2012 – New York’s Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) imposes a lifetime of police supervision on tens of thousands of persons who have already served their sentences. It is applied retroactively to people whose offenses were committed before its enactment. A person pleading guilty to a SORA-eligible offense need not be told that this additional sanction will be imposed. His or her risk level may be assessed based on charges that were dismissed as part of the negotiated plea. Statements that he or she has never had the opportunity to cross-examine may be considered “clear and convincing evidence” of their truth. Indelible, lifetime deprivations of liberty are made in 5-minute hearings where the defendant has fewer rights than an insurance company contesting a payout.
How is this possible? Because, we are told, SORA is not punishment. It’s strictly regulatory, like labeling a poison and putting it on the FDA registry for the safety of the public. Full Article (from 2012)
Alaska Citizens Action Network “The “individual” may stand upon “his Constitutional Rights” as a CITIZEN. He is entitled to carry on his “private” business in his own way. “His power to contract is unlimited.” He owes no duty to the State or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to incriminate him. He owes no duty to the State, since he receives nothing there from, beyond the protection of his life and property. “His rights” are such as “existed” by the Law of the Land (Common Law) “long antecedent” to the organization of the State”, and can only be taken from him by “due process of law”, and “in accordance with the Constitution.” “He owes nothing” to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights.” HALE v. HENKEL 201 U.S. 43 at 89 (1906) Hale v. Henkel was decided by the united States Supreme Court in 1906. HALE V. HENKEL 201 U.S. 43 at 89 (1906) Hale v. Henkel is binding on all the courts of the United States of America until another Supreme Court case says it isn’t. No other Supreme Court case has ever overturned Hale v. Henkel None of the various issues of Hale v. Henkel has ever been overruled since 1906, Hale v. Henkel has been cited by the Federal and State Appellate Court systems over 1,600 times! In nearly every instance when a case is cited, it has an impact on precedent authority of the cited case. Compared with other previously decided Supreme Court cases, no other case has surpassed Hale v. Henkel in the number of times it has been cited by the courts. “The rights of the individuals are restricted only to the extent that they have been voluntarily surrendered by the citizenship to the agencies of government.”
The Law of the Land – Everything which may pass under the form of an enactment is not the law of the land. (Sedg.St & Const.Law (2d Ed.) 475.).
“…That statutes which would deprive a citizen of the rights of person or property without a regular trial, according to the course and usage of common law, would not be the law of the land.” (Hoke vs. Henderson, 15,N.C. 15, 25 AM Dec 677).
The legal principle underlying this case and the one to be applied to the facts is firmly embodied in the roots of the common law, which has been handed down to us from early times unimpaired, in its full vigor, for the Protection of personal liberty, against illegal arrests. The liberty of the person is too important a matter to the state to be interfered with without the safeguards with which the law guards such invasions. This court has said: The limits to the power of arrest by a constable, without process, was well defined at common law. The regard for liberty of the person was so great that the common law did not confer upon a mere conservator of the peace the power to touch the person of the subject, of his own volition, except in those cases when the interests of the public absolutely demanded it. — Collins v. Cody, 95 N.J. Law 65, 113 Atl. 709, 710 (1920).
The limits to the power of arrest by a constable, without process, was well defined at common law. The regard for liberty of the person was so great that the common law did not confer upon a mere conservator of the peace the power to touch the person of the subject, of his own volition, except in those cases when the interests of the public absolutely demanded it. — Collins v. Cody, 95 N.J. Law 65, 113 Atl. 709, 710 (1920).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit APPROVED AND ALLOWED THE USE OF THE “COMMON LAW LI D” that was filed in the deed records office in Denton, Texas against a criminal investigator with the Criminal Investigation Division of the Internal Revenue Service. U.S. vs. REEVES, 752 F.2d 995 (5th Cir. 1985).
This means no judge decides what the facts the jury should hear as they are to decide the law and the facts (The common law right of the jury to determine the law, as well as the facts remain unimpaired. State v Croteau 23 Vt 14, 54 AM DEC 90 (1849).
The state government did not create the common law, so it has no authority to abolish it or control it, unless we allow ourselves to be tricked to putting common law under statutory law, where it’s “their house, their rules.” However, if we operate outside the statutory rules by invoking common law, no state government has the authority or jurisdiction to dictate, control or abolish what we do. They only have authority to enforce our decisions.
“The Common Law is the real law, the Supreme Law of the land. The codes, rules, regulations, policy and statutes are “not the law.” (Self v. Rhay, 61 Wn 2d 261), They are the law of government for internal regulation, not the law of man, in his separate but equal station and natural state, a sovereign foreign with respect to government generally.).
With such overwhelming case law there is no question about the fact of the claim made here statutes are not law. Plaintiff/the court now challenges prosecution and Magistrate to prove the statutes apply to plaintiff/court. Plaintiff denies being a government employee if the prosecution or state or Magistrates wish to say different then prove I have been a paid employee of federal or state Government. As well article 1 section 8 clause 14 says clearly the government makes the rules for the government not the people.
“This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof;… shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby… The Senators and Representatives and members of the State legislature, and all executive and judicial officers of the United States and the several States, shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.” The Constitution of the united States of America, Article VI, Cl 2, 3.5 U.S.C. 2906, 3331,
To protect the people from their elected and public employees,,Many of our people seem to believe that their state government has jurisdiction to stop the common law Grand Juries. However,the state government only has authority over statutory (ie. State) law, not common law. The common law of England was used to establish the U.S. Constitution, so it existed before it and, thus, it is superior to it. The common law is time immemorial.
“The United States is entirely a creature of the Constitution. Its power and authority have no other source. It can only act in accordance with all the limitations imposed by the Constitution.” Reid v Covert 354 US l, 1957.
“The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute and codes, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose, since its unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment… In legal contemplation, it is as inoperative as if it had never been passed… Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no right, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection and justifies no acts performed under it… A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. 20.181-192United States Code: Title 28a,Rule 5.1. Constitutional …
Pat
I concur with you with the up most sincerity.
And offer the following information on the Spanish or Iberia “Fuero” A parent root for our present day laws, for all to profit from.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuero
Fuero dates back to the feudal era: the lord could concede or acknowledge a fuero to certain groups or communities, most notably the Roman Catholic Church, the military, and certain regions that fell under the same monarchy as Castile or, later, Spain, but were not fully integrated into those countries.
The relations among fueros, other bodies of law (including the role of precedent), and sovereignty is a contentious one that influences government and law in the present day. The king of León, Alfonso V, decreed the Fuero de León (1017), considered the earliest laws governing territorial and local life, as it applied to the entire kingdom, with certain provisions for the city of León. The various Basque provinces also generally regarded their fueros also known as jauntxos as tantamount to a municipal constitution. This view was accepted by some others, including President of the United States John Adams. He cited the Biscayan fueros as a precedent for the United States Constitution. (Adams, A defense…, 1786)[1] This view regards fueros as granting or acknowledging rights. In the contrasting view, fueros were privileges granted by a monarch. In the letter Adams also commented on the substantial independence of the hereditary Basque Jauntxo families as the origin for their privileges.
In practice, distinct fueros for specific classes, estates, towns, or regions usually arose out of feudal power politics. Some historians believe monarchs were forced to concede some traditions in exchange for the general acknowledgment of his or her authority, that monarchs granted fueros to reward loyal subjection, or (especially in the case of towns or regions) the monarch simply acknowledged distinct legal traditions.
In medieval Castilian law, the king could assign privileges to certain groups. The classic example of such a privileged group was the Roman Catholic Church: the clergy did not pay taxes to the state, enjoyed the income via tithes of local landholding, and were not subject to the civil courts. Church-operated ecclesiastical courts tried churchmen for criminal offenses. Another example was the powerful Mesta organization, composed of wealthy sheepherders, who were granted vast grazing rights in Andalusia after that land was “reconquered” by Spanish Christians from the Muslims (see Reconquista). Lyle N. McAlister writes in Spain and Portugal in the New World that the Mesta’s fuero helped impede the economic development of southern Spain. This resulted in a lack of opportunity, and Spaniards emigrated to the New World to escape these constraints.[2]
P.S. As Yehowah lives, so should we.
@ Pat: “He owes no duty to the State, since he receives nothing there from, beyond the protection of his life and property.”
No offense, Pat, but doesn’t every citizen of Alaska receive an Oil Royalty Fund check of $1,000 – $2,000 per year? (Verified on Wikipedia.)
I’m just sayin’.
I don’t know, if someone is protecting my life and property, I would feel obliged to owe them something.
We gonna do something about that NY BS.
PK – Do you live in NY … I’ve been considering a way to be removed from the list – It is with a certificate of relief of disabilities. If you read it, it removes all disabilities. If registration is not “punishment” and just “disability” i think it should work – however I do not have time, or money to push this issue in court sadly
I haven’t lived or worked in NY for over 15 years and that is what the problem is. Hopefully I’ll get a chance to elaborate about this issue.
A certificate of relief from disabilities won’t get you off the SORA registry, But if you’re level 2 or 3, you can file a petition under NY Correction Law 168-o to have your risk level reduced. Consult a reputable lawyer.
Appellate, how successful are these petitions these days? I’m considering that.
Years ago, someone told me that Judges in Nassau County rarely grant a level reduction.
Appellate Squawk, do you know of a case that has decided this? I cannot figure out how a certificate that relieves all disabilities cannot relieve this one, since sora is a “disability” . If you have a case can you post it, otherwise moderators can you please send him or her my email address. Thank you
Amen , Pat.
There are other pillars of granite so to speak,
That can stop this nonsense of mistreatment of civil rights, human Rights, & our Constitutional Rights this country is SUPPOSED to represent to the world it protects.
The iml is mistreatment in one issue of several that can be stopped by some pillars of granite arguments that have not been utilized.