Comments that are not specific to a certain post should go here, for the month of July 2014. Contributions should relate to the cause and goals of this organization and please, keep it courteous and civil.
Related posts
-
Senators call for audit of TSA’s facial recognition tech as use expands in airports | The Record from Recorded Future News
Source: therecord.media 11/22/24 A bipartisan group of 12 senators on Wednesday sent the Department of Homeland... -
-
SORNA Case Advances in Federal Court; PLF Files Motion for Summary Judgment
The Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) filed a motion for summary judgment on November 18 in its...
And here were are on MONTH 11 following the hearing by the 9th Circuit about Proposition 35 emails…remember that? Yes, it’s been 296 days…almost 300 days since the hearing on September 9. What is going on?? All three justices have given opinions on several other cases that were heard after this case. In some, those cases were heard as late as May of this year! So what is taking them so long??
Yes, I fear the worst. The case was a classic open-shut case, especially with the eviscerating questioning by the judges themselves that should have been clear in how they would rule. So pardon my cynicism, I sense a huge wordsmithing operation afoot to justify the registration scheme.
Parts of my County are having evacuations due to fires. What is a Registered Citizen supposed to do when the emergency services (like shelter and Red Cross) are only available at the local school?
It’s July and in two days millions of Americans will be celebrating their freedom; but not us, because they have taken away our freedom.
These people will be rejoicing over their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; but not us, and this includes our families and millions of little children that have had their innocence stolen and their lives turned into a living hell because a family member is forced to wear the scarlet label.
In two days millions of Americans will be celebrating with friends and neighbors; but not us, because we have been turned into much hated and reviled social outcasts by the celebrants.
In two days millions of Americans will be going to fireworks displays; but I seriously doubt many of us would dare attend such an event with our children because “their” children will be present.
So many of us will stay at home (if we have one) with our families (if we still have or are allowed to have one) and make do with the semblance of freedom we have and try to give our children as much of a good time as possible with what we are allowed.
This doesn’t feel like America; at least not the America I was born into. I don’t feel like I have anything to celebrate. I feel like I live in a land of mad men, where my very life is in danger. The best I can do is to pray that change will come soon. It’s all I can do because I am a prisoner and can’t escape.
I also have noticed the many fear-mongering reports of online sex offenses, thus calling for the necessity to implement online monitoring of registered citizens.
Right at stanleyk ::you mean the reports saying that new ‘sex’ offense will be at a 95% or higher from people NOT on a registered list ..??…reports saying that ..??……best to report every citizen or non-citizen will be “monitored”…….freedom of speech prevails.
This law took all of five minutes to write by the looks of it. Just write in something about sex and offending and it’s an automatic pass. Since when do people who have never commited an online offense have to supply government with internet identifiers? And do it “immediately” no less. I wasn’t even denied use of the Internet during my probation and didn’t abuse that privilege. Now its my right. I have done nothing since to earn this violation of my free speech. No one who has finished their court ordered sentence deserves this restriction.
Some thoughts for legal attack:
Is it legal for the US to send SO registration info to foreign countries, even after a conviction has been expunged, and so they are not sending info about someone whose conviction stands in the eyes of the state that is deciding whether that person has to register? That is, can they send info about people who do not have a conviction? I don’t know of non-conviction info ever being sent to other countries before.
In fact, in an early case challenging registration as punishment due to a conviction, the California high court ruled that registration does not apply only to people who have been convicted but also to people who have not ever been convicted, such as those found not guilty by reason of insanity. That is, it applies to the conduct, regardless of a conviction, and a conviction is simply one way to show the conduct. Thus, the court said registration was regulatory.
Can this kind of info be sent to other countries simply because you are a registrant, or does it require a conviction to be sent? Not all registrants have a conviction, and not all registrants continue to even have a conviction if it was expunged. (I know expungements are not quite as clear as they should be in California, but in various other states they are very clear.)
Can the US on the one hand yield to the states when the US enforces how long a registrant must register and who must register, yet on the other hand hold that it does not recognize California expungements, as it does not for at least immigration matters so maybe for registration purposes too? How can the US say the states control the issue, but that they do not control the issue – which is what that seems to say? This is completely illogical, inconsistent and certainly unequal. If California were to revert to allowing one to stop registering after an expungement, would the US continue to send the conviction and previous registration info because of the conduct, or would it stop, showing that sending that info was not due to the conduct, but to the conviction that brought about the expungement.
If due to the conviction, then the US should not be able to send the info once you get an expungement, even if California continues to require you to register, because registration is not the point, conviction is. If due to the conduct, then the US should be sending info about all kinds of people even if they do not have to register in their state, because neither conviction or registration would be the point, conduct would be.
How can they be sending info about someone who wags his weenie in California but not about someone who wags his weenie in New Jersey, where that is not a registrable offense? If that isn’t unequal treatment under federal law, a violation of the Constitution, then I don’t know what is.
Another thought for legal attack:
Can the US send info to foreign countries about registrants provided by California, or does California have to be the one to decide whether that info can be sent?
Or, if the US does send the info regardless, can California legally send that info to the US, since California law limits the distribution of that information to a demonstrated danger to the community and also limits distribution of criminal records? If the US isn’t going to honor that, can California send that info to the US? If the state and police cannot even tell community members, then how can California provide the info to anyone, including the US, who plans to make just such a distribution outside the California limits?
Just another reason why these laws MUST be changed; they are unfairly applied.
http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/general-news/20140703/temple-city-softball-coach-pleads-no-contest-to-having-sex-with-underage-former-team-member
I do not recall how or why but I just ran across this…
Apparently in Illinois Community Notification is covered under the “Illinois Sex Offender and Child Murderer Community Notification Law”.
http://www.lakecountyil.gov/Sheriff/How/Sexual%20Offender/Pages/Sex-Offender-and-Child-Murderer-Community-Notification-Law.aspx
In other words… have a 15/16 year old girlfriend, download some inappropriate pictures – get covered under the “Sex Offender AND Child MURDERER Law”.
OMG. Lord help us all…
Interesting proposal by opposite ends of the political spectrum in the Senate to do a comprehensive overhaul of the criminal justice system — including adding a route to expungement for adult criminal offenses for non-violent offenses.
There are not much of any details in this story, so it can’t be seen whether they are proposing to include or exclude sex offenses in the enpungement possibilities. It also can’t be determined what would have to be done to obtain the expungement, and that could be draconian. But I doubt they would be talking about expunging a sex offense any earlier than the federal laws require registration for that offense — although I don’t think there are any non-violent sex offenses, such as indecent exposure, for which the feds require registration. And again, many, even most offenses for which California requires registration, the federal government does not require registration, so it is unlikely that federal registration requirements would interfere with this.
Who knows what the impact would be on state registration if you got the matter expunged under federal law. In fact, would a federal expungement override and be better than the state’s 1203.4 PC “expungement,” and so allow those people to stop state registration? If nothing else, it could add pressure on the state. And it certainly would address the new problem of blocking international travel by any registrant by sending warnings to the destination country to be used to reject you at the border when you arrive, or probably even applying for federal jobs.
This is in the formative stage — now is prime time to lobby for it and for the details we need. And to consider, why are we asking for and accepting less at the sate level.
I appreciate Everything Janice & Frank & Every one that stays compliant is doin’. I Also think “WE RSO’S” Need a better network & communication so “WE” CAN” Do More for each Other as a community because that is what “WE” Are” all be it a Growing one? Yet “Most Hated”! So,,no pun intended,,I believe “We” need to have a “Members Only” section on this site that is “NOT” Public”,,,That way “We” Could exchange confidential info as how to hold meetings & Also “We” well some of us “Have No Friends”& Well it get’s Just down to What do I do sometimes..& Then there is the Option of a “Mens Home”,for $,,WHAT? I’m Off parole, No! I See it like this if “We” Don’t Help network to keep each other as a LAW ABIDING community,,We Will Fail! The More people We can Keep from re-offending or “Bein’ Outta Compliance”..The More WE WIN Via stats alone! Call it Um,,Uh, Communism,,kinda,,,lol Hey Were goin through the Facist stage Now Hahahahah….Giggle
I wish I could Build a site fer that but I’m unable to access the info to Validate each Member,, That takes another person that uses a separate computer that is not a felon.. There We are with that? Otherwise I would Build the site! But that “Could Make Me” a Very Responsible Person…Somethin’ Goes Wrong I would Be Responsible!!! There We Go Again??? IDK??
I do Know that the Mens Colonies or ” RSO Living Places”? Like the other states split up were not having any civil or criminal issues it was the States or Counties in Those states that Made them Close & split up! “Causin’ What” Uh,Huh,,,Registration bottlenecks! Hello!! IT IS ALL A GAME & WE ARE IT!
THIS IS THE Proper Approach in My Hum,,NO NOT So Humble,, But It’s My Opinion Anyway!!
http://www.straitstimes.com/premium/forum-letters/story/sex-offender-registry-not-the-answer-20140708
I was at the Burrito truck gettin’ dinner & there was a few people around.. Anyway there was this lady in My peripheral vision & her daughter & the Mom looked @ me & “You Know” When “That Look” & She whispered in her daughters ear & She turned & looked horrified @ Me..Well that says it all ..My turn came to Order & the Mexican Guy I Usually Make My order in Spanish,,But This Time I made an exception! I said ” Loud Enough””I’ll have an Order of Getoverit with a side of I did!” & The Look of Shock,AHAhahahaha,OMG Out of the reflection on the side of the truck,”like a mirror” ,Hahhahaaa..Too Cool! Then I made My order in Spanish!;-)…lol
Even the Kid started laughin’ …It was classic!;-)
Well, another registration excellent adventure. For 3 years I’ve been trying to get the BPD to list the last registrable offense (20 years ago) and no subsequent felonies since — pursuant to 290.46. They say that is not how they do it even though I printed out the penal code section and took it down there. I even took it down there 2 months ago, sort of an advanced notice thing. She said she already has the penal code.
So I was prepared this time and went in early because I wasn’t going to sign anything until they got it right. So when it came time to sign, I said I was going to have to think about it. She threatened to have me arrested for non-compliance if I didn’t sign. LOL I left, walked to the end of the block and turned around to go back. An officer was out front looking for me. I explained what I was trying to do and showed him section 290.46. He took me back in to try to straighten it out.
Long story short, the officer kept telling me to just do what she says or he would arrest me. I said, go for it and put my hands up. So he asked her if I was non-compliant and she at last said no. I still had days left. So I left without signing.
Why should I have to pay for a LiveScan when it is their duty to furnish that information? (She tried to say I wouldn’t have to pay for a LiveScan.) Which raises the question. Am I wrong? Is the local agency responsible for determining the conviction date? Or does only the DOJ do that? I’ve looked over the shoulder of someone visiting the Megan’s Law site and most jurisdictions have the last conviction date. Why?
Joe,
The LiveScan is for proof of identity. The DOJ claims it cannot discuss a criminal record for privacy reasons unless it is to someone authorized, like the person it pertains to. That no longer makes sense since the registry information is public now. Privacy? Really? The real reason is the DOJ gets to keep at least some of the fee for a LiveScan. Janice sent me LiveSacn form but I waited to try this first.
You may be right about jurisdictions not providing this information. I know some jurisdictions do though. It is important for obvious reasons but also for the sake of reliable statistics. Since we know from statistics the majority of registrants have been on the list for years without a new offense, that would be one certain method for the public to know how distant the last offense was, which goes to current dangerousness. I suspect PDs try to avoid factual dates to keep everyone currently dangerous. Kind of a 1984 black hole: “war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength.”
Well,,No One Here in Kern or Bakersfield I checked with to have a Mtg ,,Says We are all Booked Up !!!,,, So I guess That Means NO Bakersfield Mtg. fer Now….This is 1 mean lil County!!! Total ,,Isolation Talk about a COLD day in the summer !!!!!!!
& It’s 105Hot here! but it feels like the South Pole When Askin’ ANYTHING RELATED TO ,,,US!
I’m bringing my wife and new baby girl from the hospital tomorrow (July 10). Problem is the hospital social worker somehow found out I’m registered and called me into the county Child Protective Services. Supposedly, I’m going to get a call within 10 days and a home visit.
I’m not on probation or parole and have had my charge (311.11a) reduced and expunged, for what it’s worth. My question is do I have to meet with the CPS and/or let them into my home without some probable cause, court order, warrant, etc.?
http://news.yahoo.com/police-graphic-photos-teen-evidence-205338778.html
Anyone know the connection between the DMV and 290?
I renewed my DL over the phone. It didn’t come. So I called. They told me I had to go in. So I went in and had to fill out the form. Twice the clerk had to have her supervisor come to the window, the first time it looked like to enter a password. The second time the supervisor said something about registration then went back to her desk. I asked what that was about since I wasn’t doing car registration. Got the brush off.
Anyway, another long story short, the form claims to be for a DL, but I googled and found this right off:
V C Section 13372 Denial Suspension or Revocation of Ambulance Driver Certificate
13372. (a) The department shall refuse to issue or renew, or shall suspend or revoke an ambulance driver certificate if any of the following apply to the applicant or certificate holder:
(1) Is required to register as a sex offender under Section 290 of the Penal Code for any offense involving force, violence, threat, or intimidation.
Could the DMV be collecting data just in case? In other words, could that be their excuse? Is there any notice on the driver’s license? Or is a connection made when an officer does a DL check with the DMV? Some more google might turn up more connections with the DMV. Who knows what they sneak in.
From my reading of that statute, the local jurisdiction where you register is not the one to deal with that information. That statute says it is state Department of Justice that must do that. It does not make that part of the registration process, only part of the Website posting.
As for whether they have that information, all that information is required to be reported to the state Justice Department when it happens, and some of it required to be kept by the local district attorney, so they should have it. If not, then their records are incomplete and I would think they not only must get the info and comply with this statute but also would be LIABLE for not having already complied. I think registrants can file a class action, or better, a large number of individual lawsuits, over all the posts on the Internet that do not include this info and make some money off of it — because of the defamation the lack of that information has caused them. Well, the one exception might be for those registering for out of state convictions where that info might not be available to California.