Comments that are not specific to a certain post should go here, for the month of October 2014. Contributions should relate to the cause and goals of this organization and please, keep it courteous and civil.
Related posts
-
IL: Sex offenders on probation challenge Illinois policy on contact with children
Source: courthousenews.com 12/7/23 The parolees complain they have to wait months or more before a therapist... -
TN: Tennessee argues to reinstate sex offender registry requirements at Sixth Circuit
Source: courthousenews.com 12/7/23 CINCINNATI (CN) — Reporting requirements for sex offenders convicted before 1995, which can... -
The government is launching a review of the porn industry – here’s what that means
Source: cosmopolitan.com 12/8/23 The porn industry is to be scrutinised as part of a government review...
Is It Me or does each Progressing Halloween seem scarier than the last????Just Askin’
CA Sex Offender Management Board Considering New Tiered Registry Bill
Did anyone attend and/or know how the meeting went yesterday?
Dear Janice or anyone who might be able to help….
Last year a court decision (People vs. Douglas) held that the “containment model” of sex offender probation supervision (state approved sex offender treatment and mandatory polygraph tests) could NOT be applied retroactively to those whose offenses were committed before the law was passed in 2010. This was welcome news to me because my offense was committed before 2010. I assumed that court decision would settle the matter. However, I was told today by my (court ordered) treatment provider that a new law has been passed which invalidates the “People vs. Douglas” decision and I must now IMMEDIATELY begin undergoing mandatory polygraph tests at my own expense ($300 per test).
Has anyone heard anything about this? I haven’t seen anything on this site with any news of this new law. Will this be challenged in court as well? I’m told I have to begin taking polygraph tests at my own expense which I can ill afford.
I would appreciate any response on how to approach this troubling new development.
Sorry joe…your ab2411..?…it’s got Double Jeopardy written all-over it….lets say it again…Double Jeopardy …challenge it and win BIG.
Hey Guys,,If Your Off Paper & went to those 2 hr classes through Your Whole Parole Already, & been Clean for ever..since “03”,,We Still have to Go back & get More Classes,all the Parole Rules +,, What?…Your Jokin’ Me ! Or Just call Me stupid sorry..IDK wth Goin’ On Now? Janice, Mam Please clear this up for Me,,& Others I’m Sure. Because it’s as Clear as Mud to some of Us…Thank You in advance.
HAAhahahha,,Here’s a funny for Yah…” I just made a big red bull’s Eye on a White T shirt for Halloween….HHAHAHHAhhahahah,,,,Screwit!;-)
One thing You can Count on is every politician NO MATTER WHO THEY ARE Brings More Laws Regardless of intent That is Just a sad FACT! See Laws Are what a Politician uses as Career Fuel!!!
I’m confused. Who does AB2411 apply to?
On CNN News this morning in the matter of the quarantined nurse Kaci Hickox, a judge ruled very quickly that the quarantine should not extend beyond what she was essentially doing already – a big victory for her. One legal pundit they interviewed said the judge was acting under laws that require, if somebody’s civil liberties are to be restricted, then the law must have an evidentiary basis (based in fact) and not limit the civil liberties more than absolutely necessary. I almost fell out of my chair! If what he said is true, then all the laws affecting registrants and the registry itself are illegal. Does anybody know if this is correct in US law or in Maine law? The CNN website has a clip on the matter at http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/31/health/us-ebola/index.html?hpt=us_c2 but unfortunately does not name the legal pundit or show him speaking. Their accompanying text does in fact loosely mention this very important legal issue.
Anonymous Nobody, at this date of Nov 2, its too late for Kamala Harris to be nominated and confirmed within 2 days for her to be in office as US Atty General, replacing Eric Holder, all to be done before Nov 4 election. But 2 weeks ago, it was possible for her to be nominated and confirmed , all before the Nov 4 election in 2 days. At this date, it would be academic to discuss what would happen before Nov 4 election. 2 weeks ago, however, I would disagree with you that it was so unlikely for her to be nominated and confirmed quickly. The Republicans would maybe see some benefit to confirming her quickly and before the Nov 4 election. The reasoning goes that she would be confirmed quickly by Republicans before Nov 4, so that Ron Gold, who would and will probably lose to Kamala Harris in the runoff in 2 days, would get to be California Atty General, either winning outright which is unlikely, or getting to be California Atty General when Kamala drops out. The election for California Atty General would still happen with Kamala Harris and Ron Gold, as you said. I believe you are correct that it would be too late to change things since people have already voted and ballots have been already printed. I even heard of an election that still went on with a dead guy as a candidate, and he won if I recall correctly. So the election would go on regardless.
The Republicans in the Senate probably think it’s important for California to be Republican again, California being a state with a long history of Republicanism that produced 3 Republican Presidents. Getting a Republican into Atty General in California, who could then use that position to springboard into Governor, then President being their goal. Some Republicans have taken to the ‘Blue Wall’ strategy to acheive this goal, which is to run candidates who are pro-weed and pro-gay
candidates to win elections in blue states, so they can rebuild the California Republican Party.
Here, its now 2 days to Nov 4. All this has not happened and that means its the other scenario, where if Kamala was nominated and confirmed as US Atty General after Nov 4 election, then a new election would happen where the Facebook fascist could run again. But, since it would not mean Ron Gold getting installed as California Atty General, I doubt the Senate confirmation would be a slam dunk as in the other scenario, where this occurred before Nov 4.