ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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


Monthly Meetings | Recordings (3/20 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings

ACSOLCalifornia

Prop 35 Court Date [updated with audio]

Prop. 35 case has a court date on September 10 at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.  The topic is whether the current preliminary injunction was properly granted.  More information / documents

Sept 9: Court to Hear Arguments on Right to Anonymous Speech in Prop. 35 Case 

September 9 / EFF: The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco will hear oral arguments Tuesday in Doe v. Harris, EFF’s challenge to California’s Proposition 35, which requires registered sex offenders to turn over all of their Internet identifiers and service providers to local law enforcement authorities.

In November 2012, California passed Prop. 35 through ballot initiative. The day after the election, we brought a lawsuit with the ACLU of Northern California, challenging parts of the initiative as violating the First Amendment. The court granted a temporary restraining order later that day and, in January 2013, granted a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the law after finding we’d shown a substantial likelihood that the challenged portions of Prop. 35 were unconstitutional. Full Article

Listen to the oral argument (Sept 10)

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  • Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  • Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  • Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  • We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  • We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
  • Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  • Please do not post in all Caps.
  • If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links.
  • We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  • We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  • Please choose a user name that does not contain links to other web sites
  • Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  
 
42 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Anyone venture to guess what the ruling might be? All challenges against a registrants rights to be online has been thrown out or ruled against thus far. The odd thing about being under the registry umbrella is rights on these citizens can and have been violated with ease and without much question. The sex offender registry in any form is a form of LIVING DEATH it is Evil and it is Wrong, because these people have their addresses listed for anyone to look up to come over and kill them. Where are we? In Nazi Germany? With the rise of… Read more »

All challenges against a registrants rights to be online has been thrown out or ruled against thus far. Not true. Indiana, Nebraska and Louisiana have all won challenges to online restrictions. I’m sure California will say that 35 is not a restriction on us, but a public safety concern. If 35 does somehow pass, I plan to change my passwords every day. I hope everyone else will too, that way they get inundated with so many password change notifications that they give up. If we do it right, it could be a “Denial of Service” attack of their own making.… Read more »

I do not have the text in front of me right now, but I do not think that Prop 35 requires passwords to be provided. The requirements say “online identifiers” and Service Providers. Nevertheless, this was one of those great ideas that appeals to the masses but no thought is given to execution. The only parameter is that a new / modified online identifier must be reported within 24 hours. Should Prop 35 indeed pass, everyone could make up a new name (this site, for example, and many others allows anyone to post under any name, any time of the… Read more »

A HomeRun is a HomeRun …federal judge has already made
that support and defense of the Constitution ruling…..its a
HomeRun for the Constitution …..free speech is a fundamental Right…….that failure proposal in prop 35 tried
to force you against your will to give info that would have to
gone through a search warrant if crime involved …….and your freedom of speech criminal if you don’t give info ….
Support and defend the Constitution ….thank GOD….a federal judge has done that….thank you.

This provision of 35 did not make any sense to me at first. I am sure the FBI can easily get a court’s permission to read someone’s e mails if there is suspected child abuse. With the NSA disclosures I guess at the real purpose of this proposition, clothed in the issue of sex trafficking. Maybe this was the main reason for the proposition, but would not have gained so much support if brought up on its own. It needed to piggy back on an issue that is hot in the news. Now they can say that 80 of the… Read more »

Re last comment: 80 percent of voters. I wish it was just 80 people.

First, let’s get some perspective. This decision, if it is in our favor, will be the biggest victory for Internet rights for RSO’s in the country. The main reason is that other states have different degrees of restrictive activity. North Carolina, for instance, prohibits social network activity of any type, while Louisiana requires registrants to post their address and other personal information on any site they use. Finally, the federal decision in Chicago that prohibited the state of Indiana from imposing an Internet ban on registrants there was a good victory. But in all these states, they have to turn… Read more »

Does Janice have any thoughts on how this will go down?

I think she wants to keep the cards close to her chest on this one..

After this is defeated, they will revise the law and pass another version. The threat to your freedom and those of our friends and loved ones is far from over. Sex offenders are low-hanging fruit and will be picked at every turn because politicians need to look tough on crime, big on public safety, and like they’re doing something besides leeching off the public dole.

I don’t think so. The legislature never did anything with the law. The only way it was included was because it was pushed through the initiative process, which bypasses the legislature and executive branch, and in fact was actually hidden in a law that ostensibly wanted to stop human trafficking, which was already a major felony.

That said, does anyone know which three judges will be ruling on this law? Those three judges have sway on every registrant’s life in California with their decision.

Does anyone know yet how this went?

Audio is here! Not sure if they will have the video later.

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/view.php?pk_id=0000011287

Coincidentally, one of the judges in this case has ruled on another case regarding Internet privacy of emails. Google Street maps had kept user names and passwords that it collected from wireless sources when they did their street mapping. One of the judges in the case, Jay Bybee, who also is one of the three judges in our case, had come out strongly against the company. http://ca.news.yahoo.com/google-loses-bid-dismiss-lawsuit-175903277.html Relevant quote from the story: Writing for a three-judge panel, Circuit Judge Jay Bybee said Wi-Fi communications did not qualify as a “radio communication,” or an “electronic communication” that was “readily accessible to… Read more »

I do not know the first thing about proceedings like this, but I listened to the whole thing and come away thinking that the ACLU lawyer did quite a good job. The impertinence of the State lawyer (the second one) claiming it is really no big deal because this information has been collected for years now and there has not been any prosecution or complaint about mishandling of information. Of course, since there was NO LAW in place there is also no opportunity for arrest and prosecution. And they probably knew better not to leak anything to anyone. He is… Read more »

I’m not sure how much time will pass. I suppose I can look at a bunch of decisions, find out when their arguments were made, and come up with a median. I can do that a bit later.

One of the things that struck me is that one of the judges made a comment with regard to the “post-Snowden” world, regarding the current situation with the NSA. This can only help our cause.

Actually that could be a bad thing actually…I mean, if the thinking is that we have ALL already been actively monitored then what is wrong with even more intense monitoring of known criminals (RSO)? It actually could be very bad for us…

The context of how the argument even came out was a rebuke to the state’s argument, and certainly not one that would give an indicator, to me, that the judges would approve of such vast government spying on citizens. I think it’s far more positive than negative for us.

That said, I’m looking for the first prosecutor in a sex offender case to publicly subpoena the NSA for all email, phone, and Internet usage records of registrants. I’m surprised it hasn’t happened yet, as it would actually boost the “political street cred” prosecutors hold with sheeple.

I’ve never been asked for any online info, except last year I think they asked if I had a Facebook account, which I don’t since it’s against Facebook’s Terms of Service. And I don’t think it’s a good idea for any RSO to willingly place any additional public info in cyberspace.

I created a twitter account and used it to tell half thruths and full lies for over a year. Just a couple of weeks ago or so, someone called law enforcement to report i was traveling. In reality, i hadn’t even left. That’s because i stated on my twitter account that i was traveling. Because “i didn’t report” it, i found myself on the receiving end of a pretty serious legal mess. I was forced to register in the state i was visiting and i had nothing but trouble getting answers from the source registry people. One thing i do… Read more »

If you had a Facebook account (in spite of Facebook’s Terms of Service) what are the chances you would have reported it, asked under the “color of authority” in the setting of the annual registration visit.

Fact remains this information was solicited and collected without any authority whatsoever.

According to the ACLU, the hearing went well. A decision is expected in about three months. If the court decides in our favor, an appeal is expected. If the court decides against us, the ACLU will determine whether or not to appeal based upon the reasons given by the court.

You do know that there is only one court to appeal to from the 9th Circuit… the US Supreme Court. They may end up taking this one, because a 9th circuit decision applies to ever state and territory touching the Pacific, every state touching one of THOSE states, and Montana.

I wonder what type of secret communication is going on with Chris Kelly and Judges Shroeder and Bybee. This is going to take one HELL of a bribe “think of the CHILDREN!!” plea.

I just did my annual check in with Big Brother (this time it was Big Sister). I noticed on the form there was a line for Internet identifiers. She didn’t ask me for them, though.

The field asking for online identifier should be non-existent or blacked out on the form. From the Megan’s Law web site (the part that I think is okay to look at – I think). ATTENTION: FEDERAL COURT ENJOINS COLLECTION OF E-MAIL AND SOCIAL NETWORKING INFORMATION ON REGISTRATION FORMS. On January 11, 2013, a federal court enjoined the Attorney General and law enforcement agencies from collecting information pertaining to e-mail addresses, internet service providers, and social networking/screen names on sex offender registration forms. These fields will not appear on the 2013 DOJ registration forms (DOJ forms 8047, 8102) which are about… Read more »

No, the field wasn’t blacked out on the form, although it might have been a 2013 form. Guess they were hoping I would volunteer that information. As for the NSA, I remember Snowden saying that it collects all communications, but one needs a personal email to read an individual’s communications. He used the example of having the ability to read all the President’s communications, if he had a personal email address for him. It sounds like they have a huge library of books without covers, and how are you going to find War and Peace, except by randomly opening billions… Read more »

Another scathing review! Maria Dinzeo of the Courthouse News Service highlighted several key arguments. Two judges were especially harsh on the state’s lawyer. The article is called “‘Post-Snowden Era’ Audit of CA Sex-Offender Monitoring”. http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/09/11/61061.htm NOTABLE QUOTES: First, a blowback from Judge Jay Bybee (the BUSH judge): At an appellate hearing Wednesday, Deputy Attorney General Robert Wilson noted that California has been collecting information on sex offenders since November 2012, with no incidents of retaliation by police or suppression of free speech. “There’s no getting around the fact that California has been collecting this information form tens of thousands of… Read more »

Legal question on jurisdiction: If the decision comes out in our favor, does this apply to all states, territories, and commonwealths in the 9th Circuit? In other words, if any of those states require any Internet identifiers or other restrictions, do they have to remove them and, barring US Supreme Court reversal, never be allowed to enforce Internet restrictions in the future?

Other states, territories, or commonwealths in the jurisdiction include Alaska, Arizona, California, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, North Mariana Islands, Oregon, and Washington.

Yeah, and I don’t see how monitoring registrants, who have less than 2 percent recidivism and who knows how low it would be if you just count repeat offenses using the internet, can halt trafficking. I would think that any trafficker would not have any registrants on the payroll. It would make them vulnerable to surveilance. So we would all pay law enforcement to play CSI in cyberspace, while active criminals breathe a sign of relief.

From some comments I’ve seen earlier, regarding Facebook’s terms of service, I did note in the “language”, it said: “You will not use Facebook if you are a convicted sex offender”. Well, OK; but it didn’t say anything about “ex convicted” sex offenders (even “ex con” is defined as formerly convicted), or registered sex offenders. Since it’s all based on technical definitions, it’s more to slop in the language rather than ambiguity when it comes to Facebooks terms of use.

One thing I think should of been in the ACLU arguments.If you are married and have kids, grand kids etc…Who is to say when they come over they don’t log in to their accounts etc. Now are we guilty for not reporting all their identifiers? I must have 200 accounts and my wife has many. most are very old and I don’t even remember them such as “Pep Boys, Auto zone etc. I have closed accounts that would still show up and i don’t even remember the user names. So I get to go to prison if my Gran child… Read more »

Is there any news on this case? This made me think of it – a glimpse into the future? Felony? And a five month investigation? Really???? My tax dollars at work, lol.

“After a five-month investigation, Madisonville Police discovered that Emerson had two unregistered e-mail addresses and a Facebook page. Emerson was arrested on two counts of providing misleading information to the sex offender registry, a class D felony…”

http://www.14news.com/story/24213521/hopkins-county-sex-offender-arrested-again

I agree that an update is in order. I think that most of us visit this site for information as up to date information seems to be quite rare. The only time that we hear anything about sex offenders is when yet another restriction is added. If this website is to be active in gaining momentum and becoming a focal point for California sex offenders to get information and to join forces, it really NEEDS to be updated much more frequently with what is going on. As it is, it seems that a few of us come here…post “what I… Read more »

I hope we don’t lose. I have no idea of all the information they would want and how I am going to get it to them in 24 hours, especially if I find out on a Friday afternoon that I am going to have to comply. I’ll try to comply, but it will add another layer of stress. Did I get it right? Did I provide the information needed without giving them information they had no right to receive?

I was under the assumption that the decision was going to be made at this time, and I’m a bit concerned. The problem is that if you listen to the oral arguments, it’s practically a slam dunk win for our side, particularly with some of the unsolicited statements by some of the justices. My concern is that this decision should have been rendered in December, as the original estimate time was given. But with the extended time, I wonder if the court is now trying to backtrack off from its original signal about an easy win for our side, and… Read more »

OK. So I thought a good way to make a little money would be to work online at home doing some type of data entry tasks or crowd sourcing. No interviews, no background checks. I’ve never done anything illegal using and computer. Data is divided up amongst several agents, so the information stays secure. In order to communicate with my superior, I would have to get a special email address, which I will have to disclose, along with the rest, if this court rules for the State. Not only that, but the State will then have the ability to snoop… Read more »

This was on ballot presented to voters as further punishment, so even on its face its unlawful ….they
cannot put free Americans back into restraint parole
conditions its unlawful ….they cannot force you to give
communication info unless every citizen in the state does
so as well and/or a warrant to search for cause of a crime
or its unlawful …..you cannot make free speech a crime or
obstruct free speech or restrain free speech when communication info was not given…its unlawful …its un-Constitutional.

That prop 35 on its face is further punishment ….its in print…….punishment …..presented to voters …….also…
they are making free speech criminal….subject to arrest….
also the taking of communication info without warrant for
cause of a crime …..other Constitutional issues apply as well.

OK, it’s February. It’s been 145 days since the oral arguments were given. Every case heard in September and before, most in October, and even some in November have already been decided. Why is the court taking so long with our case?? I really really hate this. I really do. I have a bad feeling that, even though the judges were very skeptical against the state during the arguments, that they are taking their cues from other states and jurisdictions, and coming up with wordsmithing options so they can cede registrants’ Constitutional rights to that of the sex offender mania… Read more »

I just got word that one of the judges is having issues with their family. That is apparently what’s causing the delay.

Keep in mind that it took the 10th Circuit almost 10 months to decide Doe v. Shurtleff, and their ruling flied in the face of SCOTUS precedent – using an exception to strict scrutiny in 1st Amendment jurisprudence that SCOTUS warned should not be used outside of zoning law cases, as it could eviscerate the 1st Amendment.

That’s a good point, and is a prescient indicator that judges are human and have biases, and are just as prone to cite evidence that supports their bias as opposed to judging all evidence in an unbiased manner. But that means this court will have to be a veritable Houdini to side with the state on this one. For instance, many of the arguments by the state that referenced the arguments in the Utah decision drew some of the harshest rebukes by the judges. Of course, EFF and the ACLU were prepared for this for the most part, and easily… Read more »

42
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x
.