General Comments June 2017

JetBlue Airways Corp. and Delta Air Lines Inc. will test facial and fingerprint recognition technology at two U.S. airports to replace boarding passes and ID’s.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-05-31/jetblue-tests-using-face-recognition-to-scrap-boarding-passes

This should make it even easier for them to enforce IML. I’m not sure why they will still need to mark our Passports when they can identify us quickly with this new technology.

I would like to suggest that everyone in this group add the state they live in to the end of the name they post here with. Now that this group has become a national group, it’s hard to provide a proper response to questions or comments without knowing what state the poster comes from. I have now added it to the end of my user name so that no one confuses it with the much larger Lake County, FL. Please consider doing this so there will be less confusion when questions are asked or advice is given.

Just wondering, I had some people lie to a detective and said I was staying in a city that I wasent, luckly im in a small town my neighbors see me daily, the detective called me and asked if i was staying there he doesnt believe the person and said nothing should come out of this. Im thinking its the city council in the city, is it possible to sue them for the false accusation or is this something i should just leave be?

yep it’s all in there..every suggestion all you guys made are in there….I am very happy with what we as a team have accomplished and I believe I am ready to file…I want to see what the opposition has to throw at me with their answer so I know what I need to concentrate on refute. what I am going to pound home is that I have completed all of my sentencing phases and am supposed to be a free citizen, judges are the only ones that can determine punishments based on individual basis not the legislative branch, the false statistics and misrepresentation of the facts to the court, bill of attainder, all of it…..I will not let anyfalsehoods slide by like all these attorneys…I got A’s in both my public speech clases the last couple semesters so I think I am ready…..I already to the federal courthouse and talked to the clerk and I am looking forward to arguing this in front of a judge….

glad to see you guys riding this out .I know it’s extremely arduous and time consuming and I appreciate all your help….I am going to try talking to ACLU again now that they got a bunch of money to fight Trump here in Cali…they are supposed to of opened a new chapter or office up here in Sacramento so I’ll get on it Monday see what happens…

Question about travel: Have any of you, my fellow Registered Citizens, used a tour bus in Europe? I ask because I know that cruises can be very problematic for registered citizens but I wasn’t sure about tour bus groups in Europe.

Does any one know the California Contractors license boards , polcey on registered people ? Are we not allowed to get a license ? Are our old licences revoked if they find out about our conviction ? Is there a time limit after conviction that the contractors license is revoked. I’m not about to ask the license board.

@mike r
I read a good deal of your document, and skimmed all of it (there are some redundancies, brother). One question I have is whether any of the non-CA and non-Federal issues ca be raised. You’re suing in Federal Court, and I don’t see how they have subject-matter jurisdiction over anything to do with TN, FL, CT, OH, etc. Unless you’re raising every single one of the laws in every single one of those States as Federal questions (i.e. violating US Constitution), your court has no standing. Even if you are pursuing them as Federal questions, those States have the right to defend themselves, so you’ll need to name each of them as defendants, issue them all a summons, and then fight them all in court.

I also think it may be prudent to limit the scope of your complaint to the base issues: lack of due process, Bill of Attainder, and the proven failure (by government and non-government studies alike) of the stated legislative intent–meaning the scheme fails even rational basis review.

Anyway, that all said, here are some things I noticed, in mostly work-flow order:
1) In your opener, you should include “Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3” of the US Constitution along with the Amendments. Also, you should include the specific section of the CA Constitution, not just Article I.
INTRODUCTION
2) Citations for your statements are needed. Ex.: “12. In fact, there is now general consensus among researchers that these laws not only fail to protect the public, but actually exacerbate genuine risk factors for recidivism thereby increasing the chance of future criminal activity.” How do you support this claim of “general consensus”? You need to cite these early, then refer to them elsewhere as needed. Likewise with “13. Most states conduct risk assessments….” List the states and, if possible, their documentation that shows they do this. You’re going to have to come up with at least 26 for it to be “most.”
3) “15. The State publicly and falsely identifies all registrants as a danger to children and the public generally – despite knowing this imputation is false in individual cases and for the vast majority of registrants.” What proof do you have the State is doing this? What proof of “vast majority”?
4) Item 16 I think should describe how such restrictions amount to Banishment as defined by Black’s Law Dictionary. (http://thelawdictionary.org/banishment/)
5) In 17, you mention “Fundamental Liberties.” We have either Liberties or Fundamental Rights. Also, a citation is needed.
5) In 18, cite proof the State is doing as you assert.
6) In 21, cite the source of the quotations. This is also where the court may not have standing for “state laws across the country.”
7) In 24, examples of the plethora of Liberties should be cited.
8) I see para. 25 as harmful to your suit. Any mention of “guilty going free” is a bad topic to raise. I’d avoid any mention of it appearing that anyone will “get away with it.”
9) I’d make 26 read more as “not being afforded due process to challenge being placed into an inescapable class of citizens,” instead of refuting dangerousness.
10) In 28, an example would be helpful. A presence requirement is usually a nice vague one to use. How’s it measured? How is an average citizen to determine where the boundaries are and aren’t? Does the State have the data? If not, how can they expect compliance? If so, why is it not publicly available to aid compliance?
11) 30 made me ask, “So? They also have no plan to quit regulating driver licenses….”
12) In 32, paying taxes is not some sort of membership dues granting access. The taxpayer angle is irrelevant.
13) In 35 (and maybe elsewhere), change “criminals” to “former offenders” or similar.
14) In 36, Court cases about these freedoms would be helpful. This would also be a good spot to introduce the studies showing no registry has ever been demonstrated to prevent or solve a sex offense.
15) I think it would read better if para 37 was rolled into para 33, and para 38 rolled into para 34.
16) 39: Citation needed.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
17) Para 1 has way too many “as well as” connectors. I would, at minimum, break the US and CA sections into separate sentences.
18) In 4, you mention the “defendants are officers of agencies of the United States.” That is not true for the CA AG.
PARTIES
19) Para 2, change “first time” to “single time.” I’d also clarify your dates, as I for a second thought there were two offenses (2004, 2006). Maybe drop one of the dates? “I was convicted for doing such and such in 2004,” or “In May of 2006, I was convicted for doing such and such.”
20) In 7, I would drop the side info about your son. Mention of his legal problems and becoming a “productive member” casts a negative light with no benefit.
21) I think para 11 should be moved higher, perhaps to becoming para 7 of this section.
22) In 16, some mention of how you arrived at these Does, and that there are twenty, is needed. Are these county sheriffs? CASOMB officials? Who? You should at least be able to list their official capacities and how they are thus defendants.
FACTS
23) In 2, you should state “Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments” for the Federal purpose, as the 14th only applies to the individual States. (Tip of the hat to Chris F for clarifying that a while back.)
FIRST CLAIM
24) In para 2 and continuing, I’d avoid laying out the whole detail of the case for two reasons: 1) the Court should be aware of it or can receive a brief, and 2) You don’t want to accidentally put forth something in writing that isn’t exactly true. Save it for oral argument.
25) In 15, I’d change “choice of housing” to “housing opportunity.” Opportunity makes it more of it being imposed upon you, versus your opting for it.
26) In 22, give some examples of how you’ve been restricted or, better yet, prevented from certain employment.
27) Somewhere in this area, it may be good to equate the registry to being pilloried in the public square, but instead of rotten produce thrown at you, you face real risk of vandalism, arson, or even murder. Then offer citations of news stories.
SECOND CLAIM
28) Para 2: Not true, at least outside CA. Sometimes they are misdemeanors.
29) This may be outside the E. Dist purview, but it’s certainly an Equal Protection violation.
30) There is some syntax error in para 8. I cannot figure out what’s being said ahead of that semicolon.
THIRD CLAIM
31) In 4, I again don’t see how the court will have any say in what other State’s do. If CA and/or the Feds are doing it, game on.
32) In 12, I’d add something to the effect of, “the average citizen cannot readily ascertain where zones are. Additionally, the State provides no means or method of discerning where a restricted space starts, ends, or even how it’s measured. The State itself either doesn’t have the data, or is willingly withholding it from those most needing it.”
33) In 19, maybe add, “as well, unless I invest in prohibitively expensive GPS hardware, I cannot reliably ascertain if I’m a foot too close, or 3 inches too close. The State, on the other hand, has more resources and can acquire highly accurate GPS equipment. http://www.gps.gov/systems/gps/performance/accuracy/”
34) In 20, make mention of it being virtually impossible to know the laws. “I would also need to be constantly aware of any and all legislative activity regarding changes to distance restrictions. Though this may be feasible for a legal resident, a RC ‘resident’ (which is defined differently and specifically for RCs) will not be as attuned to the state, county and/or municipal legislative activities. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, but these laws can change quickly and sometimes without sufficient warning. I can read every law of a given State, County and/or Municipality, and yet the next day be at risk of imprisonment for innocent conduct occurring 10′ too close to an empty park.”
35) In 27, you make mention of “these requirements” but there’s no explanation to what requirements you’re referring.
36) In 29: It’s Angel, not Angle. 😉
37) In 30, address how no person of average intelligence can understand and interpret how to comply with all of them at once. Meanwhile, LE only needs to find my having violated just one–even innocently–to arrest me. Addressing that the laws punish even innocent behavior, and are thus overly broad, would be good, too.
FOURTH CLAIM
38) In 2, I’d try to find a way to say and show that you pose a risk no greater than a citizen who has never sexually offended. (If true, based on your time and crime.)
39) In 3 and 6: “single time” 🙂
40) In 9, maybe add “by both governmental and non-governmental researchers and studies” to the end of the first sentence. This highlights that even the State itself says this.
41) In most of para 19, the links are mostly OneDrive URLs. These should be the source URLs, not your copies of the docs from the sources.
FIFTH CLAIM
42) In 9, offer an alternative of re-purposing the enormous amount of resources expended away from registering, tracking, confirming and watching low-risk citizens, and towards risk assessment. Perhaps also raise the point that given the State has spent many millions of dollars for no statistically measurable effect, it appears “price is no object.”

After about there, you outlasted me. 🙂 I do think that less said can end up being more. I’d refrain from lengthy explanations of Court cases and decisions, instead mentioning a key phrase and give the citation.

All in all, I think you’ve done a lot of good work, Mike. I’ll cross my fingers and pray for your success!

Also, if I happen to take up your document tomorrow when the sun is up, I’ll try to read the latter parts a bit more in-depth. 😛

P.S. Here’s a decent law article about Banishment and freedom to live where you wish: http://lawreview.uchicago.edu/sites/lawreview.uchicago.edu/files/74_3_Edgerton.pdf It even mentions RCs a few times.