General Comments May 2017

I’m really curious here. State law cannot be more burdensome than Federal law. So in the 2003 Smith v Doe case, in one of the seven factors why registration is not punitive, but regulatory write this:

”
Although the public availability of the information may have a lasting and painful impact on the convicted sex offender, these consequences flow not from the Act’s registration and dissemination provisions, but from the fact of conviction, already a matter of public record. The State makes the facts underlying the offenses and the resulting convictions accessible so members of the public can take the precautions they deem necessary before dealing with the registrant.
”

Here, the SCOTUS is stating specifically that only convictions need be disseminated. That is its only requirement to be on the registry – or have your information disseminated. The emphasis is on “… but from the fact of conviction.” cements that only convictions qualify for this scheme.

In California, some registrants can earn a 1203.4 case dismissal. This means your conviction is set aside. But laws in California negate the removal of all penalties and disabilities provision provided in 1203.4, specifically for all registrants to continue to register, which is a penalty. And according to the SCOTUS, penalties can mean either punitive or regulatory.

A case dismissal is no longer public record because you were never convicted. It is a fact that I am no longer convicted, but I am forced to continue to participate in continuance to disseminate my information. In essence, my privacy is no longer public, but I’m forced to register my privacy to still be public. Well, this runs contrary to what the SCOTUS has written and is the pinnacle of the regulatory scheme – the dissemination of your information (or private information/privacy) to be public.

I want to know if a case can be set forth that California is superseding Federal law in forcing those persons who no longer have convictions to continue to participate in the regulatory scheme, as specifically set forth in the 2003 Smith v Doe decision, to which I quoted verbatim.

Also, that California is not following it’s own statute in its own Constitution that its citizens have an inalienable right to pursue and obtain privacy. Remember, the registry is the dissemination of public information. A case dismissal makes your case no longer public. Recall, SCOTUS defined penalties to be punitive or regulatory in nature – which is why you can still be punished for breaking a regulatory punishment. A 1203.4 grants the removal of all penalties and disabilities stemming from the conviction. Yet, California has removed this venue of pursuing and obtaining privacy, which is supposed to be protected by the California Constitution. Registration is a penalty, as defined by the SCOTUS as well as defined by previous case law in California that allowed the removal from registration with 1203.4.

So with this IML, it requires only those who have to register. Welp, since the IML is a federal law, then I really want the federal statute stated in 2003 Smith v Doe upheld that only convictions participate in the regulatory scheme of dissemination of information b/c it is “in fact NOT A CONVICTION” when a case is dismissed.

You can’t have two different laws conflicting when there’s a federal law stemming from the two conflicting laws. According to the 2003 Smith v Doe decision, I should not be part of the regulatory scheme so that I am not part of the IML. California is forcing me to register despite my conviction no longer exists. So who wins? Federal Law or California law? Or am I wasting my time with this notions that the 2003 Smith v Doe decision specifically stated that only convictions are to take part in the regulatory penalty scheme?

And here we go with one of the most blatant conflict of interest stories in the country. A man who runs a polygraph company is on the Colorado Sex Offender Treatment Board. Seriously??

http://www.denverpost.com/2017/05/14/polygrapher-conflict-of-interest/

As I was trying too look up COR exclusions, I found a worksheet from Sacramento Public Law Library.
Link: http://saclaw.org/wp-content/uploads/sbs-certificate-of-rehabilitation.pdf

The headline of the pdf worksheet is this: “Cleaning up Felony Convictions when Expungement is Not Available”

Well, that doesn’t make sense to me. On the face, it means the COR is for those who can’t earn the 1203.4. But if you’re a registrant, the 1203.4 doesn’t really mean much and you need the COR to possibly not register.

I don’t understand why the law isn’t treating registrants equally for the 1203.4 and/or 17b? I point to the firearms people – once they have their charge reduced to a misdemeanor, then they get their rights to bear arms again. Registrants don’t get their rights to obtain privacy at that same level of law?

What’s the point of giving out 1203.4 when it essentially does nothing to change the outlook for a registrant? In California, the govt loves to require licenses to get a job. If you’re trying to apply for any job that involves possessing a license, then they can question you about a charge or arrest. Those types of jobs can bypass asking you about prior convictions. (I read this recently on what an expungement does or doesn’t do.)

Essentially, it seems as though the state is purposely creating a barrier for registrants to have equal opportunities for jobs. I would like to clean my record, but it appears there’s actually no way to do it sooner than via COR and a Pardon – which is a decade’s worth of waiting.

I met with my probation officer yesterday. For some reason, he is either too stupid to remember my situation, or just doesn’t give a damn.
Because of my felony, I can no longer work ANYWHERE in my profession. Mandatory fingerprinting has made my working life a distant memory.
My P.O., in his infinite stupidity, has “suggested” that I start another “occupation”.
This ordeal has left my broke. I am in my 50s, and his suggestion is a “new path”. My “program” therapist keeps repeating the same shit, like “have hope”, and ” it’s only a few more months on probation”. Are they both so ignorant that they think I can’t tell they are only worried how if I off myself , how it would affect their job record.
Isolation is a normal life now.
I am not looking for or expecting a future. I only wish the end to be comforting and peaceful. There is no longer a feeling of hopelessness, but more an acceptance of the enevitable.
I read about death, and If you just accept it, then what does it matter when it comes, because it will come.

Well I welcome all high profile additions to the Price Club. They often have some money and connections that may prove valuable. I guarantee his ex has some extremely powerful friends.

So in California you have to ‘have good reasons’ to ask to off probation early. If I say that I need the ability to travel to Europe for my job would the judge say “with IML and Angel Watch they probably wouldn’t let you in anyway so that’s not a good reason”?

I have traveled to Europe several times for my job before this so this need isn’t out of the question.