.
However, Schultz is also Jewish and may recognize the danger of special passport identifiers.
Seems to me that building awareness anywhere and everywhere is needed. People don't understand the complexity and injustice of SO laws at all.
Lake County
Even though this seems completely unconstitutional and creates a 2nd class citizen, I wonder if this really has much effect on most of us since most Registered Citizens don't have the money for travel. Since we are not wanted here, I do wish they'd just let us move out of this country. I made a small PayPal donation. All I could afford. I'm glad some of you had the ability to donate more.
Fight back
Probably not. They are typically given immunity on the floor when they speak - even if they blatantly lie
Mike
If Obama signs this, how long do you think it will be until we see a bunch of new legislation at the state level adding identifiers to our driver's licenses and car license places or requiring signs posted at our residences. After all, if the Feds can do it...
Mike
Hmmm it was showing 6 signers before and AFTER I signed and verified my email. Not sure how often the stats get updated.
Fight back
and now its 5. If we don't try we don't know. I'd even suggest making several accounts to sign it but I don't know how the system checks
DeIberia
Just voted as #4 but another also voted & now it's 5
Timmr
It was one signature, now it's two.
Fight back
http://wh.gov/if2Uc
Fill it out - we need 100,000 people but who knows ... we can def try
Robert Curtis
God grants to us all our part. He is the provider of the seed and the Lord of the Harvest. So as we are faithful to do and/or give (no matter how little or great), He is faithful to bless that which is done. If its only from sending a letter, making a phone call or donating $5 to California RSOL instead of having a Starbucks coffee one morning a week... God will bless that seed sown. So everyone doing and giving matters even if its small. My child's safety and our freedoms may depend on it.
Harry
We as class of people, can we sue Chris Smith for lying to Congress?
JM
"God gives his hardest battles to his strongest soldiers"
Someone who cares
I wrote a letter to the President as well. How can this be considered constitutional in the least? It strips so many people of their basic rights, and if this is not punishment, what is? The right to travel after you served your time and are off parole/ probation should be granted to everyone in this country! There has to be a lawsuit and a class action suit forthcoming. We are being treated as 2nd class citizens, no doubt.
Timmr
I have been reading these threads about international travel and IML for a couple of years. Until the last few months with the outreach from TAG, most of the people were concerned only with the question "does this apply to me?" not "what should we do about this." What struck me, though, is that the people who could afford to travel to Argentina, say, did not use their time and money to outreach and organize a group before then. To be fair, I have never traveled as an RC to another country, or do not have the money to do so now, and therefore I was guilty of thinking someone else is taking care of this. That was not a good assumption.
Friend of RSOL
Another billionaire who might be interested: George Soros (on the opposite side of the political spectrum from the Kochs), who has also been taking up criminal justice causes. He is Jewish and may understand the significance of a "marked passport."
Although the Kochs are mostly interested in positive PR for their own purposes, and are keen on protecting themselves from criminal conviction, they are donating money to a number of unusual causes. The only problem with bringing in billionaires is that they would want a lot of control. But you never know. They might actually care about runaway government in case it would affect them eventually.
It feels like all the odds are stacked against us. But we need to keep fighting as long as we have the ability.
Friend of RSOL
Here's another idea - possibly farfetched - but my feeling is we need to entertain all options.
Again, I don't know how to do this, but maybe we could brainstorm how to contact the Koch brothers - the billionaires with something like $80 billion between them.
They have begun taking up criminal justice causes, and they are ideological libertarians, which means they are more resistant to emotional appeals for separating out RCs as a special class, different from others with criminal convictions.
Does anyone have the ability to get through to the Kochs? Maybe someone who is a Libertarian or who writes for the Libertarian press, like the Reason reporter?
Normally, I disagree with much the Kochs stand for, but on this issue, they might be good people to contact. Seems like we need major financing here. They would be able to underwrite both a lobbyist and a PR person.
MS
That's awesome!
How about a website for politicians or others in positions of power (including judges) that introduce, support, vote for legislation that strips American's (particulary SO's...but not limited to) of their rights. Rights that should be guaranteed/protected by the constitution.
It's really sad that few citizens realize the potential implications of stripping one group based on some criteria. You know...like how the Nazi's did. Feed the hate of that group at every chance you get and stripping them of their rights gets easier and easier. Bottom line...our own government is playing on peoples fears (often thanks to misinformation and ignorance) for their own political/financial gain. The fear they perpetuate (through laws or thoughtless babble) fosters and feeds hate which has and continues to snowball out of control. History always repeats itself. So many parallels to what US law makers are doing to SOs with what Nazi Germany did to the Jews and few see/get it.
First they came... Martin Niemoller
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
ma.concerned.citizen
I just donated. It wasn't much, but it's something. I plan to donate a little bit each month going forward.
But, I am also curious how the funds will be used. Are we just going to chase bad laws, or will something bigger be done with it? We need real change. As I live in MA, I'm hoping the money will be spent to help with national issues.
Don't get me wrong, I truly appreciate all that Janice and company have done. I just hope we can make a true difference at the national level.
JohnDoeUtah
The more I think about this, the more convinced I am that we are entering the realm where we can definitively argue that we are second class citizens. We most definitely, at this point, do not have the same rights as other citizens when it comes to procedural due process within the legislative and judicial branches of our government. We are a social class who is punished each year, more than the last, with new "regulatory" schemes.
People, I think we can begin to make our case to other governments with regard to asylum. And, from there try to gain citizenship with other nations. I say make travel arrangements, report it to the U.S. Government and when you are held once you step off the plane - file for asylum immediately and fight to stay. There is nothing left for our class of citizen in the United States except more punishment, and possibly a gas chamber.
Fight back
This is completely legal - Go to www.idiotsregistry.org - a man in Washington DC made a registry of all the people who run the registry there and they sued him, he won. The court said it was protected free speech.
Bob M.
In former USSR it was a line in the passport- Jew. It means no college, no job ,no housing and etc. Sign this bill the President will sign against family because human being are working and making money for vacation with all family. Family does not want to go with one main member and starting falling down. Somebody have to understand it in the democratic country ,where family values supposed to be priority.
Stephen
Legislators Hate to have their own home address published for all to see, I say give them back a taste of their own medicine. I would also think judges wouldn't want their addresses known. Some police officers use PO boxes to avoid it.
Q
They are hypocrites on the campaign, not Christians. Just because they say they are doesn't mean they are. You can always tell by their actions; actions speak louder than words.
Harry
One addition. Do Obama want this part of his legacy?
MK
I've always wondered if it's ever a good time to flee.
Timmr
Donate your words. Write letters. Speak. They (words, and the ideas behind them) are the most valuable things we possess. Money just buys somebody else to speak for us. That's all.
Robert Curtis
Janice and the RSOL staff were there to fight when they came to harm my child by taking me out of parks and beaches. I saved my son's life twice because I was there to do so but the Orange County DA tried to take that away from me but who stood up to help me fight back? Not a church, not any parent's rights group but it was California RSOL with Janice leading the charge! Lets gather ourselves and charge forward into the fray once more. IF you or a loved one are on the registry you are no longer a civilian, you are a soldier and a patriot. Show up, Stand up and Speak up!
4sensiblepolicies
Mark, your comment inspired to write a likely futile email to President Obama. I want to be able to say I have done everything I could at this stage of the fight. Next will come Janice and others. My first donation to CARSOL is coming tonight and I will stand by you as you take on this significant and historic cause for justice.
My letter to Obama:
In Re: H.R. 515 - International Megan's Law
Dear President Obama,
I am begging you to veto HR 515, the International Megan's Law that was cowardly voted upon with a suspension of the rules in the House and Senate. This marks the first time in American history that passports will be marked with 'Unique Identifiers' designed to inhibit the travel of law-abiding citizens who are authorized to hold passports. The only other two nations that have embraced this concept are Nazi Germany and Communist Russia. If you do sign this legislation, it is a sad day for America. You said you believed in second chances during your 2008 Presidential campaign.
This legislation is a blatant statement to certain law-abiding citizens that 'you don't matter', 'you don't deserve rights', 'you are worthless'. We are talking about law-abiding citizens such as myself who committed an offense decades ago and have been struggled to become productive - despite a disturbingly significant segment of society that finds satisfaction in permanent punishment and marginalization. This legislation is added punishment with no evidence to support the assertion that persons on the registry travel to engage in 'sex tourism'. There was no valid evidence offered, and nothing to indicate that registrants travel for such an intent any more than the general population.
HR 515 is anti-American, denying the basic human right to be able to travel to visit family, religious sites, or to earn a living. It hurts families by keeping them apart. The expressed intention of the legislation by the author is to restrict travel by registered citizens. If you do sign this bill, it will be a significant loss for our Constitution, a decline of national ideologies, and a threat to the very survival of our sense of justice and redemption. It makes me question where we are headed in this nation. Do American values and ideals even matter anymore? If you sign this, my pride in being an American will diminish significantly and that is something I say with great sadness. I urge you to think about this very seriously before sending us down this path.
Janice Bellucci
Wow! That is a great letter. Thank you for sending it to your Congressman and thank you for sharing with us. It could make a great template for others to follow.
PK
We need more presence everywhere especially Facebook.
WantsToHelp
My brother received an email back from his Represenative today, after the bill had been voted on of course, and touting all the wonderful benefits HR515 would provide. This was the response he sent back (shared with permission):
Thank you for your letter. We appreciate your response, but would have appreciated it more if you’d actually read ours. Based on your words, we can only assume that you did not, in fact, read our concerns with this legislation.
We find it horrific that our representative has so proudly added our great country to join the ranks of Nazi Germany and Russia, the only two other nations who’ve added “unique identifiers” to citizenship papers of their less desirables.
Worse still, that our representatives did so without raising a single question before passing such slippery-slope, totalitarian legislation.
We would have hoped the man we voted for would have wondered how many registered sex offenders actually travel abroad for the purpose of sex trafficking?
Considering our national re-offense rate is 5% or less for sex crimes, the answer, extrapolated, would be few, if any.
He could have asked if this historic legislation that has now put us on the same list as Nazi Germany and Russia, would actually do what it is intended to do?
Facts and experts and three decades of data all emphatically say no.
In the appendix to the report used to headline HR515, the State Department noted that there was no evidence that any sex offender listed as having applied for and received a passport had traveled in order to commit a sex crime, and that it already has the authority to deny passports to people convicted of sex tourism involving minors and those whose probation or parole terms forbid them from traveling.
Human trafficking in all its forms (not just sex trafficking) is horrific. This bill you are so proud of will do nothing to curb its spread. Instead, we now have another $12,000,000 applied to the national debt each year, while US Citizens—many of whom were added to the sex offender rosters when they themselves were children—are put in harm’s way for nothing more than going abroad for work or to visit family.
Congratulations, Sir. Never has such willful ignorance of empirical facts come with such pride.
Friend of RSOL
Thank you so much for your encouragement, HH - It's hard not to get completely disheartened by this. I donated and will help wherever possible.
PK
How about we all try to draw distinction between Pedophiles and Sex Offenders generally?
I detect a little bit of outcry, about what this guy did, based upon the comments.
I think that this article would merit an appropriate response from some of the excellent writers on this Blog.
PK
Did you read the comments?
Tammie Cooper Ferguson- Sexual exploitation is supply and demand. The more these guys seek after it, the more children and women are trafficked, raped and enslaved to meet their demands. Good job HSI!!
April White- Well said. The demand by whom? Your fathers, husbands, sons and friends mostly. Do you think you don't know one? Well think again! Right!
ME- Chris Campbell- Let's just bear in mind that NOT ALL Sex Offenders are Pedophiles that go after children. In fact, SOME Sex Offenders were only convicted of urinating in public. Or perhaps, even if they were 19 and they met someone who was 16 WHO LIED ABOUT THEIR AGE.
Like · Reply · Just now
HH
Friend of RSOL ,
I couldn't agree more we need a DC presence. I am a wife , business owner , criminal justice degree holder and not on this registry. I can and will go to DC and fight on everyone's behalf. I think everyone needs to keep faith at this moment and keep donating what you can. I'm sure Janice and team will instruct everyone how to proceed when they come up for air. It's not time to give up.
JohnDoeUtah
I contacted my local news agencies. Of course it's not in the news, not even a peep.
If they ran the story they'd Look sympathetic to sex offenders, that's bad business.
Harry
They are Christians on the campaign, however, their deeds are of Satan, after being elected. Hatred towards Christians are second to RCs.
Mike
I think arm-bands are the next step. The tattoos come later at the camps with the ovens.
Friend of RSOL
I'll donate $50.00. I used to focus donations on the ACLU, but now I'm going to switch to RSOL. I would contribute more, but I have some big legal expenses at the moment.
Mark Judkins
But he is not on the registry, and HR 515 would never have averted his crime. Tends to add credence to what we are all saying that the majority of these crimes are not being committed by those on the registry.
Friend of RSOL
We definitely need to get a DC presence. What do we need to do to get this going, outside of raising funds, of course?
It seems like we also need some sort of dedicated PR person.
The problem with public perception seems to start with the labeling and terminology. The terms all indicate danger, incorrigibility, inhumanity. Outside of the people who have this label themselves, very few people understand who exactly is on the registry - these are not "the worst of the worst." As long as this misperception continues, the fight for justice and rights will be hampered.
We also need to rally sympathetic people - lawyers, judges, social workers, relatives, reporters, criminal justice advocates, whoever - who are not on the registry - like the incredible Janice - to spearhead this cause. I don't know how to do this, but this could be another focus. Get all these people on the same mailing list or something?
Justfortoday
Do the people making these decisions know the difficulty of letting go of personal punishment without the insult to injury of a "unique identifier" to fuel the corrosive thread of shame?
I feel so defeated right now. I feel angry and hurt and confused. Will Citizens ever be given the benefit of the doubt? Will the actual facts ever make it to the surface?
I have the support of AA, my therapist, family and the help of medication, but how does one truly accept that society will always (at least it seems like) consider Citizens as less than and administer perpetual punishment?
I am so grateful to Janice and all her team for "storming the castle". I just hope that something bigger than me and us, can handle all this nonsense sooner rather than later.
I need hope. I need to be ok with me. I need to not let society define and continue to punish me for what I did. I did my time, completed the hoops of Parole, a lie detector test, ankle monitor, residency and presence restrictions, while being subjected to mandatory therapy.
I just want to be. Not better than or less than.
I work in law and when I see injustices like the passing of HR 515, I question whether or not I believe that America is truly the land of the free. Definitely, home of the brave. Citizens and their family members must brave the ignorant and stigmatic minds of those that assume and speculate.
I will honor my feelings and try to get into acceptance. But gosh darn it, I'm feeling less than optimistic.
God bless you all, Citizens, family of, and supporters.
Jason
@Harry- Considering every (nearly every?) US President has been a Christian, I highly doubt this will be the case.
Craig
My question is, will this money be used to file a suit that will help everyone in all states? What organization will head this? I will donate $450 but I need more facts, it seems all we do in all states is fight new restrictions instead of the root of the problem, the registry and a real way to deregister that is fair. I do know as of yesterday America is not my country, they have placed us in a extremely difficult spot, yet they take our tax money, destroy our families, place so many restrictions upon us long after the fact and the debt has been paid in full. Then even when we manage to go by all the insane rules and survive they then add more and laugh in our face. I do not care who reads this quote, I am tired, I have done all that was asked, but you the lawmakers still took more, I HATE you America. I hope you will be destroyed just as you have destroyed me and my family.
Harry
With the passage of HR515, it very easy to see why this Country is in such a mess. We have NO leadership, at all. Those whom are elected are purely self serving and are there for the money and power. The original value of, this once, find Nation is torn apart and toss away. However, we (RCs/family/friends and partners) have the truth and the 800 plus whom have participated in the challenge against AB 201, HR 515, and other attacks on us are honing our sites so we can become better teachers, communicators and warriors. The anti-RC pendants only have lies and hatred for their foundations and it is rotting, with time. One should not forget that Vietnam defected The United States with gorilla warfare, US defected England with gorilla warfare. Gorilla warfare is defecting the enemy one at a time. This what we have to do, defeat our enemies one at a time with the truth when we write and speak. We are stronger today than yesterday. The main thing we need to remember is DO NO QUIT!
pgm111
I just got out of prison two years ago and I am only now getting on my feet. I cannot donate $$$ at this time but I think I can in a few months. Thanks for your effort and your patience.
HH
Jo,
I have $500 on it. Who else?? No donation is too small.
Harry
I do not have a $1000, at this time, however, I did doubled my donation to CA RSOL and when I find, some more money I will send it either, to CA RSOL or its partners.
David
Terrible headline and more fuel for HR515 supporters:
http://ktla.com/2016/01/30/ohio-seminary-student-arrested-at-san-diego-airport-allegedly-sought-sex-with-infants/
(NOTE: HR515 would have done nothing to prevent this.)
Harry
"Who will be next? The Muslims? The Atheists? The Gays?" Actually, Christians are next on the list and they are the ones that think is great for RCs, to be marked. I guess, I will get two marks on my passport.
PK
You really "love" this country? Money and material things will only carry your soul and spirit so far.
Jason
"The Country that you love" has always been this way. Slavery, Jim Crow laws, drug war, racism against immigrants, homophobia, panic about terror, panic about child molesters.... what you're seeing is simply the next issue among many. It's the dark underbelly of America that no one notices or cares about because we're too busy talking about how awesome we are and worshiping the flag every chance we get. As the late George Carlin said, "this country was founded by slave owners who declared 'All men are equal'".
brunello
Done
SCOTUS Save The RC
What did she say?
Angry & Frustrated
No, noname, this is merely regulatory! ....and we only want you to ride in the back of the bus because its very safe there ..... and that gold Star of David on your clothes is only so you all can recognize other of your faith .... you see, it's really for your safety and wellbeing, right?
Timmr
Wow. Not ready for that much, but I could swing giving $1 for each new donor who gave $1 or more to CARSOL or TAG. I will have to cap it when I reach $100 (100 donations), though. Wish I could do more, have to get out of here and do some work already.
mjk
$500. Who's got the other $450?
Angry & Frustrated
I assume that, once again, there is no notication - TO RCs - of exactly what will be required of us. As usual, we will be expected to somehow intuitively know what we are supposed to do, who we are to notify before we travel, etc. Or we'll have criminal charges thrown at us through no fault of our own. It's yet another "trap" for people who have already done their time and repaid their debt to society.
*Very angry* *Very frustrated*
mjk
Ditto on the NY situation. Conviction is from CA, moved to NY for less than a year, still registered in NY since returning to CA two years ago. In CA, I'm only visible by ZIP code, but NY placed me at Level 2 and makes everything available!
jo
all good
Derek Logue of OnceFallen.com
One more thing-- This bill didn't pass in a "mere six weeks." It languished for about eight years. This movement raised a stink years ago over the "passports limited to a year" and thankfully that provision was removed. What made this year different was the Senate finally moved on the bill. The House moved on it last year, and this movement worked on it some and neglected the Senate version. The version that passed was the SENATE version of the bill, the version this movement neglected. The Senate scratched the ENTIRE House bill, replaced it with their bill, and sent it back to the House!
I don't know if it was because we were lulled to sleep because IML failed to complete the pass more times than Peyton Manning in a Super Bowl, or because we were busy with other things on a smaller scale, or maybe the fact after all these years, we lack a DC presence. Whatever the case, we need to devise a better way of addressing these bills BEFORE they become law. Lawsuits are far more costly than stopping a bill.
Derek Logue of OnceFallen.com
It is easy to ask us to throw money at a lawsuit, but all the other things this movement shuns, like public protests and demonstrations, are needed just as badly. It was good we had online petitions and emails and calls, but it would have been great if we held public rallies to get the message out there.
I personally have little faith that a Chief John "Price Club" Roberts-led Supreme Court would rule against Int'l Megan's FLAW. SCOTUS is far from infallible. Dred Scott, Buck v Bell, Korematsu v US, Plessy v Ferguson, Smith v. Doe, and most recently, Citizens United v. FEC (that's the Roberts decision that states money is speech). I have great doubts a Roberts-run SCOTUS will rule favorably for us, especially the "International" version of the very law he championed. Stranger things have happened I suppose but I wouldn't bet on it. If you think the courts is the way to go, you better hope the bill DOES NOT go to Roberts court.
Kevin
Someone stated that there have been only 2 other times in recent history that a government has done this to their citizens, Nazi Germany and Communist Russia (under Stalin). We all know how much those governments hated those that they labeled...enough to exterminate them. It's just very saddening that my government has that amount of hatred towards me.
steve
My email to the Simon Wiesenthal Center:
Please forward to the leaders of the Wiesenthal Center- URGENT
Well it's time not to forget.
Hello I am writing to inform you of a bill that just passed (by suspension of the rules i.e. NO DEBATE) and is on it's way to to the president to sign. HR 515 International Megan's Law would require the state department to stamp a "unique identifier" on a certain segment of citizens PASSPORTS, sex offenders. There are only two other regimes that have done this in the history of the world Nazi Germany and communist Russia. As you know, with the Nazi's it started with the mentally ill, homosexuals and then the Jews.. Where does it go from here in the US? Drunks? Drug users? Muslims? Jews? Who's next to get stamped and labeled?
Citizens that have long paid their debt to society and are no longer a threat to anyone will now be a prisoner of their own country. Sound familiar.
Please visit CALIFORNIA RSOL and read the following post by Janice Bellucci, a civil rights attorney who has taken up the cause to fight this injustice. You will also find many facts about politicians flat out lying to pass their unconstitutional agendas, it is shocking.
http://all4consolaws.org/2016/02/janices-journal-we-must-answer-this-grave-injustice-to-the-u-s-constitution/.
This law is the start to policy that could become very dangerous for ALL americans. I ask you, as fellow americans to come out against any policy that takes away liberties from ALL law abiding citizens and labels them as outcasts.
It's time to "NOT FORGET"
Thank you
A law abiding registered citizen
Friend of RSOL
This was my plan, but now I don't think I can get to the wilderness of Bolivia. I had researched Honduras, Belize, and Ecuador.
David
I just received my renewed U.S. passport and the thought of commiting ANY crime in any foreign country certainly never once occurred to me!
I wonder what the next ass-hat lawmaker will propose - perhaps a bold tattoo across our foreheads? That might be the next "unique identifier" (purely administrative & regulatory, certainly not a punishment). ?
Jason
It's taken you 5 years to feel this way?
What state do you live in that respects registered citizens? (don't need to answer this, rhetorical)
PK
Maybe that's the feeling I have? In a way I haven't been able to describe it. Only the fact that I DESPISE the United States, and I will try to get the **** out of here at whatever costs. Even if it means living in poverty in the wilderness of Brazil or Bolivia.
steve
Nice work. I have two out of state college tuitions...so $50 for me.
Mark Judkins
I stayed up late last night finishing an email to President Obama. It was to the point and heartfelt. He promised us many things in 2008, and among those was a country where everyone deserved a second chance. Where past transgressions did not negate a future successful life. He promised that we ALL had an opportunity for Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. I asked him to consider his statements of the past. Upon waking this morning, I expected there to be headline news about this horrible event that took place. But neither my morning LA Times or the TV news had anything about it. I somehow expected the whole world to have changed, people to be in shock, but there is nothing evident. Yet, I feel so changed. My citizenship has been threatened, my rights have potentially been lost, and the Country that I love has been turned on end. And no one seems to know.
Who will be next? The Muslims? The Atheists? The Gays? Will it matter then?
We can, and we must fight this. No one is safe.
Timmr
Maybe then, if we are not real citizens, then we must declare ourselves a sovereign nation, forced to create such by being exiled from our own country within our own country's borders in a virtual reservation. We have special constitutional opinions applied only to us, and no other citizens, as if we were foreigners.
It is a shame, because I really don't want to be identified as a sex offender, (It has been 17 years since being convicted on the one count that landed me here, without re-offense. Isn't that the length of time, when I am no more likely to commit a crime than the average citizen?) I don't eve like the less objectionable label, registered citizen. We are lumped together in this artificial category. Our crimes and individual situations, motivations, backgrounds are unique, and if any of these politicians had the chutzpah to examine them, they would find no practical justification to classify us a special, homogeneous group. We have no common culture, different from that the main. We are unlike some organized gangs, involved in drug, labor and sex trafficking, who are the real problem. We organize only to fight these draconian laws. I am not a customer of sex traffickers, that is probably some of the politicians themselves.
jo
$1000 donated. Anyone care to match me?
Kevin
I have been a registered citizen for over 5 years and for the first time I actually feel less than human because of this. My own government despises me so much that my identification must be labeled so that I can be marginalized and rejected by every human being on this planet. If and when this legislation is overturned it won't make a difference to me. The psychological damage has been done; I have lost complete trust in my government to protect me and my civil rights.
brunello
To paraphrase Claude Raines' character in Casablanca, "I am shocked, shocked, to find that registrants are traveling internationally like other Americans."
noname
Now can we say the registry is punishment????
Mjk
I'm really trying to hang on to the idea that things must get worse before they get better - hope this is the worst.
Letter and calls fell on blind and deaf politicians.
Donation sent this morning. More to follow as it becomes available. Let's get this rolling!
A Wife
Oh, dear! I would have to check the exact date but I believe my husband - errr, the dangerous sex predator I am married to - was one of those 4,500 who had the audacity to renew their passport that year (+/- one year). Yes, I can see where such brazen unlawful behavior must be punished. And not just him, but close to 1 million others. Sorry, guys.
Anyhoo, with that little blue book in hand we must have taken a dozen or so trips in the past few years. And each time he has managed not to jump any women and children while on vacation, because apparently that is what one does as soon as one crosses the border.
Seriously, you cannot make this stuff up.
ab
Push the president to consider what the passed legislation does.
Constitutional challenges if the bill is signed.
Lobbying for legislation that nullifies this legislation with more effective measures.
Submitting ideas for bills that redefine what classifies as a sex offense (want to really screw with the legal system push for definition changes) and make them non controversial. Better yet sneak language into other bills that amend, distort, weaken, and nullify this bill.
PK
I actually spoke to Kathy Manley [email protected] prior to this decision. She was the Attorney for Doe vs. O'Donnell 2011. The Appellant of this case lives in Fairfax County, however was convicted in NY. This situation almost exactly the same as mine.
Only SCOTUS can save me now...
While our campaign did not succeed we were successful in organizing which is the first step. We filled speaker paul ryan's voicemail on multiple occasions. Now lets do the same with the president. https://www.whitehouse.gov/contact - send emails, call, write letters. He has 10 days to sign this bill. If we spend as much time over the 10 days explaining what this bill actually is and actually does maybe he veto's it for no other reason then to force debate.
He is/was a constitutional attorney, he can see the merits of the argument this is unconstitutional and may not want his name attached to such a bill that gets over turned.
Thank you Janice for all of your hard work but the fight is just beginning. I was wondering if the suit should be filed in multiple district courts, that way if circuits disagree maybe this is our crack in the door back to SCOTUS to finally see these are indeed punishments and not civil disabilities.
In NY we do not have a strong organization like this one sadly, but I know one attorney, Kathy Manley that has taken and fought (and even won) several sex offender issues. If you want her email is: [email protected] and phone is: 518-434-1493. She maybe able to assist with filing the same challenges in NY and hopefully 1 of the courts will issue an injunction on this heinous bill
Joe
Any other outcome would have been shocking.
As always, a heartfelt thanks to all those who invested time, effort and resources in the fight against this abomination. Janice Bellucci, Paul from RTAG, and I am sure many others of whom I am not aware. Thank you.
Thanks also to WAR for making the video available.
Also a big shout out to Rep. Ann Wagner. She gave a flamboyant speech full of pathos (did she say 'angel'? How many time was that word used in 30 minutes?) in support of the bill, but at least she spoke the truth.
At 26:15 she said, and I quote verbatim - "A 2010 Government Accountability Report showed that in a single year at least 4500 Registered Sex Offenders received US Passports to travel internationally. This is absolutely unacceptable."
Now, there is no evidence that these 4500 individuals, or a single one (if that were relevant), used this travel document to sexually abuse a child in a foreign country. She does not claim this. There is no evidence that these 4500 individuals, or a single one (if that were relevant), even engaged in foreign travel. She does not claim this.
She states - on the record - that it is unacceptable for certain US Citizens to receive a, THE, document a citizen of this country is ENTITLED to receive, which unequivocally proves citizenship of the United States of America worldwide.
If it is unacceptable for a person to receive, in a lawful manner, the one document that proves their citizenship, then they must not be 'real' citizens.
THAT is what she said, and that is what this is all about. Thanks, Ann! If anything your honesty is refreshing.
Janice's Journal: A Blizzard in the Nation's Capitol Provides a Window of Opportunity
Published Date : January 26, 2016
It took a miracle, a miracle in the form of a blizzard in Washington, D.C., to slow down Congress’ consideration of HR 515, the International Megan’s Law bill. Prior to the blizzard, the bill was on a fast track to a speedy vote under a “suspension of the rules” which would have ruled out any discussion or debate of this historic and misguided legislation.
We haven’t won yet. The bill has not been stopped. But it has given us a window of opportunity to educate our Congressional representatives about the dangers the bill poses.
While a new date for the bill’s consideration has not yet been established, we know we have at least one week to send letters and E-mails as well as to make phone calls. We are constituents and our elected officials need to hear from us, our family members and friends — early and often.
They need to know that the bill would require the addition of “unique identifiers” to the passports of U.S. citizens. They need to know that this has never been done in the history of our country. They need to know that no other country is currently doing this to their citizens and that the only countries that have done this in the past are Nazi Germany and Russia.
They also need to know that the bill would require federal agencies to notify countries of anyone who has ever been convicted of a sex offense involving a minor even if that person is no longer required to register as a sex offender. This wide net would extend to hundreds of Californians who have been deemed “rehabilitated” by a state judge as well as to thousands of Americans in other states who “termed out” of their requirement to register.
Finally, they need to know that we agree that sex trafficking of children is a terrible crime and should be stopped. The way to stop it, however, is not to punish hundreds of thousands of American who have not been convicted of sex trafficking and are extremely unlikely to do so in the future.
The clock is ticking. We may have only one week to be heard. Send an E-mail, write a letter, and/or call your Congressional representative today!
Read all of Janice’s Journal
Comments
Timmr
Good question. Maybe because this story doesn't have the tags: black lives matter, guns, LGBT, Obamacare, terrorists, celebrities. We are invisible. Just ask members of other marginalized groups like black lives matter or LGBTQ's -- you have to do a lot of continuous shouting to be heard and break through the echo chambers news outlets create around themselves. I don't know if I can do that, but it is the only thing to do: to shout or support someone else doing the shouting.
Timmr
My wife would like to visit Spain. And I would like to go with her. I just remembered I had a passport in 1996 or there abouts. Would I be in category one?
Janice Bellucci
Please know that Galen is not an attorney but he is helping two attorneys, one in Washington, D.C., and me identify potential plaintiffs for the lawsuits that we will file if HR 515 is passed by Congress and signed into law by the President. We appreciate the work Galen is doing and hope everyone who reads this will provide him with the information he has requested.
Carl Collette
Why hasn't the media picked up this issue - for or against.
Eric Knight
If this bill unfortunately passes, there is a lawyer, Galen Baughman, who is looking for plaintiff candidates. Site: http://sexoffenderresearch.blogspot.com/2016/01/action-alert-challenging-international.html
From the site:
We expect H.R. 515 to pass on a suspension vote in the House this Monday (2-1-16) and be sent to President Obama's desk.
We're looking for ideal plaintiffs and we need your help to find people who meet one of these criteria:
1- Does not have a passport, but wants one
2- Has a passport about to expire
3- Travels internationally a number of times per year (especially for work)
4- Has been harassed while traveling in or out of the US based on registration status
If you think you fit any of these four categories, please write to me with the following information:
1-Name
2-Age
3-Age at time of offense
4-Offense(s)
5-Which of the four (4) categories you fit into
6-Would you be willing to be a name plaintiff to challenge this law?
7-State you live in
More details at the link above.
Timmr
I don't know if 95% of registrants know nothing of this site. I had no trouble finding this site a few years ago. I just figured there must be someone else out there who also finds these laws ridiculous and harmful and presto, I found this. Getting up enough courage to say something was the problem. I believed it would draw attention to myself and make my life worse. Guessing a lot of other people feel the same way. Don't know. Hiding under a rock does feel like it give you some control, but actually if no one speaks up, things will only get worse, and the more who speak up, the easier it will get for everyone. Many have accepted that they are flawed, and therefore have nothing useful to say, and it is a hard idea to overcome.
Paul
95% of registrants don't know about this site
Timmr
If the 5% who know of this out of all American registrants (850,000) would send an email, call or write, they in Congress would get at least 42,500 emails, calls or letters against this bill. I just stopped thinking about it and sent an email to Ryan.
Janice Bellucci
Thank you, John, for your enthusiasm! It is sure to inspire others to send E-mails and make phone calls. Today I visited the office of my local Congressman where I received a positive reception. Like all of us, the staffer was "horrified" to learn about the Senate amendment requiring the Secretary of State to add a "unique identifier" to passports of U.S. citizens. She understood that this is a slippery slope. Today "unique identifiers" could be added to the passports of registrants, tomorrow it could be Muslim, Jews, or gays. There is no date yet for consideration of HR 515. That means we have time....time to send E-mails and make phone calls. Please do it today!
PK
I'm thinking that at least 95% of SO's don't know about this legislation.
It probably would have been better if all SO's knew about this and we had an even more intense discussion.
John
Mail, call, and email!
Send your comments to your House Representative and to Speaker Paul Ryan. You can submit your comments to Speaker Paul Ryan in line with what Janice wrote above at http://www.speaker.gov/contact. You can find your House Rep contact info here http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/
Please send Speaker Ryan a message that you would like HR515 referred to the appropriate House or Representatives committees for its consideration on the floor.
Tell your House Representative that you oppose this bill.
Time to band together and let our voices be heard!
Q
Don't know if it's too late; but I typed and sent this anyway. I used the link in your post. I'm so not good at this sort of thing!!!!! Here's what I sent :)
January 26, 2016
Speaker Paul Ryan
United States House of Representatives
The Capitol, Room 232
Washington, D.C. 20515
Re: HR 515 – International Megan’s Law to Prevent Child Exploitation and Other Sexual Crimes Through Advanced Notification of Traveling Sex Offenders
Dear Speaker Ryan:
This is in regards to bill HR 515. This bill needs to be debated and discussed. I feel that the “fast track”
is the wrong way to deal with this bill. Adding a “unique identifier” on the passports of any American citizen will put this nation on a level with Nazi Germany when that government did this on the passports and identity cards of a select group of it's citizens. I ask you to please do what you can to prevent this nation from stepping down to the level of Nazi Germany. I know of another instance where “unique identifiers were used; this was in Rwanda in the 1990s, and we all know that nothing good came of this!
Group classification on ID cards or other official personal documents (passports, residence permits, etc.) force a person to be affiliated with a governmentally-defined group and expose persons to profiling and human rights abuses based upon their group identity. This is just plain wrong.
Thank you for your time. I hope this is not too late. I urge you to refer HR 515 to the appropriate committee before it goes to the floor of the House of representatives.
ma.concerned.citizen
More emails sent today!
Q
Great letter Janice. I suppose I'll send an email voicing my opposition as soon as I unwind. It's been a long day!
Q
This shoulder be allowed. These parasites of our society need to find a better way to do things.
Janice Bellucci
Thank you for this information re: suspension of the rules. The most important part of the suspension is that passage of a bill requires only 2/3 majority of Members PRESENT AND VOTING. That means the bill can be passed when only a handful of members (less than 10) are actually on the Senate floor. The bill can be stopped from consideration under a suspension of the rules if we make enough "noise" in the offices of those who represent us as well as in the Speaker's office. Below is the letter I wrote to the Speaker on January 5. Two representatives from national RSOL met in the Office of the Speaker a few days later and hand delivered that letter.
January 5, 2016
Speaker Paul Ryan
United States House of Representatives
The Capitol, Room 232
Washington, D.C. 20515
Re: HR 515 – International Megan’s Law to Prevent Child Exploitation and Other Sexual Crimes Through Advanced Notification of Traveling Sex Offenders
Dear Speaker Ryan:
The purpose of this letter is to request that you refer the bill referenced above, HR 515, to the appropriate committees in the U.S. House of Representatives prior to its consideration on the floor. Such referrals would provide an opportunity for the House of Representatives to discuss and debate the historic amendment made on the Senate floor on December 17, 2015.
The Senate amendment at issue would authorize the Secretary of State to add “unique identifiers” to the passports of American citizen for the first time in the nation’s history. That is, in the history of the United States, no American citizen has ever been required to endure such international stigma. Such a decision would be an historic mistake that should be avoided by this country at this time or for this reason.
If the United States does make the choice of adding identifiers to the passports of its citizens, the nation will join the ranks of only two countries that have made similar decisions in the past -- Nazi Germany and Russia. Such an important decision by the U.S. House of Representatives requires careful consideration and should be discussed and debated before a vote is taken on the floor of the House.
Thank you for your attention to this important matter. For the reasons stated above, we strongly urge that you refer HR 515, as amended, to the appropriate committees prior to consideration of that bill on the floor of the House of Representatives.
Robert Curtis
Congressman Ed Royce (Orange County) was the one requesting the suspension of rules to pass this law. He is up for re-election and has a strong Democrat running against him in Orange County. I will be putting in effort to remove him but it would be nice to get some help from any registrants or family members. I'll train you for free and together we will make a difference. Robert (949) 872-8768.
Jason
Well for who all secretly tried tofast-track this and get this in place before we had a discussion about it, BUSTED!!!!!! NICE TRY!!!!
commenter1
Here's a Wikipedia article on Suspension of rules in the US Congress:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspension_of_the_rules_in_the_United_States_Congress
It says:
A motion to suspend the rules is in order on Mondays and Tuesdays and towards the end of a session of Congress and may only be made by the Speaker of the House or their designee, though it is customary for committee chairs to write the Speaker requesting a suspension. Once a member makes a motion to "suspend the rules" and take some action, debate is limited to 40 minutes, no amendments can be offered to the motion or the underlying matter, and a 2/3 majority of Members present and voting is required to agree to the motion.
So...only the Speaker of the House or his designee can make such a motion and supposedly a committee chair has written to the Speaker of the House requesting this. The Speaker of the House is Paul Ryan. It seems to me that if we want this bill to go to a debate then he is the person we need to convince.
Here is his contact information people:
http://www.speaker.gov/contact
I am personally contacting him through that to ask him to reverse his decision to suspend the rules on this bill.
Q
WTF is this? “suspension of the rules.” Who is paying for this?!?! It's starting to look to me like someone or some group with allot of money really, really want's this bill to pass. How can they just throw the rules out of the window on something as huge as this?!?! I don't think sex trafficking is a terrible crime; I think it's beyond terrible that this nonexistent manufactured crime is being used to further remove the basic human right to travel unmolested by governments. This "crime" is about as real as the super bowl sex trafficking lie. Does everyone know that a few years back congress voted to remove all restrictions on the amount of money lobbyists can give to further their cause when lobbying congress?
Feels like someone is calling in favors, and they are destroying our country as we know it, and congress has been allowing it to happen in order to swell their bank accounts.
These businesses and special interest (like private prison corporations) groups bankroll campaigns for these politiciansto get elected; and then they own them. They become puppets.
"The dissenters said that allowing corporate money to flood the political marketplace would corrupt democracy."
"President Obama called it “a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us/politics/22scotus.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
I may be wrong. I may be off base; but something stinks!
Janice's Journal: The New Year Begins with a Frightening Roar
Published Date : January 3, 2016
A new year has begun and because it is an election year it has started out with a roar. A roar that should frighten us all.
Despite the fact that the year is only a few days old, we are already facing two pieces of legislation that could significantly increase the punishment inflicted upon registered citizens.
First, we are facing Assembly Bill (AB) 201 in Sacramento. If passed, this bill would allow cities and counties to recreate the chaos that previously existed due to inconsistent laws that would prohibit registered citizens from visiting a wide variety of public places including parks, hiking trails, swimming pools, libraries and museums as well as private places including fast food restaurants, movie theaters, bowling alleys, internet cafes and video arcades. The inconsistency of those laws, from city to city, had a significant chilling effect upon many registered citizens who feared to venture outside their home town because of the threat of arrest, incarceration and/or fines.
The Public Safety Committee will consider AB 201during a hearing on January 12. It is during that hearing that the Committee will determine the fate of AB 201 as well as the fate of more than 100,000 registered citizens.
If the Committee passes AB 201, the bill will move on to the full Assembly where it WILL be passed by state legislators who are afraid to vote against a sex offender bill.
Are you listening? It is an election year and AB 201 will be passed by the full Assembly IF it is approved by the Public Safety Committee. Therefore, we must STOP the bill during the Public Safety Committee hearing on January 12.
YOU can and must play an important part in stopping AB 201 by sending letters and E-mails as well as calling the offices of the seven committee members. You can also join California RSOL in Sacramento on January 12 and tell the Public Safety Committee this bill must be STOPPED!
Second, we are facing HR 515 in Washington, D.C. If passed, this bill would allow federal agencies to send notices to a foreign country that an individual who was convicted of a sex offense involving a minor is about to enter that country. Similar notices in the past have resulted in an individual being immediately deported without regard to the nature of the offense, when the offense occurred, or if the offense had been repeated. Plainly stated, the notices were issued without considering whether the individual posed a current danger. This situation will worsen if HR 515 is passed because the notices will be sent even if an individual has been declared by a state judge to be rehabilitated and is no longer required to register.
In addition, HR 515 would allow the U.S. State Department to add “unique identifiers” to the passport of some registered citizens even if doing so requires revocation of an existing passport. There is no evidence that this nation has ever used a “unique identifier” on the passport of one of its citizens. And there is no justification to do so at this time!
Does the United States want to repeat the mistake of Nazi Germany that added a “unique identifier” to the passports of its Jewish citizens? No, we do not!
The window of opportunity to stop HR 515 is small because the bill has already been approved by the Senate and is expected to be considered by the House of Representatives later this month. YOU can and you must help to stop this bill by sending letters and E-mails to as well as calling your Congressional representative.
Once again, it is time to SHOW UP – STAND UP – SPEAK UP!
Voice your opinion re. HR 515 on POPVOX. It’s an easy way to express an opinion that goes directly to the correct Congressional representative. Click here.
Related
AB 201
International Megans Law – HR 515
Read all of Janice’s Journal
Comments
Harry
Hello! ValueGirl. A quote from Janice Bellucci "Yes. We stopped AB 201! The Public Safety committee did not pass the bill and it is dead!" See thread: 'We Stopped AB 201!' for details.
ValueGirl
Hope you gave 'em heck today Janice! Waiting with great anticipation to hear how the hearing is going!
Anonymous Nobody
CA, those deadlines you mention are for California laws, not federal laws. This would be signed into law and take effect within months.
Janice, a couple questions about the bill -- as what you say I read in another thread here and tried to respond but could not because the Website would not let me, gave only a 404 error.
You say the bill calls for a unique identifier on passports. I read that in another thread, but when I then went to and read the bill, I saw nothing in it calling for a unique identifier on a passport.
Also, one thing you did not mention that this bill also does is it checks all registrants and sends a notice to their registry state that they are traveling and where to. This is completely out of line! We cannot be subjected to being watched and tracked every last place we go as if all of us had ankle monitors! This is ALL registrants, not just those certain offenses, mainly child molesters. (I oppose it even for FORMER child molesters.)
I also will notice, this bill is poorly written. There is ambiguity in some of the writing, ambiguity that could even be argued means it applies to all registrants.
II also note,thee Feds are doing worse now, sending a notice for all registrants, not just certain offenses, such as child molestation. This bill says nothing that would undermine whatever law (I expect it is the Patriot Act) these current notices are being sent -- it should specify that it overrides whatever other law it allowing for more than this to be done, otherwise they might very well continue doing it to all registrants despite this law possibly limiting its reach. Still, this bill does do it to ALL registrants for any offense as far as notifying the state they live in that they are traveling -- and that is very wrong.
someone who cares
Well, I did my phone calls today, and everybody was really nice and pleasant. I wished people would see the faces behind the label, and they might just change their minds. Most people are like parrots and just repeat what they are being told, without taking the time to really understand and realize that this hype is based on lies, myths and more lies. It is easier to follow the masses than to take some time and do your own research. I call it laziness. But, for politicians and media to straight out lie to everyone, they should be held accountable for the damage they cause. Where is the discrimination lawsuit? People, please wake up and do your own research and stop being a puppet to the lies you are being fed. You all deserve to be treated with respect, and that means, you deserve the truth and not the lies that you blindly believe. Why are we, the family members, friends, and mostly the children being punished as well? Do these politicians really believe that this so called non punitive registry is not harmful to us and the children? Registrants are human beings who made a mistake, or someone decided for them that they made a mistake. They deserve to be left alone once and for all once they completed their sentence. Not every Sex Offender harmed a child, they may have peed behind your car, or they may have had a girlfriend that was one year younger than the legal limit, which by the way is determined differently everywhere you look, or they were intoxicated and decided to show their affection toward each other in a park. Where is this really relevant? Other countries are more open and are in awe about the laws in the US but they don't realize that this country thrives on money, in whatever way they can make it, they will do it. Pass stupid laws, they are in. Overcharge anyone, they are in. Overcrowd our prisons, they are in. You name it, and they will do it. It is time to stop this insanity. We are no longer in the Nazi Germany era, but we are very close to go back there. Please think for a moment, and notice the similarities. That's all. I will await the verdict of AB201 and HR515 and can only hope for some sort of intelligence and common sense when this will be determined.
David
Well-said - and terribly true - Timmr. ?
Timmr
It is clearly obvious this country has crossed a line. It is no longer interested in just punishing a person's illegal behavior; it is diligently weaving a system whereby the whole person is being bound and tortured for merely existing, and it continues indefinitely, with all passages out blocked. Even the act of living a law abiding life becomes a form of punishment as we try to maneuver through this chaotic web of laws put around us.
John
My House Rep's site as well as others I imagine make you fill in your zip or address before allowing you to fill out a form that will email them. Go to your rep's page and find a Contact or email link. If you're address isn't in their district, it won't let you contact them. There's a tip further down the page to email all members of the Assembly Public Safety Committee even if you aren't in there district posted by David.
Robert Curtis
Well I need more people to help me get these Boe-Zoes out of office. Call me people I’ll teach you how to and a skill as well. This is a war! The problem with our ranks is many of them seem to think they’re still civilians.
This is an election year I’ll show you how to do some productive damage! I’ve already been in meetings with senator and assembly candidates and hitting the ground running…I need help here.
I can put a dent in their armor but we together will MOW them completely down! Robert (949) 872-8768. With your individual help, Janice and the RSOL staff we will become that mosquito in the room that drives everyone crazy and make a big difference! Robert (949) 872-8768.
PK
Done. Although it was sent to my Representative in DC who isn't on the Committee that will decide this action.
My comments and opposition need to be sent to Representative Smith right? He's the person leading up this legislation, and surely he would consider my comments and opposition to HR 515- right?
"I oppose this legislation because it paints all Sex Offenders with a "broad brush".
In 2001, I was convicted of a Misdemeanor Sex Offense “Attempted Criminal Sexual Act” in New York. Someone just four months shy of their legal age lied to me about their age. I was told that I would only have to register as a Sex Offender for 10 years. That changed in 2006, when I was then ordered to register for life. I can’t tell you how many ways this has severely impacted and disabled my life.
Years ago, I realized that I would never be able to return to my profession as a Web Developer, nor ever be successful in the United States again. My home now is in Peru. This legislation “International Megan’s Law to Prevent Child Exploitation and Other Sexual Crimes through Advanced Notification of Traveling Sex Offenders” will now prevent me from continuing the new life I have built in Peru- or anywhere else for that matter.
I condemn violent sexual predators and senseless acts of sexual acts against children, however, I think it is completely unfair to treat all Sex Offender Registrants the same. This new legislation is punitive and does in fact paint all Sex Offenders with a “broad brush”, essentially prohibiting any Sex Offender from traveling internationally or trying to make it in another country.
I would ask you to carefully examine this new legislation, and the negative implications that it will have for even those Sex Offenders with minor misdemeanor offenses.
Moderator
We added a link at the bottom of the article that allows everyone to record their stance and opinion on HR 515. Please take a few minutes to do so.
Timmr
Ok, so now with instant background checks, and my resulting lack of customers, I have little work and a lot of time to write letters. Therefore, the letters for AB210 and HR515 are out. What is next? Oh, yes, try to find some work.
Timmr
Surreal because we are living in the fantasy land created by the powerful who view us not as people, but commodities to restrict and control, like some kind of living poison that if it comes in contact with children will harm them, that one can base an economy of imprisonment an surveillance upon.
Sad thing most people could care less, because we have a culture that thrives on marginalizing one group or another. We are not the first or last. It's our turn now.
PR
Well stated Mike.
Janice Bellucci
Thank you, David!
barry
How do you find the email address?
mike r
Heres my letter going out to all these senators and assembly members.
This letter is concerning AB201, (Sex offender presence restriction bill).
I am urging you to vote no on this bill as it has been clearly established that such restrictions serve absolutely no purpose to the goal of preventing recidivism, reducing sexual assaults, or increasing public safety. The California Sex Offender Management Board (CSOMB) has repeatedly stated that these types of laws are actually counterproductive to the legislative intent at reducing crime. Not only do presence restrictions and residency restrictions not serve a legitimate purpose, they will adversely affect tens of thousands of law abiding citizens who are simply trying to rebuild their lives after he/she made a terrible mistake in their past. These types of laws that will allow local government the ability to enact their own ordinances creates an opportunity for the abuse of their powers that could in fact endanger public safety simply because these ex-offenders will have no opportunity to re-integrate into their communities. I am the perfect example of how these ordinances and restrictions will adversely affect my ability to move forward with my life. My offence occurred over a decade ago in which I have completed and complied with everything that I am required too. I have just finished my first semester of college and if these local governments are allowed to restrict where I may be present then there is a high probability that I will not be able to continue with my higher education simply because there are day care centers on almost every college campus in the state.
I have paid for my mistake many times over and simply want to move forward and prove that I can and am a law abiding productive citizen of this state.
I really hope that you take the recommendations of your own experts in the field (CSOMB) and vote no on the presence and residency restrictions and to follow their recommendations to create a tiered registry that will increase public safety.
John
Just emailed my House Representative regarding HR515! It's easy, please do it and if you have family and friends who'll do it, please encourage them to do so.
TiredOfHiding
Indeed, surreal and mind blowing isn't it and yet that is exactly what is going to happen.
That little blue book you have does not give you the freedom to travel as some think.
It is simply a document showing that you are property of and owned by the United States of America.
Bluewall
I did my calling and writing... Called my Congressman Alan Lowenthal on HR515, the staff person on the phone sounded like this is his first time on passing the message for opposition on HR515..
And down the list of people for AB201. The person that answered from Quark said perfect, but the others were pretty quick and no room for small talk....
Someone who cares
I sent e-mails to all seven Committee Members and will call them on my lunch break. This insane law is just too broad, and the term sex offender is too vague to consider such a law. I hope that they will consider the statistics and the truth this time rather than relying on false information and misrepresentation to create mass hysteria to people who deserve to know the truth. Fingers crossed.
John
Just dropped off my letters! Calls are going to be done by 3PM today. Please do as much as you're able to stop these from progressing forward and passing. You and your families liberties deserve your effort to stop these oppressive laws from passing.
PK
Regarding HR 515 and what Janice mentioned "this situation will worsen if HR 515 is passed because the notices will be sent even if an individual has been declared by a state judge to be rehabilitated and is no longer required to register". I know that there is another thread dedicated to this, but this would be devastating especially for those of us who have already made a life outside of the United States, but yet still need to travel back and forth to the US for medical reasons. I shutter to think that one day, that country that I've been traveling to and living in for 9 years will all-of-the-sudden say "sorry you're not allowed into the country". For a f***** misdemeanor in 2001 ?
David
Joe, on a previous thread, a fellow registrant posted a very helpful tip: if you wish to email a lawmaker but you are not in his/her district, just use his/her own district office street address. That way, the geographic filter will allow your message through. I've done it - it works! ?
David
Okay, I made my phone calls and mailed my letters yesterday. And I have forwarded Janice's email to California family and friends. *fingers crossed*
Timmr
The darkness has descended. Follow the flicker of light Janice is holding up. Follow her into the unknown with your heads held up like human beings. Or crawl deeper into the shadows 'til they find you and in the darkness bind you.
Timmr
Use PayPal to set up a monthly donation.
Janice Bellucci
HH, it's already possible to set up a monthly donation. And it's easy. Just click on the "Donate" button and there will be an option to set up donations on either a one-time or a monthly basis. Every donation is extremely valuable as it allows us to convey our message to an even wider audience. Thanks for asking!
Harry
HH, you can do that through, Paypal to CA-RSOL, this is what I am doing.
Joe
Unfortunately the state senator from my district is not on the public safety committee so it won't allow me to email any of them. I wrote this nice letter. I guess I will have to snail mail it:
I am writing you today because I am deeply concerned with what I see in the current AB201, a bill which would allow local governments to severely restrict the free movements of the 100,000 reformed former sex offenders in California required to register per Meagan's Law. Well meaning, this law is severally flawed on two fronts. Firstly. study after study show that the secret to reducing recidivism is to allow released offenders every advantage to integrate back into society, allow them their familial and community support structures. This bill promotes the opposite. It will further marginalize these former offenders making it even more difficult for them to maintain productive, crime free lives. Secondly, this bill plays to the myth that restricting reformed former sex offenders movements or banning them from certain locations will somehow protect children. There is no body of evidence to support this assumption. This is based purely on irrational fear. In fact, a preponderance of evidence shows that AB201 would actually put children even more at risk by hindering a reformed offender the opportunities he or she needs to succeed in life. Please consider this bill carefully before voting on it. Thank you.
Your constituent,
HH
Janice / All - can you create a re-occurring donation that we can be billed monthly , similar to an eft ? I think many of us want to donate monthly and sometimes forget. Even if some can even afford $5 a month , if we can get enough of us to back this we can provide Janice and team with enough financial resources to fight on our behalf. With 100,00 rso's here at $5 each a month- that's a huge as I am sure she will agree. I would be happy to begin making contact with people to get this going.
KangaroOCourt
Ms. Bellucci..I want my name on a lawsuit with millions a dollars attached for undermining civil rights and calif trying to san bernadino the Constitution.
I want the money. They obviously have the money to spend. I want some too.
Registering to have freedom restraint is double jeopardy and restraint of freedom Requires.. Demands Due Process.
Whewwwwwwww.!
CA
when would it become law if it did pass?
Harry
I will have the phone calls done, by the end of the week.
curiouser
Then let's kill the damned thing. Letters being written tonight, calls tomorrow.
Janice Bellucci
Thank you, Harry! Please remember to call, too.
Janice Bellucci
Unfortunately, AB 201 can be applied retroactively if it is passed by the state legislature. This is due to U.S. Supreme Court decision, Smith v. Doe, in 2003 which ruled that registration is not punishment.
Janice Bellucci
Thank you very much!
Janice Bellucci
If the Assembly passes AB 201, it will be sent to the Senate and consideration by their Public Safety Committee would be required. That means we would have a second chance to stop it. If, however, we stop the bill when it is considered by the Assembly's committee, the bill will be dead.
Q
Ok; I've sent 2 emails to my congressman. For AB 201 I used the letter provided by Janice. For H.R.515 I copied and pasted selected parts from the original post and added a few thoughts of my own. Here is my H.R.515 letter to my congressman. Anyone is welcome to use it and to modify it to reflect their own thoughts.
Dear Congressman Cook
This is to voice my opposition to H.R.515. Similar notices in the past have resulted in an individual being immediately deported without regard to the nature of the offense, when the offense occurred, or if the offense had been repeated. Plainly stated, the notices were issued without considering whether the individual posed a current danger. If HR 515 is passed the notices will be sent even if an individual has been declared by a state judge to be rehabilitated and is no longer required to register.
In addition, HR 515 would allow the U.S. State Department to add “unique identifiers” to the passport of some registered citizens even if doing so requires revocation of an existing passport. There is no evidence that this nation has ever used a “unique identifier” on the passport of one of its citizens. And there is no justification to do so at this time!
Does the United States want to repeat the mistake of Nazi Germany that added a “unique identifier” to the passports of its Jewish citizens? No, we do not! If this is passed it will further impede the efforts of registered citizens to be a part of their families that live in foreign lands, thus permanently separating parents from children, husbands from wives, brothers from sisters, etc.
In addition I have never seen any proof; empirical or otherwise, that proves the concerns addressed in H.R.515 are based on fact, thus leading me believe that H.R.515 would be yet another preemptive measure taken by government aimed at a class of citizens with the lowest re offense rate aside from murderers.
Sincerely;
USA
Eric Knight, I mean no offense, but I don't think you speak for everyone. Nobody gets anywhere being negative. Just think about how Ca RSOL started? Janice is a lawyer? She is also a Civil Rights Lawyer? She met a fellow registered citizen by accident and the rest is history! Just think about what's this far been accomplished? So, let's all remain positive or convey something meaningful.
In regards to the California Bill, isn't the California Safety Committee the same Committee that was for California having a tiered system? I believe they will do the right thing. Good luck
CA
So KangaroOCourt, your saying ab 201 wound not be retroactive?
CA
yes somebody please chime in!!!! find this info out, when would this become law, if it does?
Harry
I mailed my letters, today.
CA
exactly, it would still be a year before it becomes law right?
KangaroOCourt
The Constitution roars back on the calif proposal. This can only apply to new 'sex' conviction people.
Federal and state Constitution forbid any other application.
The Constitution Roar.
Leo
Mark - ditto - plz. see/read post put just after yours for more TIMELY info. Thx.
Leo
RSOL readers and supporters... enough is enough, right? - please unite w/o delay and hold VERY strong!
Sharing the info. to follow as a FYI... plz. consider doing something similar... TIME SENSITIVE! Any written opposition must be in their office by 1/7/16 at 4 p.m.! Contact them directly for an email address to send WRITTEN opposition for consideration by the deadline... I just did it and got a reply (from a human) that my email was received! Or better yet, show on 1/12 and SPEAK civilly, but firmly for the ~100,000 tax paying and currently law-abiding citizens potentially adversely affected! Thank you. :)
Assembly Public Safety Committee
1020 N Street (LOB), Room 111
Sacramento, California 95814
916.319.3744 phone
916.319.3745 fax
AND/OR SHOW UP 1/12!
Committee Hearings
Tuesday, January 12, 2016
Public Safety
QUIRK, Chair
9 a.m. - State Capitol, Room 126
Committees: Public Safety
Hide Details
HEARD IN SIGN-IN ORDER
Summary:A.B.No. 201 Registered sex offenders: local ordinances.
**********************************************************************************
Hello Committee on Public Safety Hearing Staff...
Please read in full if at all possible.
As one actually 'living the life' and potentially and directly adversely affected by further restrictive, and consequentially punitive (in my opinion) PC290 related legislation, I am wanting to convey strong opposition to AB201 and respectfully request not passing this (or any other similar) bill... please...
Although society's ongoing unhealthy level of 'hysteria' on anything related to PC290 clearly continues (to include prejudging and putting all such offenders in the 'same boat' w/o knowing the facts), please consider that such proposed legislation only perpetuates bringing out further 'raw emotion' on the topic rather than moving to facilitate and find a true, humane, safe, long-term, and equitable balance and resolution to the understandable related concerns and corresponding challenges surrounding the topic.
[To this end, I assert that a long overdue reforming the California 1947 Sex Registry process - to include the implementation of a 'tiered registration system' - is desperately needed, should be the current focus, and would be going in the right direction. In my case for example, I am not a recidivism statistic - 25 years later - yet I remain 'on the dreaded, 'scarlet letter', and marginalizing public list' (for life) while concurrently trying to make a living in the same community as many of you - as a law-abiding, hard working, tax paying, voting citizen and neighbor. FYI - as I am confident many in the same situation would concur, "life-time registration" meant to me at the time - 25 yrs. ago as was told to me - that this would ONLY be with official law enforcement agencies (and I am still fine/agree with this today as there is no interest to re-offend)... However, this registration requirement was definitely not indicated or understood to be for the entire community or online world-wide access and definitely not knowing that the current 100,000 registrants in CA would have to endure continual and frequent 'adverse change' to this 'requirement' through new and ongoing retroactive legislation (such as the proposed AB201)].
Your awareness of the adverse and life-changing ramifications of such legislation; consideration of this genuine written opposition; and supporting a 'no vote' on AB201 would be sincerely appreciated.
Please see further opposition communication sent to both the State Assembly and Senate.
Thank you for your time and support of opposition if at all possible please.
----- Forwarded Message -----
Sent: Monday, January 4, 2016 2:28 AM
Subject: 1/12/16 - AB201 - Further Restrict 290 Registrants
State Assembly (District 9)
Assembly Member Jim Cooper-DEM
State Senate (District 6)
Senator Richard Pan-DEM
NOTE: Find your reps here:
http://apsf.assembly.ca.gov/membersstaff
Regarding the scheduled Committee on Public Safety
Hearing on 1/12/16 & AB201 - please - for numerous personal & communal reasons... it is respectfully requested, & I implore you, to vote NO on this & any other current or future similar proposed legislation. In short, please consider that doing the right/honorable/humane thing is often not the easiest or most popular thing (especially serving in an elected political office), however, I assert that this legislation is one such life-changing occasion that one needs to remain steadfast in opposing such restrictive & further ostracizing legislation directed toward only one 'class' of offenders put in the 'same boat'. Prior offenders or not, we are all human beings, neighbors, & community members first... before we should be swayed by politics or any 'hype'. I too have a job, pay taxes, partake in community activities, volunteer, remain law-abiding (25 years later), & vote in elections. None of us can change poor/immature/hurtful choices from so long ago, however, those affected can choose to not have any further victims & strive to be the best law-abiding citizens that we can be. Reasonably, however, we need the chance, laws, support, & resources to be able to do this. Further restrictive, punitive, & marginalizing legislation only significantly adds to one's already challenging 'scarlet lettered' existence in our community. At this rate, with the ongoing 'societal hysteria' on the topic in general, & with such proposed legislation, those affected will potentially not even be able to walk pets, bicycle, run, eat, etc. in public for fear of passing a park or school or other 'forbidden area' under a local agency's jurisdiction. Thank you for your consideration & doing the right thing... voting NO & opposing AB201 (& HR515).
I remain available by email to share my personal story - not as an excuse, but as an explanation to better understand that we are not all undeserving of a second chance & fair treatment & less 'Big Brother'...
PR
Letters will go out today on SB 201. Phone calls have been made.
Mark Judkins
Curiouser, Yes, it would have to be considered by the Senate, but, my feeble understanding is that it would not necessarily be required to go through the Committee process in the Senate. If someone has a better handle on the process, I am sure they will chime in.
curiouser
Just for clarification, doesn't AB 201 have to get past the Senate, along with its own Public Safety Committee, as well as the assembly BEFORE it reaches the governor's desk?
Mark Judkins
This is so ominous. One Committee short of being a law. My letters should be in the hands of the Committee members. My calls have been made. I will be there on January 12. If they won't listen to us, lets hope they will listen to the CASOMB. Why have an advisory group if you don't listen to them? Let's hope they do.
pgm111
Okay, let's do this. I will make calls and send emails starting tomorrow morning. Right now I will have a few drinks...
mike r
These laws are just like gun laws. A person with criminal intent isn't going to give a rats ass about obeying these laws so they are absolutly zero deference but are an incredible burdon and infringment on law abiding citizens rights.
CA
Janice, lets say for conversation sake, this stupid unconstitutional bill does pass, it would become law in January of 2017 right? It would have to be signed into law, which would not be until November correct? and in January of 2017 become law?
Eric Knight
IML is, unfortunately, a done deal. There is virtually no way to stop it other than playing footsy as a rider with another bill, which seems unlikely, and will pass because Obama DESPERATELY needs a bill to pass so he can make hay with a rare "working with Congress" moment. That bill will have to be addressed in federal court.
The California bill is much easier to stop in committee, because that is where the CSOMB has the most sway, and won't affect voting perceptions of the public. But if the unfortunate passage should happen, at least CA RSOL has a chance to fight this in court, due to earlier victories and court arguments that have already been litigated. The only problem will be is that this will be a state-mandated law. But let's get that stopped by getting those letters written and those phone calls made.
Janice's Journal: Preparing for the Spotlight
Published Date : December 14, 2015
This is not a movie review. It is, however, my reaction to a movie. A movie that could bring negative attention to all who have been convicted of a sex offense.
The movie is “Spotlight” which has just been released and has already been nominated as best picture by the Screen Actors Guild and may be nominated for an Academy Award.
The movie is about a small group of reporters at The Boston Globe newspaper. The movie is also about a multi-decade cover up by the Catholic Church. Finally, the movie is about dozens of priests known to have molested hundreds of children.
My concerns about this movie stem from the belief that those who watch the movie will miss its primary point, that is, newspaper reporters uncovered and reported on a cover-up conducted by the Catholic Church. My concern with the movie is that its viewers will focus upon the harm done to the children of Boston and demand harsher penalties for all registered citizens regardless of where they live, the offense they committed and/or the amount of time that has elapsed since that offense occurred.
Registered citizens today already face a plethora of penalties that no one should have to endure – broken families, unemployment, homelessness and vigilante violence.
There is growing recognition of these penalties by public officials in a few states. For example, a recent decision by the highest court in Massachusetts recognized a long list of penalties experienced by registered citizens such as increased registration requirements, harsher penalties for failure to register, ineligibility for federal housing and extensive dissemination of registrants’ private information. The court also noted that registered citizens face profound humiliation and community wide ostracism.
While progress is being made in some states, there are other states where the opposite is true. For example, a town in Texas has proposed a law that would require all registered citizens who live in that town to post a large sign in their yard stating “A registered sex offender lives here”.
And in our state, state senator Sharon Runner is criticizing the wise and humane decisions of the CA Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to exempt many registered citizens on parole form residency restrictions. She is vowing to move forward a bill she introduced earlier this year that would overturn a decision by the CA Supreme Court that recognized residency restrictions are inhumane and violate the state Constitution.
Read all of Janice’s Journal
Comments
michael
I think the Texas town with the yard sign is more honest at trying to get rid of its offenders all the other towns have just administratively evicted the registrants.
Harry
At least, bears and wolves treat all humans equally.
mike r
Shit we can't even wonder the lands as nomads since we have to report all the time where we are. I would love to be able to purchase a gun and move into the Alaskan bush and never see humanity again except to see my son and grandson every once in awhile. If if wasn't for the bears and wolfs and the fact that I would be a fugitive I would be gone. As it is I am trapped at the mercy of the good ol US of A.
Ostracized Witch
Thank You Janice for keeping us informed of activities detrimental to those of us who are forever banished (Registered)!
Dram
What was the conversation of the Nazis as they convinced their population regarding the Jews?
Good theater here if anyone wants!
Dram
Does the idea of Nazis and their Jews come to mind?
Dram
Just curious as a juxtaposition, a sex offender who once lived in a Catholic Boys boarding school in the 3rd and fourth grade?
http404
A word I picked up from a news article covering a story about the LASD abuse of prisoners. They refer to these tortured souls with mental illness as "dings." Despicable.
http404
Just playing on their own rhetoric, the Runners should be apprehended by the authorities and transported by helicopter to San Nicholas Island to live out their days away from society due to the threat and risk they pose to the community and families of registered citizens.
Pretty much what they are advocating is to drive registered citizens and their families out into the desert to wander the land as Nomads.
You simply can't reason with ignorance.
Mark Judkins
We should all set aside some time and money so that we can join Janice in Sacramento to lobby against Ms Runner's bill(s). If we show up in mass, she can't win. And perhaps, she will get the message, although I doubt it.
Janice, I am ready to join you to fight her bills - in the Legislatures' offices and in the Committee meetings. Who else will join her?
Q
I think a movie about the Kern County buyoff scandal would have made a much better movie. I know there was a problem with the church that has long since been resolved; unfortunately people are so stupid that they the think trash out of Hollywood peddled as entertainment is actually reality. Hang on to your seats! This could get uglier than it already is!
Harry
She sees her legacy in the toilet and lies on her face yet do not want be call a liar, that she is.
TFM
Sharon Runner Must be stopped. Why does she need to do this?
David Kennerly
I should have mentioned that The Boston Globe was the most vicious of the media in getting Paul Shanley and Gordon MacCrae convicted. Paul Shannon (not Shanley) of our own organization, RSOL, and one of its founders, could tell us lots more about The Boston Globe and the incessant war on truth it has conducted over decades.
David Kennerly
The Boston Globe is a terrible, dishonest, newspaper, especially in its decades of reporting on pedophilia. For those of us who have been watching it carefully, over many years, we do not share any enthusiasm for its journalism or its integrity.
It's also worth noting that there is a completely different side to the scandals of the Catholic Church, one that is never reported, and one in which many priests have been unjustly convicted. Paul Shanley is one such priest for whom there was zero evidence against him who was convicted on the strength of now thoroughly discredited recovered memories. His accusers were motivated entirely by dreams of winning the 'Irish sweepstakes', as it were, and have collected prodigious awards from the Catholic Church. There are many more priests, just like him, including Fr. Gordan MacCrae, who languish in prison still as very elderly, completely harmless, men.
I recommend being rather less credulous in our desire to distinguish ourselves from what we believe to be genuine "boogeymen". We may find that we give away rather too much in these accommodations to the hysterical.
Ira Ellman
When my wife and I saw the movie, the first thing I said as we left was that it showed what we were up against. It is in fact a terrific movie, and the audience burst into spontaneous applause when it concluded. That reaction was from the gut, and I share Janice's concern that it may make it more difficult to have rational policy discussions on sex offenders.
Of course the Boston Globe reporters performed a very important public service, and the Church has been justly condemned for the coverup of the awful acts committed by so many priests. But of course, that's the real point of the movie: any organization that is shielded from outside scrutiny has a tendency to circle the wagons and protect its own whenever an outsider attacks, rather than to look at itself critically. That's what the church did, and that's what the prison guards in New York did at Riker's Island and the Clinton correctional facility, scandals the New York Times has been uncovering. Guards beating mentally ill prisoners to death because they're bothered by the prisoner's odd behavior is also pretty bad, and covering it up to protect the guards from any disciplinary actions is essentially the same institutional illness that Spotlight revealed about the church.
And that's the message of Spotlight, so far as I am concerned. I am glad the Church has finally been forced to address its handling of criminal acts by priests, and I also hope the prison system will similarly be forced to address criminal acts by its guards. Those who shine a spotlight on such things are in fact heroes.
Eric
Thank you Janice. Registered friends: in the face of hostility and fear, do not react with anger and fear of your own. Focus on the positive steps you have made and are continuing to make. Develop relationships one at a time. 12 Steps groups will generally welcome you and will provide some level of support. Some churches will do the same.
Janice's Journal: Tenacity Results in Victory in Carson
Published Date : December 3, 2015
Our tenacity paid off! More than 18 months, 3 lawsuits and 2 protests later, the City of Carson has repealed its presence restrictions.
In a vote of 3 to 0, the City Council decided to rid the City of Carson of its presence restrictions which both violated state law and denied the civil rights of more than 100,000 individuals.
This important vote was taken despite a proclamation in 2014 by a member of the City Council to “declare war” upon registered citizens.
This important vote was taken because we did not give up. Instead, we showed up, we stood up and we spoke up – in the courts and in the streets of Carson.
First, we challenged the city’s ordinance in federal court alleging that the ordinance violated the U.S. Constitution and was preempted by state law. In good faith, we later entered into a Settlement Agreement with the City that specified the City would revise its restrictions and we would dismiss the lawsuit. We dismissed the lawsuit, however, the City reneged and refused to revise its restrictions.
The City Council attempted to justify its position by claiming that the City Manager lacked authority to bind the City despite a provision in the agreement stating that he had such authority. The City Council subsequently fired the City Manager.
Members of the City Council replied to the second lawsuit in state court as well as in the court of public opinion. That is, they postured before city residents during Council meetings by speaking out loudly and angrily about the lawsuit as well as about appellate court decisions which determined that similar laws adopted by other local governments were preempted. During those meetings, Council members acknowledged they were aware of the courts’ decisions and proclaimed they would not abide by them because they disagreed.
We responded to the Council’s angry proclamations by inviting members of that Council to a picnic in a city park. We believed that such an event had the potential to close the gap between the parties. Because the Council members refused our invitation, we organized and conducted a peaceful protest in the form of a march from City Hall to the park where a picnic was held – in the park for family members and 300 feet away from the park for registered citizens who could not lawfully enter. We conducted a second peaceful protest on another day prior to a City Council meeting.
Third, we filed a second lawsuit in federal court after a new and brave registrant agreed to serve as a plaintiff in that lawsuit. The original federal allegations — the City’s presence restrictions violated the U.S. Constitution and were preempted by state law – were repeated.
The Carson City Council made the right decision this week when it significantly revised its presence restrictions so as to comply with state law and the Carson City Council is to be commended for that decision.
Let us take this time to savor our victory in the battle to protect the Constitution by restoring an important civil right, that is, that registered citizens be allowed to lawfully visit public and private places. For we shall soon enough be required to fight another battle in Carson and in other cities, that is, to restore the right of registered citizens to lawfully reside in the city or county of their choice.
Read all Janice’s Journals
Comments
MichaelRS
Don't forget to send a letter in this regard specifically to KFI's AM 640 John & Ken.
They need to stick to the illegal immigration issue, since they seem to be so of base with the RC issue.
Robert Curtis
Janice do you think they actually read the US Constitution you gave them at their City Council meeting? Whatever the last straw was that got them to move no doubt it was you, your team and the many prayers up that made a combined difference. Thank you Janice for your leadership and also to all those out there that showed up, stood up and/or spoke up!
j
Congratulations again and again to Janice & Co. for fighting the fight in the face of extreme prejudice and hatred sponsored by a standing body of government - and finding a way for justice to prevail.
We don't need to declare a war on anyone. Janice declared a war on ignorance and bigotry and Carson found themselves in the cross-hairs by their own words and actions.
The abstaining members should appropriately be sued for conspiring to violate the civil rights of registrants and their families. I don't know if Carson would be on the hook for the damages or if they would fall directly to those individuals that carried on this war of hatred.
Either way, millions should be ponied up to help restore the dignity of those affected by this hateful policy.
someone who cares
Congratulations again! Janice and Team will go down in History, that is for sure. I am proud the part of this great group.
tmw
Congratulations on the victory in Carson! I notice there are a lot of comments regarding how everyone is happy about the case and I am glad however it would also be nice to see a few more of these people at the meetings, protests, or court hearings. There are many registered sex offenders in California, their family, and friends who can come out to support RSOL in so many ways but refuse to do so for one reason or another. Please consider standing upfront with Janice and the team, more the better!
Margaret Moon
Kudos, Stephen, for standing up to be counted! It is a constant source of frustration to me that more of the 100000 + registrants and families here in California do not show up, stand up, and speak up.
We must conquer our fear and embarrassment and stand up together to show that we are serious about restoring and protecting our civil rights as citizens of California and of the United States.
New Person
Continue to do great works! Hopefully, this will catch onto the federal level so all other states can follow suit. Then it will be like a domino effect.
jo
Great work!
USA
Well done. One victory at a time. The race isn't always won by the swiftest or fastest, but rather by those who keep running. I truly have absolutely no idea where California would be without you. Thank you again
Craig
Congratulations CARSOL and the members, keep the fight up.
Roger
Thanks for bulldogging this for so long, Janice! When we look at our fight as a marathon, not a sprint, it is easier to be positive about the future. We are all in this together!
Never Quit
Congratulations and well done!!! One step at a time, one day at a time, we ARE making progress. Thank you for your hard work and dedication. It is very much appreciated by all. On to the next fight....
Stephen
I wish more people would stand up and be counted like you all in California, I'm one of only 2 registered people in my State willing to Address Our state government, out of about 20 thousand.
Janice's Journal: The Tipping Point May Be Near
Published Date : September 9, 2015
Today the New York Times published an editorial, “The Pointless Banishment of Sex Offenders”, which questions the adoption by some states, counties and cities of residency restrictions which prohibit where a registered citizen may live. The editorial notes that such restrictions have resulted in sending “tens of thousands of people to the fringes of society, forcing them to live in motels, out of cars or under bridges” and that “there is not a single piece of evidence” that these restrictions protect children. The editorial also notes that “judges have been pushing back” against residency restrictions in state Supreme Court decisions in Massachusetts, New York and California.
The timing of this editorial in an important publication is a significant windfall. It comes at a crucial time in our march toward the elimination of residency restrictions in the state of California. In fact, it comes on the very day that the first city whose restrictions we challenged in court — Grover Beach — is scheduled to take its first formal step toward repeal of its residency restrictions. If Grover Beach takes that step, it will join the cities of El Monte, Downey and Corona as well as Riverside County on the path of justice and humanity.
There are many more California cities and counties, however, that continue to restrict where a registered citizen may live. They do so despite a recent California Supreme Court decision which determined that residency restrictions violate the constitutional rights of registered citizens on parole to be free of unreasonable, arbitrary and oppressive government actions. The Court also stated that residency restrictions do not bear a “rational relationship to advancing the state’s legitimate goal of protecting children.”
The Court’s rulings are essential to our cause of eliminating residency restrictions and are supported by a recent study from the California Sex Offender Management Board which noted that “there is no evidence that residency restrictions are related to preventing or deterring sex crimes against children.” The Board added, “to the contrary the evidence strongly suggests that residency restrictions are likely to have the unintended consequence of increasing the likelihood of sexual re-offense.”
As the New York Times editorial board stated today, “(i)t is understandable to want to do everything possible to protect children from being abused. But not all people who have been convicted of sex offenses pose a risk to children, if they pose a risk at all. Blanket residency restriction laws disregard that reality – and the merits of an individualized approach to risk assessment – in favor of a comforting mirage of safety.”
May this message be heard by all, including the judges who will ultimately decide the fate of residency restrictions in the state of California. For once the mirage vanishes, we will all live in a safer and more just society.
Read all Janice’s Journals
Comments
Will Crump
Janice, please help me find someone in TN willing to carry the battle to the politicians like you're doing in CA. The TN chapter of the ACLU won't touch sex offender law challenges because they're a small chapter with limited resources. They state challenges have been unsuccessful and they decline to even try.
Offenders in TN need someone as tenacious, dedicated, and determined as you are to see these laws up-ended.
The Anon
Right now the best bets would most likely
European countries in the Schengen countries.
David Kennerly
I have long thought an asylum basis for entering a country has potential for RSOs. Through the diligent recording and documentation of injustice in particular countries, such as the U.S. & U.K., as well as the recognition of treatment of RSOs as cruel and unjust by other countries (the really hard part) such asylum bids could become reality.
The challenge is in identifying those candidate countries at a time when injustice has already spread like wildfire, internationally, with virtually no country left untouched by the waves of illiberal laws and the uniformity of those campaigns to implement them.
It's worth noting that so-called 'anti-trafficking' and child abuse campaigners provide model legislation to the world's countries in the hopes that they will be implemented worldwide thus creating a de-facto international standard. There is good reason to believe that these models have been wildly successful in being injected into the legal fabric of far more countries than have not.
So the asylum bid must take whatever differences may exist between countries into account in identifying the candidate country.
Any list which I might imagine would be an extremely short one. And I have no idea, at this early stage, which country might credibly offer a real opportunity.
Mike Darling
Janice,
I found it very interesting that under the current US law, applying the restriction placed on SO's we as a group qualify as Politically oppressed. In a recognized social group that has severe restriction and oppression from our government, recently even travel restrictions http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/asylum-or-refugee-status-who-32298.html. Is this helpful?
Ostracized Witch
I am lucky so far, that my city hasn't enforced the residency laws. I will be homeless (and unemployed) if they ever do! Pray for the day Calif's S.O. Registry is segmented so that lower level offenders can get finite terms.
Robert Curtis
A friend of mine has been busting heads and shaking things up in the senate. Although political timing is important positioning our concerns in the ears at the top helps as well. Sometimes pressure is best utilized when applied from more than one direction and/or angle.
NotLikingCalifornia
Citation?
John
I just called. They are not accepting positions vocally. Email [email protected] and state your position citing the reasons IN YOUR OWN WORDS so it doesn't look like one person sending the same email over and over.
1. Violates the First Amendment.
2. Too broad.
3. Rushed with not enough time to give it careful consideration.
4. No safeguards for the data collected.
Janice Bellucci
Senate Bill 448 is scheduled to be heard by the Public Safety Committee in the Assembly on Friday, September 11. It is important that we all make calls to that committee starting at 8:30 a.m. and continue doing so until the bill is heard. The phone number is 916-319-3744. Please call early and often!
Nicholas Maietta
I hate to be bearer of good or bad news. The good news yesterday was that we had a foot in the door to fix a big problem, provided real lawyers (like Janice) review, strategize and strike. Unfortunately, it now seems from my source that this will only be good for a per case bases.
Failure to register in Nebraska can be met with a nullification of application of the law as it currently stands, because it was found to be unconstitutional. Unfortunately our source got some really horrible news today relating to health, so i won't even attempt to reach out relating to this.
He could only say: Tenth Amendment Center website. I browsed and search all over for this but i cannot find it. I guess the source before him was from possibly Mary Sue from Texas Voices. Try and reach out to her. They may know more of what this is all about including the name of the case.
This news JUST CAME OUT, so i am not surprised those in the law reform movement haven't heard of it yet.
td777
I'm praying and will have my church pray.
New Person
Interesting. Please do share the case. = ) And thank you for sharing!
patience4
Thank you for your prayers. It is not sure how much injuries he has. he is so tough. I cry and pray to Buddha
Timmr
As long as you are considered a person without human rights, it doesn't matter how nice the laws appear.
Harry
The prayer is done in this sad news.
NPS
I completely agree that we are definitely near a turning point with this registration nonsense. And it is thanks to you, Janice, for starting the fight and encouraging our community to show up, stand up and speak up. Many, many thanks for your tireless efforts and strength.
G4Change
SO VERY SORRY. Glad your little boy survived, and am praying for a full recovery. <3
tim8
Nicholas can you please cite the case. I have 2 great lawyers already working on something similar and if love to bring this to there attention.
Q
USA; it has to be getting harder each day for this state and many other states to pretend that the truth about all this isn't there and doesn't exist.
Q
WOW!!!! This is amazing!! This could be the biggest break in the wall of ignorance and oppression yet!
Q
patience; you and your son are in my prayers, as well as the little one that died, as well as his family.
USA
This is a very well written article. We also have to remember that there are some (actually many) individuals who haven't even been convicted of a child related offense or the crime was victimless (internet related ect). So, as mentioned so much in the past, all offenders can't be put in the same category. Furthermore, I think the recent study conducted by the Department of Justice says it all (less than 1 %). Lets wake up. There are certainly a lot of offenders that should be on parole ect, but what about Grandpa living in Leisure World or the idiot who got caught in a massage parlor 20 years ago and received Summary Probation? California, start reading the studies and lets institute a tiered system so we can all move on with our lives.
Nicholas Maietta
I just spoke with a friend of mine who just heard of a case in Nebraska that seems to have what it takes to dismantle the whole registry and failure to register cases in the state after a man took his failure to register case to trial and won. The Jury came back with two points and if anyone has the nerves and resources to tackle the challenge, it would remove the registry entirely in Nebraska. The first point is none of the 12 jury of his peers could understand nor follow the vague laws. The other is that they found the laws unconstitutional. I'm sure you will be getting an email from someone soon about this.
Two Words:
Jury nullification.
Avig
Bravo, I couldn't agree more.
MarkW-SF
I agree overall with the observations of the NYT editorial board's 9/8/15 post and the Journal entry here -- I do.
I just ask that we also consider all the other ways and means that "registration" occurs - including registration of online identity, etc etc. These too, as banishments and tools of the "containment model", are abridgements and violations of civil and constitutional rights. And have no basis in actual facts or evidence. CA SB448 comes to mind. If you have businesses or are searching for work or just living modern life with various forced online identities - and miss reporting one - you can be imprisoned. And what logistical mechanisms are in place to actually accurately comply with such law?
Stances can be made to approach all this from give-and-take negotiation and acceptance of small or partial piecemeal victories. But let's also consider too the "all of us or none" approach. Registration of any kind is unacceptable, unless all other forms of offenses require equal registration. And in that case, democracy, liberty, civil and constitutional rights are indeed a mirage.
There are many voices in a peaceful protest against tyranny by government or mob mentality. There is room for the incremental and all-of-us-or-none approach both. Which is most effective for our lifetimes or beyond, is still an open question.
Posed to the group: Thoughts, experiences, beliefs, actions?
patience
I know this wrong forum. But my little boy was hit by truck while riding scooter with fiend.his fiend died and he is in hospital. Please pray for him. I love so much so much and can' there him be there. My heart is tearing apart. Please pray for him.
Janice's Journal: Summer Summary
Published Date : July 29, 2015
It has been a long, hot summer and we have much to be proud of. We stopped three bills in the state legislature (AB 201, SB 267 and SB 54) and we forced the modification of an additional bill (SB 448). If the legislators who proposed the bills had their way, cities and counties would be allowed to prohibit registered citizens from visiting both public and private places as well as living near those places. In addition, all registered citizens would be required to disclose their internet identifiers.
There is still much to be done with regard to the internet identifier legislation (SB 448) as it is expected to move through the Senate in August and then to the Assembly in September. During that time, there will be several opportunities to stop the bill and/or to require further modifications. Those opportunities will be revealed on this website at a later time, closer to the dates on which the bill will be heard.
We can also be proud of the recent protest in the City of Carson during which we communicated with local residents using banners and placards outside City Hall and then with the City Council during its monthly meeting. The media covered our protest which in turn helped us to educate the public regarding Carson’s unlawful ordinance as well as the truth about registered citizens.
It is important to pause and to take a moment during these dog days of summer to reflect upon our accomplishments this year in order to prepare for our next major challenge — cities and counties that continue to enforce residency restrictions. We took the first step in that direction on June 17 when we challenged the residency restrictions in Grover Beach. There are many more steps to take before we reach the ultimate goal of eliminating all residency restrictions in the state of California. Please stay tuned!
By Janice Bellucci
Read all of Janice’s Journal
Comments
webstuff56
hello Janice:
I too wish to thank you and this organization from the bottom of my heart for all that you do! I feel that if I sit around waiting for others to do what I should be doing, then I deserve what I have. As such, I am a registrant located in Long Beach, CA. and I would like very much to be of any assistance I can.
my situation began in 2001. For the most part I dont feel any affects of these laws daily and go about my life as if this never happened. until recently when I was checking about the best way for my foreign national fiance and I to get married (shall i go there or bring her here). Then I'm shocked to find all these laws they've been busy trying to make my life more miserable with.
So please, I feel helpless now and want to fight back! if you need any assistance at all please let me know!
CA
So Janice, does the injunction for the block on prop 35, that the 9th circuit upheld. does it expire in September?
mike r
Email for brookb did not work
CA
I also saw that on cnn, it was on juveniles mainly, but yes you are correct the mainstream is becoming aware of how unconstitutional these laws have become.
C
Over the years I have purchased several Park Hopper and multi-day passes to Disneyland - as recently as last April - and, although it crosses my mind, I have not had a problem.
My daughter won a free ticket to Magic Mountain and I am eager to take her but need to make sure I can actually get in.
A few weeks ago I was swayed to buy an annual pass to a local children's museum, Getting rejected crossed my mind when filling out the form with my name, address, etc., and giving them my driver license. They were to print the passes on the spot, but another staffer approached the young lady helping us behind the glass and turned off the microphone so we could not hear their discussion. Now I was getting a little nervous.
After a minute she turned the mic back on and explained the printer was broken, however we could enter the museum and pick them up later. Hmmm...
About 10 minutes before the place closed that same young lady found us and, with a very sweet smile, handed me an envelop with our annual passes.
HOOKSCAR
It has been a while since I have commented. In the last 14 months my fiancé has lost both of her parents. They both lived in our home. Very hard time as she just learned that she needs surgery on her shoulder.
What I wanted to comment on is that CNN today had a sex offender story that will bring light to the general public how unconstitutional these laws really are. I emailed Brook Baldwin, one of the anchors in the am, and sent her factual studies that have shown the outright lies that have been told to the public by politicians to further their own careers. I suggest that all others do the same. Word is getting into the mainstream. [email protected].
Eric Knight
Actually, there is no specific state law that prohibits RC's from Disneyland or other theme parks. However, parks may have policies that prohibit RC's through their terms of service. But the only way they can currently do it is through identification of the names of individuals through passes as opposed to individual entry.
Here is one story: http://www.wftv.com/news/news/local/9-investigates-crackdown-sex-offenders-inside-disn/nXXrZ/
(CA RSOL even had a post about it here: http://all4consolaws.org/2013/04/fl-9-investigates-crackdown-on-sex-offenders-inside-disney-world/)
From what I have read in the past, Disneyland has this policy, though I can't find any stories via normal Google search. The story I read was about one specific instance of an RSO not being able to go to Disneyland Adventure theme park of the Disneyland Resort. But Disneyworld in Florida has definitely been active on the "ban-wagon."
I also know that all "5 Flags and a racist Confederate Flag" (6 Flags) parks have written policies on their tickets banning RSO's, but I've never heard of anyone being kicked out of the park, though I'm sure the bans are applied speficially to those who get a pass.
j
In California yes. In Disneyworld in Florida, I read that registrants are either denied entrance or forcibly removed from the park by security guards.
How they can do this to a registrant whose crime has been closed for decades is the crux of how the law has become one of the biggest collection of lies in recent history.
How any legislator can be proud of this is beyond reasoning, but introduce enough ignorance, fear and hate and anything is possible.
Patsy Hug
Are Registered Citizens allowed to go to Disneyland or Knotts Berry Farm with family?
Angry
CA you show your appreciation by commenting here. Would that the 80,000 non incarcerated registered citizens did as much. Janice and crew will get a break when those vast numbers realize they can do something, even if it is small. What would be the impact if just 1% or 8000 showed up at a protest or wrote one letter each? Torrential! It recently poured 1 1/2 inches of rain here in 1/2 hour. There was no Thor or higher being directing it. Thousands of drops of water felt it was the right time to fall and the conditions were ripe. As a result, I had the Colorado River flowing through my back yard. We don't have to do much, maybe just show up at the same place at the right time. We would erode these draconian laws and send an unmistakable message to those in power. Why are we not as wise as a drop of water?
john
thank you janice/frank/chance!You have given me and my wife of 42 tears much needed hope.To have a voice in this 290 nightmare has been a blessing.again,thank you. john
CA
Janice, once again we are extremely appreciative of the work and accomplishments you have done, we are fortunate that you are here for us! Hopefully you have had some time to enjoy your summer, you should, you deserve it :) Thank You
Eric
Thank you Janice
Someone who cares
Janice and everyone else who fights for our case....THANK YOU!! You are the true heros in this country, fighting for rights that have been taken for too long. I can't express enough just how much I appreciate all you do and have done! I am proud to be part of this group.
Harry
I want to express my appreciation for Janice and staff for their hard work. I know that with all the letters and phone that have made, I am more confident in communicating to lawmakers and to the public. I know we all are better prepared for the next battle. I also thank fellow, RC for their efforts.
Mike B
Many thanks to you Janice... your efforts are so appreciated!
mike r
Excellent post j very on point and beautifully articulated.
Joe
Word.
j
Janice, you and CARSOL represent hope for hundreds of thousands of registrants and their families. I think I can speak for many who sincerely appreciate the time you spend to help correct the injustices of these laws and the many arbitrary and punitive measures that needlessly and unconstitutionally impact the lives of those who have paid their debt to society (or thought they had).
We are better as a group because of your intervention and better as a country for your being able to underscore the infringement of constitutional protections and the erosion of civil rights that the reckless imposition of these draconian laws represent.
There is hardly a place where this effort applies as it does in Carson where their sheer ignorance of so many matters pertinent to truth and justice for all are clearly a blight on the personal rights and liberties our citizenry holds sacred.
We collectively owe a great deal to you, your efforts and the results you have achieved.
Agamemnon
Thank you, again, so much for all your hard work in fighting to make life easier for us registered citizens - rather than harder as some would want - which allows us to move forward with our lives and contribute back to society.
mike r
I've said it before and Il say it again thank you Janice and staff for everything you do you really are a beacon of hope for a lot of people in this country. I'm 47 years old with a conviction from over a decade ago and am returning to college next month in order to further improve my life and move on from the past. All your efforts to improve the quality of the lives for thousands of Americans is extremely heroic. You, Frank and everyone that stands up shows up or speaks up are all true American heroes. Thank you all.
Janice's Journal: I Have a Dream - You Have a Dream
Published Date : June 28, 2015
Registered citizens, family members and supporters gathered in Dallas, Texas, for three days to discuss the changing landscape for those convicted of a sex offense. The venue was the 6th annual National Reform Sex Offender law conference.
This year’s conference was the fifth conference I attended and I was struck by the dramatic changes between this year’s conference and the first conference I attended in St. Louis in 2011. One such change was name tags. For the 2011 conference, many people chose not to wear name tags and those who did only displayed their first names. In contrast, this year’s conference included name tags for all which displayed first and last names as well as the state of residence.
Another significant change in this year’s conference was the caliber of the speakers which included authors such as Emily Horowitz and Judith Levine. In addition, there was an abundance of attorneys, men and women who are challenging the laws that continue to punish registered citizens such as Nancy Forster of Maryland and Eric Tennen of Massachusetts.
I was honored to be a speaker at this year’s conference, to discuss why the United States Supreme Court decision, Smith v. Doe, must and can be overturned as well as to share information regarding California’s success in virtually eradicating residency restrictions from our state.
My greatest honor, however, was to deliver the speech, “I Have a Dream”, which I modeled after the memorable speech of the same name delivered by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. My speech, however, focuses upon a future in which registered citizens are no longer punished and instead are restored their full constitutional rights.
A copy of my speech is available on the link below. I would like to modify my speech, however, to reflect the dreams of others. In order to do that, I hope you will share your vision of the future with me. I will use the information you provide me when I next deliver my “I Have a Dream” speech.
I Have a Dream – 29 June 2015
By Janice Bellucci
Read all of Janice’s Journal
I HAVE A DREAM
I AM HAPPY TO JOIN YOU TONIGHT IN AN EVENING OF CONSEQUENCE…AN EVENING THAT MAY GO DOWN IN HISTORY AS A TURNING POINT IN A CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT DEDICATED TO RESTORING JUSTICE FOR ALL.
IN 1787, THE FOUNDERS OF OUR COUNTRY CREATED AND ADOPTED A CONSTITUTION WHICH ESTABLISHED THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. FOUR YEARS LATER, THE FOUNDERS AMENDED THE CONSTITUTION BY ADDING PROTECTIONS FOR INDIVIDUALS’ RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES…..10 AMENDMENTS KNOWN AS THE BILL OF RIGHTS.
BUT MORE THAN TWO HUNDRED YEARS LATER, THE PROMISES OF THE CONSTITUTION AND OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS ARE BEING DENIED TO A GROUP OF CITIZENS WHO LANGUISH IN THE CORNERS OF SOCIETY AND FINDS THEMSELVES EXILED IN THEIR OWN LAND.
THAT GROUP OF INDIVIDUALS HAS BEEN LABELED BY SOME AS “SEX OFFENDERS”. I SHALL HENCEFORTH REFER TO THEM AS “REGISTERED CITIZENS”.
REGISTERED CITIZENS HAVE MADE A MISTAKE. THEY HAVE BROKEN A LAW. AND THEY HAVE PAID THEIR DEBT TO SOCIETY BY GOING TO PRISON OR SERVING TIME ON PROBATION.
DESPITE THE PAYMENT OF THEIR DEBTS TO SOCIETY, REGISTERED CITIZENS CONTINUE TO BE PUNISHED BY BEING DENIED JOBS, A HOME IN WHICH TO LIVE, CREDIT, ACCESS TO PARKS, BEACHES, AND LIBRARIES AS WELL EXILED FROM SOME OR ALL MEMBERS OF THEIR FAMILIES.
SOME REGISTERED CITIZENS ARE UNEMPLOYED…SOME ARE HOMELESS….AND SOME ARE MURDERED BY VIGILANTES FOR NO OTHER REASON THAN THEIR LABEL. THIS IS PUNISHMENT!! DESPITE WHAT THE U.S. SUPREME COURT HAS RULED. THE REQUIREMENT TO REGISTER IS NOT THE SAME AS — OR EVEN SIMILAR TO — BECOMING A MEMBER OF COSTCO!
IN A SENSE WE HAVE COME TO THIS CONFERENCE IN L.A. TO CASH A CHECK…A PROMISSORY NOTE SIGNED BY THE FOUNDERS OF THIS NATION.
IT IS OBVIOUS TODAY THAT AMERICA HAS DEFAULTED ON THIS PROMISSORY NOTE INSOFAR AS REGISTERED CITIZENS ARE CONCERNED. INSTEAD OF HONORING THE SACRED OBLIGATIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION, AMERICA HAS GIVEN REGISTERED CITIZENS A BAD CHECK…A CHECK WHICH HAS BEEN RETURNED AND MARKED “INSUFFICIENT FUNDS”.
BUT WE REFUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE BANK OF JUSTICE IN AMERICA IS BANKRUPT. WE REFUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THERE ARE INSUFFICIENT FUNDS IN THE GREAT VAULTS OF OPPORTUNITY OF THIS NATION. SO WE HAVE COME TO L.A.….THE CITY WHICH CREATED THE NATION’S FIRST REGISTRY IN 1947….TO CASH THIS CHECK. A CHECK THAT WILL GIVE US THE RICHES AND SECURITY OF JUSTICE. WE HAVE ALSO COME TO REMIND AMERICA OF THE NEED TO ACT NOW.
IT WOULD BE UNCONSCIONABLE FOR THE NATION TO OVERLOOK THE URGENCY OF THE MOMENT WHEN CIVIL RIGHTS ARE DENIED AND CITIZENS SUCH AS CHARLES AND GRETCHEN PARKER ARE MURDERED BY VIGILANTES IN SOUTH CAROLINA LAST MONTH. THIS SWELTERING SUMMER OF THE REGISTERED CITIZEN’S LEGITIMATE DISCONTENT WILL NOT PASS UNTIL THERE IS AN INVIGORATING AUTUMN OF FREEDOM FOR REGISTERED CITIZENS. 2013 IS NOT AN END, BUT A BEGINNING.
TODAY THERE ARE MORE THAN 750,000 AMERICAN CITIZENS WHO ARE BEING DENIED THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS EVERY DAY…..24 HOURS A DAY, 7 DAYS A WEEK, 365 DAYS A YEAR. THIS MUST STOP! NOW IS THE TIME TO LIFT OUR NATION FROM THE QUICK SANDS OF INJUSTICE TO THE SOLID ROCK OF JUSTICE. NOW IS THE TIME TO MAKE JUSTICE A REALITY FOR ALL CITIZENS. BUT WE CANNOT MOVE FORWARD ALONE.
INSTEAD, WE MUST INCLUDE OUR LOVED ONES….OUR PARENTS…OUR CHILDREN….OUR NIECES, NEPHEWS, AUNTS, UNCLES, NEIGHBORS AND FRIENDS….WHO WILL BE SERVE AS OBJECTIVE WITNESSES TO THE PLIGHT OF REGISTERED CITIZENS.
I AM MINDFUL THAT SOME OF YOU HAVE COME HERE FROM FARAWAY STATES…MARYLAND, MASSASCHUSETTS, FLORIDA…I AM ALSO MINDFUL THAT SOME OF YOU HAVE RECENTLY BEEN RELEASED FROM PRISON AND SOME OF YOU REMAIN ON PROBATION OR PAROLE.
GO BACK TO MARYLAND…GO BACK TO MASSACHUSETTS…GO BACK TO FLORIDA…GO BACK TO THE SLUMS WHERE SOME HOMELESS REGISTERED CITIZENS LIVE… KNOWING THAT SOMEHOW THIS SITUATION CAN AND WILL BE CHANGED.
I SAY TO YOU TONIGHT, FRIENDS, EVEN THOUGH WE FACE THE DIFFICULTIES OF TODAY AND TOMORROW, I HAVE A DREAM. IT IS A DREAM DEEPLY ROOTED IN THE AMERICAN DREAM.
I HAVE A DREAM THAT ONE DAY THIS NATION WILL RISE UP AND LIVE OUT FOR ALL CITIZENS THE TRUE MEANING OF ITS CREED, “WE HOLD THESE TRUTHS TO BE SELF-EVIDENT, THAT ALL PEOPLE ARE CREATED EQUAL.”
I HAVE A DREAM THAT ONE DAY IN THE PARKS OF MARYLAND REGISTERED CITIZENS CAN HAVE A FAMILY PICNIC.
I HAVE A DREAM THAT ONE DAY IN THE LIBRARIES OF NEW MEXICO REGISTERED CITIZENS CAN READ A BOOK.
I HAVE A DREAM.
I HAVE A DREAM THAT ONE DAY IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA REGISTERED CITIZENS WILL BE ALLOWED TO ENTER EMERGENCY SHELTERS WHEN A HURRICANE ARRIVES.
I HAVE A DREAM THAT ONE DAY IN THE STATE OF TENNESSEE REGISTERED CITIZENS WILL BE ABLE TO LIVE WITH ALL THE MEMBERS OF THEIR FAMILIES.
I HAVE A DREAM.
I HAVE A DREAM THAT ONE DAY IN THE STATE OF OHIO REGISTERED CITIZENS CAN CELEBRATE HALLOWEEN IN THEIR OWN HOMES WITHOUT FEAR OF ARREST.
I HAVE A DREAM THAT ONE DAY IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA REGISTERED CITIZENS CAN LIVE IN ANY CITY OR COUNTY THEY WISH TO LIVE IN.
I HAVE A DREAM.
I HAVE A DREAM THAT ONE DAY IN AMERICA REGISTERED CITIZENS WILL NO LONGER BE REQUIRED TO WEAR GPS MONITORS.
I HAVE A DREAM THAT ONE DAY IN AMERICA ARMED POLICE OFFICERS WILL NO LONGER SHOW UP ON THE DOORSTEPS OF REGISTERED CITIZENS.
I HAVE A DREAM.
I HAVE A DREAM THAT ONE DAY THE NAMES, PHOTOS AND HOME ADDRESSES OF REGISTERED CITIZENS WILL NO LONGER BE PUBLISHED ON THE INTERNET.
I HAVE A DREAM THAT ONE DAY IN AMERICA ELECTED OFFICIALS WILL NO LONGER PASS LAWS THAT DENY THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF REGISTERED CITIZENS IN ORDER TO INCREASE THEIR CHANCE OF REELECTION.
I HAVE A DREAM.
I HAVE A DREAM THAT ONE DAY REGISTERED CITIZENS WILL NOT BE TREATED LIKE LEPERS AND WILL NOT BE PUBLICLY DISGRACED, HUMILIATED AND SHAMED.
I HAVE A DREAM THAT ONE DAY IN AMERICA REGISTERED CITIZENS WILL NOT BE HUNTED DOWN AND MURDERED BY VIGILANTES.
I HAVE A DREAM
I HAVE A DREAM THAT ONE DAY IN AMERICA THE U.S. SUPREME COURT WILL RECOGNIZE THAT REGISTRATION IS A FORM OF PUNISHMENT.
I HAVE A DREAM THAT ONE DAY IN AMERICA REGISTERED CITIZENS WILL LIVE IN A NATION WHERE THEY WILL NOT BE JUDGED BY A MISTAKE THEY MADE DECADES AGO BUT BY THE CONTENT OF THEIR CURRENT CHARACTER AND ACTIONS.
THIS IS OUR HOPE. THIS IS THE FAITH WITH WHICH I WILL CONTINUE MY WORK TO RESTORE JUSTICE FOR REGISTERED CITIZENS. WITH THIS FAITH WE WILL BE ABLE TO HEW OUT OF THE MOUNTAIN OF DESPAIR A STONE OF HOPE.
THAT WILL BE THE DAY WHEN WE ALL WILL BE ABLE TO SING WITH A NEW MEANING, “MY COUNTRY ‘TIS OF THEE, SWEET LAND OF LIBERTY”…..AND IF AMERICA IS TO REMAIN A GREAT NATION THIS MUST BE TRUE.
SO LET JUSTICE RING FROM MOUNT RAINIER IN WASHINGTON STATE. LET JUSTICE RING FROM THE MISSIPPI RIVER IN LOUISIANA. LET JUSTICE RING FROM THE ROCKY MOUNTAINS IN COLORADO. LET JUSTICE RING FROM THE BEACHES OF CALIFORNIA.
LET JUSTICE RING.
AND WHEN THESE THINGS HAPPEN, JUSTICE WILL RING….FROM EVERY VILLAGE AND HAMLET….FROM EVERY STATE AND CITY…AND THAT WILL IN TURN SPEED UP THE DAY WHEN ALL CITIZENS….REGISTERED AND UNREGISTERED…..JOIN HANDS AND REPEAT TOGETHER THE ULTIMATE GOAL OF THIS MOVEMENT TO LIVE AS CITIZENS….AS EXPRESSED CLEARLY IN THE LAST SIX WORDS OF
OUR NATION’S PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE…..”WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.”
HOW DO WE GET THERE? BY SHOWING UP – STANDING UP – AND SPEAKING UP.
THANK YOU.
Comments
MP
Janice,
The pride that I have felt these past few months knowing that I can contribute (thanks to you) to the battle for rights restoration has just taken a huge leap. Your amazing speech reminds us that we are humans and deserve to be treated as such. You are as much a champion for civil rights as Dr. King. THANK YOU!!!
Ostracized Witch
HOLY COW !! Janice, your speech is incredible, inspired, well thought and organized. I cannot express how humbled I am by your eloquence! Fight on! You really got me fired up!
We, Registered Citizens, ARE the lepers of today's society. We are scapegoats who are demonized by ambitious politicians. We are the Witches of today. We are tarred and feathered by a majority of the ignorant populace. Many do not differentiate when it is a crime involving a sexual theme. To most, sex offenders are all the same vile creatures who must be eradicated like cocroachs.
someone who cares
What an awesome speech Janice. It brought tears to my eyes, and I truly hope that people will see the truth this speech delivers. My dream is that people will see past the mistakes that that have been made and paid for and give us a chance. Nobody is perfect and if we punished everyone like this because of a mistake, then this country will not survive. Thank you!!
G4Change
You are a treasure, Janice!!!!
PR
Your speech was great.
Harry
David, we just have to get, ourselves, off the ground. I have made my mind up to walk in dignity, long time ago, and comparing to the Runner's, the Book's, J.W., M.L. or the Ms. Valera's, I have integrity and self-worth.
David
My dream is quite simple: I wish to die a free and equal person with my humanity recognized and my dignity restored.
Harry
Great speech, Janice!
Janice's Journal: Two Heart Beats Away from President
Published Date : June 3, 2015
As Speaker of the House of Representatives, John Dennis Hastert was two heart beats away from serving as President of the United States. That is, if both the President and Vice President had died while in office, Hastert would have stepped into the Oval Office and assumed the leadership of this country.
The fact is that Hastert was a member of the U.S House of Representatives for 20 years, representing a Congressional district in Illinois from 1987 to 2007. The fact is that Hastert became the Speaker of the House in 1999 and is the longest-serving Republican Speaker of the House.
The fact is that prior to his political career, Hastert was a high school teacher and wrestling coach for 16 years. It was during that time that, according to recent reports, Hastert inappropriately touched a high school student. The reports came to light when it was discovered that Hastert evaded bank reporting requirements by withdrawing about $1 million in small amounts in order to pay that student to remain silent.
If the reports are true, Hastert has violated at least one sex offender law and could be required to register as a sex offender. If the reports are true, a sex offender was only two heart beats away from becoming President of the United States.
To many, Hastert had a distinguished political career and made many positive contributions to the nation before, during and after he served as a member of Congress. To many, Hastert is a Christian who has led a law-abiding life and never served a day in jail. To many, he is also a husband, a father and a grand father.
What is the difference then between Hastert and more than 750,000 individuals labeled as sex offenders in this country?
The answer is opportunity. Hastert was given an opportunity to make positive contributions to the nation. He was unburdened by a conviction for a sex offense. He was unburdened by the label “sex offender”.
Imagine then the contributions that could be made if those labeled as “sex offenders” had the same opportunity as Hastert. The United States would undoubtedly be a better place.
— by Janice Bellucci
Read all of Janice’s Journal
Comments
anonymously
I said “Hastert having to register does seem like overkill and he is in poor health. I think diabetes.”
Q said "It may be overkill, but do you think the courts would care about, let alone consider, if one of us were suffering ill health? This guy needs to be made an example of; and if it kills..."
Joe said "“On March 19, 2015, Farnham was sentenced to eight years in prison. U.S. District Judge Edmond E. Chang also ordered Farnham to pay a $30,000 fine. He must surrender to the Federal Bureau of Prisons by May 19, 2015, to begin serving his sentence.[15] Farnham has pulmonary fibrosis, bladder cancer and hepatitis C, and is expected to die within three months.[16]” "
The California Supreme Court did consider the medical conditions and needs of the plaintiffs in Taylor. I think one of them had extensive medical needs and was living in the cold outside in an alley. I think courts do consider the health of defendants. Whether they believe what the defendants attornies claim is another story. By the account of Farnhams attorney, Keith Farnham should be dead in 9 days, on June 19, 2015. We'll see. Democrats do seem to throw their own to the wolves moreso than Republicans when it comes to sexual misconduct. Weiner, got ousted and shamed. Vitter gets redeemed and is looking to be Governor of Louisiana. Foley's evidence is not acted upon and no charges filed, due to Hasterts help of his fellow offender Congressman buddy Republican proponent and architect of SORNA. Bob Filner, Democrat Mayor of San Diego, thrown to the wolves. You get the idea. So now that both sides, prosecution and defense in the Hastert money laundering case don't object to having a judge with ties to Hasterts son and has a history that includes donating to Hastert, we'll see if Hastert gets off on the charges. Republican that he is. But even if convicted, Hastert will not have to register, since he is not on trial for sex crimes. Hastert paid the hush money to protect his reputation from crimes allegedly committed decades ago and we have no reason to believe there are more recent crimes, but I guess it is possible since he had this great false sense of security attributed to himself by his tough on crime posturing. I wonder if Hastert and Chris Smith travelled together at all. But back to the point of Hastert having to register. What I said before about Hastert and Walsh having to register, that's just my opinion about if I think they should. Not what I predict will happen, as I predict both of them will never have to.
Joe
Not sure that old age and ill health are barriers to punishment and registration. The Statute of Limitations probably, as well it should. Power and influence, more like it. However, here is case where neither power nor ill health mattered. Note that this particular convict personally sponsored legislation that increased penalties for these sort of offenses. Not unlike Hastert and the AWA. Karma can be a ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Farnham
"On March 19, 2015, Farnham was sentenced to eight years in prison. U.S. District Judge Edmond E. Chang also ordered Farnham to pay a $30,000 fine. He must surrender to the Federal Bureau of Prisons by May 19, 2015, to begin serving his sentence.[15] Farnham has pulmonary fibrosis, bladder cancer and hepatitis C, and is expected to die within three months.[16]"
http://www.isp.state.il.us/sor/offenderdetails.cfm?SORID=E14B7192&CFID=892201&CFTOKEN=6a16ede58dac1bd-E20D2CA1-0801-C62F-997496C24E59B7E5&jsessionid=ec302cbd7b6fbf19474e7a5371457b261334
Q
"Hastert having to register does seem like overkill and he is in poor health. I think diabetes."
It may be overkill, but do you think the courts would care about, let alone consider, if one of us were suffering ill health? This guy needs to be made an example of; and if it kills him then he can explain himself to God and all the dead registrants and innocent family members that have been murdered because of laws conceived and supported by people like him. And if it doesn't die, then he can join RSOL and fight to right some of his wrongs.
David
Q, you are quite the optimist! History shows that the hard-line right don't "evolve" to show any compassion until circumstances affect them directly & personally. Example: conservative Ohio Senator Rob Portman "evolving" his view on gays when his son, Will, came out.
Until S.O. laws affect their brother, son, etc, they will not change. Besides, they're all buddies, right? Yet far enough removed to comfortably distance themselves from Mr. Hastert.
Tired of hiding
The only thing you ignore is reality. Glad you are having an easy time of it...money helps heal all wounds.
You are far too passive to be of any use to anyone. Being passive and letting people treat you like a second class citizen is why this has gone on for so long.
The squeaky wheel gets the grease baby and I am all about making noise. I don't need an ignore button for you. I can do that all by myself.
In the future try to refrain from slandering me as you do not know me at all (yes, I know you don't want to and the feeling is mutual) and suggesting any sort of violent behavior from remarks write on an online forum is irresponsible of you.
Q
Dennis Hastert seems to be getting a taste of what many of us have gone through. I'm sure he will eventually come out smelling like a rose, but my hope is this (3rd in line for president) high profile individuals self created plight will soften the obstinate hearts of many of the hard liners in relation to these useless laws, statutes and everything else. This could very well start a new set of dominoes (unconstitutional laws) falling.
http://news.yahoo.com/hastert-1st-court-appearance-hush-money-case-065128847.html
NPS
Q. Frankly, my skin is quite thick. In fact, I let most things slide off my back considering what I'd gone through with OC Jail. Everything else is a cake walk. But you're right, I don't have the experiences he or anyone else has had. I'm not publicly listed. I had a supportive probation officer. I had a supportive therapist. I never had a home visit. Police tell me to live my life because they aren't looking for people like me. I'm on a travel clearance never having to go through TSA. I realize I'm lucky. But that doesn't mean that I have to stand in support or understanding of TOH. I do not nor have I ever advocated violence and TOH is certainly not helping the cause. If there was some sort of "ignore" button on this site, I would've used it on TOH a long time ago. What we all need is solidarity, but TOH is obviously an outlier, and frankly not someone I'd ever be associated with not because of registration status but because he has a lousy attitude.
There is no use in me getting angry or upset. It's just needless negative energy. I find other ways to fight this; writing letters, sending emails to my state rep Mark Leno, making phone calls. Frankly TOH needs to either put up or shut up. Since he advocates harm unto others, I'd rather he shut up. Now, where's that ignore button?
Q
Hi NPS;
I think you should take tired of hiding's comment with a grain of salt. Nobody is perfect and I think most of us get angry and offended once in a while. I know I do; it would be abnormal not to. I totally understand where tired of hiding is coming from.
I hope you click on the link
http://on-murders.blogspot.com/
and see the sampling of the things bad laws facilitate. People like John Dennis Hastert and his kind support these kind of laws. If you never get upset once in a while perhaps it is you that needs help. You must realize; not everyone thinks like you, nor does everyone express themselves in the same way. With all due respect, you should try to grow a thicker skin, as you do not know what tired of hiding and others have experienced.
NPS
Disturbing mentality. You display the exact same sentiment as those who rant the very same against RSOs. You aren't any better. I suggest you seek therapy. I say this in all seriousness because our community doesn't need the voice of a person who promotes violence.
Tired of hiding
WRONG - he paid them off so that he would not be arrested - PERIOD.
He knew perfectly what he was doing was just the opposite of what he preached! He is just evil. PERIOD
Tired of hiding
Well stated and I fully agree with you. He should actually have it worse for being a hypocrite and lying to get his job in the government.
He most certainly should have his face shoved in the mud and I for one would gladly hold it down so he could take his last breath!
All the years he and people like him have taken away from hundreds of thousands of us! I am an atheist so I don't believe in that nonsense but if there were a HELL he has his seat already reserved and waiting!
mike r
Lil by lil the gov is enchroaching .on our rights and the ignorant masses won't see it coming because their blinded by hate and disgust for rso. Our constitution and everyone's rights aren't going to mean squat pretty soon and that's a shame considering all the lives that have been lost in vain to protect our civil liberties if our country stays on this same path. My greatgrandfather grandfather and dad all served to protect our rights only to have the politicians and courts ignore those sacrafices and our bill of rights. Disgusting.
Eric Knight
Unfortunately, this incident will probably be taken up in Congress to create a law to "incentivize" states to drop statute of limitation laws for sex offenses. ("Incentivize" is a "nice" way of saying "change your laws or we withold your money.")
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/06/08/how-josh-duggar-and-dennis-hastert-could-help-change-the-laws-on-sex-crimes/
Q
Hi timmr; They are the ones that need to get beyond that. I think we have been willing to, and have acted on that belief for a long time now; and what has it gotten us? An avalanche of laws aimed at us that all have to be fought in court battles that take considerable time and resources, that aren't always available, etc, etc, etc.
(ps) Did you watch a few years back when the congress convened and awkwardly said the pledge of allegiance omitting the word God?
Q
Hi Margaret :)
Allow me to answer your question with a question.
What has been gained by the arrest, adjudication, incarceration, registration, etc of most people on this site? Public safety? A reduction in crimes associated with the new definition (things that are not sex) of sex? Has all this brought us closer to one nation under God? Is America a safer place because of finger pointing hypocrites like John Dennis Hastert? I think not.
They (John Dennis Hastert and his kind) have advocated what amounts to a wedge/division of the people in this country and shouldn't be allowed to profit from their lie. My thoughts and opinion have not changed.
Public figures; especially public figures, should be held accountable for their crimes. These kinds of people are part of what America has been turned into; a fiefdom where a few do whatever they want regardless of any laws (even their own) while the rest of the population are held to the strictest standards; even when it's a lie.
Lie = the opposite of truth.
Everything said about the registry, associated laws, those of us forced to register, is a lie, sold to the people for the personal gain of the few.
JM
It was also reported in a news segment, at the end of his term, that Schwarzenegger had sex multiple times with a 16 yr. old years before. I watched that interview of the women describing their "affair" in detail. Of course it was quickly brushed under some rug. Yet, he had no problem sending others to prison and a life of misery for the same offenses.
Timmr
Molly, I agree with you even though I keep feeling that if one person does something and is punished, another person who does the same thing ought to be punished in the same way. But I think you are saying we have to get beyond that.
Anyway, wasn't there a story in the New Testament about Jesus forgiving someone he met on the road. I remember the critics called Pharisees who hung around him most of the time and his own disciples chastised him for doing this. Hey, they told him, don't you know who this guy you forgave is? The worst of the worst. Others have been damned to Hell for what he did. Are you sure you should forgive him?
OK, I am really paraphrasing on sloppy memory here, but I think the point was this:
OK, Jesus thought that what this guy would do in future, given the opportunity, was more important than what he did in the past. So he decided to give him a second chance.
So, Molly and Janice, what I think you are saying is that let's turn this around, instead of punishing Hastert like everyone else, work towards giving the other 750,000 people like him, but that weren't as lucky as him, the chances he had.
anonymously
As far as making Hastert and Walsh register as SO's if the Rehnquist Court decision is overturned, I would say Yay to Walsh having to register, and Nay to Hastert having to register. After all, Walsh was unrepentent and seems to have bragged about his crimes, whereas Hastert seems more aware of right and wrong. I think Hastert, at least realizes he is a hypocrite and thats why he paid to cover it up.
anonymously
mike r said "There won’t be any charges for sexual misconduct because they say there isn’t enough evidence to convict him. What bs thousands of people are convicted with far less evidence just on the word of a..."
Or I heard some say that there won't be any charges because the Rehnquist SCOTUS decided sex crimes can't be prosecuted from that far back. But, I saw some victims rights type people on some legal website talking about trying to get that Rehnquist court decision overturned, under a different SCOTUS of today with a few different members, and then Hastert could be prosecuted hypothetically, as could John Walsh. Hastert having to register does seem like overkill and he is in poor health. I think diabetes.
Fed Up
Too long ago, past the statues of limitations to prosecute.
NotLikingCalifornia
Are you saying he shouldn't face the consequences of his crime or that what he's gone through has been consequence enough?
Margaret Moon
I understand your anger, Q. Respectfully, I still have to ask you what would be gained by the arrest, adjudication, incarceration, registration, etc. of Hastert at this point? He and his family are being "dragged through the mud and held up to public ridicule" now.
There are undoubtedly lots of people who "got away with it." They just don't happen to be public figures. I think the point is that the punishment heaped upon "sex offenders," and their families, is dehumanizing, ineffective, and often unconstitutional. Instead of wishing it on others we need to work to reform it.
Q
I think he should be arrested and prosecuted; dragged through the mud and held up to public ridicule, be forced to register as a sex offender and placed on the web site for life. He shouldn't get a free pass just because of who he is and what he has done. There are many better men and women forced to register because they are not ion the public light and well connected with other hypocrites in high places. The fact that his kind always slime their way out of living by their own laws is BS. I'm always amazed when I hear other registrants standing up for his kind. The fact of the matter is that the law is the law; he did what he did. He has to be held accountable or it's all a farce.
B
I am reminded of Arnold Schwarzenegger who was a famous cheerleader for Jessica's Law. During the start of his campaign for Governor, there were numerous accusations that he had sexually assaulted women while he was a powerful movie star. Some have said that he hired or persuaded publicists to go to these women and get them to agree to write a book about their experiences with a huge advance payment on the book. Part of the agreement was that they could never tell anyone about the sexual assaults until the book came out. Obviously, the books would never be written or published and the truth was contractually concealed. But for this power and money, would our former governor be a RSO?
Clark
Let him be setup in orange county .....on word alone ..they will overcharge a case..they can get baster guilty in orange county and he won't have to be in the trial proceedings ANYWAYS...get him shipped to oc ..baster just got GOT.
Timmr
I think we ought to close all the on ramps to this registration Highway to Hell with all its destruction of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all those on the blacklist, and get us back on the Constitutional road leading to a More Perfect Union.
Timmr
Hey, Janice please send this article to Mr. Hastert for contemplation. I wonder if he would be able to appreciate the irony his life has become.
Harry
Because Mr. Hastert, was the head cheerleader for AWA, after the sex abuse and cover-up, makes him the poster child for SOR. I would like to use this as an example, to the public, that pushers for tough of sex offenders laws are likely sheep in wolves clothing.
mike r
There won't be any charges for sexual misconduct because they say there isn't enough evidence to convict him. What bs thousands of people are convicted with far less evidence just on the word of a aledged victim. This guy is caught paying that victim off and that's not proof enough. It sure would be for anyone without money. Wow shouldn't surprise me but wow.
curiouser
Very well stated
Pedro
WELL PUT MY BROTHER! GODS BLESINGS
B
There is another side of the coin. Is there someone who believes that Dennis Hastert is a threat to his community and ought to be registering as a sex offender? I don't. And I don't think that hundreds of thousands of people who did exactly what Hastert did (and far less than what he did) are any more of a danger. Just as Hastert never had an onramp to the registry, there ought to be many off ramps for registrants.
curiouser
I think it's important to look at this from a removed perspective. While some might dislike Hastert for his politics, or love him for the same, he is no different than any other person who did something he undoubtedly regrets. He has had a remarkable professional career and by all accounts, a stolid family life. As Ms. Bellucci so eloquently stated, he has had an opportunity to make some remarkable contributions to this country. He was unburdened by the stigma of the "sex offender" label because, as many of the pitchfork and torch carriers, his sins were never discovered in an early morning raid on his home, or by something found on his work computer. In that regard too, he is no different from a great many people.
As many of us have opined, many individuals of power and influence who scream the loudest against the sex offender are hiding some dark secret of their own. It is rare that they are dragged into the searing glare of public humiliation as so many of us have been, whether that is due to money, power, luck or a combination of all three.
Maybe events such as those that have happened to Mr. Hastert and Mr. Foley will have a positive impact. It may serve to narrow the gap between "them," the moral and noble defenders of the masses, and "us," the dirty, perverse miscreants who must be beaten into the shadows. One can only imagine what Mr. Hastert was thinking when making his comments on Mr. Foley back in 2006: "That could have been ME?"
In the end, maybe this will convince the pitchfork and torch set that the only difference between "them" and "us" is their good fortune. Maybe when one of those political power brokers reviews the next piece of legislation aimed to carve some more rights away from a registered citizen, he or she realizes, "This could be ME."
Q
Not one bit surprised to hear this. This nation is corrupted by hypocrites from top to bottom. These men and women make a mockery of the law and justice
Look at the sex offender (I believe the reports are true) in the picture and tell me there is not a double standard in this country.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/29/AR2006092901574.html
Clark
Under the table payoff to keep quiet kept republican baster ..I mean haster from being a registered sex offender....
Can you dig it....the hypocritical agenda they put on others but NOT onto themselves speaks volumes of fascists in a title of power and a crime for all except for the few who can cover it up....this registry is a fraud and sham.....that baster ..I mean haster and orange county calif secret hide trial have helped prove that.
Bluewall
Yes.. if given the chance without fear .. To be able to walk outside and not wonder if I'm going to be fired, attacked, or any other given bad things that can happen because of my sex offense.... one day hopefully
David
Thank you for your important thoughts on this matter, Janice. I, for one, am a very active member of my community, attending everything from zoning hearings and CERT disaster trainings to District Council townhalls and neighborhood association meetings. And despite my picture being on the Registry website, I intend to continue participating in every way that I can law-abiddingly do so. This is my country, my State, and my home - and I will continue working to make them better, safer, and fairer for all those who live here whether resident, registered citizen, undocumented, homeless or incarcerated.
(Remember, as soon as we stop defending our rights, someone will gladly try to strip them from us.)
Now, if we could just do something to rid politics of hypocrits!
Janice's Journal: Jessica's Law Authors Attempt to Overturn CA Supreme Court Decision
Published Date : May 29, 2015
Sharon Runner is at it again. She is trying to overturn the recent CA Supreme Court decision that declared unconstitutional residency restrictions as applied to parolees in San Diego.
Runner is attempting to do this through the “gut and amend” process by completely rewriting Senate Bill (SB) 54. In its current form, SB 54 would create a state law that prohibits most registered citizens from living within 2,000 feet of schools, parks and other places where children regularly gather as well as authorize municipal jurisdictions to pass even more stringent residency restrictions Sharon Runner is best known for her “leadership” in Proposition 83 (“Jessica’s Law”) which was significantly limited by the recent CA Supreme Court decision. Jessica’s Law may be Sharon Runner’s only claim to fame which may be why she cannot remain silent.
In addition, Senator Sharon Runner’s husband, George Runner, cannot remain silent regarding the Supreme Court’s decision and has used state resources to voice his opinions.
George Runner — a former state legislator and current member of the Board of Equalization (BOE) — has posted the following criticism of the Court’s decision in a press release on the BOE website: “The California Supreme Court has substituted the opinion of the court over the will of the people.” In the same press release, George Runner identifies himself as “Jessica’s Law author” as well as Vice Chair of the BOE.
George Runner also criticized a decision by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to apply the Supreme Court’s decision statewide in a second press release posted on the BOE website. In that press release, he stated that “Jessica’s Law authors George and Sharon Runner….were disappointed by the Corrections Department’s sweeping decision…..”
One can only wonder why or whether the BOE, a state agency dedicated to taxpayer issues, cares about a public safety issue, that is, the application of residency restrictions to registered citizens. One can also wonder whether the use of the BOE website to post press releases on this topic is a wise and lawful use of BOE resources.
As for SB 54, the bill has been referred to the Senate Rules Committee where it will be assigned to one or more Senate committees for further consideration. When that bill is heard, California RSOL will be sure to testify against it.
By Janice Bellucci
Read all of Janice’s Journal
Comments
j
The constitution protects (or is supposed to) against tyranny of the majority. That is a fundamental truth that continues to elude Herr Runner.
The sick distortion going on here is that Herr Runner thinks that his obsession with registrants is now somehow relative to his duties at the BOE.
I guess the real 64 thousand dollar question to the BOE is what does Herr Runner plan to do to harm registrants on behalf of the BOE ? Would BOE be kind enough to outline their strategy against registrants and if they have none, why does Herr runner use this forum to further his unconstitutional agenda?
I guess I'm being facetious but level a question like that directly to the board will make it plain for all to see how utterly ridiculous Herr Runner's web-page looks with what appears to have nothing to do with his responsibilities at the BOE
and everything to do with his failed attempts at punishing registrants and their families unnecessarily, retro-actively and into perpetuity.
C
Signed. How is it that there are such a small number of signatures on this thing - was it published 5 minutes ago?
ca
Janice, do you Know the answer to my question. Thank you
Janice Bellucci
I have just checked the BOE website and found the press releases which are dated March 2 and March 26. You need to find George Runner on the website and then go to the "media center" on his home page. There you will find "press releases". Click on that tab and you will find them.
Q
I think the press release may have been removed. I looked and couldn't find it.
Eric Knight
The unsolicited admission of Duran insinuating "he has your phone number" can be construed as a threat by some legal entities. While the level of this threat probably doesn't warrant legal followup, the fact that he is using this statement upon a perfectly legitimate request to quote the PUBLIC POLITICIAN's office is not only troubling, but frightening. I know that if Janice got that response, all hell would reign on that office.
ca
I meant penal code 667.61! Does anyone know the answer?
j
This is double jeopardy in that the person that has completed his sentence is subject to a second (and unconstitutional) adjudication of his case if he needs to petition for relief after his sentencing.
Cool CA RC
Great this is going to my weekly letters to my local Law maker letting them know that I think of runner posting on boe.
ca
So this bill, if passed would only apply to registrants, who's convictions are in penal code 667.81?
Anonymous Nobody
What's kind of bizarre about this entire discussion, and linking it to the state Supreme Court decision, is that Jessica's Law was not decided by the high court. That decision did nothing to "gut" Jessica's Law.
The court decided the other Legislature-created statute pertaining only to parolees, not to other registrants. That law was passed by the Legislature in hope of diminishing the push for more, for Jessica's Law. But the Runners took Jessica's Law to a ballot measure anyway, and it was passed, and it applies to all registrants, not only to parolees.
The high court's ruling in San Diego was only pertinent to those on parole. Yes, the state's decision to extend it across the state is more, but that still is applicable only to those on parole.
The Runners now seem to fear -- accurately -- that the logic will be expanded either by the court or the lawmakers to presence restrictions against all registrants. So they are making a preemtive strike.
A
well... left a comment on BOE page. Hope this helps. My comment below.
"George Runner using the BOE as a platform for something that has nothing to do with the BOE is unacceptable to the Tax Payers. We as citizens are held accountable for our actions. Yet we pay for positions being held to serve a personal agenda? Most employees would face termination for this act. With no one held accountable, are you saying by doing nothing about this that your office is above consequence? Please resolve this issue immediately as you are here to resolve issues, not make more of them.
curiouser
The thing about Runner's gut and amend is that it is STILL a blanket prohibition she is pushing for. She wants all RCs to be subject to the 2000 foot ban unless they petition the court for relief:
"The bill would permit a person who is subject to the residency restriction to petition the superior court of the county within which he or she resides for relief from the requirement ... The bill would require the petitioner to establish by clear and convincing evidence that there is a pervasive lack of compliant housing in the county and that a majority of sex offenders are unable to comply despite good faith efforts."
So, basically, a blanket restriction, with the caveat that you could petition for relief. Which is just like saying California is a lifetime registration state, unless you are so fortunate as to petition the court for a COR. Me thinks this attempt at a law was just ruled unconstitutional (in re Taylor). I guess some folks just like getting punched in the nose.
Harry
Another place to complaint about G. Runner. https://www.boe.ca.gov/feedback.htm
http404
I just read the text of SB 54 and it appears they are trying to "loophole" on the court's decision. The State Supreme Court ruled San Diego County residency restrictions were unconstitutional when applied as a blanket policy. That speaks to the need for due process.
Because they are writing in a provision to petition for relief, I can only surmise they are trying to pass that off as due process. This is no different than the Orange County DA's misguided belief that requiring written permission to enter a park constituted due process.
A
Has anyone wondered who is paying them to continue this facet of the Witch-Hunt?
They have to be on some corporate payroll and or PAC to continue this. IE: GPS manufacturers, Containment Model Contractors, etc.
I do assume here, but I ponder that there must be a few shady deals made on the golf course as Registered Citizens are de-humanized. George was asked specifically in that post Ca SC interview why someone registering for an offense with an adult was unable to reside near a school. His response was pretty much business as usual, all registrants are child molesters..
SMH!!!
http404
Exactly. CARSOL is a 501(c)(4) organization which means it is bound by the same rules of Citizens United, primarily for establishing a collective voice on political or social issues. That said, campaign laws say you can't support an election campaign in voice or in dollars, it would have to be through a PAC. But as we learned in Citizens United vs. FEC, a 501(c)(4) CAN publicly voice their opposition to a candidate based on factual information, because, as SCOTUS ruled, not permitting this would seriously quell free speech.
Many people boo and hiss the Citizens United decision. Few grasp the gravity and weight for upholding the First Amendment. Had they ruled otherwise, for example, organizations like NAACP or SPLC would not be able to speak out publicly when an outwardly racist candidate decided to run for office.
Janice Bellucci
Because California RSOL is a non-profit, it cannot be involved in any campaign in support of or in opposition to a candidate. Every member of the organization, however, has a right to be so involved as an individual.
j
It's time to throw these two miscreants out of office, ban them from public service for life and keep them from within 5,000 feet of anywhere law abiding citizens gather.
Timmr
Thank you. The will of the people is an excuse used to terrorize a minority.
Avig
The latest proposals from the Runners are lacking in merit; in my opinion, it is time for them to retire from public life and enter the obscurity that is rightfully theirs.
Robert Curtis
RSOL and members,
We should take a personal interest in Senator Sharon Runner's political career. I have ideas and action steps to help the process in that regard...to think you'll actually gain income while doing it. I have (for now) only a few students but with over 106,000 of us... imagine the force we have together by our focus on one single goal. To defeat the registry!
Anonymous
Both of them should be publicly cited as being pro crime, pro recidivism and anti safety given the immense volume of data we now have showing that these laws do nothing to protect people and in fact increase the likelihood of re offense by bringing instability, shame and homelessness to the people on the registry.
The amount of hypocrisy among the people supporting these laws is astounding. Take into consideration the following.
http://www.ibtimes.com/dennis-hastert-promoted-himself-crusader-against-sexual-abuse-children-1944886
Q
I find it amazing they still beat their rabble rousing war drum in spite of all the evidence now coming to light that proves their claims are not true.
Q
If Runners office was on the up & up threats and intimidation would not be necessary. It was just assumed that you were an ignorant nobody not worthy of respect. And that is an insult aimed directly at you and anyone else that doesn't think Runner is a untouchable god.
What say gang; I think we should band together and flood the appropriate agencies (not Runners office) with phone calls and letters calling for Runner to be held accountable for his misuse of office. What we did with SB 267 proves we are powerful and can make a difference. Janice; what do you think?
mike r
I hope if this bill comes up it will go in front of mark leno and that same committee. After all doesn't the CASOMB state specifically that residency restrictions are counterproductive and is not good policy.
Molly
You can file an anonymous complaint about Mr. Runner with the California State Auditor at:
www.bsa.ca.gov/hotline/
PLEASE NOTE: If you want to file a complaint using the online form you have to click on the department you are complaining about. The BOE is listed as "Equalization, Board of" (I had to call them to figure it out)
You will need a short, clear, concise statement about the alleged violation, why it is a violation and any evidence to confirm your allegation. Including a link to the press releases on Runner's BOE website might be enough proof but think about including specific code violations.
Please do your own research as I cannot guarantee I copied the statute numbers down correctly but:
CA Government Code Title 9, 8314.(a) as defined in (b) (1), (3) and (4)
California Government Code Title 9, 82032
and CA Codes part 9. State Board of Equalization, Chapter 1, § 15603
might be relevant and helpful in crafting your argument and of course the federal codes Nicholas Maietta suggested are a great resource.
There is no way to find out if any action is being taken on your complaint but I would think the more complaints the higher our chances.
td777
I guess the powers that be didn't like what I said about an interview I heard from George Runner a few years back and removed it.
Clark
I would love to put my opinion on the BOE website for the millions and millions to see and read...probably like most here would like to do also.....uh runner...?...secret ..hide..oc trialwithout accused present in proceedings ...you can get anyone guilty of anything when proceedings are NOT public open court and done in a back hallway and readback of transcript is behind closed door ...(the second incident there covered up the first).
No...runner..you have to be fired or resign from that position ...you cast the cancer of bias..discrimination ..prejudice and hate in a position that calls for none of that and in which you were to remain neutral ........registered citizens and their families won't be getting a fair honest shake to justice when the scales are already biased and tampered against them....runner resign ...derelict of duty.
Nicholas Maietta
The reason i didn't call is because i don't want someone accusing me of making threats. This has happened to me in the past.
mike r
Man will the evil never die in these people. Bill oriely was just bragging bout Jessicas law last night its ridiculous.cowards and evil hatred with no shame in exploiting children and fears for personal gain. If these laws were effective and really helped protect kids or anyone then I could understand and believe that the runners might be working in good faith instead no one can doubt that its for their own agendas and they don't give a damn about safety or children or anything except their reputation.
Jo
There is a contact us option on the BOE website and I just ripped them a new one for his misuse of position, I suggest you do the same
Eric Knight
George Runner claims “The California Supreme Court has substituted the opinion of the court enforced the integrity of the Constitution over the will of the people.”
Fixed it.
Michael
Once again I can only go back to George Runners confession, on KFI's John and Ken Show, a few days after the court decision in the San Diego case, where he admitted, on the air, that there was "nothing magical about 2,000" and it's relationship to protecting children.
He further admitted, on air, that the ONLY reason they picked that number was because it was a number that had survived court challenges in other states.
All that is just what the court said in it's ruling when it said there was no rational relationship between the restrictions and the goal of protecting children.
I'll look to see if I can find that KFI interview in the podcasts. I think that would be a couple of sounds bites worth to have played around.
And in this case they would be sound bites that mean the SAME thing weither or not they are played in or out of context.
MM
OMG! Here we go again.
Another reason to never be certain of calling any place 'home'.
curiouser
Didn't the Assembly AND the Senate committees just "suggest" to a couple of authors that their presence restriction bills wouldn't stand up? Didn't the California Supreme Court just state that blanket restrictions were unconstitutional? What is the classic definition of insanity? I think we can reduce it to just one word. "Runner."
Molly
You can make life difficult for George Runner's Communications Director, David Duran, by calling George Runner's office directly at 916-445-2181 and asking to speak to Mr. Duran. When I called to complain about George's misuse of BOE assets David told me that as an elected official Mr. Runner was free to use state assets any way he wanted. I asked him if I could quote him on that and he got a little nervous and tried to intimidate me by letting me know he had my phone number. It must come up on their phone system when you call. If you don't want them to have a record of your phone number, you might not want to call from your house.
George's Lancaster office phone number is 661-723-8469.
Clark
Could very well be misuse of office ..?..conflict of interest to the duties of board of equalization office ..? ...can you smell what's cooking ..? ...the BOE is now the office of propaganda ....remember that office of propaganda installed by Hitler..?....shouldn't Ms. Bellucci, California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, the ACLU, Housing California and Alameda County have fair equal time to respond on such a taxpayer funded website for all to see and read as well ..?...you bet they do..!
VSPSVS
They can do what ever they want. Hopefully they did break the law or an ethical code but you know they are perfect people.
Harry
The whole political legacy of the Runners are based on Prop 83 and they are like a drowning swimmer trying to save it. The more they try the quicker they and Prop 83 will drown. Their efforts maybe a blessing to the RC causes.
Q
Wow, these two don't seem to know when enough is enough! It's like, what part of unconstitutional do those two not understand? And now George Runner claims “The California Supreme Court has substituted the opinion of the court over the will of the people.” This is not true. They spent allot of time and resources to convince people to jump on their bandwagon, and now that the Supreme court is actually calling these laws unconstitutional the Runners, George at least, is criticizing the State Supreme court and the Department of Corrections? Sounds like these two are shooting themselves in the foot to me!
I wonder why this issue is so obviously important to these two in light of all the evidence that proves most of their logic is flawed. I'm with Nicholas Maietta on this one. That is to say I think "Janice, Chance and others," really need to look into George Runners crime of using government resources for personal gain. He's using the BOE as his personal soap box!
I'm wondering if people are starting to get tired of hearing these two finger pointers making what are obviously alarmist statements that research and statistics show to be false.
Garrett
People there is a petition on Change.org to abolish the registry please make sure you sign it!
https://www.change.org/p/abolish-the-sex-offender-registry
Thanks
Nicholas Maietta
Sorry about my previous post: I only read halfway though this post before it "clicked" that i needed to start making phone calls to whoever i can to report this misuse of resources and decided to tell you about it.... lol you already though about the same thing. Good.
I cannot (so far) seem to find the right department to report this to within the US Department of Justice. Anyone who feels they can locate and make the report, please feel free to do so.
Nicholas Maietta
I cannot believe they published his "response" on the State Board of Equalization's' website. The "Press Release" is a personal opinion and the subject matter doesn't even belong on that government website. He's using government resources for personal gain, which is a FEDERAL CRIME.
As a business owner myself i am now worried about Runner being a chair member of BOE. If he can post personal opinions on the BOE website which tax payers pay for for restricted usage, then what else can he do to my business? I cringe at the very thought.
Janice, Chance and others, PLEASE LOOK INTO THIS. My task today is to bring to light to proper authorities this criminal act.
See:
http://www.justice.gov/jmd/misuse-position-and-government-resources
Janice's Journal: SB 267 - We Did It
Published Date : May 14, 2015
We did it! We stopped Senate Bill 267!! And now for the rest of the story.
Prior to the hearing on SB 267, California RSOL was invited for the first time to join two like minded organizations for meetings in the offices of all seven members of the Public Safety Committee. We didn’t have appointments. We just stopped by.
The reception we received from the two sides of the aisle were starkly different. We were warmly welcomed into the Democratic offices where we heard they had received lots of letters and phone calls. We met in those offices with THE staffer responsible for public safety issues who would be speaking to “the boss” about SB 267 before he/she voted on the bill at the committee hearing. In direct contrast, we hit a brick wall in the Republican offices. No one was available to meet with us.
When we finished, we believed we had 5 out of 7 votes in favor of our position, that is, opposed to SB 267. The next 18 hours dragged on as we hoped that no one would change his/her vote because we needed at least 4 votes to win.
When we arrived at the committee hearing the next morning, we were surprised to learn that instead of being the third bill to be heard, SB 267 would be the first. That meant no warm ups, no way to gauge the moods of the committee member before the bill was heard.
The hearing started out, as always, with the author of the bill and those who supported it. In this case, Senator Connie Leyva stated her reason for the bill was to protect children by keeping them away from sex offenders. She was joined by two representatives from San Bernardino County and, you guessed it, the City of Carson.
When the committee chair asked, there were no others to voice support for the bill. The committee chair then asked for those who were opposed to the bill. The three organizations who visited offices together on Monday (ACLU, Housing CA, and CA RSOL) rushed to the “podium” and spoke first.
As soon as the first speaker finished, he left the “podium” and the next person appeared. Before it was over, there were at least 15 people speaking in opposition to SB 267, the largest number of people speaking in opposition to a Public Safety bill according to a stranger in crowd. We had them outnumbered 5 to 1. Yet there was doubt.
The doubt disappeared, however, when Senator Mark Leno began to speak. He is an expert on our policy issues and it showed. He let those who attended the hearing know that SB 267 would not achieve the goal it had set. He let them know that a recent report of the California Sex Offender Management Board (CA SOMB) stated unequivocally that there is no research that shows that exclusions zones are helpful and in fact can lead to a decrease in public safety.
Senator Leno reminded everyone that the legislature created CASOMB as the state’s experts on sex offender policy and noted that the legislature has often ignored CASOMB’s reports and recommendations. The senator then urged the committee to heed CASOMB’s remarks regarding exclusion zones as well as CASOMB’s recommendations to create a tiered registry.
That was a gift. And perhaps it is a gift that can keep on giving. Perhaps we can use the momentum we now have, after stopping not one, but two bills, in the state legislature to move closer to a tiered registry. It may not happen this year but we could use this year to increase collaboration with more like-minded organizations as well as encourage more registered citizens and those who love them to Show Up – Speak Up – Stand Up.
When that happens, we will be ready to join the 46 states in the nation that already have tiered registries.
– Janice Bellucci
Real all Janice’s Journal entries
Comments
Timmr
Eh, maybe he is getting it confused with SB54?
Timmr
I just received a polite letter from a member of the Senate Public Safety Committee. He thanked me for my opinion, but he also said that SB 267 is "currently awaiting action by the Senate Committee on Public Safety." (letter dated May 28). I thought it was withdrawn. The author changed his mind? Any news?
Garrett
People there's a petition on change.org to abolish the registry, make sure you sign it!
https://www.change.org/p/abolish-the-sex-offender-registry
Thanks
Anonymous Nobody
The assessments are already being done. They are to be used for the tiers. They are able to assess more than the simple charge on which you were convicted. The proposal is supposed to include the ability to apply for being reassessed into a lower tier.
You have to apply to be able to stop registration - and that is a real detail for the devil. They can do what they want with assessments then or in the meantime. I can see George Runner being named chairman of the assessments, and he might have a very different outlook about them than we do. That is the kind of devil in the details we are failing to see.
If there is any ability to intervene or make any arguments about a registrant's danger, it will happen. And as long as you have to file for to be allowed to stop registering, they will challenge you. When you apply to get off, there is nothing stopping the prosecutors from doing what they do with a COR, and raising hell about what a danger you are and how you should be reassessed to a higher level and made to keep registering - that is left wide open, that is one of the invisible details that are being missed, all because of the assessments, and also an issue of linking the time frame to the years of registration rather than the years from conviction or at least from release, and also because of the requirement that the registrant file for relief.
If you have to apply, you can be undermined. And this proposal includes an application at the time you want to stop. If the time frame is linked to years of registration rather than time from offense, then, among other things, you will be limited in your movement, as either moving out of state or even out of the country for a period could prevent you from getting relieved of registration, as it has prevented people from getting a COR.
Anonymous Nobody
A huge problem about the ACLU in this issue is that the ACLU has NEVER outright opposed registration. I have personally had ACLU lawyers tell me they are not against it. What they are doing here is simply toning it down bit - and making it clear that what remains is perfectly fine. They are not opposed to use having to continue to register for at least a minimum of 10 years - they think this is legitimate. And that is serving to lead us down the wrong road.
It is NOT legitimate! We are getting led down a path on which we are agreeing that registration is fine and dandy, just tone down some of the most extreme aspects of it, the rest is fine. It is NOT!
We can not be citing CASOMB as having it right - they do not have it right. They simply have it a bit less than it is now while preserving and building the organization to to do the evil assessments and keep us under their thumb - that is not right, that is not at all close enough to acceptable,and it is only building a bureaucracy to lobby against us going forward - they will never say that their jobs should be eliminated. We have to stop citing them as being right -- they are WRONG!
We can cite them and push to go to these very misguided tiers -- but we must add that it is not at all a reasonable place to stop, but do that for the moment, and we will work on the rest. We cannot ever agree with them that registration is either acceptable or necessary -- there is no form of registration that is not punishment, no matter how the courts might want to lie, and no matter how someone who doesn't have to registration might not understand that! But we are implicitly saying that if we merely go to this tiers and assessments, that is sufficient, that is are our goal,we consider that to be fine. No, it is not fine.
When we argue like that, we cannot go back later and expect to be taken seriously with an argument that we want more. Not once we already have signaled that this is acceptable, this is enough. They are not going to stick their necks out when we are already in agreement that the tiers are sufficient, are enough, even if we change our song later.
But we are not saying as we push these tiers that they, too, are unacceptable. We are not saying that nothing less than conforming to federal - which we can't go below -- is acceptable. We keep pushing these tiers as what we want, what is right, and thus implicitly assert it as the end game, and that is only committing suicide!
Post-probation or post-parole registration is not acceptable -- probation and parole are the legal standard to test, no further testing that is the equivalent of lifetime parole or temporary extension of parole is acceptable. Especially not as we in the same breath are pointing out that state studies show only about 3% of registrants reoffend. How can you justify or argue for any registration ever with such a low recidivism rate as that!? How can we be arguing that only 3% of all registrants reoffend, and so yes, we agree that even for minor offenses, even for all the offenses California requires registration that the feds do not require it, we should have to register for no less than 10 years!? Ten years is NOT a blip! Ten years is a hell of a long time, a life can be completely undermined and ruined in 10 years!
Our argument here has been very short sighted.
Timmr
Whether it is statistics based on type of offense or some other measure, it is always unfair to those individuals who don't every re-offend to make them register as if they are guilty of a future crime they will never commit.
NPS
Anonymously,
Thank you for your message. I really didn't take it as a diss. I pretty much understood your original comment as a different take on Lt. Gov. Newsome. I really respect him because he's made mistakes and actually took ownership of it. He upset not only the religious right by coveting thy neighbor's wife (which I'm surprised hasn't been made an illegal registrable offense with these puritanical views on sex) but even the non-secular crowd when he broke the ultimate "bro code" by sleeping with his friend's wife. He's one of few politicians who actually admits his mistakes and has bounced back from it. I voted for him during his run for mayor and as Lt. Governor. He really does re-evaluate his stance on issues both big and small.
Frank B
Hello,
Can you elaborate on the class action lawsuit? I apologize but I am not aware of it and would like to research it and possibly participate.
Than you
Cool CA RC
Remember the movie Shawshank Redemption?
This part....
“Dear Mr. Dusfrane,In response to your repeated inquiries the state has allocated the inclosed funds for your library project. ‘this is $200!’ In addition the library district has generously responded with a generous donation of used books and sundries. We consider this matter closed. Please stop sending us letters.”
“Good for you Andy” –Guard
“It only took six years, from now on I’ll write two letters a week.” – Andy
Let's write our congress 2 times a week. By email, Fax or snail mail.
To find your California legislators click the link below
http://www.legislature.ca.gov/legislators_and_districts/legislators/your_legislator.html
To find your USA Congress representatives
http://whoismyrepresentative.com/
How to write to your congress?
Here is one example,
http://sexoffenderissues.blogspot.com/2008/02/sample-letter-1.html
To get a free Fax Google "free fax" they have a list of fax you can sent to your congress FREE.
Maybe in 6 years from now we will have our FREEDOM!!! No more Megan's LAW!!
Let's 's get those fax out TODAY
Frank B
Janice,
Thank you for your efforts on this and the defeat of SB 267. I was happy to participate in the letter writing campaign. I would like to assist anyway that I can in the future, please keep us informed of any volunteer opportunities. Let's stop this unconstitutional and unfair treatment that is only for political gain. I spoke to a CASOMB member recently and he told me straight up that this is all political and unfortunately the main thing that will bring about change is finances and the cost of the programs to the state.
steve
An assessment review of EVERYONE is the only way to accurately apply a tier system.
anonymously
NPS, I didn't mean to diss you, but as I reread my posting maybe it came off that way. Sorry for the sarcastic tone. I really can't get over his support for Prop 35, but he did do some positive things. His support for gay marriage is positive. His admitting he was wrong on his Giuliani-modelled tough on crime platform that got him elected Mayor of San Francisco is another example. All it took was the backlash to the cameras he put up on streetcorners. Newsom , like I am hoping John Roberts is, is able to re-evaluate things and admit when he's wrong and change his mind when better judgement occurs. Unlike Bloomberg, who is such a zealot, who opposes TPP, which is something he would otherwise love, simply because TPP removes countries' abilities to make anti-smoking laws. And Bloomberg hates smoking even more than he hates salt added to foods and sugary drinks. Newsom is not so stubborn it seems. Yes, Newsom put on a fastfood ban when he was Mayor of San Francisco, but apparently did not do it for Nannystate reasons, but did it to help small business restaurants compete against Big-Fastfood. And his slashing of General Relief to only $50 a month. At least he didn't single out registrants , like David Vitter with Food Stamps or like what happened in Prop 47 and the Chris Kelly' buddy Marty Block's proposal to exempt failure to register, as well as DUI's, violent crimes, gun crimes from being treated as infractions, instead of misdemeanors. Again, sorry for the condescending attitude.
David
Don't forget, Static-99 is gay-hating*: RCs get scored one point higher if the victim was male. Or are the creators of Static-99 suggesting that female victimization is less egregious/more acceptable? That's just plain wrong in either case!
(*Homophobia is an 'excuse term' that allows haters to plea fearfulness.)
Q
Did anyone else notice that the majority of the reasons stated for the need for SB 267 were reasons that have been proven to be not true or plain ol myth by years of statistics and research? The one that was really sounding like desperation was the statement about "unreported sex crimes." That statement shouldn't be allowed to be part of the dialog because it is so obviously manipulation (attempt to instill fear) and trying to sound knowledgeable about something they couldn't possibly know anything about since it is not reported. That statement is on a level with the statements about "stranger danger;" something that is untrue, only the "unreported sex crimes" statement is unprovable, just like allot of other things said about people forced to register as a sex offender.
mike r
I agree a tiering system is unacceptable and shouldn't be considered any type of win the registry needs to go and I think its possible let's hope wars efforts prove favorable.
Cool CA RSO
If we keep this up and keep donating I would not be surprised if California actually become the 1st state to REMOVE Megan's law.
Let's make this happen!
Cool CA RSO
another WIN for RC (RSO)
anonymously
Anonymous Nobody said "Rather than an assessment, it should simply be a certain time since conviction based on the particular offense, after which the registration requirement simply expires, no application to stop needed (they already know how long it is since your conviction!), no assessment (other than to go to a lower tier)."
The devil is always in the details. But, I didn't see any proposal of an assessment for everyone based on anything other than the offense itself. I think I recall a chart indicating which offenses go into which tier. It was Oregon's new tiering that required an assessment interview for 4,000 offenders. I didn't see anything in the proposal for California of that. I also didn't see any mention of an exit assessment. I think the California proposal is exactly what you claim it should be, except for how the time required to be relieved of registration is counted.
Anonymous Nobody also said "registration, as long as it is only for a duration of decades, we are supporting assessments that go contrary to that of the parole board and to the recidivism rate, and we are..."
If an assessment based on the Static-99 is the assessment, then I agree this is not a good idea. In the static-99, you get a point for any violent non-sex offense. Could that include someone atacking you for being a registrant, then the cops arrest you for defending yourself, and then you are regarded as higher risk to commit a sex offense. Or a bar fight gets you a higher Static-99 score. As long as the Static-99 or something similarly bogus is not part of the equation, I think California tiering is a good idea.
anonymously
NPS said "As for governor, I believe my former mayor Gavin Newsom will be running. I truly believe he would be open to a tiered registry since he has before challenged the Californian populace when he made gay marriage legal in San Francisco. Did it hurt his image? Of course, but it didn’t stop him from getting elected as Lt. Gov."
I don't believe that at all since Chris Kelly got to him apparently as shown by his support for Prop 35. The same guy who doesn't want people who would advocate for a tiered registry to have political free speech to advocate on the internet for a tiered registry is not going to want a tiered registry, I wouldn't think. Plus, 1 in 4 SF voters voted to ban gay marriage, so by coming out against prop 8 he solidified his base and didn't do much to hurt himself with his non-base since Prop 8 passed initially 52-48%, not supporting the opposition to an overwhelming landslide, and polls indicate Prop 8, today, would not pass if voted on.
Anonymous Nobody
Congratulations Janice and everyone who wrote letter or called the lawmakers. Janice and everyone else should feel very good about these results.
Mike r, we already have what you want. Its called the "recidivism rate." And according to that, there are hardly ANY high risk sex offenders - the belief that there are is just a myth! And in fact, if there were, there would be a hell of a lot more than something around 100,000 registrants, as the registry catches everyone going all the way back to 1947!
And that is one BIG reason against the proposed tiers. The tiers are going to "assess" a lot of people as medium to high risk when hardly any sex offenders actually are that.
In fact, those who were paroled had to be assessed by the parole board -- which spent a lot of time and years getting to know them better than anyone who subsequently will be assessing them -- as being safe to be in the community and not likely to reoffend. As such, how can we then promote creation of a bureacracy to assess registrants much more harshly!? While this is a well intentioned effort, it is highly misguided.
Rather than an assessment, it should simply be a certain time since conviction based on the particular offense, after which the registration requirement simply expires, no application to stop needed (they already know how long it is since your conviction!), no assessment (other than to go to a lower tier).
And no one should be stuck in a tier for 20 years! And 10 years in no way is acceptable as the lowest tier! Certainly not unless all those not required to register by the feds (which is a awful lot of the registrants in California) are out of registration altogether. (California can't do less than 10 years for the others because the feds require that.) Why in hell should a misdemeanor indecent exposure have to register for 10 years! And be subject to an assessment for that!?
The point of supporting these tiers is not that tiers are good; it is because it is the only idea being discussed that can end registration somehow. But it is not a good idea, certainly not as proposed. Assessments for this are pure evil! And a huge builder of a bureacracy. Every last person hired into the bureacracy is in effect a paid lobbyist against us! This is Trojan horse.
Also, these tiers must not be linked to how long one has registered, but only to how long since time of conviction (or maybe time of release from prison). The only justification for tiers is the passage of time, and time is all it should be about -- you have not been convicted of another offense for 10 years, OK, its all over. Anything else will only bring very undesirable and unexpected results,such as instead of letting you end at 10 years, a devious board decides to instead assess you at a higher tier and make you continue! And tiers certainly should not be linked to how long one has registered IN CALIFORNIA, as is the case for a COR ever since a court decided that and then the Legislature added that language into 290 -- no one ever thought of that before the court decided to deny a COR on that basis. And the proposal for these tiers is not thinking of all the possibilities either.
Those not required to register by federal law should be out from under it at end of probation and 1203.4relief, or end of parole. Others should get only the minimum required under federal law, and that without assessments, no matter what state the register in, in fact, regardless of how many years they register, only measured from time of conviction(or maybe from time of release on parole).
Instead, we are proposing longer time frames than the feds require, we are proposing registration for people the feds don't require it, we are basically saying we support registration, as long as it is only for a duration of decades, we are supporting assessments that go contrary to that of the parole board and to the recidivism rate, and we are demanding a huge bureaucracy to lobby against us b created! That's insane! That is very misguided.
Ostracized Witch
Kudos Janice!! You and CARSOL are my saviors!! You are my primary advocates to reform the laws affecting offenders whose crime was categorized as sexual in nature (and therefore reprehensible by the conservatives in the populace). Next, I pray you are finally able to get Tiered Registration.
sadandmad
awesome!
thanks Janice and Senator!
I hope to donate next paycheck!
NPS
I would support Mark Leno 100%. However, I highly doubt that most of Southern California would vote for him simply because he is openly gay. Plus, Sen. Leno still has another year and a half before he is termed out.
As for governor, I believe my former mayor Gavin Newsom will be running. I truly believe he would be open to a tiered registry since he has before challenged the Californian populace when he made gay marriage legal in San Francisco. Did it hurt his image? Of course, but it didn't stop him from getting elected as Lt. Gov.
David Chiu who succeeded Ammiano could be another person in legislature to be approached for tier support.
mike r
We need a study to determine the exact number of high risk violent offenders compared to all other offenders just to be able to cite such statistics would benefit our cause I beleive. There is no such statistics that I can find I beleive there should be such statistics in order to make informed decisions. It's a major piece of information that is lacking.
David
I second that nomination! Leno for Governor!
Clark
The Constitution works ...team works.....democracy works with an open public hearing procedure unlike the backhall conference changing record, readback record secluded closed from open public court procedure and slipped in false jury instructions from open court proceeding discussion orange county, calif style.....court proceedings like that you don't need the accused to show up for court...its done without you being present ANYWAYS .........and that is the major difference here ......an open public process proceeding can WIN....its good for democracy ...its good for our Constitution.
Mark Judkins
Many, many thanks to Janice and Senator Mark Leno. My world was a different place without the efforts of Janice. She has given hope and restored many of my civil rights. She has made a difference that I thought could never happen. I have donated to CA RSOL to further advance our cause. I would hope that everyone that has benefited from the opposition to SB 267 and AB 201 will do the same. We won this battle, but the war is not over. We still have the cities of Carson and Murrietta to fix! And no doubt there will be other cities and counties that decide to ignore the law.
mike r
Loved the hearing it gives me hope to hear leno talk about how they have ignored CASOMB recommendations year after year. Finally someone with the courage and sense speaking out for commen sense approach. ACLU did an incredible job citing CASOMB which is key to change. Thanks Janice and all that spoke a.d stepped up. The issue and time is ripe for the registry to be overturned let's all pray and support WARS effort in the upcoming class action and continue to support rsol ACLU and all the rest that are doing the right thing and fighting for good of all of us.
Suffered & Suffering
Janice and everyone at RSOL - THANK YOU for all your work on our behalf and the behalf of our families. We've suffered too much and too long this injustice. The fight must go on. THANK YOU.
Jo
I know you will shy from the comparisons to Mother Teresa, but Janice, you have to wear it. We are a weary, war-torn bunch, put down, beat down, spit upon and despised. No other former convict has as much hatred, vitriol and disdain as we. YOU have no reason to stand for us other than its the right thing to do. And for that, you are loved and revered not by the masses, but us few. Thank you.
Nicholas Maietta
What a relief! A big THANK YOU to the team at California RSOL and to everyone who reached out via letters, emails and phone calls to voice their concern and opposition to this now withdrawn senate bill.
The pendulum has started swinging the other way and this is more proof that is happening, at least in California.
Mike B
So many thanks to those involved. I can't believe the changes that have been going on. I only thought there was one direction 11yrs ago, from difficult to much worse. I can't believe how well I've been able to move on and forward over the last few years. Many many many thanks for your efforts Janice!
G4Change
I watched the video of this hearing. Two things:
1) Thank you and God Bless each of you who showed up and spoke up!!!
2) MARK LENO FOR GOVERNOR!!!!!!!
Double A
Thank you again Janice, everyone at CA RSOL, and everyone who made an effort to get this bill withdrawn. I was concerned that SB 267 was guaranteed to become law. Fortunately there are some educated and rational thinking legislators. Hopefully we can ride this momentum and get more of our civil rights restored.
I know Janice isn't thinking about her legacy or her place in history, but in my heart and because of my situation to me she is one of the great civil rights activists. Not many would stick their neck out to help registered citizens, but for the past few years Janice has been doing such a noble job in protecting our rights. I can't say thank you enough. Janice you are truly my hero.
FYI Janice... I was the person who showed up at the meeting in LA at 9 instead of 10 :). I don't know if you remember, but that was me.
Janice's Journal: SB 267 Withdrawn
Published Date : May 12, 2015
We did it! We stopped SB 267! The California state legislature will not consider for the remainder of this year any bill that would authorize cities and counties to pass laws that prohibit registered citizens from being present in or near public and private places.
“This great victory is the result of individuals writing letters and making phone calls to state senators as well as testifying before the Senate Public Safety Committee,” stated CA RSOL president Janice Bellucci. “It is also the result of support from like minded organizations including the ACLU, California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, Housing California and Alameda County.”
During the Senate Public Safety Committee hearing, there was overwhelming support from those who opposed the bill. The support began with formal testimony from ACLU, Housing California and California RSOL and was followed by informal testimony from like minded organizations and individuals, including registered citizens.
Senator Loni Hancock, chair of the Public Safety Committee, thanked the registered citizens who testified and added, “It takes a lot of courage to speak out due to the stigma of being on the registry.”
Following the testimony, Senators Mark Leno and Loni Hancock stated they could not support SB 267. Leno stated his position was based in large part on recommendations from the California Sex Offender Management Board (CA SOMB). Hancock agreed with Leno and then asked the author of the bill to withdraw it. The author of the bill, Senator Connie Leyva agreed to that request.
Because Senator Leyva withdrew the bill, it cannot be considered in 2015. The bill could, however, be amended and considered in 2016 provided that the amended bill is introduced in January 2016. The Assembly version of the bill, AB 201, was also withdrawn by its author and faces a similar fate.
– Janice Bellucci
Read all of Janice’s Journal
Comments
Robert Curtis
With humble thanks to you Janice and the RSOL staff for giving us a means and support to do so (to show-up, stand-up and speak-up). Together we can and will do marvelous things! When I look on the faces of those amongst us what I see is Hope.
j
Poetic justice. This is sexual battery, not harassment. One day Robles will wake up and find out he qualifies to be on the registry. Maybe then he will understand what goes around comes around.
David
I am writing to my Assemblyman (who voted in favor of AB201 in the Local Governance Committee prior to it being withdrawn) and I am including a link to the Senate Public Safety Hearing video) with the suggestion that he learn from Senator Leno. I'm irritated by my Assemblyman's pandering cowardice!
Erich
I just wrote President Obama a letter and in it I voiced the concerned of the nation's community of registered citizens. I also sent the same letter to each of my representatives. I want to be heard, it's my right as a citizen of this nation and of this world.
Janice Bellucci
Robert Curtis is the real deal. He is a man with a mission....and a lot of courage. He has stood before the state legislature, county supervisors and city council members sharing his truth. Robert has made and continues to make a difference in our worthy cause. Thank you, Robert!
Erich
My father survived 1939 Berlin because good German citizens saw the wrong in their governments laws. I'm here today because people came together to help each other. He would be happy to people standing up for their rights.
Nicholas Maietta
I just took the time to watch the video. It. Was. Awesome. :)
For anyone who needs their spirit lifted when facing a seemingly uphill battle, i have this to say: After watching the video, it's apparent to me the tide has turned and the pendulum is swinging the other way now.
Suffered & Suffering
Janice and the RSOL and the people who testified - THANK YOU for all your work. You've made a difference in our life and our families' lives. We've suffered too long and too much from this injustice. Please continue the fight. If not for anything then for justice. To end this suffering. Only you believe in us and our cause. THANK YOU again and again.
Art
thank you Janice Bellucci and RSOL for fighting for us! The favor of God is on you!
Robert Curtis
I have developed a system of influencing that if taken to heart and acted on will make a difference at city, county, state and federal levels.
Forgive me and my lacking towards defining what resources are available to you via your local hair salons and barber shops. These people are directly in touch with voters …they are the boots on the ground.
How can you use their relationships with community to promote our rights in this war? What does a hairstylist and barber value most? Their cutting tools.
If you determine to sharpen their scissors for free stating (XYZ politician) sponsored their scissors to be sharpened…that (XYZ candidate) will be voted for and one thing hairstylist do is talk. If a politician is playing the race card( I mean sex offender card) they now have a problem. Just go to their rival with your sponsorship program.
I will teach you these easy skills and we will take the country back one hair salon and barber shop at a time! Although this is a complementary service hairstylist usually give tips out of appreciation..I averaged $100 a day in tips for all the free work done. Outside of election season I charge $25-$35 per scissor. Good part-time cash for any Registrant out of work.
I am a registrant that use to be a salon owner and hairstylist. The registry will be defeated. Our fight ladies and gentlemen is a patriotic one. We are all soldiers in this war…there are no civilians on the registry. Justice will prevail.
The politician must agree in lieu of payment as follows:
1. Uphold their oath of office especially when it’s unpopular to do so.
2. give a donation of any amount to any organization that supports abused women and/or children. Well, that’s what I requested of my candidate in lieu of me being paid..Good PR in case the secret gets out. Robert 949.872.8768
Q
Michael; thanks! Most interesting and informative article, indeed!!!!
If I am the scum of society and all the other things said of me by the likes of Robles, as well as the press because I looked at some pictures then he is a total monster of the worst variety; incurable and sorely in need of lifetime monitoring by the state! What he did is attempted rape, as well as other crimes while in office.
Yup; he's a pervert, predator, child molester, stalker, and everything else we are called in the press. I hope to see him at a CA-RSOL meeting so I can look him in the eye and call him a perv to his face. :) I hope the double standard good ol boys club kicks him to the curb because they really need to stop protecting their own with their double standard. This double standard needs to be challenged in the courts.
PR
This is a good one! With luck he will be number 100 on the registry in the city of Carson!
PR
All the more reason to research who you vote for.
AV Home
Some believe in luck. I practice Prayer and Action! AV Homeless Veteran... Thanks to all who signed and to those of us California Citizens who: lobby, make, enforce, and obey the LAW!
steve
Leno's comment to "come back with a tier bill" is epic. It's almost a warning shot to anyone else who wants to come up with BS bills to come with something substantial that reflects CASOMB's reccomendations to help fix the situation. I dread to think what our situation would be if the far right was in charge.
Linda
Amazing victory, Janice and company!! After hearing Leno speak, it's obvious that the powers to be are understanding the depth of this issue. He totally gets it. Thank you so very much for all that you do!!
Michael
City of CARSON Mayor/Councilman ALBERT ROBLES faces SEXAUL ASSSSUALT allegations:
I always thought he was a little too vocal about the RSO issue. This would explain it.
It seems it was a case of , "Hey! Look over there!"
http://www.loscerritosnews.net/2015/05/12/lynn-dymally-files-sexual-harassment-lawsuit-against-carson-councilman-and-wrd-director-albert-robles/
Robert Curtis
I tried to leave a comment but it didn't post.
PR
I too watched the video and I was so impressed with what he had to say. Suggesting to Leyva to come back with a tier system bill was classic. Hancock is from Alameda County who testified against the bill. Both Hancock and Leno are California Bay Area representatives.
Mark Judkins
Great News! Thank you to Janice for another victory! And thanks goes to everyone that made the effort to call or write and had friends and family do the same. It proves that the system does work and that common sense can prevail. The city of Carson and others who have refused to budge on this issue need to take great stock of this turn of events. It is now their turn to do the right thing and get rid of their hateful draconian laws.
Its time for everyone to donate to CA RSOL so that even more work can be done.
Thank you again to Janice and Frank for making everyone's lives better.
Harry
The best time to prepare for the next battle is the day after a victory. We need to do everything that is legal to alert every RC and their family members about CA RSOL so there will be a bigger army, not only to defend us from these Terrorist attacks, also, launch an offensive in this war.
G4Change
GRAND. SLAM. HOME. RUN.
Thank you Janice and EVERYONE who showed up and spoke up!!!!
Cool CA RSO
also this
https://www.facebook.com/AssemblymanMarcSteinorth/posts/695385077256328
Cool CA RSO
If you can make sure you tell Connie Thanks for withdrawing SB267
Facebook
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Connie-Leyva-for-Senate-2014/855298104486003
Twitter
https://twitter.com/SenatorLeyva
Q
Thank you Janice, Frank, et al; I was thinking of you two and everyone else all day.
Today I was in a park guiding another man through a spiritual process and found it hard to stay focused. A cop kept driving by and I couldn't help thinking that after today I could possibly go to jail for doing what I was doing; guiding a man through the 12 step process in a park because we had no where else to go; trying to help him to help his self. This win proves that darkness can't compete with light.
I also want to thank all the registrants and everyone else that wrote letters and made calls. I called every senator on the list twice to voice my opposition to this unconstitutional bill. I was planning on calling a third time, but some of the offices started asking for name and city :) so I thought I had better not press my luck!!!!
If this bill or a similar one rears it's ugly head in the future I now know that together WE can defeat it and win!!!!
Q
My Pastor always says "right always prevails," and "truth always wins," and he is right.
Hank NewMexRSOL
CONGRATULATIONS CA RSOL !!!!!!!!!!! We are two states east of you, and we can hear the celebration !!!!!
mike r
Great link guest. My god it was great to hear leno talk sense and show the courage to speak up I love the fact that our people are using the reports and making the points that matter. Those reports are the keystones to get the registry overturned completely. The registry is useless and counterproductive and can be proven as such by the reports. Great job.
Jo
Good job Russ, proud of you!
Harry
Last night, I was praying about this matter and I fell asleep before finishing and I slept through the whole night. When I got up, this morning, I realize that I did not finish the prayer, however, I did not have to finish, because God had already taken care of the issue.
Cool CA RSO
like I usually say on my posts..
Another WIN for RSO (RC)
russ
This was an amazing win for us. I just want to thank everybody involved. I am a registrant who made the trip up today after years of thinking I could never make a difference. I found that that thinking couldn't be farther from the truth. Everyday people getting involved can make change happen. If your a registrant get involved your voice will be heard and can be the difference to push things in the direction we are fighting for. We don't need to live in this fear that has been created for us.
PR
Thanks for this link. I feel so proud of all that spoke out against this issue.
NPS
I recently viewed the video and I was very happy to see and hear my district's representative Mark Leno's comments in opposition to this bill. I just sent him a thank you e-mail.
SWY
Galatians 6:9 "And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not."
Deuteronomy 31:6 "Be strong and of a good courage, fear not, nor be afraid of them: for the LORD thy God, he it is that doth go with thee; he will not fail thee, nor forsake thee."
We can't lose unless we stop fighting the "good fight" (no matter how hard or long). We are all winners!
C. Keoki Cortez
Thank you everyone! It is people like you who see the vindictiveness and the punishment that these laws place on registrants and their families. I was grateful to do my part and will continue to do so until this kind of fear-based thinking is eliminated. Gratitude to Janet for your hard work in ensuring that we all get a fair shake in society.
Jo
New "Myth" for the top of the site
"Registered Citizens are meek and frightened, don't vote and will not fight for their rights"
Alienated
Thank You Janice and all parties/people involved including myself. I think this was a wise move by the State of California also. Create a tiered registry and add restrictions for the period prescribed appropriately. Blanket restrictions are illogical and a waste of time and effort and a false security.
I am going to go the park with my dogs, my kids and my grandchildren.
God Bless this Victory, I for one am going to celebrate.
Tootles, I am stoked and relieved
JB
Thank you, Janice and to everyone who called and wrote letters and especially to those who testified on our behalf!
vic
Thank God for Janice
guest
Video of the hearing is up.
http://senate.ca.gov/media-archive#
Senate Public Safety Committee, May 12, 2015
First agenda item.
Thanks to all!
Mike B
Thank you very much Janice!.. Also to all whom helped, sent letters and mad calls. Your all appreciated much.
Jo
My take away from this is they ARE listening to the board which is highly encouraging
curiouser
This is a great day to feel good about standing up, writing letters, making calls and being heard. And it's a great time to thank those amazing people who lead this fight on the front lines. Janice, Frank, Chance and all those from CARSOL, we salute you, we appreciate you, we are blessed to have you.
John
I'm so excited that this was withdrawn. Thank you so much! What's next, Janice? Hopefully this can inspire more people to prevent things like this from hindering registered citizens from rebuilding and living their lives.
This poor man was trying to live as a homeless registered citizen and he just left CA for this?!? http://www.morganton.com/news/registered-sex-offender-nabbed-near-playground/article_64e46ab2-f82e-11e4-959d-ebe37ccb2076.html
Jo
Thank you Janice thank you ALL! Let's make sure to send out thank you calls and emails too just to let these people know we are human, we are voters and we matter.
Lake County
One more win. A little more hope for the future. Thanks Janice and all those involved.
td777
Thank you to Janice, and to all of us involved, whether by showing up to testify, writing letters, or in any way speaking on our behalf...CONGRATS!
Mark V
Let this be a reminder as to why we should not fall prey to the hatred and ignorance of a past fueled by ignorant tough-on-crime politicians and a public misled by the media. At some point as we, and most people in general, learn that ostracizing and demonizing any group only leads to outright hate and prejudice, we can begin to heal, forgive and move forward with our lives by using our own good judgement and conscience. Everyone who participated in opposing SB 201 and SB 267 gets to bask in this victory and should enjoy it. Thank you Janice, Frank and everyone else!
john
best news I,ve heard all year!thank you janice.I wrote and called my ass off .
i,m so happy about this!!!!!!!!!!!
vahall
WOOT!!!! The pen is mightier than the sword!
Harry
“It takes a lot of courage to speak out due to the stigma of being on the registry.” There is a lot being said, here, that we can use. Thanks to everyone.
David
THANK YOU SO MUCH to everyone who wrote letters, made phone calls, and stood up for our rights and our freedom! Especially thank you Janice, Frank, and CA RSOL!
PR
Yeah! This is the best news ever. So excited that all of our phone calls and letters were effective. Thank you too to Janice and to everyone else that made the trip to Sacramento today to speak out against SB 267.
I also feel more motivated than ever to continue to speak out against the injustices placed on registered citizens. And if all of us continue to work together we will indeed one day succeed.
Someone who cares
Great News!!! I knew we would do it. It just makes sense and was the only right thing to do. I am glad I made the calls and mailed the letters, along with all of you who did the same. Thank YOU Janice and Team.
steve
Thank you all!
Two-year bill
A bill that is “dead,” “stalled,” “held” or simply “not moved” by the author in the first year of a two-year session and cannot be heard again until the second year of the session. Gener- ally a bill becomes a two-year bill when it fails to meet a legislative deadline, such as a fiscal committee or policy committee deadline. A bill cannot become a two-year bill in the second year of the session, since there is no additional year to which the bill would be carried over.
Patrick Henry
An applaud to Janice, all the board members and to everyone that helped for the cause!
David
Oh Holy Moly!!!!! (keepin' it clean) You are awesome!!!!!! Unbelievable, awesome, amazing!!!!! *huge smile*
Double A
This is AWESOME! Thank you Janice, CA RSOL, and everyone who contributed any effort in getting this bill withdrawn.
mike r
Wow that's amazing thank you Janice and everyone that participated in getting these bills stopped. Our phone calls and voices seem to have made a difference.
NPS
Great news!!!! Thank you Janice! And thank you to everyone who testified before the committee, wrote letters, made phone calls and sent their prayers. God is Good!
CA
Excellent- thank you Janice:)
Janice's Journal: SB 267 - Time to step up
Published Date : April 16, 2015
***Senate Public Safety Committee Hearing on May 12*** – The California legislature yesterday struck a blow against all registered citizens. That blow is passage of Senate Bill 267 (SB 267) by the Senate Governance and Finance Committee. Despite testimony in opposition to the bill from the ACLU, California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, Alameda County and California RSOL, the Committee passed the bill unanimously.
If SB 267 becomes law, cities and counties will be authorized to prohibit registered citizens from being present in or even near public places (parks, beached, libraries, museums, etc.) as well as private places (movie theaters, fast food restaurants, bowling alleys, etc.).
If SB 267 becomes law, registered citizens will again be required to navigate a minefield of local laws for which no signs have been posted. If SB 267 becomes law, registered citizens could pay the price of spending up to one year in jail, a fine of up to $1,000 or both for each violation of any one of those laws.
All is not lost. There is hope. We have three opportunities to stop SB 267 from becoming law although each step is increasingly difficult.
First, SB 267 could be stopped at the Senate Public Safety Committee hearing on April 29. California RSOL lobbied this week in the offices of the members of that committee and will testify at that hearing. More needs to be done, however, and it needs to be done by YOU! Yes, you, who are reading this column.
YOU need to write and send a letter to every member of the Senate Public Safety Committee and you need to do it today. After you have written and sent the letter, you need to call the Senators’ offices. There is no time to waste.
Second, SB 267 could be stopped on the floor of the Senate. This is a lot more difficult than sending a letter and making a phone call. In fact, it will require at least 21 Senators to vote in opposition to the bill.
Finally, SB 267 could be stopped in the Governor’s office. This will be the most difficult task as the Governor is not known for his support of registered citizens.
We can do this! There are more than 100,000 registered citizens in this state and each citizen has at least two family members or friends who could join them. Let’s make our voices heard in the State Capitol!!
[Attached is a draft letter (Senate Letter – SB 267 – April 2015) to the Senate Public Safety Committee and below a list of its members including mailing addresses and phone numbers]
– Janice Bellucci
Read all of Janice’s Journal
Related
Let local governments set safety zones for children: Guest commentary
CALIFORNIA STATE SENATE
COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair
State Capitol, Room 2082
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 651-4009
Senator Joel Anderson, Co-Chair
State Capitol, Room 5052
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 651-4038
Senator Mark Leno
State Capitol, Room 5100
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 651-4011
Senator Carol Liu
State Capitol, Room 5097
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 651-4025
Senator Mike McGuire
State Capitol, Room 5064
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 651-4002
Senator Bill Monning
State Capitol, Room 313
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 651-4017
Senator Jeff Stone
State Capitol, Room 4062
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 651-4028
Comments
David
I called again yesterday. AND I sent a long email to Assemblyman Marc Steinorth asking him to reconsider his support of this bad Bill. I personalized the email with details of my life 20 years post-offense.
brunello
Similarly vague and potentially infinitely extensible is the definition of a "gathering" of children.
Timmr
In the previous ordinances, there was some distance, usually 300 feet, around the park, school, etc. that was included in the exclusion zone. There is no measurable criteria in this bill that defines "where children regularly gather". The route taken by children from their homes to the bus stop could be included in the zone "where children gather". Whole residential areas fall into the zone, "where children gather." A street corner, a doctor's office, it is left up to the imagination of the officials in each jurisdiction.
Timmr
What difference does that make? If it is unjust to anyone, it is wrong.
curiouser
No, that would be up to each individual municipality or county..which is what makes all of this so dangerous...
Someone who cares
I made all seven calls during my lunch hour, and like some said, they only asked for the Zip Code or City. One did not ask anything, and I asked her if she needed my Zip or city, and she said no since they are only counting the votes. She said "this one is a popular one today" and I replied: "That's good". I hope the popular means in our favor. Everyone was polite and thanked me for taking the time to call the Senator's office. I hope all goes well tomorrow. Fingers crossed, as always.
Harry
I called, this was the 2nd time against this bill.
Bluewall
A few made a mentioning that they are getting alot of calls about opposing SB267 .. so I feel hopeful about it
CA
(c) (1) A local agency is not preempted by state law from enacting and enforcing an ordinance that restricts a person required to register pursuant to Section 290 for an offense committed against a minor from being present at schools, parks, day care centers, or other locations where children regularly gather within the local agency’s jurisdiction.
(2) A local agency may adopt ordinances, rules, or regulations that are more restrictive than state law relating to a person’s ability to be present at schools, parks, day care centers, or other locations where children regularly gather within the local agency’s jurisdiction when the person is required to register pursuant to Section 290 for an offense committed against a minor.
(3) For purposes of this subdivision, “local agency” means a city, county, or city and county.
so I guess what this means is a 290 rso, cannot be "PRESENT" at a school, park, day care or place where children are at. THERE IS NOTHING IN THE BILL THAT SAYS ANYTHING ABOUT PROXIMITY, JUST PRESENCE!!!!
vahall
called, then sat around with four friends while they called. 30 minutes well spent.
Q
OK; made my calls to all the senators offices and it took less than 15 min. Had a family member call too. My thoughts and prayers will be with Janice et al for the rest of the day, as well as tonight and tomorrow. I urge everyone to call. It's quick and painless. If anyone reading this thinks they don't need to call, I'll remind you that this is for freedom and truth, as well as what is right. I believe WE CAN make a difference!
MM
Made my calls during lunch today - five minutes!! Some asked what city, some didn't and only one asked if I wanted to leave my name.
NPS
All my letters were signed, sealed and hand delivered to the above senators two weeks ago. I just completed my telephone calls a few minutes ago. It sounds like they are certainly busy taking calls and adding opposers to the list.
Bluewall
Bam... Took 15 minutes total..Some ask for my name, gave it to them... Some ask for my zip code, gave that to them... Some ask for the city... that was fast...
CA
WHAT DOES local agency is not preempted by state law from enacting MEAN?
CA
JANICE, IF THIS BILL DOES PASS, CAN WE REQUEST A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AGAINST SB 267, AND POSSIBLY GET A INJUNCTION?? CHALLENGING THE CONSTUITIONALITY OF THE BILL????
CA
SIMPLE QUESTION- IS THIS BILL CONSTITUTIONAL?
CA
IS THIS BILL RETROACTIVE OR NOT??????????????????????????????
I MEAN THIS ONLY APPLIES TO RSOs CONVICTED AFTER PROP 83 CORRECT?
MS
More phone calls made this morning also.
curiouser
I just made the calls...and it felt AWESOME!
Less than five minutes, and the smallest, simplest, easiest thing any of us can do in this fight.
Stay powerful, everyone.
FEDUP
I just called and got 9 friends and family to call as well. IT TOOK ME 5 MINUTES TO CALL THE WHOLE LIST.
NMV
Phone calls made by myself, my family and my friends.
Lake County
I called today.
Robert Curtis
Got a couple of registrants interested in an income generator that promotes local politicians for our cause! Boots on the ground and in salons in your area. A free how-to on servicing and leveraging contacts to help our cause. Affect things locally where you live and do it part time or full time. Scissor sharpening and sales. Robert (949) 872-8768.
Nicholas Maietta
Just like like the days of colored people.. forced to use alternate water fountains and restrooms. Their only crime was being a person with darker skin than those with lighter skin. We are taxpayers too. That alone should become a valid lawsuit... forced to pay taxes but not able to be at those places....
Clark
There's going to be some there in public service that will need to take a step back and be careful for your possible actions against the Constitution ...there are numerous issues involved for your taking on the Constitution ....just ask orange county , calif ...on one of them.....courts have already told you so you are aware of your possible actions against the Constitution ........this ain't an orange county courtroom backhall conference where you can get away of fixing words.........open public procedure will have people see this too is recklessly WRONG.
Janice Bellucci
CALL SENATORS ON MONDAY - We have one last chance to stop passage of SB 267 in the Senate Public Safety Committee. The bill would allow cities and counties to restrict the presence of registered citizens in both public (such as parks and libraries) and private places (such as movie theaters and fast food restaurants). If we fail, the bill will be heard by the full Senate and is likely to pass. Please call the seven offices below and let them know that you OPPOSE the bill and want the Senator, who is a member of that committee, to vote NO. I will be in Sacramento on Monday afternoon meeting in the offices of the Senators along side ACLU and Housing California. Let your voice be heard even if you have called before. It will take you less than 15 minutes and could be the most valuable 15 minutes of your life. Thanks!
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair
State Capitol, Room 2082
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 651-4009
Senator Joel Anderson, Co-Chair
State Capitol, Room 5052
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 651-4038
Senator Mark Leno
State Capitol, Room 5100
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 651-4011
Senator Carol Liu
State Capitol, Room 5097
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 651-4025
Senator Mike McGuire
State Capitol, Room 5064
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 651-4002
Senator Bill Monning
State Capitol, Room 313
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 651-4017
Senator Jeff Stone
State Capitol, Room 4062
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 651-4028
Molly
Please everyone who can come to the Senate Committee meeting please, please come. These are your rights and lives SB 267 is threatening. We had a lot of people at the Assembly Committee meeting two weeks ago and it helped Bill Brough see that WE ARE NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE! But I'm sure Connie heard all about it and if I were her I'd try to stack the room with SB 267 supporters. PLEASE if you can come join us, do it! It's not hard, it's actually kind of fun, it's totally interesting and you don't have to say anything if you don't want to. Just sit on our side. I bet once you get there you will want to stand up for yourself and if so all you say is "I'm opposed to this bill". That's it, 5 words to save your rights, "I'm opposed to this bill". If we are united we can defeat this bill!
MM
Way to go David!
David
I "came out" (as an RC) to two more friends and both sent letters to the committee, Leyla, and Steinorth. Add those to the letters sent and calls made by me and five other family & friends. I hope our voices are finally getting through.
someone who cares
I have seven letters written and sealed, and I will send this 2nd batch in the morning.
MS
My letters went out today regarding SB 267 to Senator Leyva and Assemblyman Marc Steinorth. Top that off with had another person call the Senate Committee today opposing SB 267. We have to keep trying to let our voices be heard.
someone who cares
I sent Marc Steinorth a message through his website, and I will let you know if he responds. I agree, letters, calls, and whatever else you can think of will make a difference.
Eric Knight
Just to reiterate: Sending postal mail has PROVEN to be effective! This is how AB 207 was pulled from committee. Since we know it works, hopefully we can DOUBLE the letters sent. Please up your game! Postage may be pricey, but the letters, by law, must be kept on record, and they DO add up. Let's do it!
MS
Great suggestion Jo. Going to give it a try.
Jo
I encourage everyone to reach out directly to Marc Steinorth, one of the authors of the bill. You can write to him directly on his website. The guy is a businessman, father, and has a heart, apparently, because he responded personally to my email. Be brief and respectful, tell him your story, put a human face on this, we are not monsters. We are people who messed up, paid the price and now society wants to keep heaping on punishments long after our sentences. Please take them time to do this.
Timmr
You are a citizen who can vote, so just do it.
BSL
Thanks for your comments guys. I appreciate you felt the same way I do. I really want Janice to weigh in because legally she could use this as evidence against the registry! I mean, really, This crime would be considered a higher sex offence above indecent exposing or two young kids one 18 and 17 in a relationship. This case should poke holes in the registry compliance! Lots of people should be able to jump right off the registry!
Janice?
MS
I called them today.
MJK
Spread the word! Took 4 minutes and 32 seconds! If you have 5 minutes (and I know you do) call them!! And have your family and friends who are willing do the same!
- I'm calling regarding SB267
- I'm opposed to this bill
- My name is _____
- I'm calling from (city/zip)
Some won't even ask for all the information.
So easy! Do it now if you haven't!
HOOKSCAR
You can use PayPal or any cc. I know with PayPal you add a note of what you want the funds used for.
John
Is it ok for me send these letters and make the calls even if I'm on probation? My wife and other family members will be sending letters. I'd hate for this law to pass and not allow us to enjoy and live our lives with our kids like any other normal family.
Margaret Moon
NPS, I sincerely commend you and thank you for the courage you have displayed. I hope others will be inspired to do whatever they find that they are able to do to further our cause!
K290inCA
I called the offices to leave my opposition to the bill. Even if you don't have time to print and mail the letters, CALL the offices. It only took me 2-3 minutes per call and they only asked for Zip Code, City, and for or against. If you are afraid to reveal yourself for this, the very least you can do is call and put the numbers up in opposition of the bill!
Janice Bellucci
Thank you for writing letters! Please call offices, too. The Senate Public Safety hearing is on Tuesday at 9:30 a.m. so please call them first.
someone who cares
I mailed seven letters yesterday. I added a couple of personal notes and also emphasized the statistics and facts again that are simply left out of the equation each time a bill like this is being introduced. Keeping fingers crossed. I truly hope that these senators will realize the absurdity of these bills. It is so clear that the majority of registered citizens will not re-offend. Who in their right mind would want to come back to all these crazy laws? They have no more interest in re-offending than any other law abiding citizen.
Timmr
Thank you, NPS. I personalized my letters also by saying I was a voter and registrant and told them specifically how this law would adversely affect me and my family. I figured they already know the legal issues and rarely hear the other side of how this affects real people.
Timmr
I'll donate if it goes to a special fund earmarked just for outreach. I'm $5000 in the hole this year, been there before and not worried about it, so I can donate towards a better future. Nonetheless, I would like to see a plan and some organization. The better the plan, the bigger the donation. Set up a temporary email, announce it here and get some suggestions on the outreach campaign to forward to CARSOL board.
Harry
What is the payment vehicle for making donation? Is it by CC/Check? How do we ear mark it?
Timmr
Yes, we can focus on the counties with the most egregious policies. Alternatively, we can also do the mailings in stages, say pick one in ten to mail to at first. I know this sounds crass, but we could target the RC's in wealthier zip codes. That should limit the number significantly. The point is to first get people with money and time involved in the process. As a reason to join you can point out that the more you have, the more chance someone is going to try to take it away from you -- simply because you are on the registry. Once we have more people with resources involved, then we can do more extensive outreach.
There also maybe grants to seek for this purpose.
HOOKSCAR
The only thing that we can do is treat these "laws" as an annoying fly. Live your life as a law abiding citizen and lead by example. Do as you say and say what you do. Actions speak louder than words. Things can be overwhelming if you allow it to be. You have support here.
HOOKSCAR
100. Done. Next?
MS
I just donated $100.00
HOOKSCAR
That's 400. I will make my donation today. I want to be assured of where it goes to. I want it to go towards fliers. Not a lunch. Lol.
Janice Bellucci
Thank you, NPS, for your courage and bravery! You showed up, you stood up and spoke up. Congratulations!
G
If this passes I want separate but equal theaters, restaurants, beaches, etc. I'm talking about like a SO AMC 18 Theater and a SO In-N-Out right next to all the other locations. Double it up. And if it isn't equal bring out the lawsuits.
NPS
Well, I just returned from a day trip to Sacramento. I hand delivered letters to each senator on the Committee on Public Safety. Not only did I include the letter, I also included and highlighted parts of U.S. Constitution. One additional thing I included was my own backstory with a photocopy of my picture. I was hesitant at first, but I felt as though I needed to humanize it especially when most politicians and other ignorant sheeple imagine some kind of troll. I don't mean to sound conceited, but I am good looking, in good shape, and I dress well. No one would ever believe that I am a registrant because I don't fit their idea of a 290 registrant. I wrote in part:
I included my current picture because it is my wish that you see the face of a sex offender. It is not the monster hiding behind bushes waiting to snatch a child. It is the face of someone's child, someone's sibling, someone's friend. It is the face of a future parent who wants very much to be a part of their children’s lives. However, with the current blanket restrictions against all 290 registrants, my family and I are barred from enjoying life that other Americans take for granted. Murderers, gang members, violent felons have more rights than I have. Please remember this face and all other registrants like me when you consider legislative bills that unconstitutionally restrict the rights of registrants and their families. Remember this face and all other registrants like me when the legislature decides to listen to their CA-Sex Offender Management Board and considers a tiered registration if not a total elimination of 290 registration.
Craig
The letter writing might work, they did the same thing in Texas at first, but I do not think the response justified the cost, I Myself mailed 100s of letters, I was happy to do this, the point is for some reason so many did not respond, but you could contact TX voices and ask Mary if it was worth it. Certain cities were covered instead of state wide. If some of you there could speak with some of the treatment providers in your state some might allow information to be passed out, also some registration offices here will pass out cards etc if you have them printed.
Harry
Folks, the only public legacy that the Runner has is Jessica Law. Since Prop. 83 is wobbling under of the weight of truth, they are like angry cats in a corner and they will do anything to keep it out of the toilet so their names will be flushed away.
VSPSV(S?)
I'm tired of being OVERWHELMED for others to ENJOY. I do know what it is like and I just want to die.
HOOKSCAR
By the way. I live in San Diego. We are all in this. We need to have each others back. The politicians don't.
HOOKSCAR
We don't have to reach all RCs in the state. We can reach those in O.C. and the counties of the L.A. area. How many RCs and families are effected there? Those are the counties that are impacted the most. At least that is the impression I get from the forum. I will donate my 100, but I want it to go towards a pr effort of this type.
I believe in looking at a solution, not the problem. We know what the problem is. Registries.
JohnDoeUtah
Could you argue to the California Supreme Court that this is a blanket ban against registered citizens who committed crimes against minors, thus against its ORDER? Could you file a Motion to Show Cause, why these legislators should not be found in contempt for violating the court's ORDER? Maybe this would stop this bill in its tracks?
Way I see it, is that the blanket only got smaller, but it's still a blanket ban. The Court said such broad strokes were unconstitutional. To pas such a bill would be contempt in my opinion.
Timmr
We will need $12000 to send 80,000 letters to registrants not in prison, if we can get the $.15 per letter non profit rate. Of course we need to add cost of printing. Every time CARSOL is mentioned in a TV news story or in a newspaper it reaches potentially thousands for free. Maybe we should buy an ad somewhere?
NPS
I am surprised that I actually got a response from Senator Mark Leno; perhaps because I am in his district. I also personalized my comments. He said he would "keep [my] comments in mind when the bill comes before [him] in the Senate," and not to hesitate to contact him in the future.
Tomorrow I will be going to the Sacramento Capitol Museum for a research project. I will also be hand delivering my letters to the senators above.
Joe
I am also good for a Ben Franklin. That is $300. 600 letters. Next?
Janice Bellucci
Thank you for putting your money where your mouth is! The costs of a direct mail campaign are high. We've made small attempts in the past and would be pleased to make much larger attempts in the future.
HOOKSCAR
If we get 20 RCs to an earmarked fund, we can reach a great number of fellow RCs. Multiply that by 3 as family should be involved as the registry has impacted families also. Janice, what do you think?
Catch 22
I will too !
HOOKSCAR
Well, then I think Janice and her team should give us a ballpark figure and time frame of what is needed. Steve and I will donate 100.00 each. Anybody else?
cool Ca RC
If we don't stop it now then the city can point to that law and ban you from your own home. You may have to wait couple years for the court to answer like they did with the law turning in the ip address.
catch 22
Bluewall ,
Thank you so much for the form letter ! Cut and paste ! It enabled me to write to all of these Senators very quickly and get them all in the snail mail in the am . I will easily be able to do this again in the future when needed .
Godspeed !!
Jules
Here's my suggestion for recruiting. A letter/flyer is perfect. Direct mail marketing is where recruitment should start, and start small, it's the practical way to do it. Encourage recipients to visit this site and to attend meetings. Encourage donations for the legal work done here and to grow this community. List the accomplishments thus far. Slowly grow awareness and hopefully the donations will grow. How many can be sent per week? How many can be afforded? Can a small % of donations be earmarked for direct mail marketing? These are the questions to answer.
MM
Way to Go!
Steve
I will add 100 to that.
Gerald
Don't worry Victor, your home will be grandfathered in one way or another, even if it requires a lawsuit. No one is going to make you homeless.
Janice Bellucci
No one knows the answer to your question, Victor. The state legislature has not passed either bill -- yet. If it does so, the new law won't go into effect until January 2016. It will take additional time for the city and/or county in which you live to pass an ordinance. Please stay tuned to this website for more information.
Victor
A judge gave me full custody of my kids five yr ago 28 years ago I got probation for a lewd act with a minor 14 I own my house will this bill make us homeless?
Margaret Moon
Good for you! Sincere congrats!
Justfortoday
@ David
I signed up for the W.A.R suit too! I'm no longer afraid. I am woman, here me ROAR!!
:) :)
Annnnd....I slapped my CDC# (currently on Parole) on my letters to the Senators with name and address. NO LONGER AFRAID OF IDIOTS WITH BAD TIES!!!
Timmr
I always dis Facebook, but we could use a similar tool to selectively network within specific work groups, without having to post questions, ideas, etc. here in the public sphere, hoping someone we are trying to reach happens to be checking this site that day or that it will get buried in recent posts. I am interested in helping reach out to new people, but because of the large numbers and the cost of postage, we should brainstorm on how this can be achieved on our limited budgets.
mk
While my husband was still going to his mandatory group meetings (he's done but still goes once in a while) he gave the counselor running the group something that I'd shown my hub that was on this here website.
The counselor was very impressed and printed copies and suggested those who could access the internet to join carsol and donate if they were able.
maybe if others are still in counseling could do the same. A way to be around other rso's (while still on parole/probation) and be able to share information.
Janice Bellucci
Below is a message from the CA Megan's Law website. Beware of anyone who makes such promises.
ATTENTION: There is no service through a private company that can remove registrants from this site. To be removed from this site, a registrant can apply for exclusion with the DOJ and if they meet the requirements of California Penal Code section 290.46 (e), the DOJ will exclude them from this site. However, a person who has filed for or been granted an exclusion from the Internet Web site is not relieved of his or her duty to register as a sex offender pursuant to Section 290 nor from any otherwise applicable provision of law. If a registrant’s requirement to register has been terminated per court order, the registrant can contact the DOJ for a registration record review. For more information on how to request a record review, visit the Attorney General’s Internet website at: http://oag.ca.gov/fingerprints/security.
Bluewall
Is it to pretend we are not real?
Dr
There was a few lawyers mailing me flyers stating that some registered citizens can get off the Internet so apparently they must have some type of a database maybe we can contact them and ask them for the database of addresses for registered citizens . I can email Janice the paper if she would like, I'm sure I have them filed away somewhere . Then we all need to pitch in for paper and postage and start mailing letters we need to recruit recruit recruit . Maybe we can even recruit the lawyers that sent the letter.
David
I signed onto W.A.R.'s class action lawsuit as well! Take action, folks!
David
Mailed my letters yesterday. Prepped my friends letters (for his signature) today - mailing this evening.
Just signed up for W.A.R.'s class action lawsuit too!
Glad that CARSOL is on board with that fight!
Come on, folks, let's fight this BS they keep dumping on us!!
Justfortoday
Sent my letters yesterday too! Trying to do my part. I slept a lot better last night. Good luck to all of us registered citizens and their families. :) Many prayers!
Janice Bellucci
In lawsuits, we always point out that there are no signs notifying registered citizens that they cannot enter public and/or private places. Unfortunately, what happens in other states is often not used as precedent in California courts.
HOOKSCAR
Tell you what. I will donate 100.00 for the printing and mailing of a flier. Somebody who is not an RC can look up addresses from the Megan's law site. Who's with me?
Janice, can we get a flier designed telling of Californiarsol.org and the class ac suit from W.A.R. ?
Harry
Can we use some type of marketing tool?
David
Sent off my letters yesterday.
(Just a thought: I recall seeing a recent news article on this website noting that a court in someplace like Ohio or Maine, had struck down a proximity law due to vagueness. The court noted that even the police weren't able to define or explain the restrictions in the stricken law. Was the legal restriction a distance from a school's buildings or from the school's property line? Wouldn't new laws emanating from this bill be the same? That is, too vague to be enforceable? Additionally, I've often wondered what the legal requirements are for notifying affected individuals about new laws. Yes, it's said that "ignorance of the law is no excuse", but there must be some point at which laws are being created, revised,and updated SO FREQUENTLY that regular law-abiding individuals of average intelligence and awareness cannot be expected to be constantly aware of the new or revised laws. Could this be the basis for a legal challenge?)
MM
@ Steve .... that's exactly what I was thinking, about the letters they will receive. Hopefully it'll make them, at the very least, curious.
Janice Bellucci
California RSOL is open to ideas regarding how to get the word out. We are very open to collaborating with others individually and in groups.
David
BSL, I saw that news item also and thought the exact same thing. He got special treatment b/c he was L.E. It's infuriating!
Nicholas Maietta
I might also add that the year prior to his daughters death, he was among 10 officers award highest Valor of Honor by our then Governer, Arnold Scwarzenegger, who ironically was extremely hard on sex offenders during his campaign. Guess he didn't realize he was commending those right in front of him could become a child molester, or someone negligent in securing his own firearm that resulted in his childs' death.
http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2010/09/schwarzenegger-awards-states-h.html
Nicholas Maietta
Wow, this guy shouldn't be around any minors, including his own children. In 2010, this man neglected to keep his own child safe from his firearm, resulting in her accidental death. Just roughly one year later, he's arrested for an inappropriate relationship. Maybe they felt sorry for him?
http://www.news10.net/news/article/79842/2/Daughter-3-of-Placer-County-sheriffs-deputy-dies-in-accidental-shooting
Antnini
All the bills/laws they r trying to pass, and unfortunately getting some of them on the books is all punitive! Anyone else who commits a crime and pays for it via jail/prison/monetary...their debt is paid! All these crazy laws based on fear and emotion are insane.
Harry
I only know of 2 RC in my hometown. One is mentally dysfunctional and the other is blind and I do not know where they live. I was told by PD that there are about 35 live here. I do not how to contact them legally.
cool Ca RC
Just keep sending out those letters to RC. NON RC I believe can do this but RC can't.
Dr
We need to find a way to recruit more registered citizens I would say 90% does not know about this website we need to recruit more lawyers on our side. I'm not sure how to do this but we may need a group to back us up.
steve
At the very least they are going to to be curious why all the letters.
USA
This is almost a joke! Initially, if you wanted to see if a registered offender lived near you, you would go down to the Police Station. Then, certain individuals names/photos/addresses and even offenses where posted online for all to see! Registered citizens have been killed by lunatics as a result of this! I've even heard of their spouses as well! Some of these people have children. I've even heard about mistaken identities! Now, we have people focusing on where someone can reside? This is nuts? Banned from participating in Halloween? Can you even imagine how anyone who has paid their debt to society being banned from
the library, public pool, public beach and movie theaters? Pinch me. Or, what about electronic monitoring for life? Contact the police when going on vacation! Post a sign on your lawn? What's next? Oh, I just visited IKEA in Carson and noted a playground inside? My offense wasn't child related! Did I break the law? After reading what I continue to read, it's becoming increasingly clear Ca is all messed up and it could get worst! If this prejudicial and nutty law passes, I think it will turn into another lawsuit. California needs to pass a tiered registry so people convicted of battery at a massage parlor with summary probation can fall off the registry and move on with their lives! This is nuts!
MM
I've mailed my letters, they went out today during lunch ... I just wonder who will open them? A secretary and not pass along? And do they really make their way 'up the ladder'??
MM
Letters printed, signed, personal contact information included and dropped in the mail today during lunch!!
Will Allen
You are exactly right. And there are exactly ZERO Americans who support this nonsense. We are in a war with a bunch of people who are trying to turn the U.S. into a P.O.S., third-world country. They must be defeated.
Harry
I agree, we have to fight lies with the truth. We have to expose those who are benefiting from these lies. We have to challenge it at every levels and we have to be on the offensive.
Janice Bellucci
If SB 267 becomes law, registered citizens will once again face a cruel decision -- go to a park with family, friends, employer or go to jail. The first person to be arrested for going to a park in Orange County was Hugo Godinez who dared to join his company's Cinco de Mayo celebration. For that, he was arrested, convicted and sent to jail.
HOOKSCAR
It doesn't cost a dime to be part of a class action suit. I'm putting my name on W.A.R.s effort. I am drawing a line. I am not on paper and have been an RC for 16 years. For 16 years I have been treated like crap. No family or friends. No more lies. Just facts in a federal court. Yes, this is going to be a pissing contest, but I just had a 12ver of the facts. Let's have a loud voice.
David
@ "Dr": There seems to be a pattern occurring across the U.S. with regards to these laws. I really get the sense that the lawmakers don't give a damn about ex post facto punishment or constitutionality when it comes to RCs. Their attitude seems to be, "Screw them. If they don't like our new laws, let them try to fight them in court!". Of course, all the while knowing that many RCs are unemployed or underemployed, so how are they going to sue for their trampled rights if they have no resources to fight with or money for lawyers.
HOOKSCAR
Both my fiancé and I have sent them. I would hate to be my mailman. 14 letters are waiting for pickup in our mailbox. Buying constitution pamphlets as we speak. Also, let's get as many people we can to join W.A.R.s class action suit.
Dr
I can't see how they could pass this and not think it is not added punishment . That has got to be double jeopardy I've already been punished for my crime how can they punish me by telling me I can't go to the beach or to the park my crime happened 25 years ago how can I be free last week but not free next week makes no sense . They need to stop trying to find ways to mess with what quality of life we still have which isn't much . There are sex offenders who work for the city where They need to go to the park to do cleaning etc. they would lose her job . Their May be a sex offender working at the beach in the concession stand or bicycle shop what then they all lose their job to ? My job has parties twice a year at a park I've been attending for the last 15 years what now I can't go there ? I can't attend my company picnics? The author of the bill l can't believe this is constitutional this is all out blatant discriminatory . Do they want to protect the kids find All the gangbangers in the park selling drugs to the kids jacking them for their tennis shoes happens all the time in LA . Just makes me sick to think this many years since I've been off parole I still have to worry daily about my activities and where I'm going , and where to take my children. My letters will be sent tomorrow
David
Sent email to Senator Liu - she's on the Committee and is also my Senator.
Written letters are going out tomorrow a.m. to all committee members.
Have asked California family and friends to also send letters and emails.
Robert Curtis
While on the road (job related) I picked up a large copy of the Constitution to give to Janice to use to beat our local politicians with.
I need some registrants interested in getting paid to promote our fight for rights...it's a grassroots in salon thing. when we touch the hearts and minds of those touching the community daily the change for good can't help but happen.
Call Robert at 949.872.8768 or email message RSOL CA.
Ostracized Witch
I mailed all senators a shorter, more personal version of the letter AND provided a copy to low level sex offenders in my mandated SO therapy group. I pray that all 30 WILL take some action. Inaction, is my major concern.
Hank NewMexRSOL
Oops sorry! You all need them NOW... ACLU national sells them 10 for $12.00, but time lost to get them may be too late.
D
That is precisely what I was getting at.
Hank NewMexRSOL
The ACLU has the little 38 pager Constit.and Amends. They are $1.20 each. At your next meeting in LA just ask them; they're bound to have them in stock. The little buggers fit in your pocket.
Bluewall
http://constitutionbooklet.com/ mini constitution you can print and put together :D
I am so ready for the next time!
Bluewall
That is an idea... where is a good place to buy a couple of mini pamphlets of the Constitution and what sections need to be highlighted?
I am so doing this next time there is a call for use to send letters to people :D
cool CA RC
I am wondering what kind of leverage that Runner has over them...
Timmr
I've got 80 pocket Constitutions here. I can spare 7 to put one in each letter. Thanks for the idea.
Harry
A myths and facts sheet should be included, as well, like the marketing tool that is included in the power bill.
Janice Bellucci
That's a good idea! Perhaps if they did they would remember they made an oath to uphold the Constitution when they were sworn into office.
Harry
...And read it daily, out loud, to each other. As a group, lets send the Constitution to all lawmakers, every time we write to them.
Dr
Have mine written just waiting to mail on Monday morning
HOOKSCAR
I say that every politician should be required to carry a copy of the constitution on their person at all times.
Joe
Precisely. Residence - in general and specifically per PC 290 - requires physical presence. There is absolutely NOTHING in this bill that would prevent a city from creating a 2 or 20 mile buffer around every park or school or bus stop.
I also do not recall any language regarding existing resident registrants and their exemption / grandfathering. This may very well cause people to have to move / sell their homes.
This bill has the potential, or more likely the probability, for all-out banishment. That is medieval and unconstitutional.
Timmr
I totally agree. Why are they wasting time on an imaginary problem, rather than an imminent disaster (children need water, too). The reason is, I assume, that some just want to send a message to those on the blacklist and the organizations that advocate for them, that this is retribution for the recent lawsuits ruled in our favor.
Anonymous Nobody
What? Since when -- I've sent to various lawmakers in the past, few of whom were my representatives? And how could it be that I can't e-mail to them now unless I am their constituent? It would be technologically impossible to block me form doing that as they can't know whether one is in their district or not until they read the e-mail!
Anonymous Nobody
Well, language about residency restrictions might be removed, but if one still can't be within a certain distance of this, that or the other thing, that is still a residency restriction.
Anonymous Nobody
Yes, that's true. City attorneys can bring civil cases or misdemeanor cases based on state law or city ordinance, but a city attorney cannot file a felony charge, and city ordinances cannot create a felony. Only a district attorney can file a felony; the district attorney can also file a misdemeanor. But the district attorney cannot file a federal case; that would be handled by the U.S. Attorney.
Further, misdemeanants cannot be sentenced to prison, only to jail. And the maximum jail sentence for a misdemeanor is one year -- only a felony can be longer than that. (Actually the state last year reduced that to one day less than a year, for technical reasons related to federal law -- if I recall correctly, it had something to do with federal money.)
I'm not sure how a misdemeanor under a local ordinance is filed, whether as the "people of the state of california" or as "the people of the city of XXXX." But it is still handled in state court and any fine is paid to the court.
BSL
Janice,
I have a good piece of information that may help with the registry issues.
Here is an example of law enforcement condemning who they want but not others.
A local area "PLACER" County former Sheriff Deputy had an inappropriate sexual
relationship with a child of 17. She was a volunteer at the station and he took
advantage of her. He was convicted and plead guilty but was not asked or required
to register as SO. Why does he get off so easily? Everyone makes mistakes but many
of us have to pay for it for the rest of their lives! What is so special about him?
A person that I know got caught and charged one time 21 years ago
for urinating in public. Has to register for life!!!!
Here is the link to the story:http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/crime/article3868974.html
Thanks for listening!
anonymously
CDCR and authors of SB267 are not abiding by the California Supreme Courts decisions. The California Supreme Court ruled blanket residency restrictions are unconstitutional and must be done on a case-by-case basis. Not application of a smaller blanket restriction. Then, in the case of the authors/supporters of SB 267, the California Supreme Courts decision to let the 4th Circuits decision to ban presence restrictions is not being respected. These newbie senators and assemblypeople who are wasting time and money and being counter-productive and questioning the authority of the California Supreme Court should be censured for this at a time when we need all energy and resources focused on water issues, which is a real problem unlike the for-profit hysteria created by the Runners. Since Henry Nicholas is no longer the cashcow for the Runners, has Chris Kelly filled that role now?
Timmr
I have to say, CVU resource page is well done -- simple, direct, no nonsense: here are the bills, these they support, those they don't, all you need in one place to act fast. There are tips on how to find and contact your legislators and a link to the full text of the bills. I will use their generic sample letter and fill in the blanks with my own information. Thank you, CVU.
George
Joe, thanks for the video link.
George
So, the prison guard union's Crime Victims United continues to be busy, including on this bill:
http://www.crimevictimsunited.com/elected-officials/important-votes/
What I don't understand and as far as I know, which isn't near enough, probation is an "in custody" limit on liberty and these RSO restrictions are more severe than some probation restrictions. That can't be non-punitive.
The bill itself is here:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=sb_267&sess=CUR&house=B&author=leyva_%3Cleyva%3E
Joe
Sen. Leno
http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Sex-offender-residency-ban-on-lawmaker-s-agenda-2451994.php
Sen. Stone
http://www.scpr.org/programs/patt-morrison/2011/10/20/21086/halloween-sex-offfenders/
any others?
steve
"That is because it is people who are not registered citizens — family members, teachers, coaches and clergy"
You forgot police officers...just an fyi
MS
I sent my letters and added this as a footnote "As a native oitizen of the State of California I fail to understand why it is a Senate Bill such as this one would be allowed to become law when it is in direct opposition to the Constitution of the United States of American. A document that our elected official should support".
Hope my letters help.
Harry
I have mailed my letters. I did add this line,"I also want to alert you that these local restrictions have been and can be used to harass or banish registered citizens from communities.
Bluewall
It is simple people... get those tongues licking and hands signing... and feet to the post office or the blue post office drop box... This is important, this is our lives in the hand's of mad men...
Bluewall
I used my real name.. Its a matter of principle on my part and also if they want to write back and contact... I remembered long long time ago when I use to live else where I wrote to my senator and he actually wrote me back requesting for my phone number so he can contact me and what was the best time. And he did.. Hello is this Mr. ***** I am Senator So and So calling in regard about your letter...
But of course that was 20 years ago, I'm sure its different now... But I'm not chancing it
Alienated
I have written a letter to each senator and also called.
I said:
" I officially oppose SB267 because it gives false security, there is no data to support the notion that RSO's will re-offend in public places, due process for these folks unless on parole or probation they have paid there dues, RSO's pay taxes and should be allowed in areas that all other citizens are allowed and it is a waste of time, effort and tax dollars. "
I will have all members of my family write individual letters and call. Hopefully they will listen.
Go Janice Go !!!!!
Thank you everyone for all your help and support.
Bluewall
Senator XXXXX
XXXXXXX
Sacramento, CA 9XXXX
Dear Committee Member:
The purpose of this letter is to request that you oppose Senate Bill 267 which has been referred to the Public Safety Committee. The bill, if passed, would allow local governments to prohibit more than 100,000 individuals who are required to register as sex offenders (“registered citizens”) from being present in or near both public and private places.
These restrictions, known as “presence” or “proximity” restrictions, do not achieve their stated goal, that is, to protect children from sexual assault because they are focused upon people who are unlikely to commit such assaults in places where those assaults are unlikely to occur. That is because it is people who are not registered citizens -- family members, teachers, coaches and clergy -- who actually commit more than 90 percent of sexual assaults upon children in places such as homes, locker rooms and churches according to the California Sex Offender Management Board.
If the state allows local governments to adopt presence restrictions, registered citizens will once again be thwarted from acting as law abiding citizens because local governments will return to a “patchwork” of local laws that prohibit a registered citizens from walking on a pier or in a dog park in one city yet allow registered citizens to walk on a pier or in a dog park a different city. The punishment for violating such laws were stiff and included a jail sentence up to one year, a fine up to $1,000 or both.
In closing, please know that two attempts were made in the recent past (SB 386 and AB 655) to pass a similar law and both were stopped by elected officials who understood that current state laws, such as California Penal Code Section 3053.8, adequately protect children and prevents the previous patchwork of local government laws containing presence restrictions. Thank you.
Sincerely,
XXXXXXX
Janice Bellucci
If this bill passes, there is nothing to prevent a city or county from prohibiting registered citizens anywhere in that city or county. Nothing except the state and federal constitutions. If they do so, they will be sued but it could take considerable time and money to fix the problems.
Janice Bellucci
Thank you, Jo!
Janice Bellucci
At this time, you can only send an E-mail to the elected officials if you live in their districts.
Janice Bellucci
SB 267 was amended at the hearing and all language regarding residency restrictions was removed.
Joe
During the hearing it was said that the residence portion of the bill text was deleted - due to the recent CA Supreme Court ruling.
But what is a city to stop from creating a 2,000' or whatever presence restriction? Or a xx' presence restriction from school bus stops which renders ingress and egress on public roads to that city impossible?
That would have the same effect as Jessica's Law did.
The ACLU representative made a good point in that she pointed out that cities should be able to attach a restriction to a certain location (i.e. no adults without children allowed at a kiddie park) as opposed to attaching it to the person.
Joe
Thank you for that info - I did not realize that. I seem to remember making payment for my last parking ticket to the City where it happened.
On the flip side, apparently some cities prosecute misdemeanors. Again - even a misdemeanor is brought by "The People of the State of California" and not by "The Residents of the City of Anaheim".
See here
http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazing/2011/06/paul_lawrence_wadley_lewd_plea.php
Neither case makes sense to me. Oh well. Live and learn.
Joe
From everything I have read and heard I understand that the e-mail is the least effective form of communication to a legislator / politician. If memory serves a snail mail letter makes by far the largest impact. Probably a direct function of the effort involved.
And here people are looking at the real possibility of never setting foot on a county beach or taking their child to a park and writing a few letters is too much trouble? Good grief, it's not even writing - just copy and paste, fold, seal and mail.
If that is indeed too burdensome - how about firing up the Google and finding the senators' emails?
Does Janice have to do everything?
steve
Here is how the Justices feel about presence restrictions and why I am not so worried about SB 267
“The court says the terms of the residency restriction are ―potentially burdensome‖ but ―limited‖ because they ―do not regulate a registered sex offender‘s daily activities‖ and ―do not dictate where he or she may travel, visit, shop, eat, work, or play.‖
Quite obviously SB 267 DOES dictate where he or she may travel, visit, shop, eat, work, or play,
Eric Knight
I am going to add Constitutional violations to my letters, along with the expected cost of litigation and the high probability that if the law is signed, it will be immediately challenged in court. I'll refer them to Proposition 83 and how much it cost to attempt to defend the law at the 9th Circuit, and how proximity and residence laws render far more punitive consequences on being registered.
Obviously, safety is an important consideration, but putting a cost on defending such a law may defer some.
Out of curiosity, why is the legislature suddenly worried about RC's? I remember original email legislation proposals were nixed in committees. I suspect that John and Ken will be huge on this as well.
ONE MORE POINT: If this passes, what would prevent a city from COMPLETELY banning RC's everywhere, for ANY reason?
Anonymous Nobody
Janice, these letters can be e-mailed more easily. It would be helpful if you added the e-mail address for each of the senators.
Anonymous Nobody
Thanks for the details. I note, you are right that the court in the San Diego case referred to a "blanket" application of the restrictions, saying they could not be applied that way.
However, I note, it seems to me that to do it automatically as a single category also is blanket application, the blanket is merely smaller - and the court banned blanket application. I noticed that issue in the state now seeming to indicate it will apply its parolee restrictions to any offenses involving children. But that is a blanket application, not an assessment of the individual, even if the blanket is now smaller.
It seems to me that this ruling at least implicitely must be based on such restrictions being punishment. Otherwise, there could be no issue about being applying in a blanket manner. Yes, for parolees, as this case was about, they can still met out punishment. But if this is punishment, that becomes a huge issue about applying it to any registrants off parole, especially in applying it retroactively.
The high court did not say it was banning application of the restrictions from certain offenses; it said it was banning "blanket" application of them -- and that would seem to apply no matter the size of the blanket.
I can't see any way to read a ban on "blanket" application as saying anything other than that it must be an individual consideration, not simply across a smaller blanket. There is a lot more that must be considered than simply whether it involved a minor. So, I see that problem with this bill too.
But at this moment, that is just an academic consideration. For now, we simply must block this bill. If it ends up as law, and municipalities start imposing that crap again, this argument over it being a "blanket" application can then be raised. Hopefully, making them assess each and every registrant - hey, that could not be done.
But even an extract of this argument could help persuade the legislators. Argue to them that it cannot be applied in a blanket way as they are proposing, that each municipality will have to assess each individual registrant BEFORE any offense, so the registrant can know. Hey, the municipalities don't even know who might be traveling through their town or staying the a few days. It can't be done. So, this is a stupid bill and should not be passed.
Anonymous Nobody
Any city ordinance is enforceable in state court. This is nothing new, has always been the case. For instance, I'm sure you're aware that local parking ordinances are enforced in state court too.
Anonymous Nobody
You missed one major pressure point where the bill can be stopped and which would require convincing only one senator: Senate Speaker Kevin DeLeon. Unfortunately, I'm afraid he favors the bill.
But there are all kinds of reasons to stop this bill, they are not all about addressing the battle cry of "children." So maybe one of the others can prevail with him, such as the impossible mess it would create across the state with no one knowing what the laws are anywhere. We are trying to move prisoners out of prison and to jails to reduce prison overcrowding - how are we to do that if we lock up registrants all over the state for offenses they had no idea they were committing? This is not an isolated issue, it affects other things too, such as the prison overcrowding issue.
The Speaker has the power to single-handedly block ANY bill from being passed. What he can do is have the bill sent to the Rules Committee that he chairs, and there he simply never schedules it for a hearing. And, the Senate cannot pull the bill from the committee for a vote on the floor, as it can from other committees chaired by other senators. So, the bill dies in the Rules Committee.
Last time I know of this being done was under then Senate Speaker David Roberti, who single handedly blocked an anti-rent control measure from being voted on despite overwhelming support of the bill among the senators. The bill was reintroduced over and over again for several years, and Roberti just kept blocking it every time - and still retained his speakership anyway.
Jo
Called my senators office let them know in a fact based and civil tone my feelings and how this will negatively impact my ability to parent and interact with my 10 year old son
USA
Well, I'm not sure what to say. I can recall getting a compliance check in OC on one occasion and asking the Detectives a clarification on the laws. They claimed not to know? I kind of believed them. I personally feel that those within the Senate have no clue on the implications of these laws! FIrst, we have those individuals in Charge/or working for the government stating that California needs to enact a tiered registration system, but yet no one supports it? Its clearly becoming a popularity contest. Now, we have the prisons and those in charge of parole stating that these housing or other requirements are doing more harm then good. Yet, we have someone who came up with this crazy idea. I'm an avid cyclist and its not uncommon for me to cycle down the river trail to the beach. Some of the paths require me to cycle through a park. Furthermore, I cycle along PCH and its not uncommon for me to stop and grab water or use the public restroom on the beach. The suggestion that these so called lawmakers want to ban individuals from parks/beaches ect is nuts! This is no different from what occurred in the civil rights movement. Yet, it continues in just another form. Initially, the laws changed and now peoples personal photo, address and a variety of other information is posted online. This is dangerous! It endangers the individual, their spouse and children! Yet, the lawmakers want to create more havoc! Maybe someone should realize that first time offenders are capable of being rehabilitated. These laws are creating hatred among the community. From a laymans perspective, I would believe that if a person is listed online or banned from a beach ect, they must be dangerous! Its terrible
mike
In light of these findings and conclusions by the very agencies that have been assigned by the various governmental agencies to study and report on these subjects, the court can and should question the legislative intent of the recent changes to the registration and notification laws that are being continually enacted and amended in the legislature. The court should question if the intent of the individual legislators who create and introduce such bills are simply using such legislation as a tool to further their own personal agendas or are using such legislation as a pretext to further punish this specific class of offenders. The fact that the legislature has ignored these agencies recommendations to create a teired registry is even further proof they have personal agendas in mind and not public safety.
Someone who cares
I just printed the addresses and will send a letter to each Senator on this list. Do you all use your real names? I have never written to a senator and don't know how much I want them to know about me. Thanks.
Paul
Take a look at my response above. It does not apply to all RC's; it's tailored to only those whose crimes were committed against a minor. As I state above, I believe that it's worded this way in hopes that it's been narrowly tailored enough to pass constitutional muster.
Paul
The current text of the bill states, “This bill would state that a local agency is not preempted by state law from enacting and enforcing an ordinance that restricts a registered sex offender who is required to register for an offense committed against a minor from residing or being present at certain locations schools, parks, day care centers, or other locations where children regularly gather within the local agency's jurisdiction.”
I suspect that, by wording it this way, the legislature is hoping that they have narrowly tailored it enough that it will pass constitutional muster. Instead of being a “blanket ban”, it only applies to persons whose crimes were committed against a minor. Also, it has the political impact of being strictly “for the children”, which no lawmaker is going to risk voting against.
Unfortunately, I am fairly confident that this bill will pass and, given the state of our Supreme Court and their recent decisions regarding residency restrictions, I hold little faith in them striking this law down on constitutional grounds. The reason for my concern is, mainly, that the Supreme Court did not rule that residency restrictions were unconstitutional; they ruled that as a “blanket ban”, they did not pass muster.
mk
My computer is too old to open the file to read the letter. Would anyone care to cut/paste the letter so I can copy and send off some letters?
Or maybe give a short description of the contents and I will write my own?
I'd appreciate it.
victor
Just watched the video on the bill D you want have to move they have to take the part about were you reside out thank God is all about were people congrate
steve
Wrote my own. Done!
Janice Bellucci
Thank you, Bluewall! I hope that you inspire others to do the same.
Mustbeheard
C'mon people, let's get on this! If we don't fight for ourselves, no one else will! As ridiculous and ignorant as all these laws are, we must not give up. If we don't resist they will continue to step and abuse our rights as human beings! We are the new American slave and we must unite and fight to restore our rights, we only live once so we have one shot at fighting to live a normal life.
Bluewall
Printed, signed, stamped, sealed and be in the mailbox by the morning
USA
I'm a little confused. Does this affect all levels of offenders? Or, just high risk or child related offenses? I think this bill is another good example of why California is dealing with so many issues. Politicians are more interested in getting re-elected than doing the right thing!
Clark
Ridiculous ..what a massive waste of time and money...taxpayers you are going to be made aware AGAIN ..such a proposal is illegal and UNCONSTITUTIONAL ...............in any legislature or board there are two kinds of people in them...those who are humble ..and..those who are about to BE.
mike
I really hope that when these laws get passed that the ACLU or carsol or other entity will immediately attempt to get a temporary injunction to stop it. Based on what sounded like the CA court position on such laws restricting someone's rights to movement in the community such as movie theaters stores bowling allys would be considered unconstitutional. At least that was my impression I got from the some of the language in the recent decision. I'm not sure if it was stated in Taylor or mosley Il have to check.
D
If this bill allows cities to make laws saying RC's can't be near a certain place, that means they also can't live near that certain place. If the CA supreme Court just rulled that blanket residency restrictions can't be applied to all RC's on parole, then how can this fly for all RC's?
Janice Bellucci
Two bills were introduced in the previous session of the legislature, SB 386 and AB 655. Circumstances this session may be different because different people are in leadership positions. We cannot rely on what has happened in the past to defeat this bill. We must act quickly to prevent SB 267 from becoming law.
Curiouser
I seem to recall similar legislation was proposed a few years ago, and it wound up dying in the Senate or the Assembly. In those Instances, where did it die? I honestly wasn't expecting anyone in the Governance and Finance Committee to do anything resembling common sense and opposing this "bill." With only seven votes, there would be no one to hide behind.
Craig
It is not so much about educating the public as it is for the RSO and their families to stand up and get involved, lawmakers dislike when people show up and point out the real truth about restrictions and the fact that they do little good. It will take the millions of families to knock down the door of their lawmakers before any significant change will happen. Most RSO are in denial about what numbers can really do. I do not live in CA, I have contributed in the past for the cause but these lawmakers have gone insane all around this country, but the 100,000 or so just in California seem to be unwilling to take a stand. We take one step forward and 5 steps back, same where I live. I hope you citizens in California are successful, but from watching and helping with change I see very little. I really thought going about this in a legal and non-violent way was always the right thing to do no matter how we as a group have been hounded, disgraced and had our families torn apart even after we have paid for the crime ( 16 year old F, touched her breast) Happened nearly 15 years ago. This is about what is right, the add on the lawmakers keep coming up with have to stop, but how?
Joe
I remain confused... how can one get punished in State Criminal Court for violating a City Ordinance?
BTW, here is the hearing.
http://senate.ca.gov/media-archive# (Apr 15, Senate Governance and Finance Committee, @26:30).
Great job and thank you to CA RSOL, the ACLU (!) and all that showed up.
To-do list for this weekend... write letters and send donation to CA RSOL for possible (probable?) litigation of this abomination. Sigh...
cool CA RC
Now this is interesting. They refused to listen to the CASOMB - (CA Sex Offender Management Board)and the CARSOL about setting up a tier system so some of us can get off. They are happy to pass this and NOT listen to the CASOMB on why this shouldn't be passed.
Tell me again what the point of having the CASOMB for if the legislature isn't going to listen?
Janice's Journal: Assembly Member Brough Withdraws AB 201 [UPDATED]
Published Date : April 30, 2015
Update May 4: California RSOL has confirmed that AB 201 was withdrawn by its author from consideration by the Assembly’s Public Safety Committee. As a result, AB 201 will not be voted on this year on the floor of the Assembly. It is possible, however, that AB 201 could be amended and considered in 2016.
—
It was a long drive home yesterday after the Assembly Local Government Committee passed AB 201 by a vote of 5 to 0. A six hour drive is a six hour drive, but yesterday it seemed to take at least 12 hours.
The questions kept running through my head. What did we do wrong? What could we have said that we did not say during the committee hearing? Did we say something we should not have said?
The answer to those questions came quickly today. We did nothing wrong during the Committee hearing. And we must have done something very right before, during or after that hearing because the author of the bill, Assembly Member Bill Brough, withdrew the bill today!
Perhaps what made the difference was 162 letters sent by a single family in Los Angeles. Perhaps it was a $5 donation sent by a homeless registrant. Perhaps it was a chance hallway meeting between two California RSOL “lobbyists” and the bill’s author.
The reason is not as important as the result…..AB 201 is dead and gone. One head of a two-headed dragon has vanished.
The remaining head of the dragon is SB 267 which will be heard by the Senate Public Safety Committee on May 12. If that committee approves the bill, it will move to the floor for a final vote in the Senate. If the committee opposes the bill, the second head of the dragon will also vanish.
It’s up to YOU. YOU can stop SB 267 by sending more letters, making more phone calls, as well as writing more E-mails. And by YOU we mean all registered citizens, family members and friends.
It’s time to pull out all the stops. It’s time to show, stand up and speak up!
Write Letters
Here is a Draft Letter (plain text) to the Senate Public Safety Committee as a start. Feel free to customize and personalize (be sure and edit your information, the date and the addressee at the top).
Below is a list of its members including mailing addresses and phone numbers.
Make Phone Calls
Making your opinion known is Sacramento is easy via telephone. Call the office of the Senator or Assembly Member and a receptionist will answer the phone. Give that person the following information. It usually only takes 1 or 2 minutes.
- the bill #
- your position on the bill
- your name
- your city
CALIFORNIA STATE SENATE
COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
http://spsf.senate.ca.gov/
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair
State Capitol, Room 2082
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 651-4009
Senator Joel Anderson, Co-Chair
State Capitol, Room 5052
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 651-4038
Senator Mark Leno
State Capitol, Room 5100
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 651-4011
Senator Carol Liu
State Capitol, Room 5097
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 651-4025
Senator Mike McGuire
State Capitol, Room 5064
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 651-4002
Senator Bill Monning
State Capitol, Room 313
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 651-4017
Senator Jeff Stone
State Capitol, Room 4062
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 651-4028
Comments
Margaret Moon
On April 29 CARSOL showed up to oppose AB201 and it was pulled. I am suggesting that all of you who live in or near Sacramento show up on May 12 at the Senate Public Safety Committee meeting to show your opposition to SB267. You may be granted the opportunity to approach a microphone and state where you are from and that you oppose SB 267, but no identifying info will be collected. Please support Janice and all the others who are fighting this bill by showing up. It is time to get into the fight. There is nothing to fear and much to gain!
Jo
I certainly don't think anyone but the most naive thought he pulled this from a position of empathy. It's also good to see in print all the same players still lurking in the background behind this bill. However what this article does is show a monumental swing in favor of common sense and also shows the influence the board is having. This is all good news!!!!
Kevin
A little more clarity on his decision to withdraw the bill:
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/sex-660859-offenders-state.html
Janice Bellucci
Thank you, Joe, for understanding the importance of stopping SB 267! The greater the number of people who write letters and make calls prior to the May 12 hearing, the greater the chance that we will succeed!! There are only seven offices to call. Please pick up the calls on Friday and Monday as the hearing starts on Tuesday morning.
Joe
Yes it could be re-introduced next year. Yes it could be more onerous. Or he could introduce a brand new bill next year. Or someone else could introduce a new bill next year. One that could include that you must wear a dead chicken on your head in public. Anything can happen. It seems unreasonable that any untalented legislator would abandon the RSO gravy train.
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/sex-660859-offenders-state.html
But for the time being this bill is on ice. That alone is encouraging - I did not see this coming. One step at a time.
In the mean time all there is to do is to voice your opposition and support CA RSOL and the people who drive hours and hours to speak for 180 seconds or one measly sentence into the microphone.
Q
"It is possible, however, that AB 201 could be amended and considered in 2016."
If this is the case does this mean that AB 201 was withdrawn for modification? To be rewritten into a even more onerous bid to take over the field from the state? My vital sixth sense (spiritual discernment) has been telling me that assembly Member Bill Brough didn't withdraw his bill simply because he's a nice guy. I suppose I'll just have to wait and see.
Anonymous Nobody
To be retroactive, a statute must state that it is retroactive (I just read that a couple weeks ago at the law library). The "regulations" you cite do not state that, so are not retroactive. 290 does now say it is retroactive.
AV Homeless Veteran
WOW, Prayer and action seems to make a difference!
Jo
I HIGHLY recommend heading over to his website. There is a contact form there. Respectfully send him your story, be smart, kind, real and brief. If the man has a heart and brain, at least we can talk sense to him. You never know, all it takes is one to start something.
Scared
Thank you very much Janice, and excellent work. Thank goodness there is at least one lawyer with a good heart.
Robert Curtis
As regards to anything sex offender logic doesn't have to apply...
Janice Bellucci
We will not reveal our sources on this website. The website is obviously not up to date as we have confirmed with multiple sources that the bill has been pulled and will not be considered by the Assembly Public Safety Committee.
mike
You know I don't understand how they can apply these regulations retro actively. Even regulations can't be applied retroactively it would seem since they don't apply things such as car registration fees or say smog requirements retroactive if they did you would have to have your 20 year old car modified to pass todays standards. Or pay all your old car registration fees at todays rate. Am I missing something.
Robert Curtis
David I chatted at length with a member about these and other issues. The tide is turning towards reason. Much of the problem comes from judges not given discretion. I feel after the pulling of AB-201 that SB-267 will become a weaker Bill, but as with anything sex offender it'll still be a popular harm to do. People love to find judges to hammer that even appear slightly light on sex crimes and convictions. ie. below:
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/kelly-660233-recall-county.html
Harry
I saw this, also. I am confused.
Jo
I wrote a lengthy, heartfelt email to Marc Steinorth, sharing my life story. Sharing my life as a fellow business owner and father, like him. Sharing how this bill will further disrupt my ability to parent, 20 years after my crime, still punishing me and my family. I shared how I am already denied business financing, denied home financing from the government, denied the ability to socialize with my family and friends on Facebook, and am one slip up away from forgetting to register and losing my home, business and landing in prison. And with technology the way it is now, there is no hiding your offense in prison any longer. I received an email back from Marc asking me to call him, which I thought was very kind and encouraging.
Scared
Janice, I would like to know exactly how you got this information, because if it is from this Brough person, and only him, I'm very skeptical that this is true. If you could provide some other source as to how you got this information I would be very appreciative, thank you. Also I would like to mention that on california's legal.info.net it mentions a hearing by the assembly public safety committee on the fifth of May.
Eric Knight
I have confirmed it direclty with Brough's office. Read my earlier post in this thread.
Let's just say that the average legislator knows far less of the Constitution, both US and state, than I do, and they are sworn to uphold its tenets. Their ignorance is not only frightening, but apocalyptical.
USA
Well, everyone should be commended. It's difficult to understand how everyone/but 1 voted on passing this ordinance? Yet, it was withdrawn. I can only imagine that something of someone addressed this issue! I think when you look at the big picture, no one wants to pass an ordinance and have the courts over turn it of determine it's unconstitutional. I think that if the Assembly looks at the big picture, they will withdraw this proposed ordinance as well.
Mark Judkins
Does anyone know where to find that the bill was withdrawn. Not that I am a disbeliever, but I would like to momentarily bask in the glory of the success. When I go the legislature's website and pull up the bill, it shows only has having passed and been rereferred to PS. Is there something I am missing?
Timmr
It would really be unwise for the State to cede its regulatory powers over 290's to local communities. The way this bill is written, local towns can essentially ban registrants from being within a city's borders, much like the "sunset laws" did during segregation. When this is challenged in court, who is going to foot the bill, the local authorities, as they have had to do in recent challenges? No, I think the State would have to defend the ban and foot the bill for it, too. No? And the State would have to prove that there was a need to cede its authority to let every locality make up its own presence rules carte blanche -- despite its own advisory board, the CASOMB, saying this is unnecessary and counter productive. Someone with some wisdom up there in Sacramento actually thought this out is my speculation. The letters, phone calls and testimony were important in showing them that this law would indeed be (successfully) challenged if passed.
Eric Knight
Janice will confirm, but I have it on good authority that the letters sent by members of this group, among others, were the MAIN reason why AB 201 was revoked. To that end...
I'm sure many of you has watched the movie The Shawshank Redemption, in which one of the subplots was a prisoner in jail sending the legislature of the state a request for money for the prison library. He did it consistantly until the legislature responded years later with a monetary grant and a small donation. Yes, victory! But instead of stopping, seeing that the letter campaign worked, he DOUBLED his efforts, until he received a SIGNIFICANT, recurring contribution, allowing the prison library to be completely rebuilt and stocked.
By the same token: we can NOT sit on our laurels. We have to know that what we did here WORKED!! But...BUT!!... we must continue to write the letters often, to as many influential people as possible. Just as the protagonist in Shawshank was able to successfully up the ante, we have to use the same methods in our own campaign.
Keep in mind that this is not a total victory, but only a battle. In fact, I was surprised that it did work, but for reasons I am not disclosing here, these letters WILL work in the future, at least with the current legislature.
John
Lift up Bill Brough and the entire CA state government in prayer and let's take time to give thanks. Thank you, God! Thank you, CA RSOL, Janice, all of your support staff, and everyone who came together to oppose this bill!
Robert Curtis
Thanks for all your prayers and for those that came up to face down this dragon thank you! The journey ahead is brighter and the path laid down will make the journey for others a little bit easier. It is an honor to be on this journey with all of you.
mike
AB 267 why did they cross out the residency (there's a line over the words reside in the bill) part I wonder. And did brough pull his bill because it conflicts with this bill or because he saw it as umessary because of this bill. Lot of unawnsered questions.
(2) A local agency may adopt ordinances, rules, or regulations that are more restrictive than state law relating to a person’s ability (to reside) or be present at schools, parks, day care centers, or other locations where children regularly gather within the local agency’s jurisdiction when the person is required to register pursuant to Section 290 for an offense committed against a minor
Robin Banks
Janice, et al.,... my heartfelt thanks.
Someone who cares
Janice, Frank, and all who were involved to make this happen: THANK YOU! It does help to speak up and get involved. I wrote letters to all Senators and made phone calls as well. I feel relieved and happy today.
Harry
He may realize that this bill was train wreak that he did not want his name on, anymore. The legacy of the Runner's are tied to Prop 83, which is another shameful and costly train wreak, where more and more people are being effected by it, everyday.
Double A
This is awesome. Thank you Janice, and everyone who made an effort to write to the senators, made donations toward our cause, said a prayer, or anything that may have contributed to this wise decision for the bill to be withdrawn. This is a very positive step in the right direction.
Q
I too have been praying to God to free us from this evil, corroding thread that some wish to wrap around our necks to choke away all our freedoms that are our birthright as American citizens. I believe all action is rewarded with results; be they good, or bad. The thing of it is, we must keep writing letters, making phone calls and communicate.
This is a great relief!!! Yet there is one part of me that can't help thinking if there is something Assembly Member Bill Brough knows that we don't. I feel we should keep up a steady stream of letters and calls; we should never underestimate the beast. It seems "they" never rest, and neither should we!!!
MS
For sure!
G4Change
Janice and everyone....THANK YOU!!!!
mike
I'm skeptical also. He would be the first politician I've ever heard of with a conscious that I know of. Thank you Janice and everyone who participated in the effort and let's try to beleive it was because he seen it was the right thing to do.
MS
One down and one to go. We can do it. More letters, more phone calls. One step at a time.
David
Will B: Could it be that he was providing political covers for his fellow committee members who could not vote as THEY wished, for political (re-election) reasons? Maybe he jumped on the grenade to save all the others - he takes the hit, they get away clean.
Whatever the reason, I am truly rejoicing tonight! Now an all out effort to take down SB267! I got my peeps - including three Senator Hancock constituents - calling and sending letters! We can ....we WILL ...we MUST do this!!
Will B
I hate to be the wet blanket the first question that pops into my mind is, why did he withdraw the bill? until we know the answer to that. I'm going to hold my applause politicians don't do anything without regarding their career, first and foremost, and I'm quite sure that there will be flak coming from people about him withdrawing a bill that they wanted to see pasted . So he's going to have to have a pretty convincing reason for withdrawing of that bill, right after it having unanimous approval to move on.
Harry
In Exodus 10:3 Moses quoted God to Pharaoh “Let My people go”. My prayer about 1:30 am, is morning, was to the stronghold over AB201 “Let My people go”. I am praying the same over the stronghold of SB 267.
Clark
Assemblyman Brough..you did the right thing in withdrawal of that bill 201.....thank you for listening to reason and good will to all people ....thank you and fellow assemblyman for the courage to be humble.
Mark Judkins
Incredible! I logged on to CA RSOL this evening to face what I thought was the inevitable, bad news. Those who made the effort to write letters and those who made the effort to call, and Janice and Frank, who have led this crusade, you made a difference. I am glad to be part of that group. I am glad I stood up and spoke out. But the job is only half done. If you didn't contribute to the past efforts, now is the time. It is painless and you only need a phone. The Senator's office will typically only want to know one thing - yea or nay on the bill. Tell them you are a voter and want the Senator to vote against the bill. Then call the next one.
Many, many thanks to Janice and Frank. Their efforts are paying off, but it takes more than just them. WE MUST BE INVOLVED - it is our lives if affects.
Timmr
Time to write some more letters!
NPS
Oh my! Best news of the day! I truly, TRULY believe this is a very positive sign in that the tide really is turning in favor of our community's rights; that is, rights for EVERY individual...registrant or not. God is good, and I know He hears our prayers.
Janice's Journal: A Step in the Right Direction
Published Date : March 28, 2015
The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), not know as an ally of registered citizens, took an important step in the right direction on March 26 by declaring that they will apply the recent Taylor decision statewide. In the Taylor decision, the California Supreme Court ruled it is unconstitutional for CDCR to levy residency restrictions against all registered citizens on parole as a blanket condition. Also in that decision, the Court provided CDCR with discretion to levy residency restrictions on a case-by-case basis.
CDCR’s decision to apply the Court’s decision statewide could benefit thousands of registered citizens if and only if they exercise their discretion wisely. That is, if they levy residency restrictions only on those who pose a current danger to public safety. That category could include those who have “recently” committed violent offenses and are not yet rehabilitated. The category should not include those who have committed non-contact offenses, such as public indecency and sexting.
The media has expressed great interest in CDCR’s decision, including articles in the Los Angeles Times and interviews on both Fox TV and National Public Radio (NPR) stations. There will even be a one-hour panel discussion regarding this decision broadcast on KCRW, an NPR station, on March 30.
Thus far, the media attention has been balanced in large part and even favoring the rights of registered citizens in small part. The media has chosen wisely to focus on the facts related to residency restrictions such as the significant increase in the homelessness rate of registered citizens since the passage of Jessica’s Law and the resulting decrease in public safety.
We are encouraged by CDCR’s decision and the media coverage of that decision as well as by decisions of Riverside County and the City of Downey toward repeal of their existing residency restrictions. It is important to note that residency restrictions in those communities apply not only to parolees but to all registered citizens.
If more cities and counties follow the example set by Riverside County and the City of Downey, there will be no need for a series of lawsuits challenging residency restriction. If, however, the example set by Riverside County and the City of Downey is not followed, there will be a need for many lawsuits. California RSOL and similar organizations are preparing to meet that challenge if necessary.
– Janice Bellucci
Read all of Janice’s Journal
Comments
andy
How does this affect federal parolees and probationers?
Anonymous Nobody
No, I don't mind you "picking" on my post at all. Hey, that's why I posted it, to inform people it was out there.
You show some understanding of the inner workings at newspapers. Yes, the Times editorial staff is separate from the reporting staff, and the columnists pretty much everywhere get a lot of leeway to speak their minds that reporters don't get.
I haven't seen the Times do many editorials on registration issues, but I haven't been trying to track them on that. When I have seen it, they might say something positive, but then seriously qualify that and limit it, leaving the other horrid things imposed on sex offenders as something justifiable. But this editorial was strongly positive and was not so limited and supporting of other things in the meantime.
The feeling I pick up from this is that they might very well have finally come to decide that registration has gone far too far and needs to be scaled back and brought under control (maybe some day they will realize it should be eliminated!), and with the focus on those who present a real danger -- and with that focus, it is possible to extend the outlook to include even scaling back who is subject to any registration in the first place. They seem to have come out in favor of imposing registration only on those who really present a danger - as having made that point of danger,how can they say danger should not need to be a consideration for other things about registration. (And now we can try to show that is nearly no registrant, and those who maybe really are a danger are the ones who are being sent to psychiatric hospitals after their prison term. -- of course, that is another issue, as the way they are doing that is very wrong and draconian and for false reasons, and in fact, it shows those people never should have been handled in the criminal justice system in the first place, should have been in the medical system right from their arrest.)
The editorial board represents the top editors in charge of everyone at the Times. The entire staff will be listening to that and taking their cue from it, just like any other assignment.
But you are right, at the reporting level, the Times in the past several years has turned more right wing under a succession of new editors (and they are expected to be sold again before long, so probably another editor change). Like I said, I have brought a number of serous challenges through the editors and ombudsmen there of the reporting about sex offenders - to no avail. Maybe next time they will listen, now that the top editors have given this cue.
Oh, as for the Daily News, the "first editorial years ago" was under a truly fanatical, fire-breathing and inflammatory editor they brought in from the National Enquirer. He is now finally gone, and they have changed under their new editor to being more moderate.
Eric Knight
Call me cynical if you must, but I notice that the slew of fairly presented articles came about BECAUSE the court ruled, more or less, in our favor. To wit, they probably had all this information all this time, probably much of it from myself who's been sending this type of information since 2006. So I sense that they feel the situation is inevitable, so now THEY are trying to come out and say "Well, of COURSE we need to look at everything rationally; we don't need residency restrictions and never did." But a month ago they would have run to the Runners with tongues out of their mouths like exhuberant puppies hearing, then writing, about the "big bad sex offenders."
Yes, I consider it progress, but it's not because of an epiphony; rather, it's because the court came out with the decision and unless the US Supreme Court ever rules on residency restrictions, there is nothing to be done about it.
anonymously
The LA Times' George Skelton opposed prop 35. And here I had him pegged. And come to think of it, Steve Lopez was mostly a cheerleader for the victims in the Catholic Church scandal, but didn't get into blanket hatemongering with support for anti-rso laws like George Skelton did back in 2006. So as far as the L.A Times, would you say its only the reporters of news stories recently who are not representing the truth on registrants? Lying by omission, reporting on otherwise worthless stories if not for being able to use the term 'sex offender' in the story titleline, misrepresenting the dangerousness of harmless registrants, implying laws for parolees apply to all non-parolee registrants in their news stories, etc..
anonymously
Another fallacy I need to point out with the media...The media often print the comments of some moron, usually a politican who will say of the judges who decided something in favor of registrants in any way, be it giving them a sentence the politician thinks is too lenient or deciding some sex offender law is unconstitutionally cruel and unusual, which amount to "well, I bet that judge would not want that sex offender moving next door to him, Lets see how he'd like that." Implying the judge is the only one in the world who claims he could put up with that. As if he really doesn't want that and move the SO in next to him and see how he likes that, which he won't, supposedly. Thats the rational of the politician making the comment. To that I say, it's not just some judge who hypothetically would claim he doesn't mind sex offenders living near him but would really not want that, but 30% of voters voted against Prop 83. 1 out of 3 people, roughly, know most registrants are not dangerous, know registrants should not be restricted in residence , probably wouldn't mind if a harmless registrant and their family moved nearby and they knew all this when they voted against Prop 83 back in 2006.
anonymously
I hope you do not feel I am picking on your posts, but I have been tracking this issue myself for a while now...
Anonymous Nobody said "This is very good, especially coming from the LA Times, which in recent years has been thrashing sex offenders, doing all possible to reinforce the idea they are all the same, they are solely parolees, they are predators after children, they have a high recidivism rate. Now, out of nowhere, they put up a very well considered and honest editorial."
The LA Times, when putting out editorials representing their opinions have been quite positive. Certain reporters sensatonalize, lie by omission, and paint false pictures of uncontrollable parolees and rso restrictions as having more support than they do and fail to mention recent court activity that properly negates these draconian laws. Certain columnists like George Skelton and Steve Lopez have been very hateful and support whatever unconstitutional laws are proposed. If George Skelton put out a column that doesn't support whatever arbitrary draconian anti-rso law comes about, that would be out of nowhere. Another example of out-of-nowhere is the LA Daily News editorial on Jessica's Law. today. Their first editorial years ago was in support of it. They do not address their past support of prop 83. But no one is perfect. They did a reversal in todays editorial. For them to make this opinion of policy reversal, it gives me hope John Roberts is open to truthful reasoning and analysis when new evidence is presented, like the LA Daily News Editorial Board has shown they are.
Janice Bellucci
We do not provide legal advice on this website. If you want a legal opinion, please contact an attorney directly. Thank you.
anonymously
Anonymous Nobody said "LA Times Website today has put up an editorial in support of the state and court decision last week nixing blanket residency restrictions on sex offender parolees"
I would give the L.A Times editorial a 100% rating on support for the state ( CDCR ) interpretation of the California Supreme Court ruling, and a 90% rating on support for the California Supreme Court ruling. The LA Times editorial supports the CDCR's decision to interpret the California Supreme courts specific determination that blanket residency restrictions on parolee rso's be done on a case-by-case basis, as meaning that replacing the blanket on all parolee rso's with a smaller blanket to cover parolee rso's who are high-risk , lewd conviction with victim under 14. A few newspapers stated the new smaller blanket criteria to be in the new class quite ambiguously, but it appears now the somewhat arbitrary class the CDCR has chosen is high risk determination parolee rso's with lewd conviction victim under 14. The news papers adding to the confusion with the ambiguity which could lead the public to believe more people are and should be subject to the residency restrictions coupled with splashing CDCR's ambiguously name-calling whoever they claim to still want to give the residency restrictions as a 'pedophile' only leads the public to more hysteria at a time when the public should be understanding the California Supreme Courts reasoning that no parloee rso in San Diego should get a residency restriction unless deemed so on a case-by-case basis for the purpose of public safety/reduction in homelessness and not buying into the media and CDCR's rhetoric. With the CDCR's position/interpretation and media support of their interpretation, soon to be implemented policy, the class of people most needing of a home, rso parloees who are high risk, etc will still be boxed out of entire cities, forced to be homeless. Since these people factor into the 98.2% of rso's who do not reoffend, their reoffense rate can't be that high. The LA Times Editorial said that some classes of rso's have a high reoffense rate, but they did not expand on that. The California Supreme Court did not make that a part of their decision in the Taylor case, so I don't see why the CDCR is creating a smaller blanket. A blanket is anything that is evaluating ex-offenders on a 'more than one case'-by-'more than one case'basis. Anything other than a case-by-case basis is using someone elses behavior to issue restrictions on another person, by steriotyping them. The California Supreme Court did not say class of cases by class of cases. They said case-by-case. But this is an improvement from the previous policy.
mike
I aid really like some feedback from Janice or chance or anyone with a legal background on the following motion I am preparing. If you have the time I would really appreciate it thanks.
I the plaintiff Michael ............... do hereby bring forth this motion for declaratory and injunction relief in the superior court for the county of sacramento in the state of California.
This motion is being brought forth as a as applied challenge to the constitutionality of the sex offender registration requirement and notification laws on the state and federal levels in my personal situation.
Introduction
I'm asking the court to grant me permanent injunction relief from the requirement to register as a sex offender and to enjoin any and all local state and federal entities from enforcing any and all of the sex offender registration requirements and notifications as applied to me.
I am a non-violent non-contact first time ex-offender from a incident that occurred over ten years ago. I do not believe I pose any risk to the public and I have also been told by every psychiatrist that interviewed me while incarcerated and while on parole that I did not pose a risk for re-offense and I do not need treatments because I was not a sexual predator and therefore was not and am not a threat to public safety. I am unable to provide these reports because the department of parole refused to give me access to those reports.
The issues being brought forth are the following.
There are a multitude of constitutional violations that I will outline in this motion and that I would like this court to consider and address.
1. The sex offender registration requirement and notification laws violate my fundamental constitutional right to my liberty by severally infringing on my ability to travel both in-state and intra-state and also international travel. With all the different state laws and local ordinances that are in place it makes it virtually impossible for me to travel in this country without a very real potential for violating one of these laws or ordinances. It is a violation of my fundamental right to liberty and to travel in this country. The registration and notification laws makes it impossible for me to travel to almost all of the major countries in the world as they are notified by our government of my registration status so therefore I am denied entry.
2. The sex offender registration and notification laws violate my privacy rights by making public my personal address current photo which is not public information and also to my criminal record that is only available to authorized individuals who meet certain criteria and has a need to know basis not to the general public at a click of a computer mouse.
3. The sex offender registration and notification laws violate my fundamental constitutional right to be free from unreasonable arbitrary and oppressive official action.
It is unreasonable as it severally infringes on fundamental rights while not achieving any legitimate legislative purpose.
Insert studies and reports.
The fact that the courts have previously stated that it is minor collateral consequences of a regulatory scheme is simply unreasonable to conclude based on the severity of those consequences I endure because of the notification laws. I would like the court to not rely on and reiterate the statements and opinions of the legislators as to the need for the laws because of the high recidivism rates and the high risk offenders pose to the public which simply is not true and is pure hyperbole and heresy. The court should rely on facts and data collected and submitted in reports from credible sources and experts in the fields such as the following.
Insert studies and reports here.....
These laws are arbitrary as they are applied in a blanket enforcement policy that makes no distinctions between those who may or may not pose any risk to the public and provides no due process to make those determinations.
These laws are oppressive as they affect and limit employment as very few employers will hire a registered sex offender simply because they are on a website that is accessible to the general public. It also affects housing because very few property owners or property management organizations will rent to a registered sex offender for fear of vandalism and or the loss of present or potential tenants because of the accessibility to the registry by the general public. Also my personal and professional relationships are affected in a severally negative way because of the registry.
They also cause severe psychosocial stressors that cause major mental and physical disorders. The following is just one study on the effect of stress and is relevant since my psychiatric report by the parole department states that I was being subjected to severe psychosocial stressors because of the sex offender registration and notification laws.
Psychosocial stress and health problems Health in Sweden: The National Public Health Report 2012. Chapter 6 Authors
Maria Danielsson 1
Inger Heimerson 1
Ulf Lundberg 2 , 3
Aleksander Perski 4
Claes-Göran Stefansson 1
Torbjörn Åkerstedt 4
1 Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare, Stockholm, Sweden 2 Centre for Health Equity Studies, Karolinska Institutet/Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden 3 Department of Psychology, Stockholm University, Sweden 4 Stress Research Institute, Stockholms University, Stockholm, Sweden
Maria Danielsson, Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare, 106 30 Stockholm, Sweden. E-mail: [email protected]
Summary Stress can be defined as an imbalance between demands placed on us and our ability to manage them. The body’s stress system is adapted to confront sudden physical threats. Today, however, we are increasingly exposed to prolonged mental and psychosocial stress. Prolonged stress can give rise to a range of problems: poor performance, chronic fatigue, disinterest, dejection, memory disturbances, sleep problems, numbness and diffuse muscle pains. These symptoms may eventually be followed by depression, post-traumatic stress disorder and chronic fatigue syndrome, and ultimately chronic pain conditions, cardiovascular disease and diabetes.
These laws also create real fears of being the victim of vigilante attackes harrasment and vandalism.
Maine Killings Raise Vigilantism Fears(two sex offenders killed) http://www.comcast.net ^ | 4 18 06 | GLENN ADAMS
Posted on Tue Apr 18 2006 11:58:39 GMT-0700 (PDT) by freepatriot32
www.foxnews.com/.../washington-m Mobile-friendly - Jun 5, 2012 - A Washington man accused of fatally shooting two convicted sex offenders on the Olympic Peninsula ...
These are just two examples and there are thousands more examples and instances that are readily available on the internet.
In conclusion I prey the court grant me my motion for permanent injunction relief and enjoin local state and federal agencies from requiring me to register as a sex offender or subjecting me to the notification laws under local state and federal laws that are unconstitutional for reasons stated above as applied in my case.
Anonymous Nobody
Mike, I'm not sure about all you said. However, one point to understand is the difference between when the AG staff or office states an opinion, whether in a press conference or when arguing a case in court, and when the AG formally issues and publishes an official opinion of the AG. The latter is citable in court, the former is not. I'm suspecting the AG opinion you are referring to was of the former kind, so not worth much.
Lance Mitaro
Somewhat off topic but relevant.
Ariz. governor vetoes bill shielding cops' names
"The simple fact remains that we live in a world where misinformation can put everybody in jeopardy, especially police officers," state Sen. John Kavanagh said last week. "And until we get those facts straight, we need to shield those cops and their families from being assassinated by lunatics or political zealots."
GRR
I agree. At this point no city or county is ignorant enough to arrest someone for residency or presence restrictions. Nevertheless, even the ones which have repealed their ordinances may still try to intimidate you. Your right, “CA Attorney General Kamala Harris argued that residency restrictions are constitutional, but should only be applied to sex offenders while on parole”. With this statement and the fact that the Supreme Court has now said it is unconstitutional for parolees, is just a matter of time that this part of Megan’s List is behind us.
Concerned about our Rights and Freedom
I agree with Hookscar. The entire SOMB, I call them SOB's, are breaking the law and what they require to register as a sex offender is so unconstitutional. Their judgment day will come but that is not my place to say that. That is God's territory and I trust he will reward those that were unjustly punished on earth by man.
If we continue to allow this illegal registry to continue, the average general public is not aware that they are creating this to happen to them in due time. The ones in power have a plan and this is just the start, cream of the crop, if you will, setting up the stage with the formation of the SOMB. The general public, voters, are allowing a group of power hungry evil people control peoples lives and they don't realize how this is going to eventually affect them as well.
We need the media and good folks like Janice to continue to bring all this to the publics attention. We need some good folks to get voted in Legislature, in the General Assembly, to stop and do away with this SOMB. Laws are easy to put in place but almost IMPOSSIBLE to remove.
Our voices need to be heard or we are going to continue to loose every ounce of freedom which seems like it is dwindling rapidly. This is a sad world we live in. It breaks my heart to see so many innocent, decent, naïve, good hearted people who makes an innocent mistake, like taking a piss or having sex for the first time with a younger pier, have their lives ruined by the SOMB aka SOB's.
They portray sex offenders as if they have a disease with what they have to go through. I can almost bet you someone on that board has a deep dark secret of what they did in there lifetime that would be deemed as a felony like they took a piss at a ballpark game!
How can they sleep at night knowing they are ruining peoples lives by the formation of the sex offender registry. They obviously do not have a conscience. Is that not the mind of a criminal, or insane, not have a conscience? Do as I say, not as I do is the way I see it for these SOB's.
I'm sorry to be writing all this but We the People, really need to take a stand and STOP THESE SOB'S FROM CONTROLLING OUR LIVES. Power and money is the root of all evil. God please help us all and stamp out the Registry entirely!
HOOKSCAR
Read the article and things are changing. I do have a thought though....it has not happened to me but.... Has anyone been a victim of identity theft by being on the registry? We have our addresses, names and other "personal" information listed. Granted a SSI number is the grail, but I think there is enough information to help.
Anonymous Nobody
LA Times Website today has put up an editorial in support of the state and court decision last week nixing blanket residency restrictions on sex offender parolees:
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-sex-offender-registry-20150329-story.html#navtype=outfit
This is very supportive and argues for common sense, pointing out that it is wrong to think that registrants across the board are child molesters, are likely to reoffend, or are any kind of danger to children, and that in any case, residency restrictions like this only make matters worse, not better, that making people homeless is only going to make them more likely to be a problem and will leave them harder to track.
The editorial is NOT coming out against registration generally, although it makes a big statement about all registrants not being the same, many are not high level offenses.
This is very good, especially coming from the LA Times, which in recent years has been thrashing sex offenders, doing all possible to reinforce the idea they are all the same, they are solely parolees, they are predators after children, they have a high recidivism rate. Now, out of nowhere, they put up a very well considered and honest editorial.
I hope this means they will be changing their reporting about sex offenders too. I have personally fought them many times over it, to no avail. Gee, even in this editorial, they still don't give a clue that even misdemeanants are caught up in this crap, to point out how low level this goes. And they say nothing about the public identification of registrants on the Internet.
The editorial board is not the same people as the reporting staff and assignment editors. I hope that changes with this editorial, but time will tell.
mike
Another point is that in mosley the AG states that its the position of the AG and therefore the people that residency restrictions only apply to parolees and no one else and even the court states that that is the position of the AG so therefore no prosecuter can pursue charges in any court in CA if its the states and therefore the peoples position that the restrictions only apply to parolees. Am I missing something. It would be impossible to prosecute someone if the state has stated its position allready on record and with the supreme court even restating that's the AG position. I would think it would be illegal for local jurisdictions to refuse to register anyone because there residence isn't compliant with some local ordinance. I would think that that statement made by the AG and in the judges opinion can and should be used whenever it can.
Anonymous Nobody
It is very possible that few if any will ever get that assessment. It would require a huge bureaucracy to assess them all, and the money that costs.
I note, pretty much everything about sex offender registration is done as a blanket policy! This argument could extend to other things. But I'm afraid the court will only require individual assessments for the most egregious things, not for registration itself. But even registration itself is applied by blanket policy,with the registrant not allowed any due process to even argue against it. The court have ruled it is not a due process violation. Now they are ruling for a piece of it that it is.
Janice Bellucci
The panel discussion will begin at 2:30 p.m. on Monday.
Q
It all sounds really good, although I do have some misgivings. If it turns out to be the individual parole agent who is deciding who does and who does not have to live under these residency restrictions I see a great potential for abuse by the individual parole agents making these decisions. Let us not forget the utter BS this whole residency/presence restriction phenomena is. Also, let us not forget that the CDCR (they really do need to drop the rehabilitation part; really, they do) is staffed by a group of individuals making up the whole. These individuals all have their individual biases towards registrants, and I believe are conditioned to believe much of what they hear as fact, weather supported by empirical evidence or not.
bias:
a. A preference or an inclination, especially one that inhibits impartial judgment.
b. An unfair act or policy stemming from prejudice.
3. A statistical sampling or testing error caused by systematically favoring some outcomes over others.
L. Mitaro
They can no longer hang their hat on the recidivism argument; nor the it's already "public information to begin with" nonsense. They are running out of trees to hide behind and are scrambling daily to justify the Megan's Law train wreck of futility.
Knowing where someone lives simply does not minimize risk, mush less enhance pubic safety. It it weaponized hatred by association, little else.
The proponents for the registry need to be attacked daily with this.
Anonymous Nobody
Damn this 404 error - it won't let me post the rest! Damn it. Now you have only half of it. Hmm, unless I can get it in below this using the new edit function:
It's easy even for us to lose sight of our grounding on these issues, under the cacophony of slander and libel and hyperbole and lies and misinformation and screaming going on about registrants. But a child molester is not automatically more likely to reoffend than someone who committed indecent exposure, or who downloaded simulated child porn, or some other lower level offense.
Consider, even CA RSOL highlights that the October 2013 state study shows only about 2% of registrants (was that actually 2% of sex offender parolees?) reoffend (I think that's in the first five years). With around 50% of these parolees being child molesters, according to the article, then how can one take the recidivism rate and combine it with the rate of child molester parolees and say they need residency restrictions because they are so dangerous -- how can they be so dangerous if almost none of them reoffends?! And can it be surprising that it is very rare for them to reoffend, considering a low likelihood of reoffense was the required assessment of the Parole Board when granting parole?
And I want to note, I say all this even though I have never molested anyone, nor done any of the higher level sex offenses (mine was quite minor, not that the state cares, the state wants to chase me down forever and do all possible to utterly destroy me). I could easily say yes, dump all the damnation on child molesters, let the public bleed them and beat them up if it gets me off the hook. But that is wrong, and we here must stand for what is right. I understand that we can get only so much at any time, and so I can accept a part of that at a time; but we should not throw the others to the wolves in the meantime. So, we must be careful about what we say and what we say we find acceptable. Se must never say it is acceptable to do this. We should be happy to get this part now; but we should not say continuing the crackdown on the others is acceptable.
And like I said up top, I expect that was simply an oversight in your comment, not an outright attitude -- although I have heard others express displeasure that they say you said similar things on I think KFI (I didn't hear that, I don't know). After all, you have been fighting for all of us -- and I am not alone in being extremely grateful to you for it. To you I can only say, "thank you very much." That is, I'm not trying to criticize, only trying to hone.
Anonymous Nobody
I'M POSTING THIS IN TWO PARTS - sorry, AS ONE PART IT KEEPS GETTING A 404 ERROR:
Thank you for the perspective, Janice. However, I see some of the comment as a bit misguided. I expect it is simply oversight, not attitude. It reminds me of the previous correct decision to stop using the term sex offender and instead call them registrants -- after all, they no longer are offenders, no registrant is, someone who is an offender is prosecuted and jailed, not left free and registering. Only those who are not offenders are registrants.
The spot I note is:
I think it must be considered that no one is to be granted parole until the parole board decides they are NOT likely "a current danger to public safety." And the parole board does not easily decide that, does not give parole readily. And also, none of these people have "'recently' committed violent offenses and are not yet rehabilitated"; if that were the case, they would not be on parole, they would be back in prison, either by parole revocation or new charges and conviction, or both.
As such, it strikes me as unjustified to say that it would be legitimate for CDCR to decide that some of the people granted parole are so dangerous to society that the location of their residence must be drastically restricted. That is contrary to the Parole Board's assessment and decision! Gee, we are throwing talk of assessments around, including for tiers, and yet if they are positive, as with the granting of parole, now WE'RE tossing the assessment out the window!
The Parole Board first decides that the prisoner is NOT any kind of danger like that, and only then will they consider and maybe grant parole, although they might demand an even higher standard. And if the governor thinks that assessment and decision to grant parole is wrong, he/she can overrule it. I don't see how the CDRC should get to overrule all that and declare the person a serious danger to society, so serious as to require residency restrictions of this extreme sort.
Maybe there could be argument for some other basis for CDRC to act, although I don't see it offhand. But not on the basis of danger to society, or recent violent offense, as you speak. That was already decided by a truly intensive review by the Parole Board. (I note, I also confess, mea culpa, I too have misguidedly stated in other threads that I had no problem with various restrictions on parolees as they are still considered to be in custody. But I am now convincing myself otherwise. Seems to me it is either a blanket restriction, or no restriction. And I see no way to justify a blanket restriction when considering how low the recidivism rate is. All this because the assessment has already been done, and all of them have been assessed as unlikely to reoffend.)
(Continued in second post below...)
Anonymous Nobody
The Los Angeles County stay is not by the CDCR. This action is simply CDCR and solely for those still on parole. It has no effect on that stay.
Margaret Moon
You can listen online. Just search KCRW Santa Monica...
Michael
If you want to hear the panel discussion KCRW is out of Santa Monica on 89.9 FM.
Not sure how powerful the radio station is. Might not even get out of L. A. county. But worth a try.
I wonder what time?
HOOKSCAR
I am more optimistic the registry will be ruled unconstitutional in the next 5-10 years. The current rulings are just a piece of the puzzle leading to the inevitable. Thank you Janice and crew for all that you are doing.
JD
That's pretty much my question. This doesn't seem like a good thing at all. It simply gives individual parole officers more power.
John Blackman
Janice, is it possible that this is just a cynical move by the CDCR, wherein they simply order their officers to glance at each individual case and then quickly stamp them as "restrictions required" and thus be able to say they are doing it on a "case by case" basis? Seems like this might be seen by them as a more efficient way of getting around the court ruling than challenging it legally.
JD
How does this ruling affect the stay on residency restrictions in Los Angeles county? Is that stay still in effect? I can't seem to find any information anywhere and am nervous as to how this ruling might be misapplied/abused by parole and probation officers. In child pornography cases, for example, when the parolee has not produced the material or ever touched a child, the way the ruling is worded, the parole officer may demand that residency restrictions be applied to the parolee since the c.p. often involves people under the age of 14.
DPH
YOu'd think that since there are way more registered citizens out and off of Parole, they would come first to loosen the res. restriction(s).
Besides, they having to been out, some for decades, continually being punished (more than murders and other physically maiming and disfiguring others) but yet they undure this website and negative adornments.
Why are NOT Murder's and others so permanent killing and loss of limb and eyes convicts not on a website??? Especially the DUI folks that are repeat offenders that KILL others and just get manslaughter and the drugs sellers that physically hurt and permanently visible damage to human life?
What about people 20 or even 30 or longer ago be given a life sentence on restrictions and pics and profs (NOT DATING) up on sites for all to see?
Case by case basis is better than just throwing away the key at just Parolees, they are usually more at risk than others that have done their time and Parole and life after w/o repeating again or just cause for any other crime than non moving violations due to no funds due to rent increases as they are not allowed to live in a cheaper area nor have a job position to pay any other bills.
Thanks to Janice for her submission and to make everything happen and get the SOMB listen in SAC.
Someday they will have State congress pass the tier program for those who patiently wait.
mj
Thanks for the update Janice. Very appreciated.
Janice's Journal: Registered Citizens Continue to Face Banishment
Published Date : March 21, 2015
Registered citizens continue to face banishment throughout the land. They are often torn from their families and relegated to the dark corners of society where they sleep in their cars if they are lucky and on the streets if they are not.
Banishment comes in many forms. This commentary is limited to the two most insidious forms – residency restrictions and proximity restrictions. Both limit where a registered citizen may go. Both tear families apart. Neither accomplishes its stated purpose, that is, to increase public safety.
There are a growing number of reports full of empirical evidence carefully gathered by psychologists, law professors and others that demonstrate that the opposite is true. That is, residency and proximity restrictions do not increase public safety; they reduce public safety.
This reality was recently recognized by the justices of the California Supreme Court, not known for their forward thinking or compassion for registered citizens and their families, in the case of In re Taylor. In that case, the Court decided that residency restrictions not only failed to increase public safety but constituted “arbitrary, oppressive and unreasonable curtailment of ‘the core values of unqualified liberty’” provided by the U.S. Constitution.
This decision is important and may provide relief to about 300 registered citizens on parole in San Diego. It is not worthy, however, of the media coverage immediately following the decision which falsely proclaimed that registered citizens are free to live anywhere in the state of California.
The reality of the Court’s decision is that it lacks clarity and is already the source of confusion regarding whether registered citizens who are not on parole or who do not live in San Diego must comply with the state’s residency restrictions. The only way to gain clarity on this issue is to file more lawsuits challenging the same state law as well as laws adopted by cities and counties which are even more restrictive. Doing so will require both time and money as well as brave registered citizens who agree to serve as plaintiffs in the cases.
During the period of time required to challenge residency restrictions, which could amount to five years or more, the suffering of registered citizens and their families will continue. Husbands and wives will be prevented from living with their spouses and children. Sons and daughters will be prevented from living with their parents.
The California Supreme Court could have prevented the continued suffering of registered citizens and their families by issuing a sound decision in another case, People v. Mosley, which they decided on the same day. Instead, the Court ducked entirely the issue of whether residency restrictions are constitutional and if so to whom do they apply. The defendant in that case has requested a rehearing. In order to redeem itself, the Court should grant the rehearing which has the possibility of two positive outcomes – to increase public safety and to end the suffering of registrants and their families.
The California Supreme Court protected the rights of registered citizens in 2014 when it denied review of a state appellate court decision that overturned two local government ordinances which had prohibited registered citizens from visiting public places such as libraries, parks, and beaches as well as private places such as movie theaters, bowling alleys, and fast food restaurants. After this ruling, cities that had adopted similar ordinances were warned that their ordinances could be challenged in court. After this warning, about 50 cities, the smart cities, repealed their ordinances. The 30 cities who weren’t as smart, however, were sued, one as recently as March 11, 2015. Of the cities sued, virtually all have repealed or significantly revised their ordinances by eliminating proximity restrictions.
The dumbest city is Carson, located in Los Angeles County, which was first sued in April 2014 and continues to refuse to repeal or revise its ordinance. The Carson City Council has in fact proclaimed war against registered citizens and declared that they don’t care how much that war costs. They also don’t care how many registered citizens and family members are harmed by the City’s ordinance which has both residency and proximity restrictions. They don’t even care that the courts have ruled that similar ordinances violate the state’s constitution.
The Carson City Council’s proclamation of war against registered citizens as well as their failure to comply with court decisions will be reviewed in Los Angeles Superior Court on June 11, 2015. That will be their Judgment Day.
That could also be a day of great victory for registered citizens in Carson who are allowed to return to their homes and families, allowed to return to the city’s libraries and parks. That could also be a day of ultimate victory for registered citizens throughout the land because it would provide a precedent that could be followed by courts in every state. It is only fitting that such a precedent be established in Los Angeles, the city that created the nation’s first sex offender registry.
– Janice Bellucci
Read all of Janice’s Journal
Related:
Janice’s Journal: The California Supreme Court has spoken but what have they said?
CA Supreme Court Decisions re. Residency Restrictions [Update II with Editorials]
Janice’s Journal: The March on Carson
California RSOL Leads Successful Protest in Carson
Carson Protest March – Media
City of Carson Charged With Fraud, Breach of Contract
Carson vows to ‘go to war’ to keep sex offender restrictions
Comments
thomas francis
The only thing I wish to say that I think that if you look at who is dangerous and who
is not, I think you will find that the citizens who have to register are not a threat
at all. They are known where they live, who they look like, and their case histories.
The ones who you have to really look out for are those who are outside of the radar
zone or those who do not register and nobody knows where they are. These are the ones
who could hurt a child because they can disappear again and nobody knows where they
went.
It has been 25 years since I hurt my children and I have paid dearly for it. I have
done nothing wrong since then. I have applied for many jobs perfect for my situation
because there are no children involved but because I am on the web as a registered
sex offender companies will not hire me. I have been unemployed for four years.
Ostracized Witch
Will keep visiting your website to hopefully learn good news about June 11 decision!
C
Oh, come now, you obviously haven't seen today's headline:
Teenagers are happier than ten years ago: 'Facebook generation' less likely to drink, smoke or be bullied
Anyone care to guess who funded this study?
mike
Man that's crazy that Florida or new York don't seem to have a rsol to help fight their crazy laws. Where is the ACLU or other civil rights activist in those states. Why are there not anyone challenging those laws this country is going to regress back to the dark ages if something isn't done.
Forsaken
Question regarding these banishments... So, the state said that cities cannot supercede state law with their own ordinances. And so far, the state said that, insofar as San Diego is concerned, it cannot be blanket-applied -- but that only appears to affect parolees.
So, cities like West Covina, who still have ordinances that include the following, are still valid?
"-Residential exclusion zone shall include those areas located within two thousand (2,000) feet of the closest property line of the subject property to the closest property line of a child care center, public or private school grades K through 12, or park in which a sex offender is prohibited from temporarily or permanently residing.
-Sex offender means any person for whom registration is required pursuant to Section 290 of the California Penal Code, regardless of whether that person is on parole or probation."
There's a house that would be very close to mine and my girlfriend's families... but it's 1,968 ft from a school. Does this mean we still can't fight those?
Tired of hiding
I disagree. I think that the constitution will continue to be eroded away along with EVERYONE'S rights.
I think that sex offenders will continue to be used as scapegoats (especially around elections) since other traditionally popular divisive topics such as abortion, gay marriage, and pot legalization lose their relevance and usefulness for political manipulation.
No...things are going to continue to decline for RSOs.
Timmr
I had put that word in there, but edited it out, it seemed redundant. I liked the word, which means "all seeing", since I came across it while reading Discipline &Punish, by Michel Foucault, a history of the prison system. Originally it was used to describe the design of a prison in the early nineteenth century, with a central tower surrounded by inmate cells. The guards in the tower could see the inmates, but the inmates could not see the guards. Technology has done the same thing by making us feel watched all the time, but we can't see who is watching us. The belief is that if everyone feels every action is constantly watched, no one will commit a crime (or appose the rulers). That idea was later debunked in favor of rehabilitation, but has reemerged in today's practice of "environmental policing". The pendulum swings.
Pat
People v. Sorden - S120677 - Thu, 06/23/2005 | California Supreme Court Resources
Who else gets charged with a crime for forgetting to do something?
Everyone in todays time forgets to do things. If sex offenders forget, they are charged with a crime!
Registered sex offenders are not allowed by law, to be human in this sense either...
Total dehumanization on every level of human being!
John Blackman
"show how the registry by design is looking at YOU good citizen NEXT!"
Uhh, YUP!
John Blackman
"Then it won’t just be the recent headlined arrestee being “tried in the court of public opinion” – it will be everyone, all the time."
YEP! This is what ALL these people who want to poke at us with their pitchforks don't get. It's coming for them too.
John Blackman
"My view is it will only create a population of emotionally unstable individuals who feel watched and not at all in control of their own lives."
Timmr, please Google "Panopticon" if you're not familiar. Seems like you know what it is.
Timmr
Also Facebook use is accessed by companies to give employers the ability to determine your personality type before hiring. http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/6456896
http://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/op-talk/2015/01/20/how-your-facebook-likes-could-cost-you-a-job/
Social media is used in Philadelphia courtrooms to determine sentence length, based on potential to commit a new crime.
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread924785/pg1
Los Angeles police and others are using social media patterns and crime location statistics to profile who will be likely to commit a crime.
http://www.govtech.com/Behavioral-Data-and-the-Future-of-Predictive-Policing.html
http://www.psmag.com/politics-and-law/can-computers-predict-crimes-of-the-future-33146
In the long run everyone will face being pegged by the crimes or mistakes they haven't yet committed. They're calling it preventive policing. Seems to me a more technologically savvy version of East Germany Stazi. Will putting everyone under the detective's microscope make us all feel safer? The media is sure trying to feed us that SOMA . My view is it will only create a population of emotionally unstable individuals who feel watched and not at all in control of their own lives. It is creating a dangerous environment of fear and mistrust. This is the greatest threat to stability and public safety I can ever imagine and it is worse because people don't seem concerned about it. We have nothing to hide, right? It will come back and bite us all.
Robert Curtis
The saying that states, "when you violate one person's freedom you put at risk everyone's freedom" is true to an exponential degree considering the information age in which we live. Freedom seems to be going in the way of the dinosaurs. How can we harness these truths and use them to more effectively fight against the registry? Using the fire of fear to fight the fire of fear might be a weapon against the registry. Pain and fear of real loss to the public must be greater than the fear and loss possibilities fed to them by the media via the government and special (correctional) interest. Redefining Law enforcement and it's roll to being what it should be and not what correctional entities are trying to make it. If we focus our attention to much on fanning the fire to put it out we end up causing it to grow the more. Our targeted efforts should be at the base of the fire (society hot spots) and the flames (political hot spots). Expose the real fear of governmental intrusion from societies on back yard...show how the registry by design is looking at YOU good citizen NEXT! The whole 666 mark for those Christians out there isn't that far away. It's about control. I was driving by a couple of police officers the other day and I observed how our police are looking more and more like an occupying military force than the old 1 Adam 12 traditional cops on the beat. We need our Representatives to cut back on laws and not keep adding to them. The fanning of our prison systems are coming our own politicans we elect. So get informed but be engaged. I helped a solid guy get elected recently. He knows I'm a registrant. He might just make a difference in closed session with his colleagues if nothings else by bringing to bare questions not previously asked. No matter where you are be engaged and over time change for good will come. TRUTH
L. Mitaro
Which proves this is no longer (nor was it ever) about "protecting" children. It's about profiting from controversy, data collection, retention and the disseminating of this information to some privatized, FOR PROFIT entity.
Knowledge is power? Really? Knowing where someone lives that's not a legitimate public safety concern is... power?
Privacy is a preeminent survival mechanism that has been circumvented and compromised in the name of illusory safety. Think about it. Actual safety and security destroyed for perceived safety and security of.... STRANGERS.
If you're on the registry and not MAD AS HELL, then you're the monster they claim you are.
David
"John Blackman" makes a good, albeit depressing, point. It certainly gives one a lot to think about. And yet, such technology would affect millions of people with all sorts of arrests (DUIs, assaults, drug convictions, arson, child neglect, animal cruelty, hit & runs, burglary, etc.) When such technology begins to affect so many people, then at that time will we begin to see a much broader public discussion of fairness, justice, liberty,and privacy.
Then it won't just be the recent headlined arrestee being "tried in the court of public opinion" - it will be everyone, all the time.
And yet, it will force the discussion and people will have to start considering how much to know and when:
* Your excellent auto mechanic had a domestic abuse charge 20 years ago ... how do you respond to that now?
* That nice man at church who ushers every Sunday had a DUI last year .... so do you no longer smile and say "Good morning"?
* The nurse practitioner who has been so great with your kids vaccines was arrested last year for disorderly conduct at an animal rights protest? Is she "a crazy radical"? Should you trust her around your children?
* And what if it weren't the NP, but instead their middle school teacher? Now it's someone who could impact their future thought processes and opinions. Then what?
(I foresee a great chilling of public dissent, social activism, and free speech gatherings if any arrest can now follow you and impact your life constantly and forevers more.
John Blackman
To Janice and all RCs:
I, of course, fully support our fight against unconstitutional governmental restrictions which deeply impact our lives and the lives of those who love us. I just also want us to be aware of the connected problem of how we are treated by society, REGARDLESS of unjust laws, due to rapidly accelerating changes in technology.
What would have seemed like science fiction just 30 years ago is where we are at now and it's only changing faster and faster. If you are paying attention to new innovations then you must be able to project your thinking into the near future and realize that soon, anywhere you go, people nearby will know who you are and know any public records which relate to you.
I might not be on a government sponsored list or registry, but the information about me is going to be viewed, simultaneously to someone looking at my face. Do we think that these people we talk about all the time here will not deny us services, deny us residency, deny us a hotel room, deny us employment, deny us entering their establishment ("We reserve the right to deny service to anyone")?
Additionally, if you take away all registration REQUIREMENTS, it doesn't mean that citizen advocacy groups will not monitor us and create their own lists.
This is in our very near future so brace for this reality. Brave New World, folks.
Hank-New Mex RSOL
On three weeks after....Janis,what you have said is very moving. Over the next 10 or 15 years we will follow where you go. We are hundreds to become thousands. History will look back at us for the things we have yet to do.
Nicholas Maietta
Hi Janice,
I live in a gated manufactured home community not close to any schools or parks. Because i was on parole in the past, i am ultra sensitive of what classifies at a "restricted area". Parole eventually said they couldn't enforce the law as they wished, and certain places were no longer included in the list of restricted locations.
Private parks/playgrounds, etc are not off limits according to what i was told WHILE on parole. Because i'm no longer on parole, i'm assuming the law is broader than that of parole, believe it or not. I am now simply wanting to know one simple thing: What can they enforce? A park that is private to park residents only, would not be included, or is it?
This is the difference between my staying in my home, or sleeping in the van at night.
Janice's Journal: The March on Carson
Published Date : March 7, 2015
We showed up. We stood up. We spoke up. Voices of African Americans, Asian Americans, Latinos and Caucasians. Voices of the young (age 7) and voices of the old (75+).
We were heard. By the residents of Carson who honked their car horns in approval. By the Los Angeles Times who sent a photographer to capture images of the event. By KTLA TV who sent both a reporter and a videographer to record our voices and our actions.
Our messages? We delivered three important messages in Carson on March 7, the 50th anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s march from Selma.
First, the City of Carson is an outlier and an outlaw that willfully chooses to break the law and to violate court decisions which clearly state that ordinances such as the Carson ordinance are preempted by state law.
Second, registered citizens have civil rights and those rights are being violated by the Carson ordinance which prohibits registered citizens from loitering in or within 300 feet of public places such as libraries, parks, and swimming pools as well as private places such as fast food restaurants.
Third, the City of Carson is hurting families by denying them the opportunity to act as a family. By denying them the opportunity to enjoy a family outing in a park that is supported by their tax dollars.
Our education of the City of Carson, in general, and the Carson City Council, in particular, is not over. We will return to Carson soon to testify before the Carson City Council. And we will face the City of Carson in Los Angles Superior Court, Dept. 77, on June 11 at 8:30 a.m. All are welcome to join us in this public hearing which could decide whether the City of Carson is allowed to continue to break the law, to ignore court decisions solely because City Council members don’t agree with them. If the Judge acts consistently with his oath of office, that is, to abide by the Constitution, he will not allow Carson to continue to break the law, to violate both the state and federal Constitutions.
– Janice Bellucci
Event Description and Photos
Read all of Janice’s Journal
Comments
Robert Curtis
Good questions Joe. I'm actually a hairstylist and once salon owner that was involved working directly with the local public for years. Weird but you would think I'd suffered more confrontation, but people are more surprised by the boldness than critical of it. It seems this old soldier's just not use to hiding in fear. It bothers me when my brothers and sisters on the registry allow fear the foothold in their lives to dictate to them what they will or will not do. Action of any kind is sort of a therapy against that powerlessness. I started coming out of my shell slowly. Janice and the RSOL staff were available to give me the encouragement as I needed it. It's an us thing ...we really are in this together as Frank puts it. It's not about one individual it's a group thing. It is because of people like you Joe and the group as a whole that I'm became strong. So be encouraged and TOGETHER we will accomplish wonderful things!
Timmr
The big issue with public registries, and a lot of modern life for that matter, is they take away the individual's power to decide what part of him or herself to share with the world. If someone choses to share their real name, great, and doing so could feel empowering. On the other hand, staying anonymous can do the same thing, let you feel you are in control, and you have to think of protecting from harm those close to you. That might be different from one person to another.
Joe
Hi Robert - been watching you speak up for years now. On video, on newspaper articles, using your own name, telling your story.
Thank you. Know that your courage is an inspiration and very much appreciated.
But I would like to find out... has the publicity affected you in a concrete negative way? I ask because this registry is just so diabolical... it has progressed to this point only because people were afraid to speak out in order to grab on to the promise of anonymity. As long as they manage to get by flying under the radar there will never be the amount of opposition necessary by 100,000 and their families to affect change. Totally understandable.
I believe that this is big difference from the Civil Rights movement of the 60s as African Americans did not have that option to hide amongst those that violated their rights and live or attempt to live a 'normal' life.
Several other people were identified by name during the recent March on Carson. Several people have filed lawsuits using their real names. Several people here post under their real name.
My question - what happens when you 'out' yourself? Is it possible that the consequences are not as bad as imagined? Just wondering.
Robert Curtis
Mike I was that guy...I went into the park ate a sandwich and then went back to the line and got interviewed by KTLA-5 news. It's not my fault they didn't arrest me! Why I did it was in the name of my son in whom I saved his life many years ago because I was there to do so. I talked with the local station commander and also a couple of my Orange County sheriff deputies prior to the march and told them what I was going to do. I was true to my son's life and to my own word. I can say of the 50th anniversary of Martin Luther King's march I did the right thing! Again it's not my fault they didn't arrest me!
Michael
Like I said, Gerald, I'M not able to do it. ;-)
Gerald
They should also be a very attractive person, well groomed, articulate, and honest looking. Oh well, never mind.
Michael
I think what WE need for Carson a Rosa Parks type person.
To be clear, Parks was not just "some black woman" who, one day, got fed up sitting at the back of the bus. She was a long time member of the NAACP and was an activist for black civil rights. So her civil disobedience, and the following bus boycott, was well planned.
What we need is an RC to go to a Carson park and get arrested. Then sue the heck outta Carson and LA County.
I would do it myself, but my offense was a misdemeanor and I am eligible for a Certificate of Rehabilitation with the chance to get off the registry. And doing something like that would screw that up.
But there must be some RC out there whose offense was over a decade ago and so he's not on probation or parole anymore.
Someone who has been "clean" since his conviction, but is not going to ever get off the registry.
Maybe one whose offense was NOT child related.
Someone who, because he has to register, may not be doing as well in life as he could. Maybe homeless, working odd jobs etc.
Someone for who the arrest would not really be all that big of deal
He wont spend hardly anytime in custody. Book and release most likely. It is LA County after all. And it's not like he's going to be convicted of the matter.
And after, he is likely to have himself a pot of money for Carson and LA County violating his civil rights.
c
Yea, let's not cloud the story with facts.
John & Ken have diarrhea of the mouth and people just suck it up during that afternoon drive.
Bill Handle is the only reason I tune in to KFI. He's funny and I have heard him and Bill Carol speak more sympathetically to RC issues. They never shout down their guests. Handle might call you a shmuck, but he won't talk over you...much.
Harry
On the same note, there are these same sheltered perpetrators that are very loud about punishing current RC to cover-up their actions.
Timmr
There is a chance that any group that marches anywhere may have someone who IS molesting a child. Since 95% of the people caught doing a sex crime are not already on the registry and given that in some instances the perpetrator has been sheltered from justice by family or friends, it seem more likely there is going to be someone who is presently breaking a sex law in a group of non registrants, than in the group that has been convicted. What should make these jerks uncomfortable is the fact 90% of the victims already know their abuser. And I might add, we don't have a sane strategy to deal with that fact.
Ron Harris
Whenever a stigma is created, whether it’s against sex offenders; ethnicities or religions, it falsely creates the assumption that “they are all alike”. We would be wise to stop grouping and stigmatizing people as being exactly like all others of a particular distinction. It blurs details and facts, which make ignorant, inaccurate assumptions about a substantial number of people. We then use the faulty conclusions and think we can legislate it away. Perhaps it is in the interest of society to realize it is much more practical, to live amongst each other, striving towards a peaceful society, than divided against one another, based on uneducated and uninformed opinions. Large numbers of people are at war across the world, largely due to ignorance and misinformation. We will all be judged someday, inward personal growth is more productive, than casting aspersions on others. In the practical reality involving registered sex offenders, I think the registry creates substantial hindrances to employment and housing, which ironically are the two most important ingredients necessary, in reducing recidivism and thus protecting society from the proliferation of further aberrant behaviors. Ultimately, the registry may be iatrogenic in terms of encouraging and motivating offenders to understand their behavior, have the opportunity for appropriate treatment, housing and employment resources, to move forward in a positive and supportive direction towards living a law abiding and sober life.
Joe
“I never gave much thought to how old Reve was. She was pretty, and she dressed sharp. And there was also that body. We were starting to kind of hang around together. She took me horseback riding, and we went skiing. She was always into her own thing, and I like that. Then one night Tom Roche was sitting around in my place and picked up a copy of that day’s Buffalo Evening News. It was a picture of Reve, who had just won an art contest. ‘Holy Jesus, Mary, and Joseph,’ Tom said. ‘There is a picture of Reve in the paper, John, and she’s 16 years old.’ But you know, she had this way about her. She had a certain presence. And after awhile I just got over how young she was. She was way more sophisticated than anybody in her high school and she always dated older guys. She had a fake ID. That’s how she got into Brunner’s. She was born with high school. She was into art and her horses. And even then, she always seemed very… I don’t know, serene. We weren’t madly in love with each other. Though we had a good time together, and I relaxed a little after she turned 17.”
https://books.google.com/books?id=4yEHlNvWUTcC&pg=PT23&lpg=PT23&dq=I+never+gave+much+thought+to+how+old+Reve+was.+She+was+pretty,+and+she+dressed+sharp.&source=bl&ots=gnViXnUf9c&sig=vIh-W_V9EVmPoC6hfbaobzGuW5s&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Fv4EVfSVIJDToATarIG4CA&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=I%20never%20gave%20much%20thought%20to%20how%20old%20Reve%20was.%20She%20was%20pretty%2C%20and%20she%20dressed%20sharp.&f=false
anonymously
mike said "Anyway from a non violent no contact ex offender from over ten years..."
According to the shockjocks, you don't exist. Or are not worth discussing.
anonymously
Michael asked "How old was Walsh and where did he admit to having sex with that 16 y.o.?
I looked through some of those stories on the web but didn’t see THAT."
23. He admitted it in an interview. I think I saw it at absolutezerounites.com.
Ostracized Witch
We must ALL monetarily support Janice and CARSOL, they are our primary advocates in this hostile world! Please! Someday I envision that with her efforts "We Will Overcome!"
mike
Great job Janice those people are exactly what we are up against they want to just spout their hate and not listen to any responses they fail to realize that I would bet that over 90% of those that are convicted of the crimes that he was spouting will spend half their life if not all of it in prison. People that commit forceable rape in a teenager or rape little kids will never be on the registry because they will never get out of prison. Even if they do they have went thru extensive treatments and if were considered a threat they would be civilly committed. I'm sure the vast majority of rso are non violent people that have had or attempted to have sex with a minor. Or even lesser offenses. You know of course that a lewd act with a minor under 14 is automatically considered a violent offense even if there was ni violence involved.
Anyway from a non violent no contact ex offender from over ten years ago thank you Janice for doing what you do.
Eric Knight
Consider that the decision was unanimous, and that the lead judge was a law-and-order conservative appointed by George Bush who lambasted the state, so if they try to blame the judge, they might as well vote for David Duke next time around.
Michael
How old was Walsh and where did he admit to having sex with that 16 y.o.?
I looked through some of those stories on the web but didn't see THAT.
cool RC
Just get a friend who's not a RC to do that for you..
Hookscar
Janice,
Is there any way a mailing list of all RCs in the state can be compiled without breaking any laws? I believe that RCs should be made aware of CARSOL and the work that is being done. Lawyers send me advertisements all the time.
David
Just heard the interview. Clearly they want nothing more than to spout their own opinions and pander to their audience.
Janice, you truly deserve great credit for maintaining decorum despite their inflammatory rhetoric.
anonymously
M said "I was also offended that they said … “We don’t want a history lesson … "
Turns out they did need that history lesson. The shockjocks had a deer-in-the-headlights meltdown moment when told about lie detector tests being used currently. The shockjock, when told about polygraph tests given to all paroled registered citizens, did not understand that if a registered citizen parolee did have fantasies of violent rape, the polygraph would catch that. The shockjock became incoherent at that point and looked silly. Those shockjocks seem to really hate the crime John Walsh admitted to. Rape of 16 year olds is the only example the one angry shockjock wanted to discuss. Is the tough-on-crime shockjock biting the hand of John Walsh, a tough-on-crime likely hero of his, now? Those shockjocks really sounded stupid when talking about the courts on recent decisions on presence and residency restrictions...It was the 'California Supreme Court' that did not take the case of reviewing presence restrictions that a 'panel of judges' from the 4th district appeals court found unconstitutional and it was the 'California Supreme Court' who decided blanket residency restrictions are unconstitutional. Not 'one judge in San Diego', as the angrier shockjock claimed at the beginning of the interview. The California Supreme Court or an Orange County panel of judges on the 4th District Court being 'one judge in San Diego' is about as accurate as the rest of their sorry rhetoric.
Hookscar
I just listened to the radio assassination attempt of Janice. WOW. John and Ken showed their ignorance and propensity to incite violence. What they said on air can be prosecuted as making terrorist threats. Any form of communication that threatens violence or denying a person their constitutional right should be held accountable.
Joe
I totally agree. It is NOT anyone's obligation to make anyone else comfortable.
Just like parents in the South did not feel comfortable having their precious child sit next to an African American student in school. Just like the Nazis did not feel comfortable having Jewish neighbors.
Comfortable? Scr3w'em. Rights are Rights. Period.
Joe
This is described as "Attorney Janice Bellucci on with John and Ken in a VERY contentious interview on reforming sex offender laws".
INTERVIEW? Hardly. More like a verbal assassination. Or a shouting match with the bully on the school yard. Edward R Murrow must be spinning in his grave.
Michael
Here's the link:
http://www.kfiam640.com/onair/john-and-ken-37487/whatyoumissed-at-4pm-today-on-the-13401549/
I think the best answer to what the heck someone, anyone, is thinking about as they masturbate in the privacy of their own place is that IT DOES NOT MATTER.
Doing that while having wild thoughts is not illegal and harms no one.
What matters is how they act.
And the point of the "history lesson" was that there are people who have been on the registry, those that are considered low and medium risk offenders, who never reoffended and would have fallen off if we had tiered registration.
But they are on there for life and stuck and painted with the same brush as the examples of SVPs the media, such as John & Ken, like to use in describing ALL RCs
Hookscar
Can a link to the interview be provided?
anonymously
This goes to show you don't have to be that smart to be successful as a Clear Channel/I Heart Radio/I Heart Media/I Heart Hate shockjock AM radio moron. Great interview.
guest
I just found and listened to the show. omg I have never heard such unprofessionalism as from these guys. how rude!
Thank you Janice!
btw - I don't give a rats behind what they are comfortable with or not. Basic civil rights and making some idiot comfortable are two different things. Mother taught me that when we speak of rights they are usually the rights of others.
Mjk
"Our community" - Thank you Janice
Janice Bellucci
I am willing to speak on any radio or TV station and to be interviewed by any publication. Why? Because of the audience. Although the host(s) may be full of venom and mistruths, it is an opportunity for me to educate the public about the truth and to debunk the myths associated with our community.
MM
I listened too ... And I agree. JANICE handled herself well. The one part I thought was interesting (John, the ass) said that he would make it uncomfortable for a registrant to live in his neighbourhood and what he would do! I was also offended that they said ... "We don't want a history lesson ... ". Really??
c
Janice,
It's too bad those two jerks went to appeal to the lowest common denominator rather than engage in a serious adult discussion of this issue. You handled yourself beautifully. It reminded me of trying to talk to my 3 year old down from a tantrum. It just ain't gonna happen.
NPR would probably provide more receptive hosts and audiences.
Hookscar
Let us know what they say. Sure it will be interesting.
c
KFI'S John & Ken are about to talk about the Carson March. Time now 400P PM 3/11/2015.
mike
Thanks Janice and all that attended your all heroes and inspiration for us all. If only all the US could be as American as you guys.
Anonymous Nobody
Actually, that is the advance story the day before, already posted in another thread as it appeared in the South Bay Daily Breeze. The Long Beach Press-Telegram simply runs the same story as the South Bay Daily Breeze in Torrance. They, along with most other print news media in SoCal, are both owned by by Dean Singleton and share their operations. In fact, when he bought it, Singleton cut the staffing at the Press Telegram from 45 in the news room to I think it is now 3, or maybe down to 1.
The Press Telegram is put together and edited at the South Bay Daily Breeze. And all that news is also shared for use with the Daily News in the San Fernando Valley, also owned by Singleton, and the three San Gabriel Valley newspapers: The Pasadena Star-News, the San Gabriel Valley Daily Tribune and the Whittier Daily News. And various others in SoCal print news operations also owned or run by Singleton.
But thanks for making the effort to inform us.
Lance Mitaro
Actually, all sex offenders are made a spectacle out of for the anecdotal cases in which these laws were created. They misguidedly believe that subjugating people to this imposition will prevent the same thing from happening again and "honor" the memory of the victim in the process.
This is a misguided and dangerous juxtaposition; and it's all legal.
Michael
Thanks. Good points. I'm usually not so short sighted and should have seen that for myself.
It's just that I know that those are the kind of people who would kick us when we are down (indeed, the kind that want to knock us down in the first place then kick us), so I think the favor should be returned. Which is why I really hope they do not come to their senses and do indeed go to court.
Still, having facts and evidence, over myth and hysteria, put "on the record", for the public as a whole, is good at anytime indeed.
Eric Knight
Technically, they aren't addressing the city council; they are addressing ALL citizens of the city. And it is important to present the facts through documented and binding forums whenever possible. The fact the city is being sued is irrelevent to the entire issue of promoting safety through elimination of the Internet registration scheme and subsequent restrictions that present city officials with more avenues of corruption and abuse.
Eric Knight
One of the biggest derisive complaints done by the anti's is when we use the comparison to how the Nazis initially started their world quest by segregating, then murdering Jewish people (not "Jews"; that is a racist term). They get angry that "we are comparing sex offenders with the horrific circumstances of Jewish people in the Holocaust." What they FAIL to do is to understand the dynamics behind BOTH the registration of sex offenders in the United States and the registration of Jewish people in Weimarcht Germany.
In both cases, the establishment governnment first registered the undesirables, and yes: in each case, they were "sex offenders." Yes, in Germany sexual deviants including "pedophiles and homosexuals" were identified and registered, precisely because the government wanted to create scapegoats. THIS allowed them to escalate gradually, until Jewish people were included in the mix, and we all know what happened in the next fifteen years.
So it is not only ethical, but frankly compulsory, that we identify with other movements that have started through shaming and through segregation. It is important to acknowledge that the ONLY reason there are so many restrictions on registered citizens is that they emanated from the original registration scheme. Without registration, and in particular without Internet registration, restriction schemes would not follow.
This is important, and in debating the issue with other entities and anti's, it is PARTICULARLY important to bring out the BEGINNING of how such atrocities as the Holocaust and Jim Crow laws evolved into. And THAT is just as important.
Michael
I'm curious;
What is the point of returning to the council meetings at the City of Carson to testify or educate them? It seems that they should have had all the reasonable, and then some, information on this issue a long time ago.
Why not just wait till June and then watch them sink in court and have to pay out the big bucks AND be DIRECTLY ordered by the court to comply?
OR
If THEY don't want to wait, and would now like to go along with the program, for just attorney's fees, why not sit back and make them come to you?
Joe
Unless you are a very small minority of people, registration is PUNISHMENT for what SOMEONE ELSE did, does, or MIGHT DO in the future.
Alienated
I for one am proud of all of those who participated in the march. I only wish I was there but alas I still live in fear of further exposure.
Thank you so much Janice, your are the light at the end of the tunnel and clearly care about our rights as people.
Avig
Bravo to those who engage in the actions!! We have nothing like it in Central California.
And to registration: it is punishment for crimes you might---or might not---commit at some indefinite time in the future.
anonymously
Ionovati...
You can be unfairly discriminated against for many reasons. The Selma marchers reflected all that was good in America at that time.The CARSOL marchers held the same dignity of peaceful protest in their march. Ionovati, you seem to buy into the same grouping of 'registrants' as is used to collectively restrict registrants in a one-size-restricts-all fashion. In the Taylor Case, the California Supreme Court ruled this should be done on a case-by-case basis. Not sure what state you're in but check out the decision.
Some examples of other valid demonstrations inspired by the Selma Protest.... these examples may be outside of the U.S but still show that discrimination can be based on other things than ethnic discrimination and still be valid...Hungary, 1956 protesting communism for taking away peoples rights, the protest in Prague protesting dictatorship in general where the Soviets came in to topple Dubcek, Tiananmen Square 1989, etc. Even in the U.S, Ionovati, can you say the anti-Vietnam war protests were not valid? Anti-war marches not valid protests?
Robert Curtis
I was going to quickly put my own blasted opinion on here without real clarity. Now sir, your understanding has blasted me with a dose of clarity I wasn't expecting...Thank you! The registry is in place as a punitive measure against us for a "possible" future violation not yet happened. Can there be any form of law more draconian than this?
A Y
here is the event link for presstelegram article by Sandy Mazza
http://www.presstelegram.com/social-affairs/20150306/registered-sex-offenders-to-march-on-carson-city-hall-to-fight-restrictions
Timmr
I just searched for KTLA's story and it is nowhere to be found.
Lance Mitaro
lonovati
here is one significant difference between we on the registry and racial, ethnic, and social minorities — blacks were not discriminated against because they committed a crime most of society detests.
I think you're trying to color outside the lines here and making a dangerous oversimplification. You don't believe that sex offenders are not only guilty by association, but are also hated by association of the label itself the SAME way black were in the 60s? There is no nuance or demarcation when you compare the two: Hatred by association and representation of a label. Segregation is segregation. Hate is hate. White people still to this day fear black people. 50 years from now, they will most likely continue to fear blacks and sex offenders. Discrimination and harassment of a label. I'd say intent of the original Selma campaign has more in common with sex offenders than you realize.
Sounds like that court-ordered therapy really did a number on your inductive reasoning skills to the point you've made peace with your label and accepted your fate. *** please keep it civil **** Moderator
Harry
Some how we need to have list of RC's, from megan's site, without breaking the law.
Harry
Molly, I sent email to Ms. Jacobs, even though I do not live SDC. Thanks for the info.
Timmr
I march for the Constitution to be applied equally to everyone. I didn't march for "sex offenders", but for those who are struggling to be allowed to be peaceful and productive citizens. There are rules in the Constitution that say how laws should be applied to all people without arbitrary discrimination. Yes, it is unconscionable that blacks and Latinos are incarcerated at a higher rate for taking or using drugs, for example, than their white counterparts. They are incarcerated for all crimes, including sex crimes, at a greater rate than their white brothers. People on the registry are subject to post sentence restrictions, because their crime had the label "sex" on it, which somehow makes them sub citizens, sub humans, monsters, etc., excluded from Constitutional protection; whereas, people who maybe just beat there kids or killed one while driving drunk, if the crime was "only" motivated by hate, greed, jealousy or some other more "acceptable" emotion, you are not put on a lifetime list for exclusion from Constitutional fairness. That arbitrariness makes it exactly like the other forms of discrimination. I just happen to be part of this register community, but I think we all need to get together and end institutional discrimination in all forms.
John B
KTLA 5 did show part of its interview with you, but it was maybe 1% of the total of what you said to them. I understand how the process works and the exigencies of a 3 or 4 minute news segment, but it still rankles to see it happen. I think your idea of posting something in it's entirety on YouTube would be a good way to partially remedy this. Perhaps CA RSOL should create a YouTube channel for this purpose.
Harry
‘…the “Christian Nation” that rejects notions of “forgiveness” and “redemption”…’ I have been a Christian, as in follower of Jesus the Christ, for many years and I am an ordained, non-denominational, minister. My Bible training was precept and organic without the pollution of man-made doctrines and religion, found in most churches. The Bible teaches that forgiveness is required before anyone can receive forgiveness and we ALL have sin that requires forgiveness from God. If, a person says he/she is a Christian and do not forgive is also saying he/she is not a sinner and have no need for redemption and salvation through Jesus Christ. This person may go to church and read/hear some Bible and do not DO what Jesus says, in the Bible, not only he/she is not a follower of Christ, is an enemy of God. America and most churches have very little Christianity.
Robert Curtis
It would be great if we could develop local RSOL action groups in each and every county in California. A point of contact for each county for Those at the state level of RSOL (Janice, Chance, Frank and other staffers) We need to create a web across this state and strengthen that web with the talents of each member. The nature of my job is to engage people at their local hair salon. The more we engage the deeper our efforts will matter. Get involved with helping local officials getting elected. If we engage those in office on the campaign trail for good it's harder for them to engage against us with harm. Well, it is a great way to practice fighting for ourselves if nothing else. The media interviewed many of us and whether they go on air with our protest or not we at least got some valuable experience. Next time it would be nice to have a camera on the media covering the protest that doesn't go on air and that way we can at least post it on You Tube and video share the non-coverage of the event...We can still request of the station to give us a copy the B-roll coverage. Perhaps even for a price if needed.
Molly
Those of us who could not March this weekend can still support the cause.
Please, please, please if you haven’t called the Governor about the San Diego parole office and finding out who made the decision to tell parole officers not help 290 parolees find housing, please call and voice your feelings. The guy I talked to last week was interested in what I had to say. Suggest the Governor read the Taylor opinion. If you haven’t read it yet, read it, what they did in San Diego is appalling. Maybe we could all send a copy of the opinion to the Governor. This is a state issue and he might get involved in it if he gets enough pressure. It was a local decision, it has to do with this fight, it was in the papers recently and whoever is responsible in San Diego NEEDS TO LOSE THEIR JOB. If people in power see someone actually pay a price for a spiteful decision affecting 290 registrants they may think twice about what they do in the future.
Governor Brown’s phone number is 916-445-2841. You can email him from his home page, https://govnews.ca.gov/gov39mail/mail.php
I also called the reporter from the Mercury news to find out if he is planning a follow up. He said he is waiting for a response from the CDCR. So yes, it sounds like he will be following up. I told him I would like to read a story about who the decision maker is at the San Diego CDCR. Call your local paper and suggest the same.
If you haven’t called Diane Jacob in San Diego please leave her a POLITE message this weekend. Tell her she owes registered citizens and their families a public apology for suggesting registrants should not have any rights. Tell her you don’t appreciate public officials reinforcing stereotypes and lies about who is on the list and who is affected by the list. Mention your children. Maybe suggest she owes the citizens of California a public apology for suggesting such un-American views about the Constitution and remind her it is our Constitution that makes this country great and the envy of the world. Express shock that she would say such things on the anniversary of the March on Selma. She is just a county supervisor and I bet she gets less than 10 calls from the public a day. Let’s fill up her voicemail this weekend with POLITE messages voicing concern regarding her lack of knowledge and research about the registry. Remind her that she is an elected official and registrants, their family members and friends live in her district. If she knows we will inundate her with calls and emails maybe she will just not say anything else going forward.
San Diego County Board Supervisor Dianne Jacob at (619) 531-5522, [email protected]
John B
I accept that I did something horrific 40 years ago and that because of MY actions, a large percentage of the general population will perpetually despise me. I not only accept it - I don't even resent them for it. It's understandable.
My civil liberties were restored 27 years ago. I have lived among this public for 35 years. I have taken the opportunity of restoration of rights and been faithful to the opportunity of "forgiveness" afforded by the Constitution.
The fight, then, is not to gain acceptance from those who will never give it to me but for the Constitutional rights that I have been able to thrive under are not undermined as they have been (increasingly) over the past 18 years. These restrictions on my civil liberties have gotten worse and will continue to without a fight. I won't sit down and shut up.
You might be correct that we shouldn't compare this to the civil rights movement of the 60's. I don't need to be compared to any other group that underwent injustice and fought back against it. We are (and I am) our own unique example of a Constitutional injustice that needs to be addressed and remedied, whether the general public likes it or not.
Anonymous Nobody
The only coverage in the Sunday Los Angeles Times was buried in the B section, on B6 (left hand page), at the bottom. It was only a pic with a short caption, not a story. A good size pic, but I am disappointed that they did not choose one showing the overall participation but instead chose one that made it look like just a handful of people is all there was, and just standing around looking bored. A line of 50 people marching with signs would have made a much more impressive picture and fuller report. But then, the Times has not been friendly to us for quite some time. Gee, to me the pic looks like they were more intent on picking a photo that showed the faces of sex offenders than in showing the crowd that participated — and they specifically named two of the people in the photo.
I have uploaded the pic to:
http://oi57.tinypic.com/x3h0ci.jpg
robin cowly
Re: lonovati.
Lonovati raises the same complaint Leveled at homosexuals When they would speak in terms that drew similarities with the civil rights and famous black movements. The comment was, gay people can choose to stay in the closet, or not be gay.
But I think the fear of black people was the principle driving force behind racial descrimination and so it was when homosexuals
for 25 years had to register as sex offenders in california.
Fear of sex offenders is justified in a more direct and logical way to some registrants, but clearly not all, but the law doesnt recognize this, sonow every person made to reigister is treated as if they are a threat to children. That is absurd and unfair. So, just that gives us something in common with civil rights abuses. On the radio, kfi am 640, Bill Carrol said we should all be locked up and loose the keys. Great! I am now thanks to the law such a problem that I shouldnt even be out in public let alone free to walk around as if I am safe to be at mccdonalds, or a public park. Some people may be a threat to children, but most of them are yet to be caught so I don't think registrants outin public are an identifiable threat because not one of them is a child abductor, that carries a life sentance, so if we are to be burdened with their reputation and punished for it legally based on fear, then there are connectionsbetween our civil rights movement and those like Selma AL, it just is not a racial connection and the reasinable person is not going to say that this is drawing similarities between black people and sex registrants, but the abuse of power to create a class of people burdened by fears they don't deserve is very similar and if you can't see that clearly it is because you already believe the fear is justified here. It isnt. I have never even considered offending anyone sexually, adult or otherwise, yet after all I have been put through, I have to every day deal with the question, should I alliw the terrorists that have done this to my life live or should I do to them what America would do to them if they tool our oil fields? That is a heavy burden to bare for the rest of my life.
B
The issue here is how do we view our laws and, in particular, our Constitution. Let me use a water analogy. Many view the Bill of Rights and many of the constitutional rights that follow as a deep well filled with water than many can drink from. Civil rights movements have been fights to allow previously disenfranchised people the benefits of drinking deeply from the well.
Black leaders have fought to allow blacks to have full access. Hispanic leaders have fought to allow hispanics full access. Gays have fought for gays. Jews have fought for Jews. And so on.
I reject the analogy. I think that constitutional rights are like rain that fall on all of us. My message is not that we ought to be able to drink from the well because of these statistics or because of those studies. The axis is not "good and bad". The axis is "yes and no". The rights either exist--and therefore are available to everyone--or they don't exist and they are available to no one.
This is a fight for our rights, but it is really a test of our commitment to the constitutional rights that so many brave people died for.
Janice Bellucci
California RSOL will keep the snowball rolling! How? We will soon attend a City Council meeting to ensure that our voices are heard by the members of the Council who refused to attend the picnic to which they were invited on March 7. We will also face them in Court on June 11 at 8:30 a.m., Los Angeles Superior Court, in Department 77. It's a public hearing and all are invited. And yes, we will move beyond Carson. We have a board meeting on March 12 during which more specific plans will be made and later reported on. There is certain to be a meeting at the ACLU building in Los Angeles on May 9 at 10 a.m. (1313 W. 8th Street).
JM
@lonovati,
As a family member of someone who is on the registry, I DISAGREE.
I did nothing wrong, and yet my neighbors "said that they would try to get us removed from our home" the home we bought and paid for, all because we have a family member on the registry, so, my rights are violated, the children in our family are discriminated against too. People have died all because they loved someone on the registry, and you don't think that is something to fight about? The laws and the courts also discriminate. There is no justice in our courts and convictions are sometimes wrong. To be honest, I never knew what it must have been like for black Americans, until now. We now criminalize too many and lock people away for what was (not very long ago) normal behavior. My grandmother was 14 and my grandfather was 19 when they married. Today he would be considered "one of those" a monster. Instead they lived a productive, successful and happy life raising three successful children. I'm not condoning young marriage, but you get my point. We, the citizens, have rights and I will not stay "quiet". I will fight until the day I die. Nothing gets accomplished by people like yourself.
Anonymous Nobody
This march was a good start for protests. This set a very good, peaceful tone to be attached to registrants. This is helpful going forward to build upon. And with this one going smoothly, despite being in the heart of one of the most hateful places toward us, should help encourage more people to join in future protests.
And we need more and bigger protests and regularly, and not just against local ordinances, but just simply against registration itself on the state level. You simply cannot even justify having to check in/go in as if on probation or parole, not even if it is put in tiers. It is not sentencing, so probation or parole conditions are not legitimate, much less all the other collateral disabilities that have been added on.
Bravo to CA RSOL and all the participants. Let this snowball roll.
NPS
Oh lonovati, what you fail to understand is that for perhaps many on they registry, they, too, did nothing to deserve this discrimination. Some of California's penal codes (statutory "rape") don't even exist in about 30 other states. Others have victimless "crimes" who were either lured and trapped in a sting or may have unknowingly downloaded/viewed unlawful material. Some didn't even involve sexual acts. There are even those who were falsely accused but may have been scared into taking a plea (such as in my case). Believe it or not, "victims" DO lie as a means of getting revenge; I'm not saying it happens all the time, but it does happen.
You stated that "ultimately those heroes only had to be born to be singled out and targeted by society." I will go out on a limb and say that registrants, too, our singled out and targeted by society from birth. Men now live in fear of children and women because any action they make can be misinterpreted simply because they are men, and this goes across all color lines.
A vast majority of registrants are not the monsters that politicians will have the sheeple believe. There are those who are truly guilty of their crimes that were just poor decision making. But how many people have made a poor decision that is illegal but never got caught? If every single person had been caught making a 290 registrable mistake, you can flip the numbers; 800,000 people across the country would be NON-registrants. Because yes, even young children, can be registered for "playing doctor", but guess who would be punished in that situation...males.
Anonymous Nobody
Actually , ionovati, while I understand the distinction you draw, it does not apply to us. What you are talking about is whether the sentence fits the crime and is justice. Butath is not what reegistration is.
As has always been the case, and as the law and the courts have made clear, registration is NOT part of the sentencing, it is not part of the punishment for the crime. We have all done all the sentencing handed down, and no one here has even involved that in the discussion, we are not complaining about our sentences.
What we are complaining about is being additionally punished not for what we have done, but
for what we might do in the future, and that based of false presumptions that not only do we know to be wrong but now even the authorities have come out with studies that show that presumption to be wrong. We are being punished, and for the long term, even as we do nothing wrong.
So, just as blacks and other minorities have done nothing wrong by being black, neither have we done anything wrong to justify being subjected to this punishment based on presumed future actions that in fact rarely happen -- and we all know how punishing it is, despite lies by our politicians and courts. If it were not punishing, none of us would be here complaining and fighting. We are being punished BEFORE a crime is committed -- that is the design of registration and all the collateral disabilities that go with it! Registration is NOT punishment for the past offense, it is for future offenses.
anonymously
lonovati contradicts himself by saying "Should we have rights? Absolutely.
Should we be allowed to go on and live productive lives? Yes, we should!"
And then goes on to say " I’m sorry but ultimately they did nothing to deserve the discrimination, where as we did."
Make up your mind.
Breezy Sis
Three Cheers to all of you!! Looks like something my family and I would have been proud to be a part of. I look forward to the positive press and the dialogues on TV and radio that I hope will come of this. Thanks to you who participated for all of us who could not this time.
anonymously
lonovati said "I feel we are borderlining on condoning or excusing our crimes and offenses."
Nope, if we were doing that, then our re-offense rate would be higher than 2%.
Margaret Moon
There are some questions I would ask you about your opinion. First, how do you think the people in our group, registrants and families, should go about obtaining the rights they are afforded under the constitution?
I understand the difference between a group is discriminated against because of birth circumstance and a group that broke the prevailing law. However, what about the fact that these laws, and the punishments that have been enacted, keep growing with every legislative session, are overly punitive and the California registry treats all sex offenses the same?
The similarity between us and other groups who have not been treated equally under the law is just that. We are not being treated equally under the law. Everyone is entitled to constitutional rights.
lonovati
I know this comment will be unpopular but I have to say it. I am a little bit disturbed by how everyone keeps comparing this protest to Selma. I think this hi-lights a growing attitude that some of us who stay mostly quiet are disturbed about.
Should we have rights? Absolutely.
Should we be allowed to go on and live productive lives? Yes, we should!
Is it ultimately our fault that we got into this mess in the first place? Without a doubt.
This "out and proud" rhetoric is disturbing. There is one significant difference between we on the registry and racial, ethnic, and social minorities — blacks were not discriminated against because they committed a crime most of society detests. They were discriminated against and hated because they were black. I'm not saying our justice system ain't broken and I'm not saying that the registry is a good thing. But I think it's a very slippery slope to equate our fight with the same fights for equality that people who were discriminated against because they were born into a different skin color, culture, or language group. I'm sorry but ultimately they did nothing to deserve the discrimination, where as we did. Shouldn't the message be that we CAN change? That we are NOT monsters? I feel we are borderlining on condoning or excusing our crimes and offenses. And if we keep going down this path then we are not proving that we can take responsibility for our actions and learning from them. This comment will receive so many thumbs down that it will probably be censored, which is the very reason it needs to stop being ignored.
It's easy to get caught up in the spirit of the civil rights movements and varnish our fight by likening it to Dr. Martin Luther King or Malcom X, but ultimately those heroes only had to be born to be singled out and targeted by society. We are targeted because at one time, each one of us made a choice in our lives, a bad choice that we all must regret and learn to accept responsibility for.
Q
I'm surprised (NOT!) the local anti american civic leaders failed to show up and take advantage of the media coverage to tell everyone why the constitution shouldn't apply to registrants and why they shouldn't have to obey state law.
Great job everyone. I regret I had to work today and missed this event; but timmr filled me in on the days events :)
John B
As I've said previously, the "Christian Nation" that rejects notions of "forgiveness" and "redemption". Hypocrisy is fascinating.
John B
We were on the 6:30 PM KTLA channel 5 News report and it was quite fairly presented. I'm not sure where you can see it it you missed it but try their web page and find the Saturday report.
I'll be interested to see what, if anything, is in the Los Angeles Times tomorrow but as of this hour there is nothing that I could find on their web page.
AllMyFriends
Great job guys! This is amazing!
Lance Mitaro
Not exactly Selma, but just as historically important. On the same day as the anniversary, no less. Irony. For a so-called "Christian" country like America, it really does have a fanatical love affair with revenge and hate while getting off on watching the pain, misery and suffering of others.
Janice's Journal: The California Supreme Court has spoken but what have they said?
Published Date : March 2, 2015
The California Supreme Court has spoken but what have they said? The Court published two decisions today that were expected to determine whether residency restrictions are constitutional and if so, to whom do they apply as well as whether the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) may issue a blanket residency restriction to all registered citizens in San Diego while on parole. These issues are of vital importance to more than 100,000 registered citizens and their families. Unfortunately, the Court did not meet expectations because they failed to address these vital issues in a meaningful way for all but a few.
In the first of the two decisions, People v. Mosley, the Court ducked entirely the issue of whether residency restrictions are constitutional. Instead, the Court relegated to a footnote that the issue is not yet “ripe”, that is, it is not ready for the Court to decide. How can that be? The rate of homelessness for registered citizens has tripled since passage of Jessica’s Law. And, according to the CA Sex Offender Management Board, there were more than 6,000 homeless registered citizens in 2012 and that number continues to grow.
Also in that case, the Court did briefly discuss the issue of residency restrictions and concluded that they are not an “added penalty”. Not a penalty? Tell that to the homeless registrants forced to live in their cars if they are lucky and to live on the streets if they are not. The only rays of light in this case shine from the dissenting opinion in which Justice Liu criticizes the majority of the Court for ducking this issue as well as the issue of whether residency restrictions apply to registered citizens who are not on parole. In the dissent, Justice Liu states unequivocally that residency restrictions apply to all registrants and constitute punishment.
In the second of the two decisions, In re Taylor, the Court appears to hand registrants a solid victory by boldly and correctly declaring that residency restrictions violate the Constitution. The Court bases this declaration on a finding that residency restrictions infringe upon a registrant’s liberty and privacy interests and that they constitute unreasonable, arbitrary and oppressive official action. Amazing, right? YES…..but only if you are a registered citizen on parole in San Diego and only as a blanket restriction levied by CDCR. The Court granted CDCR the authority to apply residency restrictions that are “more or less restrictive” than those found in Jessica’s Law provided that they do so on a case-by-case basis.
And what if you aren’t on parole and you don’t live in San Diego? What if you completed parole decades ago and/or live in a county, that unlike San Diego, is not densely populated? The answer to those questions will be determined in the future…..perhaps in a courtroom near you. In the meantime, how many more registered citizens will suffer as they are forced to live separately from their families and become homeless? How many more times will the Constitution be violated by Jessica’s Law, a law that is unreasonable, arbitrary, and oppressive?
Cities and counties can prevent the continuation of these violations in their jurisdictions by repealing their ordinances that include residency restrictions. Any city or county that fails to repeal such restrictions faces the possibility of a legal challenge from California RSOL or other like minded organizations.
Comments
Timmr
I've heard that 50% of the future jobs will be done by machines. This leaves a lot of disposable people to be put on registries, using one excuse or another, and thereby denied a humane living and services. Is this country creating a class of untouchables that in turn will need to be kept monitored so they remain in their class boundaries? In turn the rest of the unemployed will be hired to monitor the undesirables? Sure looks like the age of leisure and freedom from a life free from a lifetime of doing menial tasks, which is the promise of technological advancement, is being supplanted by the surveillance economy.
Anonymous
As we hear of the terrible inhuman treatment happening across the globe on a daily basis, the horrible things happening to fellow human beings in the Mideast, it is beyond any justification, whatsoever. This registry system puts lives at risk, by illustrating their pictures and addresses; particularly when other "human beings" use the ruse that it is to protect society, when in fact it does the opposite. All behavior is "learned" from other human beings. This is a human condition. Fact: Maybe, it actually only creates unnecessary jobs and more taxes.
Ostracized Witch
I pay property TAXES. Do NOT want popularity craving politicians saying I cannot enjoy my property.
Timmr
I can surely relate to this story. My son went through the same thing. He was not a victim until I was banished from the house. Then the once likable and a good student became moody, angry and stopped doing his assignments. I blamed myself, but that didn't do any good for him. How can these people know what guilt one carries for the rest of one's life because of that? How can they say we need to be constantly reminded of it--the idiots. What did work was eventually having supervised visits and then overnight stays. My wife was designated my chaperone. His attitude improved immensely.
I don't know how it is done today or how a none adopted son plays into this, but back then they tried to facilitate reunification, unless the spouse wanted a separation. Therapists balanced between being surrogate law enforcement and healers, not an easy thing.
Not knowing how it's done now. I would think finding a sympathetic mental health professional to document the negative effects of the son's loss of contact with his father. Have the professional talk to the PO and suggest some kind of supervised visitation. It's all about the welfare of the children. So we are constantly told by strangers who know nothing or care nothing about how this affects real lives.
Joe
Yeah, you are too dangerous to pick up your kids from school or go to the teacher conference, but some guy gets to legally carry a loaded gun to the choir recital at the school auditorium.
http://www.mlive.com/news/ann-arbor/index.ssf/2015/03/ann_arbor_school_choir_show_tu.html#incart_most-commented_news_article
I sometimes think I am in the wrong movie...
Cheryl B
My husband and I have been trying to help a man with a family who is registered 290. He can't even live with his family because he never formally adopted his stepson who he has raised since he was 6. Now his son is 13, needs his father and not only isn't allowed to live with them - but he also cannot see him, talk to him on the phone, write him a letter, but him a gift, or even have a third party give him a message!!!!! His son is at a tender age where he needs his dad and is beyond heartbroken. He doesn't understand. He's acting out at school. Everything children would do when they are being abused - - but the abuse is coming via the STATE OF CALIFORNIA and his parole officer. Isn't that that horrible?! I just told him that Jessica's Law has been overturned so maybe now he can find a job. His PO "fired" him from his job in the Dollar Store two weeks ago because of proximity to children. Two days, I guess because of this law being overturned, the PO called and said he could go back to his job. He went in and they said, too bad - we already hired a replacement. Even with the law overturned he will still be living in his car in a Denny's parking lot where he has to be by 9:00 every night because he can't go home for 5 more years. His life is a living hell. They have a new baby girl and when he babysits her for his wife to work at Taco Bell, he has to sit in his car with her. Inhumane! I don't know if you have any ideas of what can be done for James, but if so, let me know. He paid his debt for a one-time offense and deserves to live his life in peace with his family. Do you know if he can go into a church?
sadandmad
what really ticks me off, is that Jessicas law is for CHILD MOLESTERS, not EVERY AND ALL person convicted of a 290.
i had sex with my minor girlfriend with a 3-4 year age difference. parole conditions are supposed to be RELEVANT to the crime committed. parole tells me i cant go to a park because "minor females MIGHT be there"
well NO SH!T. minor females are everywhere.
Michael
You know, I've heard George Runner on about 3 radio shows now and each time he has admitted that "there is nothing magical about 2000 feet" & "We only picked it because that stood up to court challenges in other states".
So, you see, by his own admissions, the court was right when they said Jessica's law is an arbitrary and irrational ( "no rational relationship to...", is what the court said) law in that regard.
I intend to point that out in future online news articles or editorials on the subject.
The other fear mongering thing he likes to say is that, even now, because of this ruling, "some sex predator my be taking out a leas on a residence across from a school".
Really? well, what I also intend to point out, as the opportunity arises, is.
1) Of all the schools out there, how many have residences across the street from the that are for rent?
2) If a RC does rent one of those few places, how do you know it will be a SVP?
Maybe it will be a 40 or 50-someting year old guy who, when he was 19, was having sex with his 16 year old GF. her parents found out; called the cops; and that's all she wrote. But now he has a family, and kids of his own. Been in no trouble since and is, generally, consider an asset to those that know him.
So when you same all the "perverted SOs on the registry need to be hung up by their balls" and /or need & deserve their ongoing punishment of these residency and presence restrictions, and don't deserve a moments happiness for the rest of their lives (all being comments I have read in the comments section of online articles/editorials) Do you really mean THAT guy too?
Do you really believe that someone like that is a threat to your little boy or girl?
3) And these day, with the few clicks of the mouse, everyone can be their own private detective. So if the home owner runs a background on the guy, there is a good chance he wont rent to him in the first place.
So I would say all that pretty much cuts down on the number of sex offenders, now scrambling over each other, to run and rent houses across from schools from which the can have a base to work evil on the kids that go to that particular school.
There is NO WAY, these people can spend 5 seconds thinking about some of their statements or positions on this matter, or they would realize =just how foolish they sound/are.
Of course, the other, more likely, thing is that they are just big liars and are conservatives stepping on sex offenders because it is no longer fashionable to do so to homosexuals.
sadandmad
here's the other thing. since my conviction, i have moved on. i got a place, was working 3 jobs, got married, had a child, was doing great.
then i get a violation of probation completely unrelated to a sex crime, go to prison for my previous sex crimes, now have all these conditions. one if which is the stupid sex offender "treatment" class. look, ive moved on, i dont need to sit in a class and listen to someone tell me i was wrong, and im scum. in 38 other states, the age of consent is 16, and most guys after getting out of high school still date and have sex with their girlfriends, but NEVER get caught.
Paul
The one big takeaway from all this is that, once again, the Supreme Court has reiterated its opinion that registration, and all that goes along with it, is nothing more than “regulatory” in nature, and not punitive. Tell that to those of us who live this hell every day!
Unfortunately, they did send a strong signal that they are not willing to reevaluate its position despite all that has changed since 2003: from presence restrictions, to residency restrictions; lifetime GPS monitoring, to “civil commitment”. The transition from being nothing more than an annual update, to where we are today, is worrisome, and the fact that the Supreme Court is blind to this is ridiculous. To make matters worse, we must live with the annual “let’s win votes by attacking sex offenders” event! It seems as though each year, someone in Sacramento comes up with a new and clever way to “regulate” us and, as registered citizens, this brings about a new array of rules and regulations.
How is this NOT punishment? Take, for example, an average weeklong trip. Before any one of us ever leaves, we must:
1) Be familiar with the registration laws of the state(s) that we are traveling to.
2) Be familiar with any ordinances in any county that we plan on being in.
3) Be familiar with any municipal codes, for any city, we plan on being in.
As a non-attorney, every single one of us is required to research mountains of law to ensure that we don’t stray too close to a park (500 feet in some cities, 1,000 feet in others); that we understand what actually constitutes a park (does a playground at McDonald’s count? What about a bus stop?); that our hotel is in compliance (god forbid a bored police officer stop in to check the hotel guest log!). The list goes on and on and, in the end, makes even weekend travel simply not worth it! Why would I risk a possible felony to spend the weekend somewhere? And THIS counts as nothing more than signing up for a Sam’s Club membership? Only to an idiot, I suppose!
In the end, the issue of registration is clearly “not ripe” for another challenge. And THAT is what is sad this week.
sadandmad
I agree Marie,
all this, makes being a parent impossible! it's absolutely absurd.
this supervision doesn't work, why don't they get that??
and anytime one person does something huge, they make a giant law to affect the rest of us.
Marie
I'll be a plaintiff.
I'm a mom who's crime was 18 years ago when I was 18.
Had I known then (registry was on paper, you had to go to each town to view it) what the registry would become I'd have done much differently.
How could I know that in my state now 18 years later I wouldn't be able to: take my kids to the zoo, library, mcdonalds, on a hike , to a beach or the fireworks on the 4th of July. I can't watch their Christmas concert or tball games. When they get sick at school and need me I have to get written permission by the superintendent to pick them up (state law). How can I be a mom?
Tell the SC that is like a membership to Costco. Tell my kids that.
In my state I'm off the registry but all the above restrictions apply. For life. To everyone ever convicted.
The tiers are great but the state restrictions stink. I'd rather be on the public list in a state that allows me to fully participate in my kids' education.
Lance Mitaro
There is many that are dealing with the opposite; whereas the judge determined non-registry status at time of sentencing, but the state DA will not honor the request and summarily they have to register under a compliance or prison ultimatum. I'm willing to hazard a guess and say 35% of those on the registry have non-contact, no victim offenses. Insanity.
Janice Bellucci
Thank you, Mike, for agreeing to serve as a plaintiff. The fact is we need to overturn the U.S. Supreme Court decision issued in 2003 which ruled that registration is not punishment. During oral argument, in fact, they said it was like applying for membership at Price Club! In order to challenge that U.S. Supreme Court decision, we need more than a plaintiff. We have to ask the Court needs to agree to allow a new case with new facts to be heard. There are a few cases recently decided by state supreme courts, not ours, that are working their way in that direction. We are assisting them.
mike
http://www.meyersnave.com/publications/california-supreme-court-rules-sex-offender-residency-restrictions
This is a good interpretation of the decisions.
sadandmad
this is nice, for San Diegoans. what about me?
why is it that on PROBATION, i can live next to a school and park, but if i go to prison for the same charges, now i'm treated like scum and have so many restrictions.
2000 ft, gps, AND a curfew?! thats too much!
and how is this for "police surveillance"? it doesn't prevent me from re-offending if i really wanted to (i dont, im just saying this "supervision" is easy to get around)
so i can't live at my moms, because the elementary, middle and high school i went to, plus 4 parks are all within 2000 ft. and whats with the 2000 ft being "as a crow flies"? im not an frickin crow, i'm a human!
i will be donating to this site as soon as i can, and often!
thank you for fighting for my rights, and realizing that restrictions should be case by case!
steve
I am pretty sure the same argument in Doe vs Harris was cruel and unusual punishment, but i do recall a remark I read after the opinion that the justices left it open to challenge again. Can't remember where I read it but it seems you are correct another avenue will need to be pursued. With so many studies coming out now and saying registration is counter-productive, the regulatory scheme seems invalid.
mike
Great input timmer and Molly this is what this site needs intelligent minds contributing their thoughts and input to come up with practical effective measures to fight these lunatic legislators. You know after fully digesting the decisions made by the court both of their ruling make perfect sense. The court made it perfectly clear that there is no chance that any of these laws are ever going to be considered punishment so any challenges on ex post facto or cruel and unusual punishment will never prevail. The court have giving us three wins in just the last year the internet indentifiers the presence restrictions now the residence restrictions for parolees. Now with the Taylor case they have giving us grounds and precedent to continue to challenge registration as a whole and any other law the legislators pass. The key point and main challenge to registration and residency restrictions or presence restrictions is that all of it serves no legitimate legislative purpose because they fail to reduce crime or prevent recidivism in any way. No matter how much political rhetoric or mass media hype is used it cannot refute all the evidence based facts created in the csomb year end report or all the credible studies performed and documented by professional institutions across the US and the findings and conclusions by the supreme court in Taylor that none of these laws reduce crime or prevent crime or increase public saftey and in fact they all increase recidivism and hamper law enforcement with a overburdened registry that infringe on our liberties and privacy rights while they are actually counter productive to the legislative intent. And the blanket enforcement of these laws violate our right to be free of unreasonable arbitrary and oppressive official action. I really hope rsol or anyone else that tries to challenge any of these laws in the future realize these are the only issues that will prevail in our state. Rsol did a great job with using the pre emption clause in the presence restrictions ordinances a.d the ACLU or who ever argued the free speech clause in the internet disclosure case but moving forward I strongly believe that what I stated above is the only way we will ever prevail in this state.
mike t
Straight from the: U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) website
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-211
-----------------------------------------------------
The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) is statutorily required to study SORNA's effectiveness in increasing compliance with requirements and the effect of these requirements on increasing public safety. As of December 2012, DOJ had not requested the funding to conduct this study and the funding had not been appropriated. NIJ officials stated that NIJ does not proactively request funding for specific studies, but waits for Congress to decide when to appropriate the funding. Neither DOJ nor the Administrative Office of the United States Courts provided written comments on this report.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Congress is sitting on their hands. I've heard it said "The opposite of progress is congress." Coming up on 9 years since the passage of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006, We, as a nation, have wasted too much time and resources trying to implement a clearly flawed piece of legislation. As of today barely 1/3 of the states have met the minimum requirements according to the SMART(?) office. Nevada is fiercely backpedaling to get out of it. Why has our government refused to do an ethical analysis of this program? It is a testament to popularity vs. integrity. It will take a politician with real grit to reveal "The Emperors New Clothes" and I would be happy to explain to Mr. Walsh that this is NOT America's Most Wanted law.
G4Change
John and Ken and KFI in general are in a ratings downward spiral. They thought they could bully any group they didn't like. First they went after registered citizens because, well, they (we) are an easy group to go after. Eventually they went after this group and that group until they were stupid enough to go after Hispanics a few years ago. Kinda stupid in a city like Los Angeles. Since then, KFI's ratings have been slipping - and fast. J & K are still around because they still have enough FemiNazi soccer moms driving minivans and SUVs to keep their advertisers somewhat happy.
I think if enough of us went after J & K's advertisers - specifically tell those advertisers that we (as listeners who are tired of on-air bullying) are going to boycott their products because they support bigots, then action might be taken. Off with the gloves. Let's fight fire with fire!!! Enough is enough!!!
Molly
Just a thought but California’s 1994 law was passed to “Unencumber law enforcement officers from restrictions that prevent them, even for public safety or investigative purposes, from revealing that certain persons are registered sex offenders” and while there was some discussion in 1996 about the law being necessary to help law enforcement that language didn’t make it into the legislative findings. As far as I can tell there was no reference at all in the 2006 bill analysis regarding law enforcement’s need for registrant’s information so extrapolating the only reason over 100,000 people are forced to register every year under threat of incarceration is to protect public safety because (and I am quoting) “Sex offenders pose a potentially high risk of committing further sex offenses after release from incarceration or commitment, and the protection of the public from reoffending by these offenders is a paramount public interest.” In 2013 the department of corrections reported a total of 111 registrants were re-arrested for a new sex offense, 111 out of 100,000 is 0.11100000000000001%...
Nicholas Maietta
Janice, my company is about to release our flagship software solution as open source, so that people can benefit from the project because i cannot find the time to develop it further, thanks to my being forced into defending myself and others by working on projects related to the sex offender laws reform movement. I'm hoping to find ways to make a little money here and there while doing this. I do have some ideas, but they will take time to develop. Anyway, because i'm like many others trying to find out solid answers to many scattered questions.
I live in a manufactured home community with a community swimming pool, club house, day park for kids, soccer field, swing set area and a basketball court. When the law first passed, those were initially considered red zones. But parole changed that later....
Do we know what is okay to live near and what is not? That could save me from homelessness.
NPS
I, too, was ordered to register by a judge without providing any reasons for the findings nor reasons for requiring registration (pursuant to 290.006) other than because he could. Count me in with the class action.
Timmr
There is a constitutional argument out there that places equal emphasis on the word "cruel" and "unusual" and that the article only makes sense when the concept of "unusual" applies to punishment laws that don't have a long history of trial and error in the common law. Cruel and unusual means cruelly innovative. There is nothing more innovative than registering a large group of individuals and then legislatively applying restrictions based on a perceived dangerousness that somehow applies, without regard to individual differences within the registered population. Our forefathers must have been keenly aware of how the sovereigns in Europe enacted several innovative laws against declared enemies within the state to please the masses and to amass their own political fortunes. Many of those enemies built this country to be free of these punishments that were arbitrary and had no precedent in the evolving common law. I said registration has no long standing precedence, but segregation and public shaming, other names for it does. From the Indian Removal Act of 1830 to the Japanese Internment of the 40's to the sundown laws of the 50's and 60's, this country has tried and failed to permanently dispossess people of their rights and property. All were eventually declared unconstitutional, after first being sanctioned by the high courts. Wholesale registration will in turn be declared unconstitutional, but when, who knows.
longlive
I was ordered by the judge to register even tho my conviction didnt require it.. I to would join a class action.
Q
I've said it before and I'll say it again; These are not honorable people (with the exception of Justice Liu ) on the Calif supreme court, and the same goes for the federal supreme court. They don't want to acknowledge the truth and prefer to keep the lie alive. They lie by omission and just plain pretending like the truth doesn't exist.
Ephesians 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
Psalm 101:7 He that worketh deceit shall not dwell within my house: he that telleth lies shall not tarry in my sight.
anonymously
pam said "... and the “states rights/sovereignty argument has been a conservative, and today Republican, argument throughout our country’s history."
That's true, until the Medical Marijuana issue came about.
Hookscar
Count me in if there is a class action.
mike
I guess its still just called megans law in CA so replace sorna with megans law.
mike
http://press.uchicago.edu/pressReleases/2011/August/JLE_1108_SexOffenders.html
Here's another example if the ineffective registration laws. Like I said there are many studies and reports that prove registration and especially public notification has no positive effect on public saftey and is actually counterproductive and are arbitrary.
mike
I realize CA didn't except sorna and has their own legislation on registration I'm not even sure what its named in CA but I just used the term sorna as a reference to registration as a whole whatever legislative name they give it.
pam
I thought the court's arguments in Moseley were weak, and the "Ice" case seemed to be something they pulled out of their ---, as it really doesn't fly when you think about it. Also, the court didn't address any of the problems with AB109, Prop 47,etc., which., since 2012, certainly make being on the registry extremely punitive than just residency restrictions alone. Also, as a historian, the statement, "Sentencing choices such as sex offender residency restrictions are devices developed by the sovereign states in more modern times [than the time when the Constitution was framed in 1789] that were not historically entrusted to juries. A requirement that juries must always authorize them would often interfere with their intended and effective implementation." Is there anyone out there, other than Moseley and my husband, who were not convicted of crimes that mandate registration, yet were sentenced by the judge to register??? Did you notice this statement? To say that if juries must authorize the sentence it would not be implemented "effectively" is a big NO KIDDING in my book! No jury would sentence someone to register who they did not convicted of a sex crime, and the "states rights/sovereignty argument has been a conservative, and today Republican, argument throughout our country's history. I am not surprised, as the Chief Justice is a Republican who is married to a cop. And so the triad continues: prosecutors, judges, and cops against the accused. Some "justice" system. :-(
mike
http://www.politifact.com/ohio/statements/2013/apr/22/ohio-public-defenders-office/ohio-public-defenders-office-says-sex-offender-reg/
This is just one of hundreds of sites with reports and studies that show that registration or at minimal public notification has no effect on sexual offense and in fact is counter productive.
Eric Knight
John and Ken are scaremongers. I don't call the call-in line; I call their producer up. They refuse to have Janice Bellucci on the show to discuss sex offender issues, instead only going to their pet scaremongers.
This means they are scared of rational discourse.
Eric Knight
Keep in mind that if a law was proposed that registered citizens had to walk around with a live chicken on their head, 70% of the voters would vote yes.
This is why criminal laws cannot be properly vetted through the intiative process. Only financial and tax laws are constitutionally viable for such votes, while the legislature is "supposed" to filter lawmaking edicts through Constitutional scrutiny BEFORE enactment.
In either case, though, irrationality rules to a certain degree.
mike
We need a boiler plate motion for injunction and declaratory relief based on the grounds mentioned above with all the relative facts data reports and case law included that all rso can just fill in their own personal info and then file independently in the superior courts across CA. If you and staff created such a motion and sent it to me via email I would gladly take and file it with the Sacramento superior court as a pro se plaintiff or with you as my counsel. I really beleive that the court would have no choice but to grant such relief if the facts and data proving that sorna has no meaningful or measurable effect on reducing or preventing crime is included in the motion. It can't lose. These justices are unanimous on this issue and that's rare enough to get a unanimous decision on anything in the supreme court. I know we can get at least a majority decision on these grounds and even possible a unanimous decision on this issue out of the courts. This is really a incredibe opportunity for rso to finally have a chance to actually get registration overturned all the way up to the federal level. I really hope that the aclu rsol and other civil rights defenders take the Taylor ruling and run with it all the way to the top. SCOTUS.
Lance Mitaro
You're exactly right on all counts. In my opinion.. Megan's Law is just apologencia legislation for negligent parenting (a safety net of sorts). All this comes under the heading of "I don't want another mother to go through this.." predictable victimology rhetoric in an blatant attempt to purge and lessen the weight of their guilt. Society is forced to subsidize their failures and lack of personal responsibility and all the complexities of being a responsible parent. They feel as though society and the world owes them, when truth be told, nobody on this planet is guaranteed a tomorrow.
The imposition Megan's Law creates is unparalleled both in terms of arrogance and entitlement.
The efforts to systematically dismantle this draconian apparatus will be fought every step of the way by the child safety pacifists and those that continue to profit from fear. The uphill battle with be worth it as well continue to fight it on all fronts.
The best way to kill a tree is not to prune it, but cut it off even with the ground, then dig out the roots. This will only be accomplished by attacking the Smith vs. Doe case law.
mike
The only other regulatory laws that regulate ex felons are really the gun control act now in that measure there is clear evidence that it reduces crime and even prevents crime as it helps keep guns out of ex offenders hands with sorna there is no rational connection between the registry and crime reduction or prevention
mike
I posted about a month or so ago that these laws all of them including sorna itself needs to be challenged on the grounds that none of them serve a legitimate legislative purpose as they have no measurable effect in reducing recidivism or increasing public saftey while infringing on the liberties and rights of very large number of free citizens. Now with these decisions in mosley and Taylor we know exactly what the opinion of the justices are when it comes to ex post facto and registration. These justices are adamant that there opinion is that registration is not and will not ever be considered punishment in there opinion no matter how harsh it becomes. They made that quite obvious in the mosley case and I don't beleive challenges on ex post facto grounds will ever prevail. So we need to focus on other ways to get sorna overturned and low and behold the court just showed us exactly how we do that in Taylor ... Sorna as a whole us unconstitutional because it is arbitrary unreasonable oppressive official action that infringes on the liberties and privacy rights of tens of thousands of people while actually decreasing public saftey by encouraging vigilante attacks on free citizens andit their family members.The legislative intent may have been to increase public saftey and prevent reoffense sorna has proven to be a unsuccessful and counter productive measure as study after study has proven that it has no measurable effect in reducing crime in any way. When a legislative measure infringes in the liberties and a number of other rights of citizens then it doesnt matter if the intent was regulatory or not the law has to undergoes strict constitutional scrutiny and must be proving to increase public saftey and prevent crime in a measurable meaningful way. Sorna simply does not pass constitutional scrutiny and has proven to be counter productive to the legislative intent therefore it is unreasonable arbitrary oppressive official action that severely infringes on the liberty and privacy rights of tens of thousands of CA citizens and must be repealed.
The justices practically created a boiler plate motion in Taylor that can be used to overturn sorna.
What do you think about my opinion Janice I am a willing plaintiff or I imaging this could possibly be a class action.
Harry
The Runner's are a danger to society because they are crazy. They need to be lock up for everyone's protection.
anonymously
Above, I meant to write.....
The pro-prop 83 people and those who view the constitution from a living constitutionalist viewpoint who often also have a prosecutorial focus on catching criminals and making for a safer society, should see this decision as a good thing, since not only are residency restrictions counter-productive in acheiving a safer society due to the counter-productiveness of creating homelessness, but also this decision was wise because the criminals to be caught are 98% non-registrants, and create a counter-productive false sense of security by imposing harsh restrictions on registrants residency.
anonymously
Thank you, Janice. Thank you, Frank. Thank you, Chance. I see this as a great step forward, as it seemed at one point all hope was gone. These draconian laws wouldn't exist in the first place if they were viewed in the eyes of a constitutional originalist, since the constitution doesn't mention a SOR or anything similarly draconian. As for the living constitutionalists, who interpret the constitution as time progresses with unforseen issues presenting themselves, a lot of them view the constitution from a prosecutorial viewpoint, where they are concerned with catching criminals, and even they cannot honestly argue with this ruling since prop 83 residency restrictions led to counter-productive consequences. The remaining unamerican traitors like the Runners who would oppose this wise decision are too biased by their own guilt in creating these harsh measures in the first place and why would they ever quit trying to scapegoat registrants when they have mastered using it as a political and enriching tool for their personal success? I saw one comment on one of the pro-Runners sites and it said this decision was judicial activism, which is a joke since it was the same court who decided Doe V Harris. If these unamerican traitors like the Runners and Bill Brough don't like a country with a constitution or even don't like countries that interpret the law by Case law/precedent, then they might prefer living in a country that just goes by whatever the statute says written by whatever usually-hypocritical tough-on-crime lunatic writes it into law, such as most third world countries do.
These residency restrictions are so draconian. How can anyone rationally now argue for presence restrictions when registrants, wihout a court order otherwise, can now live in places that presence restrictions forbid? That makes no sense. Presence restrictions are especially harsh for someone who has to go the bathroom while travelling and might need to use a fastfood place, which seem to be the only consistent places that provide restrooms for someone not close to their own home. Truck drivers, bus drivers, delivery drivers, all types of workers use fastfood bathrooms to get through the day on their jobs. Presence restrictions hurt gainful employment of ex-offenders by barring them from these places and making delivery jobs basically impossible, and are, just like residency restictions, counter-productive.
Michael
I heard Runner on KFI 640's John & Ken show yesterday (Tue. 3/3/15) and, as the other comment said, he didn't sound a bit reasonable.
He still talked like everyone on the registry was an uncontrollable, wild eyed, salivating stranger child molester and/or rapist. And clearly implied that if one of "them" lived across the street from a school, they'd be running out once in the morning and twice in the afternoon to snatch kids and drag them inside to have their way with them.
He also called the court's action "judicial activism".
Never mind that the court looked at the FACTS and EVIDENCE in this matter and determined, as we all knew, the restrictions to be *"arbitrary" and with *"NO RATIONAL RELATIONSHIP" to their stated goal of actually protecting children.
(* Which are two phrases I point out in my responses to some of those online newspaper comments/articles that call for ALL RCs to be hung from the highest yard arm)
But, as I've always said, the people who make these laws obviously in no way allow FACTS and EVEDENCE to influence their opinions and decisions in these matters.
Thankfully, while not perfect, the court holds itself to a tad higher standard.
Forsaken
i'm curious to know this as well. I knew he'd suspended enforcement of it, but the cities all seem to have their own rules anyway. West Covina, Covina, La Puente, Pomona, and Baldwin Park (in my immediate vicinity) all have ordinances for 2000ft from various places. Baldwin Park included bus stops, so when I moved from there after parole, the detective warned me I could never move back. They'd made certain nowhere in the city was available.
With Espinosa's ruling long ago, and the Courts' invalidation of ordinances that supersede state law, are these all obsolete?
mike
Thank you Janice and staff you give me and I'm sure a lot of other people hope that our liberty may someday be restored.
Forsaken
i just listened to the recording. I'm slightly confused; Runner didn't seem more reasonable. He's still fear-monger ing about rapists living next to schools and vows to fix it. I am, however, surprised with how many positive opinions were on the air. Hopefully the tide is turning, and we can get laws that better handle those who need to be watched, and reintegrate-and-forget the ones who can remain upstanding -- albeit registered -- citizens.
LS
I’m wondering if anyone knows what effect (if any) yesterdays ruling for San Diego County had/has on Judge Peter Espinosas ruling for Los Angeles County whereby he suspended the 2000ft rule part, of Jessicas Law. Since yesterdays ruling said nothing about Los Angeles County, is this still in effect?
Bruce Ferrell
KQED ran a call in on this... And the people on the show were much more favorable than we might imaging, including Tom Tobin of CASOMB and George Runner.
http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201503030930
Janice Bellucci
The board of directors will meet later this week to discuss a plan of action. We will reveal that plan at a later and more appropriate time.
worried
OK can some help me with this? Since the 4 individuals that won their case regarding residence restriction in San Diego... Does this mean once they are off parole, they would be forced to comply with residency restrictions because they are no longer on parole? If this only applies to paroled individuals, what happens after their parole? It seems to me that they can live anywhere they like in San Diego as long as they are on parole. But the second they get off parole they are going to be restricted as to where they can live. There would be no incentive to getting off parole if they can't live anywhere after. Can someone please help me understand this???
mike
For a law that had over a 70% approval there sure isn't much being said by any authorities in opposition of the courts decision. You would think if it was such a bad decision that all kinds of organizations would be complaining left and right about this decision. Ie. DA police parole ect. Nothing frim none of them. The only people saying anything in opposition is this deranged antiamerican traitor runner and wife.
mike
Janice do you plan on filing any lawsuits in the near future challenging any of the cities that have residency restrictions in any of their ordinances? I'm just curious if rsol has any plan of action after this decision.
USA
Well, I personally think this is great news. Was this ruling secondary to a Federal a Court Decision? I can maybe understand how someone on parole or formal probation be prohibited from certain things ie: alcohol use/drugs ect, but being prohibited from living in certain areas or visiting a library is a whole other matter. I've volunteered in the past for Prison Ministries and many of those released to a half way house could leave during the day and attend school and take buses to reach their destination. So, what if a school bus stop was near a regular bus stop? Or, what if a Parole was attending college and needed to visit a library in order to conduct research? I honestly could have attended a University in order to obtain an MBA, yet wasn't even aware that I was required to register at the school. Plus, I was honestly unaware that this city had other registering requirements. As already noted, elected officials are making it increasingly difficult for registered citizens to function, but yet tend to forget the less than 2 percent recidivism rate. It honestly makes no sense. Gang members with multiple convictions, drug dealers, prostitutes, convicted murderers and even individuals with multiple DUI's that have resulted in bodily harm have more rights. Yet, for some guy with an expunged battery/summary probation 20 years back is finding it harder and harder to function? I can only imagine how those of you with convictions remaining must feel!
Janice Bellucci
Each County Superior Court will have to determine the applicability of the Taylor case to their county. For counties where there is a dense population it should be an easy decision. For other counties, it may not be so easy especially when the county is populated by supporters of George and Sharon Runner.
Cool CA RC
It is a great feeling seeing CRSOL helping others.
Michael Short
Having been paroled from Texas and extradicted to California to finish 16 days of a prior sentence, I have been living with my son in a nice room off the rear of the garage for 6 months with full family support...even thought L.A.P.D. shows up once a month in 3 to 4 squad cars to do a compliance check, and my probation officer also comes to my room once a month. Now, after 6 months with no complaints from anyone, I am told I have to move out because I am 1000 feet from a school on another block. Children do not even walk down our street. It seem that the Interstate Compact office refuses to approve my address even though the probation office did so. Now, with this ruling I am scrambling to find somewhere to live. This housing restriction should be on a case-by-case basis and should be rooted in the conviction or conduct of the person AND be done so by the Judge in the case as part of the sentence. Let every one of these law makers have to register and have housing restrictions as part of their due dilligence and then say whether or not these constitutes punishment. They also said Water Boarding was not punishment until a U.S. Congressman allowed himself to be Water Boarded...for 3 seconds before declaring it TORTURE! Well, they are torturing me...are they trying to make us fail and re-offend?? Is that the goal??
Mosley&Taylor
Michael: Who decides "the practical effect"? Who's the arbitrator? Your friendly DA? The local Sheriff? Orange County? Can you afford the time and expense of a court proceeding? Will you be allowed to annually register while you contest the issue?
We could look to the Supreme court for answers. Oh wait...
See the problem.
steve
Extremely mad to hear your circumstances. I congratulate you though on not giving up where most, including the politicians who put us thru this, could not.
I look forward to the day when our "judges" (legislators )will face this;
"Do not judge so that you will not be judged. 2"For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you. 3"Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?"
Michael
While the justices, basically, SAID that their ruling only applied to SD county, isn't the practical effect that it will apply to other counties as well, with lower courts, in future cases, looking to it for guidance?
Nicholas Maietta
Yes Janice, my blood is boiling and i am now looking at how i may sue the State. Remember, i was sentenced to 3 years parole after serving 2.5 years in prison. I was allowed to move the house i had before i went into prison, even though Jessica's Law kicked in only within a week or so of being release i had parole agents come to my hope tell me i had 14 days to move. The only place i found to live was 17 miles away from town. After moving, i found myself the target of a cop moving in right next door to me, then to become fitted with a bracelet. His actions placed me back into homelessness for the second time in my life. Then my new place i found, well, that got burned down by an arsonist targeting me directly.
So for 3 1/2 months after that, i was homeless, sleeping in my car with last of my belongings in tow. Eventually, i found a place to live for free, off grid.. but with no access to power, water, telephone, etc. So i slowly rounded up the money to by the motorhome to park on the land. It was 13 miles outside town. I was also forced to go into town daily to ensure the GPS bracelet "seen" by cell towers, as they used AT&T service that doesn't work there.
The whole time this happened, all my friends and family couldn't understand why i couldn't just stay with them. They all offered a room or at least a spot on the floor if i wanted. That was really all i needed. Just a place to go to. Had plenty, but all were off limits.
I was a role model parole. Never got into trouble and complied with 100% of there orders, often it was a miracle that i could comply, as life is tough when they keep throwing hurdles at you and tell you to run. The kicker came when i was just about off parole and was absolutely looking forward to getting married to my now then ex-fiance, only to by told by parole that they are forcing me to do 2 more years. I wanted to sue then. I tried to file a 602, but it went no where. My ex-fiance decided 2 more years was just too hard and i fully agreed. After all, we'd been together for 2 years after prison, we'd been together before prison as well, where i caught a probation violation for continuing a relationship with her "because she looked young". It was my "treatment program" that did me in. She was 25, and i still have here letter and a photocopy of her ID we tried to give to the courts to prove she was an adult.
Just on the blanket application of Jessica's Law alone, even though my conviction was in 2000, i went through absolute hell. I lost homes, opportunities and even my chance to become a married family man to the woman i loved. All because of what?
I'm extremely angry, you can count me in for a damn good fight. I'm looking at doing this on my own if i can't get some help with it. I would rather have legal council and guidance through the process, as i know it's not fun.
MS
I do not think so. I believe that the majority of Parole and Probation Officers that are assigned to supervising RSO understand the problems and are sympathetic to those under their supervision with regards to housing. Their job is to enforce the law. By allowing RSO being supervised under them to have housing will make their job a little easier. Add this to each RSO on Parole is wearing an GPS monitor anyway. The alert is sounded if they are in violation as in an area they are not suppose to be. What possible reason could it matter where they reside? Law Enforcement knows this. Frankly in my humble opinion they will welcome this decision regarding Jessica's Law.
sixcrowes
What a nightmare. Basically it is going to come down to Probation and Parole making a decision on their probationers and parolees. Like that isn't a nightmare already!
David
I think the 22-page dissenting opinion by Justices Liu and Werdegar on "Mosley" gives reason to be optimistic about future CA Supreme Court decisions.
Roldan
THE JUSTICES KNOW IT'S PUNISHMENT AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL THEY ARE IN DENIAL AND DON'T WANT TO ADMIT IT TO THEMSELVES THAT A GROSS INJUSTICE IS BEING DONE TO US AND THEY TOO ARE CRONNIES OF THAT INJUSTICE. BEWARE! IF WE SAY TOO MUCH AND EXPOSE THE WRONGS THEY DO WE WILL PROBABLY BE ON THEIR LIST TO WASH US UP FOR GOOD! CAUSE WE'RE MONEY IN THEIR POCKETS AND REMEMEBER THE PUNISHMENT AND LAWS DOESN'T APPLLY TO THEM AND THEIR REPUBLICAN FREINDS. OFFICER HAYES OF SAN DIEGO WAS CONVICTED FOR GROPPING FOUR WOMEN AND ONLY WAS GIVEN ONE YEAR AND WAS LET OUT EARLY. IF IT WERE A LATINO OR A BLACK MAN HE'D AT LEAST GOTTEN 15 YEARS OR MORE. AND HOW COPS CAN KILL SOMEONE BY LYING SAYING HE FEARS FOR HIS LIFE AND WON'T EVEN GO TO JAIL LIKE EVERYONE ELSE WHO KILLS SOMEBODY AND STAYS IN JAIL UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY SO MUCH FOR EQUAL JUSTICE FOR ALL ! BUT I'M NOT GOING TO STAY QUIET I'M GOING TO KEEP EXPOSING THEM FOR WHO THEY REALLY ARE BEHIND THOSE SUITS, SHIRTS AND TIES AND UNIFORMS AND ROBES. I AM NOT A SEX OFFENDER I'VE PAID MY DEBT FOR WHAT I'VE DONE ! AN EX SEX OFFENDER YES BUT NOT A SEX OFFENDER ! IT'S INTERESTING TO HEAR AND SEE ON THE NEWS HOW MANY LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS ARE BEING ARRESTED FOR SEX CRIMES AND NOT TO FORGET TO MENTION HOW CURRUPTED AND PERVERTED THE MAJORITY OF OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS ARE!
Tired of hiding
I could not agree with you more. The battle is lost before it is has begun because of the very nature as you say. Children - logic goes right out the window and the sheeple all follow the politician who is the toughest on perverts who are lurking everywhere!
Especially the ones already caught! Better the enemy we know...so watch them! Restrict where they can go so they can't get little Bobby or Judy!
Game over
MM
Thank you Chris ... RML doesn't go on the site ... I share. It'll mean the world to him ...
A
It would appear, and this is just my humble opinion, that these decisions are the result of pure cowardice and zero integrity. This was not a complex case. We have a constitution people! It's there to protect all of us. The most amazing opportunity was right in their grasp! They had the chance of a lifetime to save thousands of people from hardships. They Blew It! No matter what words they used to smear the truth, they blew it.
Another very sad day for clear consciences. My heart goes out to everyone who has to struggle so unnecessarily.
Mosley&Taylor
Anon: Werdegar is still on the court and Liu's views are one of the more consistent and well balance justices on the Cal bench in terms of registrant's constitutional rights, all things considered.
With all the uncertainties of the decisions today, one item is clear: The Baxter reign officially ends.
Anonymous Nobody
1)No,not most. Only some. It will remain to be seen just how many after case by case reviews, presuming the county decided to proceed with those. and this review does not have to prove anything, simply needs to raise questions.
2) You can have the residency restrictions. They did not say the restrictions are illegal, only how it was decided who should be subjected to them was unconstitutional.
3) Nope. In fact, the one decision specifically says they are not a penalty, not punishment.
4) No, the AG has no special power to interpret the courts. It is the other way around. In fact, the AG has a special office that spends all its time figuring out how to crack down on registrants more and more. If you seek a clarification from them, I can tell you how they will want to interpret it -- so good thing they don't have any special power to interpret the courts. Janice has as much legal power as the AG's office when it comes to interpreting the courts.
Eric Knight
I hate to say it, but sounds like the assenting justices phoned this one in, and let their law clerks write the opinions. The problem is that the offenses surrounding the plaintiffs were heavily scrutinized, even those that didn't bring charges, and probably affected the overall tone maintaining the regulatory scheme.
Unfortunately, the relative offense of the plaintiff can offset, and critically damage, the Constitutional freedoms that registered citizens have. It looks as if this battle will have to be fought in the future head-on, and only Janice, Chance, and company have the background and competency to ensure that all the issues are covered properly.
At *LEAST* the justices didn't throw everything out, but just punted, so there IS a fighting chance down the pike.
Anonymous Nobody
But maybe it will apply to 90% of them, and be retroactive too.
mike
If it can’t be applied to all rso parolees then it obvious can’t be applied to all rso. I would think it would be a violation of the equal protection clause if they applied it to someone not on parole for certain offence but didn't apply it to someone on parole for the same offence.
Anonymous Nobody
What was unconstitutional was how they applied the requirement, by blanket policy, not whether residency restrictions themselves are unconstitutional. They said it is unconstitutional to do it by blanket policy rather than case by case.
This might force them later to rule out the residency rules as written, since as written, the law is applied by blanket policy on everyone, not on a case by case basis. But then the legislature, or a ballot initiative, will simply reinstitute them and build yet an even bigger anti-sex offender lobby by having a huge bureaucracy created to review each registrant individually.
That is, the definitive decision went against us. What remains, even if we get it, can be easily worked around by those against us.
Harry
This pocket park thing should be another law suit.
Anonymous Nobody
The did not say it is not retroactive. What they did say is that it is not a penalty.
Anonymous Nobody
And if you do find one far enough away, as soon as they see you move in, they will put in a pocket park at your corner - and say goodbye to you.
Anonymous Nobody
The San Diego case was limited, that's way -- nothing more than what the case was limited to was decided. The part that was unconstitutional was how they applied it automatically to everyone rather than considering each person on their own merits, not whether it was punishment.
In fact, the other case indicated it is not punishment, said it is not an added penalty. And that means they can be applied retroactively. But I wonder if they applied the proper tests - if they discussed it only briefly, I am doubtful they addressed all the required details.
But I will say, it sounds quite illogical to me to say it needs to be considered case by case - if it is not a punishment, which they said in the other case it is not! That strikes me as a huge hole in their logic! If it is not punishment, then how can it matter whether it is issued by blanket policy or case by case?
Janice Bellucci
Righting the wrongs of sex offender laws can be compared to running a marathon. It's not a 100-yard dash. There will be setbacks along the way. We made significant progress in 2014 by challenging city and county ordinances that restricted the PRESENCE of registered citizens in public and private places. Perhaps this year we will do the same with regard to RESIDENCY restrictions. We need to know if residency restrictions apply only to those on parole or to every registered citizens. Justice Liu wrote in his dissent to the Mosley decision that residency restrictions apply to everyone. He also wrote that they are punitive. We also need to know if residency restrictions as applied to individuals who are not on parole and who don't live in San Diego violate the Constitution and are also unreasonable, arbitrary and oppressive action.
Janice Bellucci
My opinion and interpretation regarding the two cases are written in the above entry to Janice's Journal. Please read "article" above.
Anonymous Nobody
I haven't tracked down the opinion itself, but if they ducked the question in the one case, that might actually be to our advantage.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe even the very right wing Marvin Baxter who seems to favor anything and everything against registrants, was part of this decision, even though he no longer is on the court. And who's the other one who was replaced recently, I think it was Werdeger.
We might stand a better chance for a good outcome with the new court makeup, and we certainly can't do worse - although even Liu has turned out to be a disappointment, starting with the Doe v. Harris case. That is, there might have been enough majority to block the decision, pending a case with the new justices deciding it. After all, as Janice points out, of course the matter is ripe for decision now, so that excuse doesn't hold water.
Janice Bellucci
I want to help Chris and others in similar circumstances. Please contact me by E-mail at [email protected].
Mosley&Taylor
Jo: The Supreme Court was explicit by saying: "the statutory question is not ripe for decision." They do not state that "Once off parole or off supervision." restrictions do not and can not apply.
A better statement would be, the AG's office has argued that they interpret the restrictions should only be applied to RSO parolees. We can hopefully and likely assume they will continue in this position. So stating "Once off parole they likely wont enforce restrictions," is, I believe correct and basically similar.
Chris
RML I can identify with you. There is always hope and we can never allow a mistake to define who we are but what we make of ourselves from that point on. Never give up.
forest
Im registering for my annual tommorow. Ill make sure to ask them how this effects people off parole. Also what about people on probation. Ill post my findings here.
James
It seems unfair to ask too much of Janice...she may not know better than any of us...the Law is what the Court say it is....and the Court didn't say much today except that...Parolee's have Constitutional Rights...but maybe not so for regular RSO's. That matter is not yet decided.
At least this is how I read the Mosley and Taylor opinions out today.
This may come as unhappy news because we, as human beings, would like a little certainty and clarity in our lives. And yet it is what it is.
It is better than a adverse ruling...but to be honest here, we are all left hanging, figuratively but also maybe almost literally...imho.
It could be better but it could be worse...and there may not be a hard answer for a while now.
Sorry...but this is what I think.
Lance Mitaro
Fear Dominates Politics, Media and Human Existence in America — And It’s Getting Worse
Unfortunately for SO's, the fear of children's safety is the fuel that POWERS Megan's Law. We might as well be fighting the NRA gun lobby or the tobacco industry..
MM
I am the wife of a registrant. His violation was in 1987, nothing since. We, as many of you are trying to understand what today means to those not on parole in California. Tonight we are still wondering. My husband, who used to write a lot hasn't in a while .... Tonight he did. I wanted to share. Maybe some of you can relate ....
I am your family member, your life partner, your new relationship, your coworker, your neighbor. The person standing in line at the grocery store. I am the stranger sitting next to you on a bus. I am the sadness that lives under a bridge. I am the eagerness that looks for a job.
I am the resident that lives in your area. I am the person that closes my blinds, my curtains, my doors, so I do not see the hatred that you have in your eyes for me. I have made a mistake in my life, I am older and wiser and understanding of what is right and what is wrong. I cannot change time or go back and erase my mistake. I cannot blame the drug or spirits that clouded my judgement. I can only move forward from my past and forever live with the pain that I have caused another. I can only ask for your forgiveness. Please don't cast me away, I have so much to offer, so much to give. I am a person like you. I am your family member, your life partner, your neighbor, a stranger, a human being that has to register for life. I am a cast away. By RML
mike
Janice I'm sure your scrambling to make sense of this ruling any comment you have is highly anticipated in this site. A lot of people have come to depend upon your insight and legal abilities to be able to interpret and articulate these confusing decisions by our courts. No pressure though.....
Chris
Janice I filed a model habeas from the Prison Law Office requesting a stay of this law. Can you help me find legal help. Being homeless and rso I can't afford an attorney. Static 99 assessment score of 0 which parole agent and others have told me this is rare. I have a home to live in but private school is 1200ft. Just want stability to rebuild life and safety for my children. Desperate for help.
mike
Blanket enforcement of residency restrictions against these parolees has … infringed on their liberty and privacy interests, however limited, while bearing no rational relationship to advancing the state’s legitimate goal of protecting children from sexual predators,” Justice Marvin Baxter wrote in an opinion for the court.
The judge added the restrictions violated the plaintiffs’ “basic constitutional right to be free of unreasonable, arbitrary and oppressive official action.”
This has to apply to all rso no reasonable mind could interpret this any other way. What's scary is these politicians have proven there not if reasonable intellect.
Jo
They basically said the parole board can still apply restrictions to parolees if they deem fit. Once off parole they can't enforce restrictions. It's pretty plain.
LS
Janice. Could you please comment on where Los Angeles County now stands today for registered citizens not on parole or probation. Thank you
Harry
Those are same ripe apples I picked of the tree.
http4
The reason they found it is unconstitutional is because it is disruptive to so many individuals without due process. So all the CDOC needs to do is impose those conditions upon everyone as they have been doing, but with a few being exempted so they can demonstrate they aren't actually applying residency restrictions across the board.
Eugene Darden
I agree with Mike, all rso, should be able to live in a house.But if you are a register citizens who keep going in and out of jail, they get treated better then those who is following the law and trying to get off parole.again Janice if you need someone to use to sue the state chose me.
Avig
Allow me to add the following:
1. the Taylor decision eliminates the residence restrictions for most parolees and allows it only for a few.
2. If you don't have such restrictions while you are on parole, how can you have them once you are OFF of parole? To assume that makes nonsense of the law.
3. To me it seems clear: the decisions are based on the idea that once you are off parole, no residency restrictions.
4. Lastly: we should never just assume things. There is probably some functionary in the office of the Attorney General whose job it is to issue clarifications on matters like this. That person should be consulted; getting the matter verified is very important.
Eric Knight
Technically, the state does NOT state through ordinance or otherwise that residence restrictions ONLY apply to those on parole. This court was supposed to clarify residence restrictions as a whole, but apparently they had to wordsmith a decision that basically inferred, "Yeah, residence restrictions are punitive, but let's just make that ruling for the litigant and mealy-mouth around the rest so it can get more clarity through more court action." In other words, a complete PUNT.
mike
If it can't be applied to all rso parolees then it obviously it can't be applied to all rso.
Matt
The answer to your last question is simple: They do comprehend. They just don't care. We are scum. Constitutionality only applies to non-scum.
Avig
Well, here it is:
1. the basis of "our" lawsuits is, local government cannot make residency restrictions because the state pre-empts the field.
2. the state says, residency restrictions apply only to people on parole,
3. today the Taylor ruling says, residency restrictions apply only to a small sub-set of people on parole, namely those CDCR can prove represent a clear danger of some kind.
The net result: good bye to residency restrictions for nearly everybody.
Am I mistaken about this? What part have I failed to comprehend?
I look forward to further enlightenment on this important issue.
David
Hopefully, we will have a favorable ruling with the new Court - minus Baxter - whenever they accept the next case challenging residency restrictions. Until then, it appears ththat the situation remains unchanged.
Someone who cares
I am as confused as everyone else. It sure sounded like a victory to me. What am I missing? If it is unconstitutional for people on parole, it is also unconditional for everyone else. What else is there to interpret. So, are any residency restrictions enforced at this time until it is clarified and decided on?
Please, can someone explain this again?
mike
I beleive the court decided it is unconstitutional on several grounds and not on ex post facto grounds which if these violations apply to all rso not just those on parole then this is great news as retroactivity has no bearing therefore it couldn't be applied to any of us.
Forsaken
I feel so disheartened. I have wanted to move out of this apartment and get a house with my family. I live in Azusa, and so far they haven't made any residency restrictions outside of parole. But surrounding areas such as West Covina have.
I was hoping to be able to finally look for a home; not depress myself putting every address on Trulia into Google Earth only to see the school or park icon pop up EVERYwhere I search... And the court managed to squirm out of everything once again. And how could they even cite "alarmingly high recidivism." Really? That's not what CASOMB said.
I can go through the entire catalog of homes for sale and find NOT ONE outside that 2000ft range. And now the court was gracious enough to leave it up in the tree to ripen some more... While claiming it's not disruptive enough to be considered punitive!! How is preventing families from living together not punitive? How is suddenly making entire cities off limits not a punishment after the fact? :-/ What is so difficult for the justices to comprehend??
Justfortoday
I don't understand. How can it say, in black and white, that the restrictions are unconstitutional and only apply the restrictions to certain people?
I thought that the Supreme Court was the law of the land? THE LAND! Not one single county.
I was hoping to move back into my house that is within 2,000 feet after parole with my boyfriend. I live with my parents now and according to my POC I'm considered "homeless".
mike
Janice I really hope you challenge any and all entities that have these restrictions or enact such restrictions in the future. I'll be donating right after this post and I hope all others do the same. I don't know if local ordinances can be enforced when you have the AG saying it only applies to parole and then the court saying its unconstitutional as a blanket condition if parole. I'm currently in compliant housing but I wonder if someone goes to registar and are turned away because of a ordinance is there anything that can be done
steve
Thank you, I don't know what it means for me but I will find out tomorrow at my registration appt.
Janice' Journal: Behind the Orange Curtain
Published Date : February 18, 2015
Orange County continues to be the epicenter for laws that both violate the civil rights of registered citizens as well as decrease public safety. The latest attempt comes in the form of a bill introduced in Sacramento by Assemblyman William Brough of Dana Point (AB 201). If it becomes law, the bill would allow cities and counties to pass any law they wished to restrict where a registered citizen could visit. That could return us all to the former Land of Oz where a registered citizen could legally walk on a pier/go to the beach/visit the dog park in one city, but could not walk on a pier/go to the beach/visit the dog park in another city without the threat of going to jail up to one year or be fined up to $1,000.
As we all know, the cumulative effect of those laws was that many registered citizens were afraid to travel, a right protected by the state and federal constitutions. Even if you could start in your home town where there was no such ordinance and end up in your parent’s home town where there was no such ordinance, you had a real fear of driving through a fast food restaurant at a location in between because that city might have a playground and therefore be “off limits” even though no signs were posted to warn you.
Perhaps In order to prevent being upstaged by Assemblyman Brough on this issue, the chief of staff to the Orange County District Attorney (DA), Susan Kang Schroeder, recently stated in an article on the front page of the Orange County Register (Feb. 17) that “her office would again move to restrict sex offenders in county parks and encourage cities to re-enact the abandoned ordinances.” If true, that statement is outrageous!. Why? The California Court of Appeals ruled more than a year ago that such ordinances violate the state constitution and are preempted by state law, a decision which the California Supreme Court refused to review. As attorneys and officers of the courts, Schroeder and her boss, the DA, are required to comply with court decisions even if they do not agree with them.
We will watch with great interest any attempts made by the Orange County DA and/or his staff to once again lobby cities in Orange County to pass such ordinances. Their past attempts resulted in the passage of illegal ordinances in 14 cities within Orange County, actions taken only after the DA promised the cities that such ordinances were constitutional. Yet when the ordinances were challenged in court, the DA’s promises proved to be a mirage and many of the cities were sued. The cost of those lawsuits, of course, was borne by the cities, not the DA. Once bitten, twice shy? It’s time to wake up, cities in Orange County. It’s time to stop relying upon the DA’s misrepresentations and platitudes. It’s time to start thinking for yourselves.
By Janice Bellucci
—
Related: Janice’s Journal
Comments
ocguy
This just in from behind the Orange Curtain:
OC District Attorney’s Team Barred from Seal Beach Shooting Case
http://voiceofoc.org/2015/03/oc-district-attorney-barred-from-dekraai-death-penalty-hearing/
The shooting occurred in October 2011 - the same time the OCDA was spending an inordinate amount of time touring the cities of Orange County in an effort to persuade them to pass the (since held unconstitutional) Parks Ban for 290 registrants. In the murder case it turns out they did not play by the rules. Shocking!
In somewhat relevant and related news
DA’s Chief of Staff Loses Her First Felony Case
http://voiceofoc.org/2015/03/das-chief-of-staff-tries-her-first-felony-case/
Those who have attended or watched on video these painful City Council Meetings in the past few years probably are not surprised as SKS, DA spokesperson / lawyer did not exactly dazzle with legal and pertinent rhetoric. While she was pushing for these parks ordinances her (now ex) husband was arrested for drunk driving. He has since pleaded guilty. SKS or the OCDA did not and have not as of yet advocated for some sort of driving ban for those guilty of DUI. Clearly they are not interested in saving THAT one child.
Such disorder in the house of the OCDA... maybe they should have spent more time cracking their ethics and law text books?
Garrett
Does anyone know whether or not out of state registrants are allowed parks like Legoland, Sea world, Disney, etc...?
j
Because Tony's hatred and political aspirations are more egregious than his woefully inadequate need to even acknowledge the constitution - much less honor the human rights it inherently stands for.
Ostracized Witch
I reside in the OC where DA Tony Racaucaus (same guy who lost battle against Fullerton Police who savagely beat/killed transient Kelly Thomas)has been attempting to destroy the lives of Registered SO's who already repaid their debt for their transgressions, for his own political ambitions is stressful!
My taxes pay for the parks/beaches, why am I prevented from enjoying them?
j
They know how to deal with it all right: Break out the book of Jim Crow laws and ride the self righteous path to fear mongering and vote pandering hall of fame.
All this done without regard for state law and the US Constitution- Geez!
Janice Bellucci
Yes, tomorrow (Friday, Feb. 27) is the deadline for bills to be introduced in Sacramento. We expect to know within 24 hours whether or not the tiered registry bill has an author. Be sure to check out the website tomorrow to see what has occurred.
bw
HAS ANYONE HEARD ANY NEWS, FRM LEGISLATORS OR ASSEMBLY WITH REGARDS TO THE SPONSORSHIP OF THE TIERED LEVEL , BILL , NEEDED A SPONSOR BY FEB 27TH I WAS TOLD?
anonymously
Yesterday, I heard Bill Brough, pronounced 'Bra', not 'Bro',(who knew?), OC politician and co-sponsor of AB 201 with Mike Gipson, ex-Carson Councilmember, to give cities authority to create laws as harsh as they want on registrants, on KFI640/Clear Channel/I Heart Media/I Heart Radio. Brough is a slick talker, but how far can that take you if you're just repeating the same line that this bill would give local cities the authority to make new laws, and refuse to address the fact that most abuse in sex crimes involving children comes mostly from friends, aquaintances, clergy, coaches, teachers, someone known, and not registrants.
Brough didn't say it, but I have heard other city tough-on-crime hatemongers make the comment 'we know know best how to deal with this', when their outlook on the matter, wanting harsher draconian laws constantly, is what has caused the highest homeless population of registrants to date.
Timmr
And on the other hand they make laws that keep us from congregating in any one area. Whatever koolaid these lawmakers are drinking, sure has destroyed the part of the brain that allows them to see the big picture.
td777
That's one of the concerns I have, they could essentially make finding a residence within the locality completely impossible because there doesn't seem to be any limit on how far they could go with it.
John B
It is an interesting conundrum. If indeed local communities can legislate, say, not living within 2,000 feet of a park - can they make it 2 miles of a park? If yes to the first, but no to the second - then why? What would allow them to say 2,000 feet but preclude them from saying 2 miles? Is it because we know them to be so MERCIFUL to registrants? I think not. But if they are precluded from banning residency 2 miles from a park it would seem they would have to be so precluded from arbitrarily making the distance "only" 2,000 feet, 200 feet or 2 feet.
If they were able to make it any significant distance then that would be a back-door method of forcing registrants into living in isolated colonies - without calling it such.
Timmr
This passage doesn't say it "authorizes" local ordinances. It says it doesn't prohibit stricter local ordinances. Other state laws may, I don't know. Sounds to me like a big difference.
mike
PC 3003.5(c) Nothing in this section shall prohibit municipal jurisdictions from enacting local ordinances that further restrict the residency of any person for whom registration is required pursuant to Section 290.
Man this section is realy scary it gives free rein to local jurisdictions to make unlimited distances from unlimited locations in their county. This can't be legal or constitutional I mean there's nothing stopping them from saying we can't live within a hundred miles or a thousand miles of anyplace they want. That might sound crazy but as far as I can tell its true. This has got to be unconstitutional somehow.
USA
Well, I'm not sure what to say. In the past, both the Sheriff and Both Assistant a Sheriffs where both arrested and convicted of various felony convictions for dishonesty. In addition, there is also a Superior a Court Judge who remains at his post, despite a DUI conviction after crashing his car in HB. The list goes on. Furthermore, there are various stories about the dishonesty of deputies and guards who somehow where unaware inmates where being beat to death on more than one occasion. Yet, the DA continues his propaganda tactics and for some reason choses to ignore statistics (1.8 percent)? As a volunteer, I've spent a great deal of time in prison ministries and was overwhelmed with the number of murders, robberies and assaults that are secondary to drug use? So, shouldn't the DA focus on the big picture rather than the popular topic?
Timmr
Basically, if you don't show color in a lily white Orange county park, you're probably not going to have your background scanned, but look out if you are on the list AND your arms are covered in tattoos, your only pair of pants ripped and filthy, your name is Godinez, or you're in a hoody! Park Purity Patrol armed and ready for action.
mike
First registration then residency and presence restrictions and civil committment next internment camps. A country regression before our eyes. Hope our constitution prevails or one of the only almost civilized society is screwed.
John B
I don't know that I have "fear" of traveling, but I'm certainly concerned and it's reflected in that I do, in fact, travel much less frequently than I did when I was younger. I absolutely sympathize with any fellow registrants who do indeed feel fearful about travel.
The only way this eventually gets resolved is by SCOTUS doing the right thing. The current make-up of the Supreme Court leaves me less than sanguine about our chances. But it's all we have. Frightened and ignorant citizens (the majority, unfortunately) and boot-licking politicians who happily try to out-do each other in playing to those fears will forever stand between us and our civil liberties.
Q
These are not honorable or honest people. They are career building at the expense and harm of others, and of American principals they'll so willingly sweep under the carpet as long as they can benefit. Why doesn't anyone ask to see proof to confirm or dis-prove what these people say?
Where is the proof that their proposals are so necessary for the safety of the public? Where are the honest and honorable people that we were once blessed with?
G4Change
I think that it's time for laws/constitutional amendments, etc. that would allow for lawsuits and damages against INDIVIDUALS in government who violate people's rights. Watch how fast this bull**** stops then!!!!!
MM
We are living in the Orange Curtain. We are afraid, but, at the same time hopeful.
Clark
That oc is so use to deception on a jury trial, their greed to deception takes on the public as well ...orange county tell the public you use known false evidence in jury instructions..oc tell them you won't have a hearing to correct the record..tell them you didn't allow a REAL private attorney in a case ..tell them bout that immediate backhall conference after prosecution witness confirms defendant's innocence and accuser's motive ..oc is the epicenter depriving people's rights under color of law ...they are proving it again...18 U.S.Code sec.242......also DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE .
Avig
If a registered citizen disobeys the law he goes to jail.
But apparently if you are a government employee in Orange County and choose to disregard it, you still get paid----and of course, no jail time.
Seriously: these people have a screw loose, and it isn't at all clear how to get it tightened back up.
mike
Can't shroeder and her boss be sued as individuals for knowingly violating someone's constitutional rights after they have been ordered by the court to cease the violations if in fact someone is arrested for violating one of these ordinances? Or do these tyrants have the power to do anything they want with impunity?
Jim
Amen Janice!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Janice's Journal: Buckle your Seatbelts
Published Date : February 9, 2015
There are 3 significant events expected during the next 30 days:
- introduction of a tiered registry bill in Sacramento,
- two California Supreme Court decisions regarding residency restrictions and
- an attempt to make peace with the City of Carson.
What occurs during this 30-day period will significantly impact every person required to register as a sex offender in California.
First, there currently is a draft tiered registry bill supported by the California Sex Offender Management Board for which an author is being sought. The draft bill is reported to be consistent with the Board’s report issued in April 2014 and includes three tiers for registered citizens with automatic termination of registration requirements after 10 or 20 years provided that the citizen has not committed a new sex offense. The bill must be introduced by February 27 or there will be no tiered registry bill until 2017. In the absence of a tiered registry bill, California will continue to be 1 of only 4 states in the nation that does not have a tiered registry.
Second, the California Supreme Court has a March 2 deadline to render decisions in two cases focused upon residency restrictions including whether such restrictions are constitutional and if so to whom they apply. If the Court accepts the argument of the Attorney General, the Court will decide that residency restrictions are constitutional but can only be applied to registered citizens while on parole (not on probation or after parole). Because of the Court’s recent heavy handed decision to overturn the Hofsheier case, many are concerned that the Court will decide that residency restrictions apply to every person on the sex offender registry. Regardless of their decision, we can expect confusion if not chaos as registered citizens look for new housing.
Finally, California RSOL will reach out an olive branch to the City of Carson on March 7. The City Council of Carson recently declared war on registered citizens and refused to honor a settlement agreement, which would have made Carson’s sex offender ordinance consistent with state law, despite the fact that the agreement was signed by the City Manager and City Attorney. Registered citizens, family members and supporters are invited to join California RSOL on March 7 at 10 a.m. at Carson City Hall for this event. Additional details will be available soon.
Keep your seatbelts buckled. The next 30 days could be a rough ride.
By Janice Bellucci
—
Related: Janice’s Journal
Comments
CA
This is regarding the Mosley case!, from what I read about some of the people that attended the oral arguments on December 2nd 2014, was that the Justices seemed to agree that the residency restrictions was a "stupid law"! obviously they tried it with the parolees and it was a major headache for both sides. It just seems to me that applying the residency restrictions to every RSO, would be a disaster of epic proportions right? I think common sense will prevail on this one. PLEASE COMMENT :)
anonymously
OnceFallen said "Since a few people are making references to Nazi Germany, I’ll make one of my own. Cali RSOL’s support of a three-tiered registry reminds me of Sophie’s Choice. Just how many registered citizens are you folks willing to sacrifice to cut at most a handful of registered citizens off the registry? I can’t help but to question the leadership at Cali RSOL. In fact, I’ve pulled their links off my website."
While to compare tiering of the registry to Sophies Choice could be considered very dramatic language, I can see the comparison's validity. But even with a choice as hard to make as that, it's better than no choice at all I would think.
David
BAM, most of us are praying with you for this Bill's introduction and passage.
May our prayers and wishes be heard.
MS
Surely there are some assemblymen and/or Senators that tout themselves as "Christians". Some that go to church every Sunday, send their kids to Christian schools, and pray before every meal. Perhaps they can be sent a letter (outlining what registration does for registrants and their families), a letter that includes some relevant bible versus. Perhaps include some very well written letters from SO family members (I'm sure they are out there) that outline the pain & suffering (joblessness, homelessness, hopelessness, fear, hate crimes, suicide, etc) that registration brings. Perhaps there will be at least one member with strong enough religious conviction to do something about it. To do what is right not only as a human being but as a child of God. Suggest that they ask themselves..."What would Jesus do?" I can assure you that Jesus wouldn't be for the registry.
BAM
For the life of me, Im trying to figure out why the Ca sex offender management board would wait so late to back the bill. With limited time to find some one to author this bill and introduce it into the Senate, wow!! Tom Amiano must have known another assemblyman who favored him when trying to introduce AB702. Tom had to have some type of influence then and he has to have some what of influence now. Half of the job is done with the Sex offender management board backing us,The bill just needs to be introduced. I mean there are several other states who have adopted a bill for a tiered registry by using this same method. Tom's influence is the key, i believe, somebody needs to get a hold of this guy!! We have 9 days left. Thank you in advance for helping us Lord in the name of Jesus amen!!! I apoligise to those of you who do not believe in a higher power. !! I believe that we will prevail this year!!
Roldan
You're right religion and the registry is a huge failure and introduced by hypocrites who don't practice what they preach, who use both means to fill their pockets, etc. But I know there is a God that truly does exist that sees the injustices, their greed , the hypocricy and how we're being used to stay in office and keep their pockets full Why even have a Management Board if they're not going to implement the Board's recommendations especially knowing that the budget funds could be better used in other meaningfull areas. What a waste of taxpayer dollars. I think it would be nice if they would read all these comments just so they could know that we know what's REALLY GOING ON perhaps they'll get off their thrones and high horses and on their knees along with the many of us and pray for mercy and hopefully they'll stand up with the conviction to do what is constitutionally right in the interest of justice of their promise to uphold the CONSTITUTION!
Harry
God knows about this and He is marking down the works those who call themselves Christians, in Carson.
BAM
There has to be some other way to get this bill passed than to put our hopes on some one to author this bill that may or may not have known anyone in our shoes(assemblyman) (Senator) you name it. Hopefully we can get someone in our corner that understands,knows & feels what some of us are going through. These are some hurting situations, very impossible to close the book on situations. The best thing that i know to do is call on a higher power in the name of Jesus to help us and the Mrs. Janice + team on this journey!! Yall pray with me.
Matt
While I agree with everything you said, I see a hurdle. The current AG will be running to fill a senate seat due to Boxer retiring. I suspect this will be a hot potato in that election.
Timmr
I would say the registry IS a religion, or rather a cult, because its very existence is based on a belief system that places myths above the need for empirical evidence.
Gerald
Religion like the registry is a huge failure and for the same reasons.
Roldan
We're going to need a miracle on this tierd bill being introduced on time and passing in the committies and in both houses in Sacramento. For those who believe in God pray asking Him in the name of Jesus Christ His Son for that miracle. And thank you Miss Janice and all those whom have put their time and efforts to make this unjust registration law the way it should be applied-for we are up against people who feel and think that they are above God because they still hold our past against us and disregard our constitutional right to be FREE! etc. They need to do what is RIGHT AND JUST!
Mosley&Taylor
Mike T & others: We all need to be careful about speculating and worrying on the Supreme court residency decisions until they are announced ~Mar 2 at 10 am. No one knows the outcome yet except the 7 justices wrapping up their opinions.
As soon as the decision becomes public, you can bet Janice and her team will be on top of it and give everyone beneficial information and insight. Whatever the outcome, there are people concerned for everyone here on working within the law to comply while respecting and protecting registrants' rights.
FED UP
Mr Knight,
I may be mistaken but I believe you can register to vote if on Probation??
Criminal Justice Realignment Act
In 2011, the Legislature passed and the Governor signed the Criminal Justice Realignment Act (CJRA). Under Penal Code section 1170(h), low-level felons are sentenced to county jail and/or supervision by the county probation department instead of state prison. CJRA has caused some confusion about voting rights among people who have criminal convictions. Below states who is eligible and who is not eligible to register to vote in California.
Not Eligible
In state prison.
In county jail serving a state prison sentence.
In county jail serving a felony sentence under Penal Code section 1170(h).
On parole, mandatory supervision, or post release community supervision.
ELIGIBLE
In county jail serving a misdemeanor sentence. A misdemeanor never affects your right to vote.
In county jail because jail time is a condition of probation.
On probation.
Done with parole, mandatory supervision, or post release community supervision. Your right to vote is automatically restored when parole or supervision is done.
mike t
Please pardon my contempt, I was unaware of this greasy approach to enforcement of residency restrictions. I was misled by articles I read several years ago where particular jurisdictions had made comments that they could not enforce Jessica's Law based on their interpretation of this "toothless law". I believe it was a San Jose Police Chief who made that statement, though I Can't seem to retrieve the article after several fruitless search attempts.
I guess the best I can hope for is that I be grandfathered in as I've owned my home prior to the passage of this law. My proximity to public schools and parks are no worry (approximately four miles). But, I'm not certain about licensed child care providers.
I would like to believe the court will call this "ex post facto punishment" by forcing people to uproot and move, but they could also go the other way and claim it's just a minor inconvenience of the non-punitive registry. If they choose the latter, we should expect the homeless/transient registrant population to increase exponentially again. I hope this consideration will be scrutinized carefully when decisions are made about "public safety" as the devastating results to certain individuals whose instability will likely create negative effects towards society in general. It's illogical.
G4Change
@oncefallen: I think your opinions here are completely wrong.
First of all, this is NOT Sophie's Choice. This is a FIRST STEP. California is in the Dark Ages when it comes to these laws. It is among just a handful of states who are lifetime registration for all...PERIOD. From what I know, you are in a state (Ohio) which has a tiered registry and at least has a Supreme Court with justices who have both a brain and a spine when they actually found retroactive application of their registry unconstitutional. Yet you judge Californian's for trying to get at least half the rights that you have in your state??? Not cool.
Second, for you to question and judge the leadership of CA-RSOL??? So not fair. Janice and the rest have done so much in the past few years that it is unbelievable! Janice didn't draft the tiered registry bill. Frank didn't. Nobody from this organization did. They are simply trying to get legislators to LISTEN to the damn California Sex Offender Management Board for once! I feel that if we can get Sacramento to listen to this Board and implement what they recommend, then this tiered registry will only be STEP ONE of many future steps. But, right now, nobody will even listen to them.
If you don't want to support what CA-RSOL is doing, that's fine. But to judge people in another state for trying to establish the rights that your state already has - way out of line in my opinion. I think it's time for you to give yourself a Shiitake Award!
Tired of hiding
I disagree with need to stop being pu**ies and really get militant about this. NO we should NOT settle for baby steps! We should NOT settle for 1 step forward and 2 steps back!
We should DEMAND and settle for NOTHING LESS than actual fairness and the total restoration of our civil liberties and constitutional rights after the paying of our dept to society!
NOTHING LESS WILL DO!
Tired of hiding
Make no mistake about it. You certainly CAN BE forced to move or arrested if they wish. Your life is NO LONGER your own. Part of your FREE WILL has been taken over by the government. You belong to them. Simple as that - THEY OWN YOU NOW.
Timmr
Basically I've consented to the institutions of our government. I drive on the roads it paves, I use its money, I expect it to protect me from harm, I give it the taxes to do these things. Like you said, the government is not a real person, but a corporation (rather a cooperation) of people, I am part of it. What I expect in return is for rest of these people that I give authority to to follow a few simple rules outlined in the constitution. If they don't the contract's off. By what force am I going to enforce it? Form a militia? Resort to violence? I hardly think so. All we have is argument, so we better have some good moral arguments or the rest of the people in this organization are going to keep screwing us.
Nicholas Maietta
I don't know why you got voted down, but I have to agree with you on your point:
I do have an experience where the registering officer refused to let me register because he thought the rules of Jessica's Law included beaches too, even though parole already said, Nope, beaches do not count. I nearly went to prison for this and his actions reported to the United States Department of Justice. My city police department stepped up and ordered the Sheriffs' office to go forward with letting me register anyway.
Clark
At Pat...good comment Pat...I too have involuntary servitude in the line-up to HomeRun the restrictions and this ripe to contest registry.
Timmr
Eric, I don't like giving thumbs up or thumbs down, because I feel anything I like or don't like needs an explanation tied to it. In this case this is my thumbs up for your concept of going on the offensive, although I am not giving a blanket support for any initiative, unless I see the writing.
I too, am "tired of hiding", or to be more correct, "tired of being on the defensive." I too am tired of being a scapegoat for politicians who say they are against child abuse, but are doing really nothing to prevent it. I think it is time to take enemy ground by using the facts. With 95% of the new crimes committed by those not on the registry, the penal model is just not working, and by scaring off those who may need to seek help to halt behavior that is harming others and scaring off family members from addressing what they see as a problem, by giving everyone this false sense of security that all is being taken care of because we have identified the trouble makers and put them on a registry, we are institutionalizing the problem.
There needs to be a dialogue that is not based on fear and hype, and I believe registered citizens can lead the march and take it out of the realm of laws and into the culture. No doubt, abuse is occurring in the police forces, in the halls of justice and in homes of legislators right now; but those people with power and money can escape punishment, while the poor man must take a plea deal and remain on the registry for life to avoid years of imprisonment. This does nothing, nothing to address the problem, which I believe has as its roots a culture of the dominance and submission. The registry and all of its restrictive spawn is simply a spinoff of the dominance/submission paradigm which only creates more victims.
OK I feel I'm ranting. Let's be educators and problem solvers and people who have the best intentions and not accept the label of victim or perpetrator.
Pat
In a landmark Supreme Court ruling in 1795, never overturned.
They ruled in Penhallow v. Doane's Administrator's " All governments are corporations, in as much as every government is an artificial person, an abstraction, a creature of the mind only, a government can deal only with artificial persons. The imaginary having no real substance cannot create or attain parity with the real. The legal aspect is no government, or any law agency, or court thereof can concern itself with anything other than corporations, or artificial persons, and the contracts between them.
Erie V. 1938 Tompkins, " No Contract No Case".
Amendment XIII
Section 1.
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
The legal definition for involuntary servitude:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/22/7102
22 U.S. Code § 7102 - Definitions | LII / Legal Information Institute
6) Involuntary servitude
The term “involuntary servitude” includes a condition of servitude induced by means of—
(A) any scheme, plan, or pattern intended to cause a person to believe that, if the person did not enter into or continue in such condition, that person or another person would suffer serious harm or physical restraint; or
(B) the abuse or threatened abuse of the legal process.
" The state citizen is free from any and all government attacks and procedure absent contract." see Dred Scott vs. Sanford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 or as the Supreme Court has stated clearly "... every man is independnt of all laws, except those prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellowmen without his consent." CRUDEN vs. NEALE, 2 N.C. 338 2 S.E. 70,
David
Eric Knight: "Thoughts?" Absolutely no way. Imagine the media feeding frenzy as soon as it was learned who wrote the initiative and who would be out collecting signatures.
Sorry, absolutely no way.
Janice Bellucci
Jessica's Law as written is unclear regarding to whom it applies and it lacks specific penalties for failure to comply. That is why the CA Supreme Court will render decisions regarding its constitutionality and applicability. In the past, law enforcement has controlled this issue in part by refusing to register someone at an address they believe is not compliant.
td777
Seeing a -1 on that post means someone obviously didn't read the whole thing, just the first sentence. Then again, as we know, there are many on here who don't agree with our view, I just thought more would.
Mosley&Taylor
Mike T: If the residency restrictions are upheld, the enforcement 'could' simply be the registering agency will not allow you to do an annual update because you are not in compliance with current law on that date, generating a 'failure to register' offense.
Eric Knight
If worse comes to worse, perhaps WE can go around the legislature ourselves and come up with an initiative. Although the process would be significantly harder, we do have the benefit of having a significantly higher-motivated volunteer base to collect the signatures, so the cost, while not cheap, won't be substantial. In addition, the target election is November 2016, as the window for 2016 is pragmatically over, and we would need a lot of prep time anyway.
To qualify for a ballot iniative, we must collect a certain number of VALIDATED signatures in a period of time. The amount of signatures that must be collected is 8% of the total voters in the previous gubernatorial election. The GOOD news, at least for us, was that voting in the last election was WAY down, which means the total number of signatures we would have to collect also goes down proportionately.
For instance, when Chris Kelly had to bankroll the email identifier law (sorry, not calling it the pragmatically fraudulently named "Human Trafficking Law"), he had to get over 500,000 signatures. But we only have to collect 365,880 signatures, which is a considerably less threshold, and amounts to less than four signatures per Califonria registered citizen. With a smartly-designed and promoted campaign that has NO reference to "sex offender's rights" or even "constitutional rights," but rather conducts a hard-targeted, 100%-verified community safety and 100%-verified significant cost reductioncampaign, we can probably get this done prior to the general election on November 8, 2016. (There is one SIGNIFICANT PROBLEM, though, that I'll address later.)
Remember, if Chris Kelly was honest and called it the "Keep the sex offenders off the interne bill," while it may have succeeded, it wouldn't have had nearly the same impact as the more sensationalist "Human trafficking" component. The only difference to US doing our campaign is that we HAVE ALL DATA on OUR side to substantiate safety of children as well as enforcement costs, while Kelly had to hide behind HT because he couldn't even BEGIN to justify an email law.
If the legislature does not want to get this done, and I suspect that will be the case, I'll look up the preliminary requirements to see what is needed to put such an iniative in play. It is absolutely VITAL that we have thousands of volunteers, though. The good news is that ANY voter-elgibile registered citizen (who, by definition, is NOT on probation or parole) can be a signature collector.
I have to look up certain requirements for signature windows, Attorney General title assignment, and whatnot, but the general timeframe is this:
April 2015 through September 2015: promotion and training of volunteers and gneeral Internet and public media-based campaign
October 2015 through December 2015: Petition summary and process, including fiscal review, through the California AG's office.
January 2016 through April 2016: Collect the aforementioned amount of signatures, including significant overage to overcome potentially illegal signatures.
May 2016: Once signatures turned in, AG validates and creates actual Title of bill. THIS IS KEY. If the AG calls the bill the "sex offender registry tiered level" bill, we are cooked. If the AG calls the bill the "Community and Child Safety Bill", we have a good chance. The KEY will be in how the entire process is promoted in the months BEFORE.
These are just ideas on how to move forward. The Initiative tool is generally not our friend, but if done correctly, WE can CORRECTLY set the agenda. I don't call it "wordsmithing" as the connotation is negative, but it is vital that we DOWNPLAY registrant "gains" and HAMMER HOME the safety and fiscal reduction aspect of the initiative.
Thoughts?
Cool CA RSO
Once Fallen,
I don't understand..
You do agree with about 80 to 90% of the statement that CRSOL support correct?
but now is 1% of the statement you disagree from you just drop CRSOL from the list.
Timmr
Me too. And like I mentioned before we could set up businesses where people are ensured a job based on their skills, not a label. It would be nice to have a column here called What I Dream. The dreams we have are our templates for building the lives we want. Let's put some of the complaining aside and start to actively dream.
mike t
As I recall, Jessica's Law made residency restrictions applicable to ALL registrants. The only problem was they forgot to include consequences for not adhering to the restrictions. No fines or jail time if you refuse to move. This is why it was enforced only on probationers and parolees, because they could be held in violation of their terms.
Though it is a blatant desecration of the constitutional rights of American citizens to create an ordinance like this, I'm not too concerned about the outcome of this trial at this point as it cannot force me to move.
Harry
OR...move a low populated state AND become the largest voting block and get rid of SOR.
Ron
We could vote to change that City's name also. Wouldn't that be fun! Perhaps "City of Compassion" CA. I'm sure we could come up with some great names. We could have protected zones like parks where only RC's and their families could have access since we know Registered Citizens have such a low recidivism rate. Non-RC's like family and friends would have to be supervised in these zones. The Police Chief we voted in would be required to allow all RC's with children to have access to their child's school. Just think of all the changes we could make in this city with our voting power. Just like what had happened in Rajneeshpuram, Oregon in the early 1980's.
This whole idea sounds crazy, but might be better for us if we cannot get rid of this unconstitutional public registry. We couldn't end CA's registration requirements, but we could sure make life easier and safer for us and our families. Quite frankly, I would want to move to this City.
James Townsend
What is going on out in California. Its as if everyone is scared about losing there house or having to move or something. Its people like Janice and the RSOL movement that strive to get the job done. Sure we all can worry but why worry. Don't you know what Roman's says. They are the ministers of Good and Not Evil. All Governments want to be evil and oppress the people. One comment this person wants to pray which is good another person wants to dodge the mines' and another person talks about a German leader. Christian or not Truth is Truth and if Government is dehumanizing more with all these rules and law's than let your light shine more brighter. You know the tongue is a hard thing to tame and its just like a two edged sword but love is more important. Where is the love in the sex registry issues?
Janice Bellucci
Although Justice Baxter retired from the Court, he will vote on the residency restrictions cases because he was a member of the Court when they heard oral argument on the two cases -- Mosley and Taylor.
Janice Bellucci
Avig, the CA Supreme Court is expected to decide the answer to at least two questions: (1) are residency restrictions constitutional and (2) if so, are they limited to those on parole or do they apply to everyone required to register.
Janice Bellucci
Yes please share your draft letter with us so that we can post on this website.
SkeletonLander
One simple bill which would generally be better than even a tiered registry would be a bill that removes the restrictions on who can seek a certificate of rehabilition. The bill would also state that anyone being granted a certificate of rehabilitation would no longer be required to register, period.
The bar to achieving a COR is high, but it is validated by a judge hearing your particulars including all that you have done since your offense.
This relativly small change to the penal code would undo "false fear induced" legislation which has crippled so many reformed registrants ability to be treated as any other criminal group. Prove yourself reformed and here is your way out of this living hell.
Matt
Your implication and comparison is not helpful in any way. Everybody who has skin in this game agrees that the SOR needs to go. How to accomplish that may be debatable, but defaming a person or organization who is on the same side, and has the same general principles is, at best, totally counterproductive.
anonymously
Harry said "Yah! We are politically unpopular, even, among the LBGT. There are many of them are ‘throwing us under bus’ for their causes."
Anyone of any gender to support insidious draconian restrictions on anyone is a fool. Kansas Governor Sam Brownback just retroactively reinstated legalized workforce discrimination against LBGT Kansas government employees. Thats what happens when the spirit of the ex post facto clause of the US Constitution is ignored. Actions like this.
Harry
Yah! We are politically unpopular, even, among the LBGT. There are many of them are 'throwing us under bus' for their causes.
Harry
Oncefallen, I support your position of taking issues with the CA three-tiered registry proposal and CA RSOL's support of it. However, you comparing ‘CA RSOL to Nazi Germany’ serves , neither, you and the rest of RC in America any good. We all want the SOR to stop operating. In the mean time we have to dodge the mines that are in the mine field. Your harsh reaction to Janice and the team at CA RSOL, is mean and un-called for. We need to able to disagree without being disagreeable. Divided, you and all RC's WILL FALL.
Gerald
Just for that, I'm recommending we remove the link to your website. So there! ha ha.
oncefallendotcom
Since a few people are making references to Nazi Germany, I'll make one of my own. Cali RSOL's support of a three-tiered registry reminds me of Sophie's Choice. Just how many registered citizens are you folks willing to sacrifice to cut at most a handful of registered citizens off the registry? I can't help but to question the leadership at Cali RSOL. In fact, I've pulled their links off my website.
anonymously
Hey look, Steve, I think to say registration back in 2003 is regulation, not punishment was a total stretch. The majority opinion of the SCOTUS of 2003 made that stretch in a 6-3 decision. I miss John Paul Stevens wisdom on the court as well as I respect the wisdom of Ginsburg and Breyer who along with Stevens dissented. Things have changed so much since 2003. Now, internet disclosure is used as a hit list for vigilantes against registrants and people mistaken for registrants. And registration is draconian whereas a price club application would not be described as such. Bottom line is that circumstances have changed to make it absolutely clear registration is punishment.
"The majority will never persuade me that the registration and reporting obligations that are imposed on convicted sex offenders and on no one else as a result of their convictions are not part of their punishment." - John Paul Stevens 2003
anonymously
Steve said "Do you think he said that knowing this would get out of hand so it can be challenged?..."
At the time, he was the attorney arguing the case for the State of Alaska. He probably was doing his best to win the case and at the time, did not foresee registration getting so out of hand with all the arbitrary unconstitutional draconian legislative addendum.
David
Janice, how will Baxter's retirement off the Court affect the residency rulings, if at all? Since he heard oral arguments, does he still participate in the Court's ruling?
anonymously
By Roberts saying registration is like a price club application, he probably didn't think registration would get out of hand. So I think he could still save face and overturn 2003 decision. Clarence Thomas seems to be aware there is a Constitution, being the rightwing constitutional literalist he is. I recall seeing some Scalia op-ed piece on how the US could be rife for internment/concentration camps. Hopefully, Breyer and Ginsburg have not changed their minds from their dissent of the 2003 Smith v Doe decision. Kagan, i don't know what she is thinking, as well as Sotomayor who I probably don't want to know what shes thinking and Kennedy is probably not on board, since he is a tough on crime guy. But right there, that is the 5 we need. This is just off the top of my head...
David
" the Supreme Court explained most recently in its 2013 decision striking down the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), “[t]he Constitution’s guarantee of equality ‘must at the very least mean that a bare congressional desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot” justify disparate treatment of that group.'"
Anyone here feeling "politically unpopular"? Yeah, me too.
td777
...yeah, until some pro-registry extremist decides to propose a bill that would deny us the right to protest peacefully...
td777
Janice, I would strongly disagree. It is punitive regardless of what the Supreme Court ruled. The court simply chose not to recognize it as punishment. If it were equivalent to filling out an application to Price Club, then maybe I would agree. However, that would not be public record, it would not require having to go to the Police Department every month(I am transient) plus again near my birthday, it would not have me being rejected for jobs and a place to live because my face is on the internet for all to see, and it would not be forcing me to live apart from my family.
td777
Steve, I got forced into taking a plea on a bogus second case years ago when I was on probation for the first case. Neither case involved being accused of contact with any victim(there was no victim in either case), but it does in the eyes of the law make me a repeat offender. If either case were serious, one would need to ask why I only was sentenced to two years with half on the probation violation and 18 months with half on the second, both terms running concurrently for a total of 14 months actually in custody. So again, I am now considered a low-moderate risk instead of low risk only because of having two convictions. If passed, this tiered registry would automatically make me high risk Tier 3 and I would lose my right to get a COR in a few years. That is why I see this tiered registry as flawed and not worthy of my support.
Robert Curtis
The fundamental problem with the NATURE of the registry is that they OFFER to take away extreme amounts of rights first them pull back to a point of what is marginally acceptable in rights lost. Yes, I would rather loose a finger on one hand than to loose my whole arm, but what part of that dynamic is really okay? Both are punitive.
Robin Banks
While the expressed intent of the legislature was non-punitive (and I would even argue against this assertion) the overall EFFECT of the myriad add-ons to sex offender legislation is clearly and unambiguously punitive.
Michael
Membership requirements at Price Club are the same from state to state.
Also, you get one membership card, that you take with you to any Price Club you wanna go to, and you're good to go.
Plus, no one is going to arrest you, if you are able to get into a Price Club without show a membership card, if are otherwise acting lawfully by just looking around and not trying to shoplift stuff.
However, until recently, an RSO could be arrested in some parks just for being there, for any number of legitimate reasons, even if there was not a kid for a mile around.
So yeah, it's all just the same.
Ron
Lets do it!
FED UP
Yes Janice, I am familiar with “technically” why it is not considered punitive. It is truly incredible how a Supreme Court Judge can “throw out” all common sense to protect a personal belief he or she may have, or succumb to pressures of political influences. It seems to me that the fight for a Tiered system in CA is a fight worthwhile even though in my personal situation, it probably means 20 years on the registry for having “consensual” sex with a minor (yes I do know that a minor cannot consent, even though a minor can be charged as an adult for murder). I do however; strongly feel that there should be a major push to get a unified national RSOL movement to challenge John Roberts and the Supreme Court to abolish the registry all together (except for the most heinous acts, etc.). What is the course of action for this? How much money would it take and how many people involved? How do we contact all persons on Meagan’s Law nationally to encourage them to donate and have a voice? I personally feel that there is enough common sense challenges to severely hamper any Justice to deny the fact that the registry is punitive. As you and others have stated; Hate Crimes, murder, prejudice of habitat, inability to find work, inability to travel freely in our very own country much less internationally, IMPRISONMENT for failure to register, or not being informed of a certain municipality restrictions, etc., etc., are all effects of being on the registry. Not to mention the recidivism stats. I will not pretend to be legally savy and I am new to all of this so please forgive me if all of this, has previously been disclosed by you. From the one meeting and I have been too in LA, I know you are understaffed and underfunded. I will be at the LA meeting in March!
steve
TD if this statement is true:
"the draft bill is reported to be consistent with the Board’s report issued in April 2014 and includes three tiers for registered citizens with automatic termination of registration requirements after 10 or 20 years provided that the citizen has not committed a new sex offense."
You should be ok unless you have a new offense.
steve
Do you think he said that knowing this would get out of hand so it can be challenged? Why else would you make a stupid comment like that.
MM
Avig, I believe your statement is incorrect. Currently, the present residency restrictions apply to everyone, doesn't matter if you are off parole/probation. Applies to anyone who is required to register ~ no matter how long ago.
Avig
Well, I for one like the present system in which once you are off parole, there are no residency restrictions. It is very disconcerting to think that might change. I wish there was a way to avoid having it come up for a vote----after all, with all the free floating hate out there, registered citizens are an easy target.
Janice Bellucci
The requirement to register is not punitive because the U.S. Supreme Court said so in 2003. John Roberts, who represented the State of Alaska in this case and is now Chief Justice, also said during oral arguments that the requirement to register as a sex offender is the same as or at least similar to applying for membership at Price Club. What do you think?
Janice Bellucci
No bill has been introduced therefore any comments regarding you or anyone else being a sacrificial lamb are premature.
Janice Bellucci
It is our understanding that Sen. Leno was asked to introduce the bill but declined to do so.
Timmr
Let's be truthful, it is worrisome to think that if your car breaks down in strange town, you may be thrown in jail for being near a playground. It is stressful to think that you may loose your home and uproot your family because a law says you now can not live within 2000 feet of a school. It is terrifying to have your name and address posted on the internet a clear target for vigilantes to find. The laws have the combined effect and sole purpose of terrorizing registered citizens as they would to any citizen of this free country.
If we gather and peacefully march in Carson, we are saying the terror stops here. It is in no way a capitulation to fear, it is a affirmation of citizenship.
FED UP
While I applaud the efforts being made for a tiered registry, I will never understand how Registration is considered "not punitive". What if I wanted to live in an RV and travel the country or even just California?
What if I wanted to travel the states in said RV? All States have varying registration requirements from 24 hours to 10 days, with some being from county to county. How is one able to travel the country legally??
Isn't this a constitutional right? By being denied the ability to travel, after imprisonment/parole/probation are completed, seems to be at least one fact that could be used in the cause to fight Registration as a whole!
Dr
As far as having to move this would pertain to the people after Jessica's law was passed I don't believe Jessica's law was ever retroactive so most people would not have to move
G4Change
I know that Tom Ammiano is out due to term limits. Can someone contact him in case he might know someone - someone who was supportive of his efforts who is still in office?
td777
While I understand the desire to see a tiered registry introduced, I still don't think this is the right one to throw our hat behind. Yes, it will provide relief for many, but it also negatively affects many of us as well. Under the proposed tiered registry, I go from a low-moderate risk with a chance of getting relief in a few years with a Certificate of Rehabilitation to a high risk Tier 3 with no possibility of relief.
Personally, I'm not happy being the sacrificial lamb sent to the slaughter so that others get relief. Janice has said that if the Constitution fails to protect one of us, it fails to protect all of us...well, this fails to protect me and my family.
David
The judiciary should take a switch (not an olive branch) to the City of Carson for obstinately refusing to obey a court order!
barbara
Wouldn't now be a good time to email or snail mail our state senators and representatives re. the need for change and implementation of this bill? If so, I have a draft that is short enough to be copied and pasted into the state reps' emails. Let me know if this would be useful.
Harry
How about Senator Mark Leno?
Harry
Well, if we have to move let all RC move to the same city and vote out insane city leaders and change the laws and prove to the world that we will have the best city in the State.
Michael
What kind of olive branch?
I think they will just see anything like that as weakness and it will encourage other cities to fight instead of acting reasonably.
BTW with the court decision in from the Orange County cases, are any of these presence restriction still on the books still enforceable?
steve
I think it would be nearly impossible to make people who ALREADY own homes to make them sell them and move.
Eric Knight
The "olive branch" being extended to Carson should be proffered ONLY if Carson officials:
1. Capitulate to the ENTIRE lawsuit's requirements
2. Provides solid proof that they WON'T renege again ("TRUST, but VERIFY")
3. Pays all fees and penalties, including a significant sum to Janice and CA RSOL.
If in fact all three items are completely resolved, then that olive branch can THEN be extended. I sincerely hope this is what is happening.
Otherwise, best to leave the branch on the tree.
MM
C ... I agree 110%. My husbands conviction is also from 1987 and nothing since. I've lived where I do in OC since 1989 (w/a mortgage). Husband moved in almost 5 years ago. We are too close to a school/park (which is everywhere in OC). I PRAY that the residency restriction is voted as unconstitutional. I PRAY. Since December 2nd we feel as though we are living in a fog. The impending date is near - I do pray that a decision is made in our favor. Please.
Eric Knight
This is why I hate !(%$*%$( politics and corporate shills. Too much capitulation to narrative and, in many if not most cases, a purposeful obfuscation of the truth, especially with adherence to constitutional tenets.
So when in Rome, plug your nose and wordsmith our own agenda. My preference is to win on a truthful, constitutional basis. When people refuse to acknowledge the truth, then the next step (other than suing the pants off them ala Janice/Chance et al) is to present the narrative in ways the sheeple will react to their best interests.
Robert Curtis
Janice I have a junior senator that is so strongly supported in her district that if she sees it's the right thing to do she might be willing to author the Bill. Please email forward a copy to give to her. The idea of having it under a catchy public safety name is a good one.
C
Usually Janice's posts are comforting, but this is unsettling. The thought of having to move to satisfy a residency requirement would be incredibly disruptive for my wife and children. My conviction is from 1987, paroled in '94 and no issues since. We've owned and lived in this house for 14 years. To move would be stressful enough, but to find someplace outside the (insert arbitrary distance here) perimeter in a city like LA would add whole new stress wrinkle.
Well, worrying about it won't do much good, so instead I send as much positive energy as I can toward Janice and the courts who I know will decide in our favor.
Janice Bellucci
We do not yet know if any member of the Assembly or the Senate has enough courage to introduce the tiered registry bill. Once we know, we will share that information on this website. The deadline for the bill to be introduced is February 27, which is less than three weeks away.
mch
Countless thousands of registered citizens are productive members in society, overcoming false stigma, purposeful lies, obstacles that no other group of people face. Registered citizens are slapped with "penalty after penalty", retroactive laws and still we live right, do right, abide by this crap we're subjected to and yet, in spite of it all, we're largely a very successful group of people. All we want is a fair shake, equal treatment and to be left alone, yet for each success, the government comes in with blatant lies and scare tactics, convincing the sheeple that we're so freakin dangerous. I live openly and honestly, nothing to hide, but government wants to strip away every right that's left, limit my freedom and shame me publicly.
We're knocked down and get back up, we are an example of and a tribute to the resilience of the human spirit, even though we're considered sub-human. I hope the victories continue, I hope some politician picks up on what we all go through, I hope change comes soon. So few are fighting for rights, thank you so much.
In the fight
Eric, I agree with you completely. This has to be about safety. About tighter control for the most serious offenders. Not about our complaints.
I wish I had web skills. I think this tiered registry effort needs its own web site to support -- with all of the facts about recidivism, the illusion of safety Megan's Law supposedly provides, etc. I fear if people are directed to this CA RSOL site, as much as I love it, they will get a mixed message and see a lot of whining from RSO's, which is not the message to send.
Bob
Anyone know why the court accepted this case?
During the week of January 12, 2015, the California Supreme Court granted review in the following case:
Grants and Holds
People v. Fields (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 184, review granted 1/14/2015 (S222445/A135605). Briefing deferred pending decision in Johnson v. Superior Court (Jan. 31, 2013, E055194) [nonpub. opn.], review granted 5/1/2013 (S209167), which includes the following issues: Do the equal protection principles of People v. Hofsheier (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1185 bar mandatory sex offender registration for a defendant convicted of oral copulation between a "person over the age of 21 years" and a "person who is under 16 years of age" (Pen. Code, § 288a, subd. (b)(2))? Should the court overrule People v. Hofsheier (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1185?
worried
Janice,
A great thank you to you and your staff for all of your hard work!!! How likely would the residency restrictions would apply to all rso's? It seems to me with all of the uncontitutional issues that have been brought up in different cases, that I would hope and pray that it doesn't happen. This will cause an uproar.
James Townsend
Janice I can see your issues out in California are really a big difference than in Virginia. Since I got into this thing I really think its heart rendering for all. This issue takes doer's and not just hearer's. These sex offender law's are just doctrine's of man (man-made) Colossians 2:8 will give you food for thought. I know these are sex issues' what's the bible have to do with sex issues. A lot.
Just because one town doesn't want the sex offender to live her or there or is afraid or that they need to vote on a tier level or something like that. Than the law and government need a refresher course in the bible. The bible is based on love and it is a road map of each and every one of our life's. We should keep them in remembrance of all this. You can find all your answers in the bible of how to overcome all these issue's that man throw's at your seat belt.
Google Doctrine's of Man vs todays' law's. thumb's up to you Janice!
Bam
So in essence to a Tiered registry, do we have to have an assembly man in our corner to move forward or will the Registry be over hauled by chance with out an assemblyman! Please clarify.
SkeletonLander
Has anyone with more knowledge of the process than I have thought about what would be required to create a petition and get it on the ballot? All of the arguments we are putting out there could be clearly stated as the primary reasons to support such a bill as a peoples initiative. This would cut the politicians out of the loop and short circuit the process.
Lance Mitaro
At no point in history has anyone politely asked for their freedom and received it.
You have to care MORE about your OWN personal safety and privacy than the so-called child safety advocate's flawed "knowledge is power" mission statement. You have to be MORE passionate about your cause than they are. Their arguments need to be quelled and used against them to make them look like they paranoid cowards that they really are.
This misguided protect children "at all costs" mentality in America needs to be mercilessly, viciously and relentlessly attacked and discredited. Former offenders are no longer going to be subjugated because of herd bias and worrywart parent's paranoid cowardice.
Sorry, but as a parent, you forfeited your right to sanity the moment you elected to have a child.
ms
Really hope the courts listen to the few voices of fact and reason while ignoring all millions of voices fueled by paranoia, misinformation, and folklore. I don't know which scares me more...the thought of lifetime registration or having to move out of my home (that I have a mortgage on) so my wife and children can stay. Perhaps they will reference something called the constitution when rendering their decisions. Can only hope and pray.
Eric Knight
I would go so far as to call it the "California Community Safety Act" with no embellishment on the title of the bill. Even the this bill will remain in the legislative and (hopefully) the governor's desk, it is important to note that the name of the title is actually MORE correct. In short, we should not see "sex offender", "registry", or "tier levels" anywhere in the title of the bill. The introduction of tier levels should be done AFTER ascertaining their effectiveness with regard to community safety in the preamble.
cool CA rso
Yes, we can tell them "Hey, we have behaved for the last 10 years there no reasons to spend money watching us. Spend your money on those that needs to be watch.. " ( we aren't going to tell them what we mean watch those that have a higher rate of reoffending such as drunk drivers... )
Eric Knight
Words Mean Things.
Having said that, I suggest that the title of the bill should reflect community safety MORE than the registry. Let me be blunt.
If the law is perceived to HELP registrants, politicians will be very timid to author the bill. Basically, the next political opponent of the politician sponsoring the bill will have his attack ad tailor-made for his campaign. So while OUR efforts in CA RSOL are in alleviating the conditions of registrants, the politician's NUMBER ONE GOAL is to remain electable.
HOWEVER...
If the bill is heavily promoted as a COMMUNITY SAFETY issue, one that REDUCES recidivism, and finally, one that would SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCE costs associated with maintaining the registry, AND those three issues are CONSTANTLY promoted, then the bill has a chance of attracting a sponsor. Now, everyone knows that MOST rational politicians concur with the CA SOMB with regard to safety. But it is vital that arguments promoting the registrants' "gains" of not being monitored on a lifetime basis be STRICTLY throttled.
In short, promote in order: 1: Community safety, 2. Lower recidivism, 3. Lower costs. Way down the list? Easing up on registrants' lives. Finally, make sure we get an author that can handle the opposition he or she will undoubtedly receive from her potential political opponents, either from her own party in the primary, or the other party in the general.
cool CA rso
and keep your hand inside at all time..
Robert Curtis
The olive branch is I hope not seen as us somehow giving into their threats. Our position was one of rights lost not threats made.
jim
The thought of everything going on is reminding me of what I learned in school about the holocaust and the desegregation that occurred many many years ago, and to this day the hatred still goes on for one reason or another.
jim
All politicians should be prosecuted for hate crimes, just as any law abiding citizen that is on the registry is trying to be.
Janice's Journal: A Reflection on Hofsheier
Published Date : January 30, 2015
The California Supreme Court continues to bludgeon registered citizens with decisions that deny their civil rights. In the latest in a string of misguided decisions, the Court stripped away another fundamental right – the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution – by deciding that individuals convicted of oral copulation with a minor should be required to register as a sex offender for life while individuals convicted of intercourse with a minor should not be required to register at all.
The Court’s reason for this decision is difficult for even a veteran court watcher to believe much less understand. That is, intercourse with a minor could result in the birth of a child who, in turn, must be supported by its father, a father who will not be able to get a job and pay child support if he is required to register as a sex offender.
What? The Court is now formally recognizing that an individual who is required to register as a sex offender won’t be able to get a job. Tell me it isn’t so!
Of course, it is true. It is also true, as the two dissenting justices point out, that anyone who is required to register is stigmatized and may not be able to find a place to live.
The majority of the court says its decision is justified based upon three factors: deterrence, preventing recidivism and protecting the public. But how can this be true when, according to state government reports, the rate of re-offense for registered citizens is 1.8 percent while on parole and about 3 percent overall? These essential facts are conveniently absent from the Court’s decision.
Also absent from the Court’s decision is the quality of integrity. In its place are myths that continue to be repeated. The principle myth, of course, is that “sex offender registration is not punishment”.
But what can we expect from a Court that decided in 2013 that the government can unilaterally change the terms of a plea bargain entered into by a registered citizen? For a state that requires virtually every sex offender since 1947 to register for life the consequences of that decision have been devastating. For example, a person convicted more than 50 years ago when the internet did not yet exist now has his name, photo, and home address published on a public website that subjects him to vigilante violence, even death.
Tell me it isn’t so. Then tell it to the relatives of Michael Dodele who was stabbed to death in his home, to Bobby Ray Rainwater who was decapitated while walking in a trailer park and to Donald Crisp who was shot to death in the driveway of his home.
There is a small glimmer of hope in this case. That is, the defendant’s attorney has requested a rehearing, which if granted would be conducted before two newly appointed liberal justices. If they were to agree with the two dissenting justices, a new majority could reverse this unfortunate decision which if left intact will punish hundreds if not thousands of individuals.
By Janice Bellucci
Related: CA Supreme Court Decision Harms Registered Citizens
Comments
David
Janice - Could this be the rehearing that has been requested?:
Grants and Holds
People v. Fields (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 184, review granted 1/14/2015 (S222445/A135605). Briefing deferred pending decision in Johnson v. Superior Court (Jan. 31, 2013, E055194) [nonpub. opn.], review granted 5/1/2013 (S209167), which includes the following issues: Do the equal protection principles of People v. Hofsheier (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1185 bar mandatory sex offender registration for a defendant convicted of oral copulation between a “person over the age of 21 years” and a “person who is under 16 years of age” (Pen. Code, § 288a, subd. (b)(2))? Should the court overrule People v. Hofsheier (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1185?
Someone who cares
I was wondering about a peaceful protest myself. Put together with the families rather than the registrants, just to show how this affects all of us, and not just the actual person on the registry. This is cruel and unusual punishment for all the innocent people who are caught in this mess.
amom
Janice, one more thing....So happy that you do what you do for the SO's cause! You are our hero. How can we connect all registrants together so we can stand united strong?
amom
Janice, If the two new liberal justices agree that indeed it is cruel and stigmatizing punishment to have to be on the registry in this case, would this help get better momentum for fighting against all registry, period?
Mr. G.
Dear Janice, I need to know if we as people (sex offenders) all stand together and we start a movement would or could we make a difference? I wish I knew someone from where I live, so I could come to more meetings and put in my two cents.
Thank you for the letter to Captain Mondary in the Joshua Tree Sheriff office. I sure do hope he gets my message from your words!
When I read the words you put down about the California Supreme Court Decision, about oral copulation. I almost fell down laughing! When did the court turn to being the Gods for the law?
So now do we go the a higher court to get it over turned?
Thanks again and please put me in touch with someone who I can share a ride with to get to some of these courts and meetings.
USA
Wow, this is nuts! I plead to a battery with a masseuse/wobbler/summary probation. Its since been reduced/expunged and 20 years have elapsed! Yet, I'm still required to register. So, I could have had sexual intercourse with a minor and not been required to register? Yet, I plead to touching someone inappropriately and still required to register?
michael
Let's hope the mosley case goes better for us all. If the residential restrictions end up applying to all rso and AB201 gets passed it will be devastating for rso and their families not to mention it will pave the way for even more unjust laws including the implemation of the lifetime gps. Thank god we have someone like Janice and her team to at least give us some hope in all this.
steve
Yeah I don't get it. SCOTUS said Registration is not punishment and there is no stigma. But here the justices admit there is?
td777
Janice, is there any hope that the court's formal recognition of registrants being less likely to find employment or even a place to live being used to establish that registration in itself is cruel and unusual punishment?
Matt
Judges at any level are not supposed to care about who wins. They are supposed to take the emotion out of the argument and make decisions based on what is fair, factual, and constitutional. Clearly in this case and many, many others, that hasn't happened. My guess is that the registry will, in time, become so cumbersome and costly that it will collapse under its own weight. I think this has everything to do with the suggestions from the management board. I think the arguments based in facts like the recidivism rates, etc., are valid, but the seem to be ineffective. Any winning argument will probably be about the money and the utilization of limited resources.
G4Change
S.C.O.T.U.S.! It's time!
It is what it is
Thanks, Joe. Correct, I no longer have to register, but I did have to register for over 15 years and it's still a cause that I believe in and I check in here from time to time. So many "exceptions" are allowed by politicians and the courts for sex offenses that would never be accepted for any other crime. I also don't trust the politicians and the courts (many of the courts, there are some good judges out there who refuse to be intimidated and stand up for what's right). If they are willing to retroactively rip away people's relief via Hofshier, who is to say they won't try to rip away the relief of those of us with CORs?
Jo
Its like we are in a bad dream, that keeps spiraling down and down, deeper into darkness and inanity. When will it ever end? It honestly feels like it would be easier to just end it all were in not for someone fighting for us.
mike
It's crazy that the AG in the mosley case has put forth a better and more complete argument for sex offenders then any of these other attorneys have. We really need Janice or someone to argue these cases with the facts so as to force these court decisions to be based on the real facts and leave them no option to fall back on their lies and false information with every decision they make
Anonymous Nobody
I must say, about any rehearing, I hope so, but I seriously doubt it. That would basically be up to the two new justices who join the court next week. Gee, neither has even been a justice before on any court! That is not a likely scenario to expect the first thing they will do is a major assault on their predecessors on a very hot ticket item that surely would see them face a major challenge to their confirmation election.
And besides, neither is a liberal, nor is there anything in their background to presume they don't support this ruling.
Nothing to lose in a rehearing, but it is even a longshot when you don't have two new justices just seated who have never been on a court before.
Anonymous Nobody
About some of the comments, I note, stigmatism is a psychological condition that has been considered to be punishing, psychologically punishing. These justices who are pointing out that registrants are stigmatized have previously insisted registration is not punishment! They are failing to keep their assertions consistent -- as I have in the past pointed out is difficult to do when you are lying, especially when you are really stretching the lie. So do not miss it when they accidentally speak truth, and cite that to use against them.
I note, citing the interference with the father getting a job so he can support some offspring from a rape (or illegal intercourse) -- that is Islamic Law! Under Islamic law, rapists can avoid conviction if they marry the victim, whether the victim wants to marry or not, and so supports them. When did our courts start enforcing Islamic Laws?! Gee, this ruling is a violation of the separation between state and church!
As for the three factors the court says the law is there for - where does the law say anything at all about any of them. The courts previously ruled the law was to provide for surveillance, as why else would you be registered, and I believe that surveillance language has been added to the law -- but no language about deterrence is in it,and that is not so automatic as surveillance might(or might not) be -- its only deterrence value would be if it were punitive, but they say it is not punitive - again, they are tripping over their own lies! Use it against them! The second they call it deterrence, they have inseverably said it is punishment!
Joe
Then you must no longer be having to register? Good for you, and good for you to be sticking around here.
it is what it is
Joe - I have a certificate of rehab. My lawyers looked into Hofshier vs COR and decided COR was a better route to take. After seeing this court decision, I'm extremely glad that's what we decided to do.
Joe
So did you try a Hofsheier motion between 2006 and now?
Have you looked into a Certificate of Rehabilitation? Unless you were sentenced to prison that sounds like a viable alternative.
it is what it is
Sorry for so many posts here, just want to correct my post above: my conviction was for oral sex only and did NOT involve penetration sex.
One other angle of this whole thing that I'm interested in - does it discriminate against gay people? If you are 20 and have a 17 year old girlfriend and have sex with her, this court thinks you should not have to register because a child could be created from it.
What if a 20 year old lesbian or gay guy has another form of sex (oral) with his or her 17 year old girlfriend or boyfriend? They can't really have it the "traditional" way, so that means they have to register as a sex offender because their sexual orientation tat ion precludes the, from having the kind of sex this court thinks deserves relief from registering?
it is what it is
The funny thing about this whole Hofshier argument is that I knew about this odd discrepancy before the original case ever went to court. I was convicted of a "statutory rape" scenario (me 23, victim 16, consensual) but it involved oral sex and penetration sex. I knew from my own research that people convicted of similar types of crimes but who had penetrative vaginal sex were not being forced to register yet I was because my conviction was from oral sex. I even wrote the ACLU and my state assembly representative at the time. I still have the letter I got back from my state assembly representative that told me their legal team had looked into it and there is no discrepancy. Funny, because a couple years later, Hofshier was decided proving the response I got from my state rep was completely wrong and that there WAS a valid legal argument there.
it is what it is
based on my reading, the judges have said in this decision that the stigma of children conceived during a sex offense is valid, but the stigma of children of sex offenders who weren't conceived as a result of the offense means nothing to them.
What about someone convicted of oral sex who has children? They will suffer the same consequences having their parent registered as a sex offender, I don't understand what difference it makes whether the offending act conceived them or not.
Timmr
What do think of this as a silver lining? The majority judges basically had to use the argument that the registry is punitive in order to make their point, which is, that some need to be be excluded from negatively life altering, mandatory registration.
Ron
Does anyone know of a factual study of what the reoffence rate was before the public internet shaming started? Is there any factual basis for a politition to say recitivism rates are only low due to the public postings?
Q
I'm in full agreement with Eric Knight's statement " Something about this STINKS." Whatever happened to factual evidence? Whatever happened to truth? It's been proven beyond a shadow of doubt by the "essential fact's" that the courts basis for this decision (deterrence, preventing recidivism and protecting the public) are indeed unsound and in no way based on factual evidence.
With a overall re-offense rate of 3% one must conclude the logic of these justices is tantamount to being based on superstition, myth, and I strongly feel prejudice. This decision seems to have been based on "emotional logic" (baaad; very baaad!!!) and seemingly is not based upon or grounded in jurisprudence.
Ron
Janice, any chance you can contact the defendant and ask to be part of any further proceedings. This is certainly an importance issue and not many attorneys have the knowledge and experience you have with these issues. Maybe his attorney would at least accept your advise on a proper argument against this bad ruling. These type of losses can certainly hurt our chances at reform of SO laws.
It'a a shame that it's so hard to find good attorneys out there. I myself am suffering from hiring a poor quality attorney that often bragged about how he was a Harvard graduate, but turned out to have little knowledge about how to provide a proper defense. Once you realize you have a bad attorney, it's very difficult to get a new one due to the expense and timing involved.
Eric Knight
I would be most interested in looking at the transcripts of the actual arguments. Something tells me the case was HORRIBLY argued. I can't believe that the judges would completely ignore the recidism argument had it been brought out in the original arguments and properly documented with sources that are available from a multitude of credible sources.
Even the dissenters didn't bring out that point, instead focusing on the mechanics of the offense as opposed to the actual danger. Something about this STINKS, and unfortunately, it's not just from the justices, but in this case from the litigants.
Joe
Beautifully written, to the point and so true! I only wish I had read this before struggling through the 50 page decision :)
Thank you!
PS: What is the last part about a rehearing? Is that possible?
MM
I wish I had eloquent words to write ... Like so many others do. I don't. I'm just sad. I'm sad that the judges don't look past what they believe to be truth, when in fact .... They are deciding on what they "believe" to be true ... Like many of us, until you are affected ... it doesn't matter. Shame on them.
Bluewall
I hope and pray for something sane to come out of this... until then you have my support and donations