ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings | Recordings (7/10 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings

Click here to sign up now for ACSOL’s Online EPIC Conference: Empowered People Inspiring Change Sept 17-18
Download a PDF of the schedule


Sex Offender’s Case Won’t Face En Banc Rehearing

PASADENA, Calif. (CN) – The full 9th Circuit should have been called to consider whether to let a sex offender challenge his parole conditions, as the question imperils “our constitutional system’s respect for state sovereignty,” five judges said Tuesday.
____ ____ alleges that California prison officials violated his civil rights by imposing residency and GPS monitoring restrictions typically reserved for sex offenders, even though he had only been convicted in the Golden State for robbery. The state justified the Jessica’s Law parole conditions because of ____’s sexual battery conviction in Tennessee 27 years ago.

Finding that ____ could seek relief only from the restrictions via habeas petition, a federal judge dismissed ____’s case.

This past August, a divided three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit concluded that the trial court had misapplied the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Heck v. Humphrey since ____ had not challenged either his underlying conviction or the parole itself – only certain conditions of the parole. Full Article

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
    1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
    2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
    3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t
    4. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
    5. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
    6. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
    7. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
    8. 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.
    9. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
    10. Please do not post in all Caps.
    11. 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.
    12. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
    13. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
    14. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people
    15. Please do not solicit funds
    16. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), or any others, the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
    17. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
    18. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email 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.  
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Can someone explain this for dummies like me?

I was going to ask the same question. Janice?

Unfortunately, I can’t determine from this article alone what the court has decided in this case. Instead, I will need to read the full case. From the tone of the article, some of the federal judges are concerned that they will be flooded with requests to review parole conditions. Wouldn’t that be interesting?

Thank you. That looks like the jist of the article. I’d have to say to these judges, why not question the terms of parole or what happens in prisons? The prison system often operates with its own set of rules. Take the lifetime solitary confinement of some prisoners. The Constitution is assumed to not apply when you’re outside the courtroom and under the wings of the punishers. The judges have a responsibility to bring the penal system under the rule of law, no matter how inconvenient it is for them.

This confirms my suspicion that this article wasn’t written very well. It’s ambiguous.

I understand the retro-active application of a previous conviction requires that the person had been incarcerated in State Prison – presumably a California conviction resulting in a California prison confinement.

They have gone so far out of their way to ensnare people whose prior convictions are so far in the past and beyond California jurisdictions, it is beyond ridiculous.

I don’t know if my information is correct but I still had a hard time interpreting this article because of my limited knowledge of legalese.

If anyone can put this in simple terms what this means to us, I would also appreciate it.

My best guess is that this guy had exhausted his registry period in Tennessee (No longer required to register there). But recently he’s committed a new felony here in California. California has dug up the fact of his previous conviction of sexual assault and now wants to make him register for life as well as give him all the special treatment that a sex offender receives while on parole. He’s challenging this. I also believe that they had an issue when he filed his petition of habeas corpus past a certain deadline, but I think he was originally misled by the prison personnel that he could not file one while incarcerated.
This was just my own interpretation.

I wonder how much in federal matching funds they get for these “gotchas”?
The search for absolute power seems like a sick joke on a few guinea pigs such
as me, but when this process reaches full maturity, every American will
be gasping for the air of freedom and liberty but it will be too late.

Read up on the national license plate database project if you think there isn’t a
long term plan to eliminate freedom of movement. And by that I’m talking
about freedom from government surveillance.

I shutter at the thought of all this creepy espionage technology that NSA, Homeland Security, and ICE, are using to monitor innocent unsuspecting citizens. I have yet to purchase a webcam after reading how they can be controlled remotely. If I could see through a webcam at home from my workplace to check on a nanny or whatever, Them who is to say that it couldn’t be hacked by one of these spy operatives. Even the manufacturer could have a backdoor to these devices. The thing that helps me keep my sanity when I think about all this technology is if anyone IS tracking my every moves, than that is a very bored person.

Speaking of which… I cut My GPS bracelet off today after five years of marriage. My parole is over and I’m waiting for some magical feeling of freedom to kick in. 7 pages of parole conditions are sitting in my trash can. I really look forward to showing up at the next CARSOL meeting in So-Cal.

Hi Mike;
Your fears are not unfounded.

It’s worse that most of the sheeple realize. They had better shut off the TV and get involved before it’s too late!

Pass this on.

Ironically, I find his actions as a robber, particularly if he had or threatened use of a weapon, more frightening than the actions of the majority of registrants in their own crimes.

I believe that the significance of the article is the avenue of redress available to challenge conditions of parole. It seems that a parolee was previously required to bring such a challenge via Habeas Corpus. However, this person brought his challenge via lawsuit- alleging that his parole conditions were imposed in violation of his Constitutional Rights- under U.S.C. 42, sect.1983. The Dist. Court dismissed his complaint (under Heck v Humphrey), holding that Habeas Corpus was the appropriate avenue…but the 9th Cir. reversed that decision. In other words, according to the 9th Cir., a parolee can now sue (under sect.1983) if s/he believes their parole conditions are unconstitutional in some way. This opens-up a whole new can of worms,e.g., federal jurisdiction over state law issues; evidence laws; attorney’s fee’s; etc.. I know it’s confusing, but I hope this helps. P.S. I’m just a parolee who studied law for a few years (13?) in the pen,i.e.,a layman in the law.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x