LA: Too Poor for Freedom: Sex Offender Registry and the Fourteenth Amendment

PRESS RELEASE ***please refrain from labeling your personal opinion a press release, or please source it properly. Moderator***

In conjunction with the passage of the 28th Amendment today by an unknown group of legislators and the revision of the 14th Amendment States are not required to provide fugitive sex registry non-humans legal aid of any kind. Non-humans charged with sex offenses will be summarily convicted, sentenced, and imprisoned and denied any right of appeal. The writ of habeas corpus has also been declared off limits to those convicted. Do you want to know more?

In a related deal, as a result of the savings in legal aid, all prosecutors and judges have received substantial raises and other benefits, including vacations to the Bahamas. Persons who bring charges resulting in convictions are paid 50,000 euro dollars for their time. Do you want to know more? Stay tuned.

Nice, cost them money, bankrupt them even further. Like the one about the prepaid envelope. Wonder if that worked, lol.

Can someone please explain to me how they can require someone who has completed all of their sentences to register and then PAY FOR REGISTRATION and if they don’t pay, they go to prison????
HOW IS THIS LEGAL?????
Forget if the person is indigent or not. I don’t care if the registered citizen is a millionaire. He/she should not have to pay a dime beyond his/her original fine.

1. A FEE is monies I ELECT to pay in return for some benefit or permission to do something.

(Elect…. as in… if I do not wish to pay the fee for a marriage license, I can elect not to get married. If I do not wish to pay the fee for a contractor license, I can elect not to work as a contractor. If I do not wish to pay the fee for a Driver License, I can elect not to operate a motor vehicle on public roads. Heck, if I do not wish to pay taxes I can elect not to generate taxable income, not own real estate or only purchase tax exempt goods).

2. Having to pay monies as a result of a prior transgression, under the threat of prosecution is a FINE.

(like the fine for a speeding ticket or court ordered fines at sentencing).

3. A fine is PUNISHMENT.

4. Punishment after the fact is EX POST FACTO punishment.

5. Ex Post Facto Punishment is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

How is that difficult?

Response to New Person and request for response from Janice B.,
from Rick

By the way I tied it into involuntary servitude nearly 2 years ago. In my lawsuit that was denied with prejudice, and the appeal I made but decided not to file a simple document that resulted in its dismissal I chose to do, because I really expected no legitimate response from the 2d circuit u.s. CT. of Appeals since they have denied all petitions involving registration for one stupid reason or another, and I was frustrated.

But in that case, I used slavery and involuntary servitude as numerous causes of action. If Janice B. Is interested in seeing the extent of the denial of justice in the case, all she needs to do is use her PACER account and look up the case that was denied at the end of April 2016, northern district of new York.

In that case I argued I was unlawfully in the custody of the NYS Dept. Of Corrections, since the law was implemented as nysdoc sex offender registration. In the custody argument I raised the scrotus case, Hensley v. Municipal Court, 411 U.S. 345, where the court held, “applying that principle, we can only conclude that petitioner is in custody… First he is subject to restraint’s not shared by the public generally” Jones v. Cunning ham, supra 83s.ct at 376. “That is, the obligation to appear ‘at all times and places as ordered by (a)my court or magistrate of competent jurisdiction”. “He cannot come and go as he pleases. His freedom rests in the hands of state judicial officers who may demand his presence at any time with a moment’s notice. Disobedience is itself a criminal offense. The restraint on his liberty is no less severe than the conditions imposed on the unattached reserve officer who we held to be ‘in custody’ in Strati v. Laird, supra, at para 12.

I don’t think I need to tell you how often you must appear at particular places and times and at any time to comply with most Sora’s. Although the cases above were used for the purposes of establishing whether or not the person could utilize a writ of habeas corpus, in which they could because they were clearly in custody. It is also clear by this standard that all RC’s are in custody as well. We will be in custody for the rest of our lives, whether you are a 1, 2, or 3. Because even if you get off in one state, it doesn’t mean you are free from other states or the federal govt. This slavery is until death.

I also claimed they had no right to have control over me, and I submitted numerous cases to support it. One in particular was, Fuentes v. Bd. Of Education. Et al. 12 NY.2d 309, 314, 2009, NYS CT. Of Appeals. The NYS CT. of Appeals ruled that under state law a noncustodial parent is not considered a parent during the special education process. The court therefore ruled that a noncustodial parent does not have the right to make decisions for his child unless he is afforded such a right in a custody order. Simply put, you have to get a custody order from a court to make decisions about someone’s life you don’t have custody of. But Sora’s allow these people the right to make us do anything they want based upon some ridiculous ‘duty’ that does not exist, and has never existed, and they claim we are not in custody. If that is the case, then why must we comply. The law clearly states we do not unless they have custody of us.

The 2d. Cir. U.S. CT. Of Appeals says that a compelling interest allows them to search and seize us anytime they want without a warrant. But in Marshall v.Barlow’s Inc., 436 U.S.307, the U.S. Supreme CT., said, “Even in that context a warrantless search is only reasonable if it meets three criteria, there must be a substantial government interest that informs the regulatory scheme pursuant to which the inspection is made, warrantless inspections must be necessary to further the regulatory scheme, and the scheme, in terms of the certainty and regularity of its application, must provide a constitutionally adequate substitute for a warrant. This means, that with the exception of emergency situations, they must have a court or other legal body providing some form of a warrant or order before they can search or seize us. But instead, they just tell us to appear.

I also used chapter 77, 18 u.s.c. 1589 FORCED LABOR statute to describe my enslavement and involuntary servitude. The statute states, Whoever knowingly provides or obtains the labor or services of a person by any one of, or by any combination of the following means, 1. By means of force, threats of force, physical restraint, or threats of physical restraint to that person or another person, 2. By means of serious harm or threats of serious harm to that person or another person, 3. By means of abuse of law or legal process, or 4. By means of any scheme, plan, or pattern intended to cause the person to believe that, if that person did not perform such labor or services that person or another person would suffer serious harm or physical restraint.

Now after reading just these four cases of support that Sora’s are illegal and don’t realize that we are just slaves, I would be in shock. I used hundreds of these kinds of cases in support, and even though the lower court is supposed to by law go by u.s. supreme court precedent, , they didn’t mention any of them in their response.in fact, the court fought for the two names defendants, who had to make no arguments whatsoever.

Seriously, when a law is wrong you can find all kinds of legal holes in its ruling and application. I could have destroyed their arguments when I was 12. This so called government by the people and for the people is a sham. All you have to do is look up corruption of judges on Google and YouTube and you will know how it is. It’s disgusting. So yes, involuntary servitude was tried, and completely ignored. All the judge said in the dismissal with prejudice was, “the plaintiff asserts that the NYS Sora is a form of involuntary servitude”. He also tried to claim that I asked for special solitude in my case, even when the entire preliminary order for injunction filed with the complaint used the cases cited above and the slavery and involuntary servitude causes of action.

It’s clear to me, that if you don’t have a lawyer representing you, you have no chance.i even used more stay, the case you cited above. If you live in Cali ask Janice B. To file a class action lawsuit using the argument. I can’t see why she wouldn’t. She should have run for state Senate, she would get all of our votes.