ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings | Recordings (6/12 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

General News

Supreme Court: Court adds five new cases to docket

… Among the court’s other grants today, Packingham v. North Carolina is the case of Lester Packingham, a North Carolina man who became a registered sex offender after he was convicted, at the age of 21, of taking indecent liberties with a minor. Six years after Packingham’s conviction, North Carolina enacted a law that made it a felony for registered sex offenders to access a variety of websites, from Facebook to The New York Times and YouTube. Packingham was convicted of violating this law after a police officer saw a Facebook post in which Packingham celebrated, and gave thanks to God for, the dismissal of a traffic ticket. The justices today agreed to review Packingham’s contention that the law violates the First Amendment.



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

Breaking news… US Supreme Court to hear an Internet case! They have decided to hear the challenge by our side, Packingham v. North Carolina, the challenge to the North Carolina criminal bar on access to social media for sex offenders.

Not sure when the case will be heard, but please make sure that all pertinent parties are notified of this, and work out briefs in support of this challenge. The Ninth Circuit case, in particular, should be part of this as well if possible.

You are correct, Eric. The U.S. Supreme Court today granted cert in a First Amendment case involving a registered citizen. Below is basic information about that case including its prior ruling.

Packingham v. North Carolina, No. 15-1194

Ruling Below

N.C., 777 S.E.2d 738, 2015 BL 366550, 98 CrL 141

Summary of Ruling Below

A North Carolina law that bars registered sex offenders from accessing social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter doesn’t violate the First Amendment, either on its face or as applied to the defendant, who was convicted under the law for having a Facebook page. The statute is narrowly tailored to serve the substantial governmental interest of protecting minors from sex offenders and leaves available ample alternative channels of communication.

Question(s) Presented

Under this court’s First Amendment precedents, is a law permissible on its face that makes it a felony for any person on the state’s sex offender registry to “access” a wide array of websites—including Facebook, YouTube, and—that enable communication, expression and the exchange of information among their users, if the site is known to allow minors to have accounts, and is the law permissible as applied to the defendant, who was convicted based on a Facebook post in which he celebrated dismissal of a traffic ticket, declaring “God is Good!”

Janice: I hope there’s a way that you can become part of this case. You always seem to present the best arguments against these ludicrous laws and for the civil rights of all in America. I hope their council will allow you to participate in some way.

If at all possible, I will attend the oral argument. There is no date yet for the oral argument, however, because I have been admitted to the Court I have a better chance of being allowed to attend.

I pray that you will be allowed to attend, Janice. This would have chilling and devastating effects if SCOTUS backs this disgusting law!

To all RC’s, from the SCROTUS, under our prior rulings, we have permitted states to impose a wide variety of restrictions related to the 1st Amendment against sex offenders, here we find no evidence to suggest that this law is not narrowly tailored, and in fact, the statute is written to reduce the possibility that innocent children will be enticed into sexual conduct. Under our prior rulings, we the court find that the mere fact it imposes a regulatory penalty insufficient to overturn the statute on its face. We find the statute to be valid. Now be quiet, you have your answer.

Your word is law, oh Big Scrotus!

The amazing thing to me, being on the resistry in DC is that I produce a public access show and it also streams live on the web. Our biggest views come from YouTube. I directly use YouTube in the spirit that free speech is meant to cover established media. I know in the past SCOUTS has indicated that anyone can be a journalist. In NC I would be convicted for using YouTube. In my case, I am on probation and my sentencing judge said I can use the Internet work or to promote myself for work. It’s a world of difference. I am proof that people on the registry do use multimedia for legitimate free speech reasons and the content would be greatly effected if I was not. The difference between 10 views and 10,000 views is made a reality by the Internet. NC courts are saying as long as you are free to talk to a rock you have free speech. Free speech is meaningless unless you have equal access and opertunity to engage.

How can someone who is on the registry comment on their local politicians FB page about proposed sex offender laws, to show an opposing view point in a place where the politician and supports of said legislation gather to promote its passage? It creates a vacume and gives a false sense of public support. If a person cannot speak for themselves when others speak against them in the place the conversation is taking place, I don’t know how anyone can say they are not being deprived of speech.

Furthermore things like FB also allow registernts to make post that show the public they are not boogymen. It puts a human face on them, shows them succeeding at work, getting married, making strides in life. By denying them that free speech, the law allows them to be ostracized, demonized and lied about, without recourse.

There’s a difference between current and former
NYCLU decided it would fail for current
Issue: Whether, under the court’s First Amendment precedents, a law that makes it a felony for any person on the state’s registry of former sex offenders to “access” a wide array of websites

The state clings on to their ideology that recidivism rates mean nothing, “because sex crimes are under-reported,” because the rates of re-conviction don’t support their desired outcome.

As if all criminal offenses weren’t ‘under-reported.’

This is the last club they cling to and they are wielding it more-and-more.

And they fail to factor in that this supposed under reporting just might have a lot to do with the negative effects these shaming laws themselves have on the family or family-like unit, where most of the crimes happen.

Was the guy on probation..???

I find it curious the court wants to hear a case it has supported in previous rulings. The prediction is they will uphold it again, since all other cases have regulatory punishments attached as well. I see no other reason for their acceptance of the case, because to invalidate the statute would be a complete departure from their prior rulings, and of the registry. They can use any number of acceptable legal precedents, it is not compelled speech, it does not limit excessive speech, you are not citizens-you are evil garbage, we determine your rights-if any, it does not infringe on the right of expression, there are numerous alternative firms of speech, states can do whatever they want to do to you-who cares, we will never hear the case out of Michigan and the 6th Circuit-they are not real American’s, because real American’s want you all out of the country on a deserted island, why can’t you just accept the inevitable fact the constitution is meaningless to us, we have the power, we only took this case to give you a glimmer of hope, and then we will crush it again, you sickos, lol. We hate you, don’t you get it by now? Are you stupid or what? Why don’t you try religion, involuntary servitude, bills of attainder, we will shoot them down too. Lol. Your attempts are a waste of time, maybe when we are all gone, think again, you whackos. Wahaha hahahaha!

When these courts go down this ‘the statute is merely regulatory’ and ‘we defer to legislative intent’ road, there seems to be no limit to what they will find acceptable. Very dangerous slope indeed. Unfortunately, after listening to other supreme court proceedings on registration issues, I put very little faith in their ability to do anything other than continue the farce. They spend almost no time investigating the facts, and buy into whatever the state tells them lock-stock-and-barrel. Unless there is some excellent representation on our side to refute the lies and fear mongering by the state, it is a lost cause. Even then, I don’t have much faith they will do the correct thing.

Stated public interest trumps individual rights when it comes to former sexual offenders, no matter if the public interest is based on lies, fears and wishful thinking. So, I can’t see how they would overturn this decision.

Refer to the SC’s discussion in the 2013 case on ICE detentions. The Court ruled that it was unconstitutional for ICE to detain immigrants for over 6 months without adjudicating them. This allowed almost 30,000 detainees to be set free. As part of the discussion it was noted that ruling in that manner would release about 2,900 sex offenders. The court discussed the value of society protection vs. individual rights, and determined that individual rights triumph. We need to exploit this argument and conclusion as much as possible.

To Tyrus Young

Yea, there are a lot of immigration decisions that wholly contradict what we are experiencing, and that’s just one if them. But it seems when RC’s are the only group affected the laws don’t apply?

😕Sadly, Rick, your cynicism is all too accurate and justified.

The good people of north carolina your public servants keep making wrong decisions.
This is another massively wrong and bad decision north Carolina::Going Against the Constitution.
The world will know how lame north carolina is to civil rights as other citizens and businesses ALREADY know.

After this ruling…the north carolina motto on auto license plates will be:
north carolina the dumbest state.

U gotta love how the SCROTUS plays the game, even if they overturn this law, which does appear overly broad even by the margins they have established, it accomplishes very little. This case was taken merely to appear concerned, what a joke. They will continue to play the regulatory game, even when that is slavery, and allow this stuff to continue till the country is broke. I had to laugh the other day when I read a local article about justice Thomas, he had the nerve to say that “the system is broken”, yea it is because morons like him are incapable of understanding law. You got murderers getting out after 7years and free to go wherever, a drug epidemic this country loves to continue to escape reality, alcoholism at all time highs, and who do they find to mess with, teens for whacking off, peeing in public, teens screwing each other, texters, and touchers. It’s so overwhelmingly ridiculous.

Then they use statistics that mean nothing. I don’t care what laws u pass, if someone’s gonna do something yet not stopping them and your not safe. Simple pass new laws, second strike your out, then you can feed, and take care of them for life. Then they can bankrupt you with medical costs, lol, or do something to your precious co’s. I wouldn’t care if I was in for life, get in my way and your finished.

The point is, these so called judges and politicians don’t give a damn about us, or America. Once they get in, they just bleed us dry. They’re all filthy rich and you can’t touch them, how nice. That should tell u something. Now I kinda hope trump is elected, I hope he purges the entire system somehow. Pass an executive law criminalizing these bastards by requiring constitutional review of any law that affects American citizens, and not by the idiots in scrotus now. A law would require a minimum of ten or more prior precedents in its favor prior to its enactment. No more laws passed in secret by Congress. Reveal publicly how they are getting so rich while congressman.

Jigs up, time to get serious with them too. We come first before corporations, we get a piece of their profits, just like in so many other countries. We get rich too, then we can import slaves like Saudi Arabia or Japan. Yea, it’s high time Americans come first.

I think this has broader implications than just for RCs. If you read the friend of the court brief by Eugene Volokh at WaPo’s website (, it can be broadly applied to others if applied incorrectly as shown. This could potentially set up the correct applicability of the test required of the audience and the intent of the author (or vendor, protestor, home owner, etc). This hits the very heart of the First Amendment. Just my two cents…

North Carolina Supreme Court’s “ample alternative”:
“You may not purchase your gasoline at Arco, 76, Chevron, or BP. Registrants may only purchase gasoline at Johnboy Walton’s Truck Stop & BBQ Pit twelve miles outside of town, off State Road 50 (only open on weekends)!”
Clearly, the movie “Idiocracy” is based in the reality of North Carolina!! 😲

Just as a recap, here is the link to the full NC Supreme Court debacle decision…

The opinions are a bit sketchy, but the dissent is scathing, so that is fairly good news.

The attorney for the defendant, Glenn Gerding (who is also a retired Navy JAG; rank of O5-Commander), doesn’t appear to be incompetent per se, but has never addressed constitutional issues with regard to registrants before. I hope that Janice not only can attend oral arguments, but can convince Gerding to research how the federal courts have been listening to pertinent arguments with regard to anti-constitutional registrant laws.

My opinion is that a case that hits SCOTUS belongs to ALL of us, in the sense that we will experience the fallout one way or the other, and therefore have not just a right, but a duty to try to prevent a bad desicion from taking hold.

“You want answers?”

“I want the truth!”

“You can’t handle the truth!”

We need the combined power of Janice, the ACLU and the Electronic Frontier Foundation to overturn this unconstitutional law.

Good pts, when did SCOTUS turn into SCROTUM(SCROTUS) what acronym is that ? Really? they may be are only final chance after Janice gets common sense through to them and brings the FACTS not Fear to them. They need CURRENT Facts and good judgement not fearful threats from the uneducated Public.
pgm111 and mr. knight, good job. Good to see Janice chiming in and we need to support her to go and a couple dollars of those of us that have jobs. If we financially could, of course, to support her FOR US ALL.

I just can’t believe Calif has it better than North Carolina that they(NC) CANNOT LOOK ONLINE AT A general public Nationwide publication, they might be able to otherwise get a paper copy for a couple bucks.
The New York Times, REALLY? How does that allude minors or other sexual behavior? Poor NC RC’s.
They’ve gone TOO FAR. A Felony, let alone a Misdemeanor, shouldn’t even be an infraction for someone who’s off Parole after commitment five years ago or for any for that matter. A newspaper, what’s so secret about that? Way out there, I kinda get you tube and the other, but a National Newsrag??? Gone too far.
I thought we lived in the U.S. not a foreign country. I’m truly afraid what the others on their list is.
Of course, it’s the Bible Belt and they will NOT let Him take care of the sinners, they take things in their own hands and demean human contact without physical contact and makes RC worse than murders, DUI mutilators and kidnappers and even arsonists, why aren’t they on a State/National webpage? More physical un-reversible life long (if the other(s) survived the action)damage to the families left behind. On Topic,
this may a chance for Janice and her team for full throttle on this and help (past Navy JAG) Atty. Gerding.
Alot of good points brought up on here. NY level 1 and RP. Hope all is factual not emotional. We all suffer.

A good point about arsonists. Someone who deliberately sets fire to an area, especially here in So Cal, would know of the horrendous expenses it will cause and the devastation to lives. It is a callous and random way, and the offender gets a charge out of it, I suppose. But they are required to register for only five years?

Let’s hope the less-than-full court as it is today does not get impacted by the minus 1 it has on ruling on this because of political idiocy starting with the VP’s speech years ago when he was in the Senate for no particular reason other than grandstanding and the follow through of the Senate since then. I truly believe Justice Scalia would say in favor of this gentleman, the state is wrong.

As laid out, NC is in err here and SCOTUS should strike this law against expression down where the intent was of gratitude, praise and nothing more.

The Supreme Court will most probably be held to a permanent 8-person court until a senate super-majority (or near super-majority) of one party is the same party as the president, otherwise the senate will never confirm a ninth justice. The highest ranking members of each party on the judiciary committee has said as much.

To 8 not 9 scrotus here

Yea, I thought about that dilemma. Here’s the answer, a 4-4 tie, sorry RC’s you lose, lol.

Let’s not forget there are up to three potential retirees coming possibly. Regardless of super-majorities, the next SCOTUS retiree will swing the balance…..don’t expect one of each to retire together and keep the court then at six…..even if for some strange reason a medical situation arises and a long term absence comes about, the next set of sessions will be interesting….

Of course, there is the possibility the Senate can kill the court altogether by not confirming anyone ever again….that is possible and was written about recently. Crazy as it sounds, but it is possible.

Everyone should listen to the webinar on RSOL (under Media/Webinars) featuring Prof. David Post, an Adjunct Scholar at the Cato Institute (think tank founded by the Koch brothers, so normally very conservative) and a former Professor of Law at the Temple University Beasley School of Law, one of the Amici Curiae, who presented this brief to the Supreme Court in support of Packingham:

Both the RSOL online discussion and the brief are brilliant and give me hope.

The counsel for the Amici Curiae is in LA, so maybe Janice could work through this office to offer input from the trenches.


I’m a little confused, well a lot confused, where does the government’s role to decide what is ‘effective’ speech come from? The first ammendment is clear, the individual decides the means and content of the communication not the government, or anyone else. As long as the individual is not violating the rights of someone else, what duty does the government have to restrict his speech?
Why are they concerned about whether an individual’s speech method is effective? Why are they never concerned about whether this registry is effective.

Cato Institute is really not conservative. Nor, many may be surprised to learn, are the Koch brothers, despite their funding of many conservative causes (in my opinion, foolishly).

They are very substantially ‘libertarian’; Cato slightly more so than the Koch brothers. Those on the left are often unable to distinguish between libertarians or conservatives or simply refuse to do so because that would make it more difficult to dismiss libertarian ideas which leave their own regard for individual liberty looking deeply corrosive in comparison.

Quote from page 2, introduction, (11 of 33) of NACDL Amicus , Esquivel. You know, the “other” sex offense case granted cert…..”California penal section 261.5(c) -which criminalizes consensual sexual conduct that is not even criminal in 43 States and punishable as a felony in just three – ranked as aggravated..” just dig a little further in this SCOTUS Blog article (that shows

During the Spanish and English inquisitions a person was required to appear in a religious court to answer charges issued by the state of their belief and acceptance of the existence of a god and the right of the state to enforce the belief. In our case, we have to appear in a court, police station, or by a substitute for a police officer through a registration form mailed to our homes.

We must then answer the charges of the states belief and acceptance that we are a threat to the general public. Like the Inquisition if we do not answer, we will be punished by imprisonment. Even if we do answer, we have essentially been forced to agree with the states belief.

Are we or are we not subject to the laws of the European inquisitions? Of course we are, and yet it stands despite all if the laws of the u.s. constitution asserting their unlawfulness. If you think that law still exists in this garbage dump of a nation, you can kiss my @$$. European law sucks, and so does Europe.

You’re lucky. You can mail in your coerced confession. We in California have to go face to face before the underling priest and initial a litany of restrictions. They might as well present an effigy of the eternal victim and have us kiss her toes under treat of the dungeon. It would feel the same to me.

Thanks for reminding me. How many of the items that are requested to be initialed NOT mandated in PC-290? I would submit that if those particular items are not included in the laws then being forced to signing off on those items is unconstitutional.

A good exercise for a meeting or a conference call would be to go through these check off lists we are told to initial and determine just which ones are law or not. At best they are summaries of laws, and that means an interpretation of whoever wrote them. Do registrants in other states outside California have to initial a list of requirements ? I’d like to know. Since we are, in theory, free to travel between states, shouldn’t these laws relating to presence have some sort of consistency? Doesn’t this mishmash of notification rules violate the commerce clause or something? Wasn’t that a key objection to the sunset laws against minorities? Suppose you travel for business. Any sort of travel involves some sort of transfer of money between states.

Most of us can’t comment on the one sided and obviously misguided intenet news because you need a Facebook in order to comment. Nor can we respond to all of the other commenters of internet news articles. We can’t voice our American opinions because for 90% of the news sites, one needs a Facebook in order to comment. ENOUGH SAID??

New York, that annoys the Hell out of me too!! 😠

I’ve got a sumshush respy for peach cobbler, yall. Looks like will have to nar’ly taylor are disgushuns to food from now on.

To Timmr

Like your style, lol. You know, I was thinking about the Inquisition comparison in regard to the establishment of a religion cause of action. Seems to me we are the only folks required to pass a litmus test to get our citizenship back; both in regard to our character and competency. I believe this would be a major question related to a loss of citizenship claim under say Trop v U.S., he was a soldier that deserted during wartime and they tried to have his citizenship revoked. Under the Sora laws our citizenship is also revoked or suspended. But the scrotus ruled this unlawful.

We are in the same boat as Trop, in that ‘he did something’. I keep hearing this statement ‘you did something’ whenever one of us compares our loss of rights to those experienced by other minorities, that stems from factors beyond their control, ie skin color, nationality. It is used with the meaning ‘you had a choice’, therefore ‘you chose to lose your rights’ or ‘you hurt a child, we are so afraid of you, you have no rights anymore’. At what point can we lose many of our rights and still be considered citizens?
I haven’t read Trop yet, but it looks like the ruling is that even though he chose to make a betrayal of his fellow countrymen, he could not have his citizenship taken away. Besides the government outright saying you are not a citizen, what constitutes being a citizen? Because I reside in California, I can vote, I can’t defend my person with a firearm, I am apparently exempt from Bill of Attainder and forced into serving the State, my existing serving for others to profit off of, I can travel, but not freely, if I am in NC, I can’t use the popular means of communication, so am I a citizen anymore?
Trop could probably gain citizenship in another country, but we are on a boat wandering hither and anon, with no safe harbour.

Very interesting… “denationalization as a punishment is barred by the Eighth Amendment,” describing it as “a form of punishment more primitive than torture” as it inflicts the “total destruction of the individual’s status in organized society.”

Dissenting, Justice Felix Frankfurter noted that desertion from the military can be punished by the death penalty, leading him to ask, “Is constitutional dialectic so empty of reason that it can be seriously urged that loss of citizenship is a fate worse than death?”
…but not funny. That concept about total destruction of an individual’s status in society is worse than torture and death is something to chew on. That morsel is from SCOTUS.

The registry=death by 1000 cuts

Here is another treat from the Trop vs, Dulles;
‘We are told this is so because a committee of Cabinet members, in recommending this legislation to the Congress, said it “technically is not a penal law.” [Footnote 11] How simple would be the tasks of constitutional adjudication and of law generally if specific problems could be solved by inspection of the labels pasted on them! Manifestly, the issue of whether Section 401(g) is a penal law cannot be thus determined. Of course, it is relevant to know the classification employed by the Cabinet Committee that played such an important role in the preparation of the Nationality Act of 1940. But it is equally relevant to know that this very committee acknowledged that Section 401(g) was based on the provisions of the 1865 Civil War statute, which the committee itself termed “distinctly penal in character.” ‘
‘Doubtless even a clear legislative classification of a statute as “non-penal” would not alter the fundamental nature of a plainly penal statute. ‘

Lol, yea this was the Burger court that has been the only legitimate constitutional Court I can find in the history of this nation, what does that tell you? None of the laws have been specifically overturned, but apparently Smith v. Doe does in some unknown way. I’m sorry but my cynicism is growing, like I said, there’s no one left but us to hate legally, and they’re unleashing it all on us.

You can see the timeline, they could no longer discriminate by law against minorities, the lbgt movement was finally recognized, so sensing this they opened a new chapter in slavery against those they knew would have very little support. It could have been predicted since Everytime you eliminate one thing, another takes its place. It just really sucks to be caught up in it.

All we can do is keep suing and suing and suing. Cost them money, time, annoy the hell out of them. I’m just wondering when the line will be broken and we’re just totally enslaved. That’s when I will take matters into my own hands, as I will if I ever get prosecuted for this nonsense, someone will have to pay, and no one is to be considered innocent, just as we are not. This is my take on this discrimination, if they won’t go by the law, then neither should we. I’m not Jewish, I will not be made a martyr, and stand by.

Something doesn’t add up here. The government uses facebook all the time to track criminal activity. Why wouldn’t they want us to use it, — they are already monitoring those of us who use it — to catch us committing crimes? Isn’t that what the bulk surveillance program is all about?
Oh, I get it, registrants aren’t committing crimes on facebook, so they got to make up a crime they CAN arrest us for: existing on facebook.
You exist, therefore you’re guilty. You’re prosecuted and it looks like the government is doing something to save children, while padding recidivism rates.

NorthCarolina the Deprivation of Civil Rights state.
Should be seeing that on that states license plates motto.
Oooooooh. !

Like I’ve said before, the north should have never given them or the south their freedom after the civil war, they’re as bad today as they were then. Charge them with sedition and hang em all.

Since when did it become an acceptable practice to create laws with severe punishment that are designed solely to prevent you from committing a crime that already has a sever punishment?

Doesn’t that go against “innocent until proven guilty” for future acts regardless of any past crimes?

Also, these laws only negatively impact law abiding citizens because those who are going to use the web sites for illegal purposes will do so anyway, and without reporting the activity in states that don’t forbid it but require disclosure of all social usernames and posts.

This would be like making it illegal for a convicted drunk driver to go into anyplace that sells alcohol or where alcohol can be consumed, or requiring them to immediately inform law enforcement when they take a drink so the cops can set up a trap to catch them drinking and driving. The alcoholic isn’t going to report it any more often than they take the precaution of giving their keys to the bartender.

The laws are far from “narrowly tailored” as well. Just like IML doesn’t target those convicted of international sex tourism, these laws against free speech do not target those convicted of luring a minor on a social media site. It tosses everyone with a sexual component to the crime into one huge basket.

Also, this is yet another perfect example where this restriction, and the registry as a whole, should have been attacked as a violation as a “Bill Of Attainder”. Even though it wasn’t, the arguments that previously won against a Bill Of Attainder are applicable to this case.

Please read this text below, and I am sorry I don’t have the source but it should be easy to find:

United States v. Brown
In Brown, the Court’s analysis goes further to expand the concept of
punishment and specificity in finding a bill of attainder.The statute at
issue made it a crime for a member of the Communist Party to serve as an
officer or employee of a labor union. Instead of laying out particular acts
that would disqualify a person from specific employment, Congress made
the determination that members of the Communist Party possessed certain
feared but un-enumerated characteristics, which made them more likely to
“initiate political strikes” against the U.S. Government. “The command of
the Bill of Attainder Clause [is] that a legislature can provide that persons
possessing certain characteristics must abstain from certain activities, but
must leave to other tribunals the task of deciding who possesses those
characteristics.” Moreover, there needs to be a “demonstrable
relationship” between the aims Congress sought to avoid, the individuals
who would carry out those aims, and the characteristics of the target group.
The Court determined that no legitimate relationship existed because even if
Congress had good reason to believe that some Communists would use their
positions in unions to bring about political upheaval, “it can[not]
automatically be inferred that all members share their evil purposes or
participate in their illegal conduct.”7 6 Further, in support of the Court’s
determination that no legitimate relationship existed, it drew contrast
between the current case and Board of Governors ofFederal Reserve System
v. Agnew,n a case where the Act in question was trying to prevent a
fiduciary conflict of interest.7 As such, Agnew illustrated a meaningful
distinction from section 504, which inflicted its deprivation “upon the
members of a political group thought to present a threat to the national
security.”‘ 9 Furthermore, the Court, believing that it would be antiquated to
limit punishment to only a retributive purpose, found it appropriate to
expand the meaning of punishment in order to “serve several purposes;
retributive, rehabilitative, deterrent-and preventative.”80 In doing so, the
Court relied on historical considerations that many English and early
American bills of attainder were enacted for preventative purposes.81 This
Court, like the one in Lovett, took the combination of factors together to
determine section 504 to be a prohibited bill of attainder.82

Yea, that sums it for the bill of attainder, and if you file it they will claim some firm of exemption. I’ve said this before, we are dealing with criminals, people who have decided they are the constitution. If there was a reason for out and out war this is it. I would have no problem with it, I am a veteran who swore to uphold the constitution against both foreign and DOMESTIC ENEMIES. And despite my failures, I know it is still worth defending. They are so lucky I don’t have the means to do what I know has to be done. The only thing that has ever worked in this country is violence, and if that’s what it takes then so be it. The lawlessness the scrotus fomented needs to be taken out on them, they are not exempt from punishment.

I always suspected this guy was a non-registrant troll…

Two cops ambushed in Des Moines iowa, seems to me they were the wrong target, SCROTUS is the right target, since these people are so afraid they passed registry laws, maybe if they are really afraid they will get rid of them. See fear and violence can work.

Will this case allow any opportunity to correct the official statements in Smith V Doe 2003?

We need something to change precedent and stop courts from constantly referring to Smith V Doe as proof registered citizens are a huge threat and can’t be treated.

Here is what needs to be addressed and debunked from Smith V Doe:

The risk of recidivism posed by sex offenders is “frightening and high.” McKune v. Lile, 536 U. S. 24, 34 (2002); see also id., at 33 (“When convicted sex offenders reenter society, they are much more likely than any other type of offender to be rearrested for a new rape or sexual assault” (citing U. S. Dept. of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Sex Offenses and Offenders 27 (1997); U. S. Dept. of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 1983, p. 6 (1997))).

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x