General Comments January 2017

A bit on a tangent here….

Labor Code Section 2855 limits all personal services contracts to a maximum length of seven years in California. I read this while looking up Sports this morning.

The key word here is services.

Under ML, it’s a “duty” to register. That means this is a service to the state. Registration is an attached contract to the punishment contract signed. Yet, registration isn’t considered punishment b/c then it would be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment – especially a lifetime contract!

Yet, registration is a service. I would like to know specifically what registration is from ACSOL. Is it or is it not a service? There is an obvious contract.

Now, if I am out of custody and my case is dismissed, then I no longer need to serve the state for my punishment. And yet, I still have to serve the state involuntarily?

Involuntary servitude, from a layman’s perspective – which is how the judge should see it as well, states that it is prohibited unless to punish a crime. That means you can’t force someone into service unless to punish a crime. It doesn’t care if it’s regulatory or not. The only caveat is that it is okay if it is to punish a crime. In that realm, then punishment can be deemed cruel and unusual.

Any free person in Cali can get out from their contract service after 7 years. How does this not apply to use who are out of custody? Heck, that service actually starts the day it is implemented, actually, since it’s not punishment. The sleight of hand obfuscation verbiage to bypass both punishment and involuntary service should be easily cut down by the simple directive of , “Involuntary servitude is prohibited unless to punish a crime.”

Curious, this 7 year thing, is that also the reason why everyone’s records in Cali are not used after 7 years have expired except for registrants?

Plainly, registration is a service as duly noted on ML’s website as a “duty”. As a person out of custody, or some who have their cases already dimissed, I query why do they have to continue doing said service? Also, why are there even compliance checks after probation is completed? I hate being woken up around midnight for them to do a compliance check when i’ve already completed probation. It’s like the punishment never ended as cop cars are at my house after probation ended. Still the same process of interfering with my life, but now i’m a person no longer under custody.

bleah.

“Is registration a service?” That’s a simple question.

Follow up query if it is a service: “Is registration a service imposed upon persons who are no longer under custody, or free persons?”

California Constitution, Article 1, Section 6: Involuntary servitude is prohibited unless to punish a crime.

It doesn’t care if it’s regulatory or not. The only distinction is if it is an act of punishment.

Besides obtaining a ticket and getting denied at passport control, how would I know that my passport has been revoked?

I got off parole in November and just found a job and will have to start driving. I haven’t worked or driven since sentenced almost 4 years ago. Since I am 290, will I have to register again right when I start driving or working? I am confused because the penal code isn’t quite clear if I have to update vehicle or employment status other than on my birthday or when I move. By the way, my birthay is on October 14. It would seem like a burdened addition to registration obligations. Thanks in advance for everyone’s input! – zack

I have bit my tongue a half a hundred time…and have wanted to say…It was only sex.

I know this is not an allowable response, certainly not in contemporary United States, but often I look around and sadly want to just shake my head in wonderment at some of the ways different societies approach this.

For example, out of Germany today in the BBC:

A spokeswoman for the Green Party in Germany has said disabled and seriously ill people should be able to claim back public money if they pay for sex.
They would have to prove a medical need and show that they could not pay to visit sex workers otherwise.
Elisabeth Scharfenberg, an MP, told the Welt am Sonntag newspaper that she “could imagine” local authorities paying for “sexual assistance”.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-38549030

Astounding and probably humane…

Be that as it may, there is a serious point to my post…I doubt that this hateful registration scheme, that really wasn’t that bad until around 2010, will not appreciably change until there is some recognition that, probably for the majority of us…what we did was not that perverse, not that strange, not even particularly odd.

Though, of course, I understand that it was illegal, probably even morally wrong at some level, but, it was also only…sex.

Different societies treat this issue differently…were I dangerous, I would get what is happening to me now, I may not like it, but I would understand.

I think that this is what perplexes and bedevils most of us.

It just doesn’t make rational sense…but as long as tongues love to wag and people derive a deep but real joy at waving a finger at someone less fortunate…

Then for that long, our condition will continue.

Best Wishes, James

man i need help with my final issue for my motion..Can anyone articulate or provide any other evidence or suggestions to this claim????????

THIRD CLAIM
(Right to Travel and Association and Unconstitutionally Vague)
(3) The sex offender registration and notification laws violate my right to freedom of movement and freedom of association by severely curtailing my ability to travel both interstate and intrastate and also international travel. With all the different state laws and local ordinances that are in place and the constant introduction of new legislation in the different states and the constantly changing local ordinances in thousands of cities and counties across the country, it makes it virtually impossible for me to travel or visit anywhere in this country without a very real fear and potential for violating one of these laws or ordinances. It is virtually impossible for a layman of average intelligence to cite each and every statute, law, or ordinance in order to determine exactly what statute, law, or ordinance is unconstitutionally vague or that violates my right to travel and association. It isn’t any single law or ordinance but a conglomerate of these laws in all the different states, counties, and municipalities that make them unconstitutionally vague. When applying the constitutional vagueness doctrine, the Supreme Court distinguishes between statutes that “require a person to conform his conduct to an imprecise but comprehensible normative standard” and those that specify “no standard of conduct.” Coates v. City of Cincinnati, 402 U.S. 611, 614 (1971). Statutes falling into the former category have, as the State terms it, a constitutional “core” in the sense that they “apply without question to certain activities,” even though their application in marginal situations may be a close question. Parker v. Levy, 417 U.S. 733, 755-56 (1974). Conversely, those statutes that fall into the latter category are unconstitutionally vague. The distinction between these two types of statutes, in some instances, may be somewhat difficult to decipher. Indeed, an unconstitutionally vague statute may still have some clearly constitutional applications. See Johnson, 135 S. Ct. at 2560-61. But where a statute specifies no standard, the fact that it has one or more clearly constitutional applications cannot save it. See id. Supreme Court precedent “squarely contradict[s] the theory that a vague provision is constitutional merely because there is some conduct that clearly falls within the provision’s grasp.” Id. That is the case here and why it is unconstitutionally vague, even though some conduct may “fall within . . . [its] grasp,” id., because it fails to “define the criminal offense with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited and in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.” Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 357 (1983). It is virtually impossible for a person of average intelligence to research, assimilate and abide by all the different state laws and local ordinances that apply to registered sex offenders across the country. I cannot visit family or friends without extensive research of local ordinances and state laws and even after extensive research I still fear I could have missed one of these laws or ordinances. I cannot attend meetings or protest that occur in places that prohibit registered sex offenders from being present. The laws effectively bar me from attending higher education institutions simply because there are day care centers on most college campuses therefor curtailing my ability to obtain a higher education. The punishments for violating one of these laws or ordinances are severe. The registration and notification laws makes it virtually impossible for me to travel to a multitude of major countries in the world as they are notified by our government of not only of my registration status through the International Megan’s Law (IML), and the Angle Watch Program but are implying implicitly that I am traveling to commit child exploitation acts in their country so therefore I am denied entry by the destination country. Unless the courts address every federal, state or local ordinance throughout the country individually then there is no remedy to rectify this situation other than to relieve me of my duties to register and barring my inclusion on the sex offender notification laws. These are not hypothetical situations and are not minor inconveniences of registration but are major violations of my constitutional rights to liberty.

Dr. Phil had an episode today (Jan 13, 2017) entitled: “Was Her Boyfriend Falsely Convicted of Sexual Assault? Her Parents Want Him Gone”. Link: http://www.drphil.com/shows/was-her-boyfriend-falsely-convicted-of-sexual-assault-her-parents-want-him-gone/

The subject of this episode is a Tier III sex offender convicted of groping a 14yr old girl over her clothing. He was on Dr. Phil because he denies he was guilty of the crime and he is now dating a understanding woman who has a 2 year old girl. The woman’s mother want’s to take her granddaughter away from her daughter.

Dr. Phil used a lot of fearful statistics like 70% of sex offenders have between 1 and 9 victims. Well with that statistic, people will only see the number 9, not the more appropriate 1 victim for most offenders. At the very end of his show, in a low voice while everyone was clapping goodbye, he did state that the recidivism rate was a lot lower than what most people think.

These charges came to light during his divorce from his ex. The registered citizen in this story showed the results of a polygraph exam he took during treatment that showed he was telling the truth when he said he did not grope the girl. Dr. Phil agreed that this was a valid polygraph exam. Dr. Phil also got the victim to agree to a polygraph after she offered to take one. Her results were posted at the end of the show and her responses were said to be deceptive.

Other than showing the world that this man may likely be innocent, this story with Dr. Phil’s scary statistics certainly did not help us.

Lets see if they will let me post the beginning of my motion….Just so you all know It is formatted in the proper format and argued on pleading paper…..I am very proud of this that I spent hundreds of hours preparing while many have said to stop crying and start doing this or that or whatever they thought I should be doing to support our cause.. Believe me when this prevails all the naysayers will be chomping at the bits to file their own motion based on mine…

MICHAEL RICHARDSON
__________________
__________________
__________________
PRO SE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff,
MICHAEL RICHARDSON
vs.
Defendant(s)
______________________ )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
) Case No._________________

VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND/OR DECLARATORY RELIEF

Violation of First, Fifth Amendments, the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the United States Constitution, and California’s Constitution’s Article I sect.1 and sect.7

INTRODUCTION
I the plaintiff, Michael Richardson, do hereby bring forth this motion for Declaratory and/or Injunction relief. I am not an attorney and I have no formal education in the field of law. I am filing pro se since I cannot afford legal assistance as I do not have unlimited disposable income so I am asking this court to consider the issues in this motion based on the merit of each issue without regard to court rules and procedures or technical errors. See. Elmore v. McCammon (1986) 640 F. Supp. 905″… the right to file a lawsuit pro se is one of the most important rights under the constitution and laws.”Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1959); Pro se pleadings are to be considered without regard to technicality; pro se litigants’ pleadings are not to be held to the same high standards of perfection as lawyers.Maty v. Grasselli Chemical Co., 303 U.S. 197 (1938) “Pleadings are intended to serve as a means of arriving at fair and just settlements of controversies between litigants. They should not raise barriers which prevent the achievement of that end. Proper pleading is important, but its importance consists in its effectiveness as a means to accomplish the end of a just judgmentt.”Puckett v. Cox, 456 F. 2d 233 (1972) (6th Cir. USCA) It was held that a pro se complaint requires a less stringent reading than one drafted by a lawyer per Justice Black in Conley v. Gibson.Picking v. Pennsylvania Railway, 151 F.2d. 240, Third Circuit Court of Appeals. The plaintiff’s civil rights pleading was 150 pages and described by a federal judge as “inept”. Nevertheless, it was held “Where a plaintiff pleads pro se in a suit for protection of civil rights, the Court should endeavor to construe Plaintiff’s Pleadings without regard to technicalities. See also the California’s Constitution’s Civil Rights Amendments Article I section 3. I am also asking this court for assistance in determining exactly what rights are being violated and exactly what type of remedies the court deems applicable in my case. I am asking the Court to determine if such action by a Court can or should actually be taking to administer a fair and just Judicial process.
This motion is being brought forth as an as applied challenge to the constitutionality of the sex offender registration and notification laws or Megan’s law (CA Penal Code § 290-290.024, Sex Offender Registration Act) and to SORNA (Sex Offender Registration Notification Act) 42 USC § 16913 as applied to me.
Governments have an obligation to protect people and take appropriate steps to safeguard the lives of those within its jurisdiction to protect them from violence. One element of that duty is to take measures to deter and prevent crime. They must do so, however, within a human rights framework, which places restrictions on those measures that infringe on the human rights guaranteed to all. A person’s conviction of a crime does not extinguish his or her claim to just treatment at the hands of government.
American policies regarding sex offenders mark them as a special category of criminals for whom no stigma is too crippling, no regulations are too restrictive, and no penalty is too severe. This attitude, driven by fear and outrage, is fundamentally irrational, and so are its results, which make little sense in terms of justice or public safety.
Sex offender laws interfere with a panoply of protected rights: the rights to privacy, to family and home, to freedom of movement and liberty (including the right to work and to reside where one chooses ), and to physical safety and integrity (including protection from harm by private as well as public actors), while not achieving any legitimate legislative objectives. None of these rights are absolute, but laws that infringe upon them must be necessary to serve a legitimate public interest and they must be rational and evidence-based. It is important to recognize that constitutional protections must be afforded to all regardless of the public having a perception of certain classes having a pariah reputation. The government cannot allow rights to be taken away arbitrarily “based solely upon the category of the crime for which the offender is found guilty.”
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
This is a civil rights action seeking to enjoin local, state, and federal agencies from requiring me to register as a sex offender and subjecting me to the public notification laws (CA Penal Code § 290, Sex Offender Registration Act. ) and to SORNA (Sex Offender Registration Notification Act) 42 USC § 16913 as applied to me in violation of the First Amendment, Fifth Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, and the Equal Protection Clause of the United States of America as well as California Constitution’s Article I, Section 1 and 7 on “ life, liberty, property, due process, and equal protection”. Plaintiff’s claims are brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
This court has jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. sections 1331, 2201, and 2202; as well as 5 U.S.C. section 702, which waives the sovereign immunity of the United States with respect to any action for injunctive relief under 28 U.S.C. Section 1331.
Under 28 U.S.C. Section 1391(e), venue is proper in this Federal district because defendants are officers of agencies of the United States sued in their official capacities, and because this judicial district is where Plaintiff Michael Richardson resides, and where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims have occurred and will continue to occur.

I dont know if this site will allow me to post the entire 47 page motion but if enough people state they want to see it then they might let me post it…if not oh well their lossssssssss