Comments that are not specific to a certain post should go here, for the month of July 2017. Contributions should relate to the cause and goals of this organization and please, keep it courteous and civil.
Related posts
-
Changes to be Made in Treatment for CA Registrants on Parole
Source: ACSOL The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) has agreed in writing to stop... -
RI: Cranston YMCA employee fired for letting sex offender on grounds
Source: wpri.com 5/16/24 The YMCA of Greater Providence (GPYMCA) fired an employee earlier this month after... -
TN: Tennessee will remove HIV-positive people convicted of sex work from violent sex offender list
Source: abcnews.go.com 7/19/24 NASHVILLE, Tenn. — HIV-positive people who were convicted in Tennessee of sex work...
Amen
10 little steps uphill; one huge slip back into the abyss.
@AJ and Mike R and anyone else that likes the legal and SCOTUS discussions
While researching cases referencing the SCOTUS Booker decision that took away mandatory sentencing duration and made them “advisory” (even though sex offender registration is still mandatory and judges have no discretion), I found some interesting parts of a case here in Texas:
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-5th-circuit/1475302.html
5th Circuit – UNITED STATES v. ARMENDARIZ 2006
In this case, the judge actually gave a guy 5 years in prison, but didn’t give him the mandatory 3 years to life of supervision following release. He gave him no supervision period, justifying it because sex offender registration was supervision enough for this person.
Of course, the state didn’t like that, and got it remanded back for re-sentencing on appeal to add supervision.
I do find it interesting though, because this goes to show how much Sex Offender Registration interferes with a Judge’s sentencing. Had mandatory registration not existed, the judge would have sentenced him according to the individual circumstances and crime with what was needed to protect the public, which probably would include supervision and treatment after prison. This also reminds me of the recent case where a college student raped a classmate behind a dumpster and got a “slap on the wrist” of 6 months, because the judge considered registration as the biggest punishment for his actions. Basically, the judge assumes the registry will continue as is, and has to rule that way. However, if the registry is suddenly found unconstitutional and goes away, that sentence is now too weak and justice wasn’t done due to the interference of the moving target of registry laws.
This case could be a good example of how the registry interferes with Justice. Judges essentially have to take into account this moving target. The registry can be made harsher or easier (not often) at the whim of legislation or SCOTUS decisions, yet it is considered one of the consequences of the trial. This is why all of the consequences of registration need to be done away with, and the needs of rehabilitation and protecting the public put back in the hands of judges during the fair sentencing portion of the trial and tailored to the individual and his crime. To do otherwise, is a clear violation of separation of powers.
Another tidbit of this case I found interesting:
“See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(b), (k); see also United States v. Allison, 447 F.3d 402, 407 (5th Cir.2006) (noting that “the policy statement recommending a life term of supervised release cannot be read in a vacuum, as the policy statement is derived from the statutory authority in 18 U.S.C. § 3583(k) and is consistent with Congress’s intention to punish [sex offenders] with life terms of supervised release because of the high rate of recidivism”). ”
So… there is another example of how the debunked “high rate of recidivism” negatively impacted all convicted of a sex offense by unjustly recommending lifetime supervision. I’m not sure if that statute from 2006 is still there…I’ll have to see when I have more time. I looked here and don’t see lifetime supervision : https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3583
Also, here is another interesting argument on Booker before SCOTUS:
http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/02/argument-preview-justices-consider-limits-sentencing-discretion-advisory-guidelines/
and the result of Dean V United States 2017 by SCOTUS:
http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/04/opinion-analysis-justices-make-statutory-sentencing-issue-look-simple/
Which shows that SCOTUS is unanimous in protecting the power of judges to ultimately take into account everything in a case and come up with a just sentence. I think the time is right to get more cases in front of SCOTUS challenging the legislature taking away a judge’s job by arbitrarily mandating sex offender registration, the length of registration, and also allowing individual cities to undermine the judge protecting the public by the city tossing on its own restrictions based on nothing but a past plea or finding of guilt for a particular offence. In essence, if any City restrictions are allowed to stand, a judge effectively has to take these into consideration during sentencing as well, thus making their job impossible in a world where the consequences from trial can change with any future whim of a legislature, even down to the city level.
I don’t understand how the complete interference with the judicial process (and ordered liberty) by the sex offender scheme and laws aimed at those on it isn’t a big part of a legal challenge against the registry.
Man this is so much work I am just exhausted after working on my motion. I believe I am done with it and am ready to have it peer reviewed so to speak. I know it’s arduous but here it is…….
http://mllkeys20112011.wixsite.com/mysite
Hope I can get you guys to give me some feedback…I think this is enough to file and anything else I can address when I get the reply from the opposition….
England has denied three extradition orders. Wow I was unaware of that…It’s in my motion now though….
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2015/10/roger_alan_giese_england_refuses_to_extradite_accused_sex_offender.html
I guess this is why SORNA is not followed by most states:
In every state, the first-year cost of implementing the Sex Offender Registration and
Notification Act outweighs the cost of losing 10 percent of the state’s Byrne money.
Old statistics, but still apply.
http://www.justicepolicy.org/images/upload/08-08_FAC_SORNACosts_JJ.pdf
I’m not sure if this has ever been posted before, but it is very good reading. I covers several important constitutional issues:
Practitioner’s Guide to the Adam Walsh Act
https://smart.gov/pdfs/practitioner_guide_awa.pdf
What I’ve read looks great, and I’ll post as I see things you may want to address in your motion, and here are my first suggestions:
Substantive Due Process
#12
Since I can’t find the exact dates and changes to restrictions Connecticut added against registrants, I would leave it more open and vague and probably add a little more. Try this out as replacement:
12. Once a state’s legislation (as they have done hundreds, if not thousands of times since Connecticut DPS V Doe 2003) made the first restrictive law against a registrant that indicated they pose some form of danger, you void that ruling, and violate Substantive Due Process by not having restrictions tailored to the individual during the fair sentence portion of the trial where both sides have a chance to be heard.
The last sentence in #23 I would change to:
23. …. Surely the legislative branch is subject to at the least the same discretionary requirements that the courts must follow when crafting legislation that goes well beyond the scope of the punishment phase and places direct deprivations of liberty interest on these individuals, in my case and many others, for the remainder of their lives and almost always beyond the length of time of the judicially determined period of required supervision by the criminal justice system.
after this I would stick something about this in the next slot, I’ll call it 23.1:
23.1 The fact that deprivations of liberty continue long past the fairly determined period of supervision was recently recognized by the majority in the SCOTUS decision of Packingham V North Carolina, where it was stated, “Of importance, the TROUBLING FACT that the law imposes severe restrictions on persons who already have served their sentence and are no longer subject to the supervision of the criminal justice system is also not an issue before the Court.” (emphasis added)
I’ve got to get some sleep now!
Hello Everyone,
Just a small update on the Frightening and High Recidivism rate we are all wondering about, well I have e-mailed Ms Aukerman about this many many times in the last 2 weeks, and she still has not gotten back to me as of yet,but I will do my best and keep trying to get a hold of her.
I do have a question for those that might be able to explain a few things for me concerning Michigan v Boban Temelkoski. It is basically very similar to the Snyder case, except for it ONLY deals with Michigan SO’s.
The case was suppose to be decided by the end of July, but I think they are now waiting to see what is going to happen in the Snyder decision.
I did however find these 2 things why trying to find out what was going on with the Temelkoaki case, so if some one couple explain these to me I would appreciate at
1) http://publicdocs.courts.mi.gov:81/sct/public/orders/150643_130_01.pdf
2) http://publicdocs.courts.mi.gov:81/SCT/PUBLIC/ORDERS/150643_135_01.pdf
Thanks in advance
that’s good chris…I ‘ll be making those changes..when you get a chance jump down into the involuntary servitude argument and give me some help on that one. I am having trouble articulating it and it sounds so repetitive and I have no authorities or case law on that issue…Alright thanks man…
So these are some of the people that, in the State of Florida, you hug and kiss and have a relationship with, are child victims of sex abuse. Because they are mere children and have no concept of consequences. smh.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/cocoa-florida-jamel-dunn-drowning-recorded-group-teens-police/
where did everyone go? did I not get invited to the secret gathering? dang it I am going to miss out on the toy drone crashing games ,OOPs secret lol
@Mike R, @AJ
I was proofreading Mike R’s motion and going through the Bill of Attainder part. I wanted to look at this quote, since I was concerned that it comes from the dissenting Justice:
***********
Brown, 381 U.S. at 456; see also id at 464 (White, J., dissenting) (“The legislature may focus on a particular group or class only when … it is common knowledge that all, not just some, members of the group possess the feared characteristics and thus such legislative designation would require no legislative fact-finding about individuals.”).
************
My concern is that this quote may have been made as sarcasm, considering this judge does not agree that the issue is a bill of attainder. I think he is making this claim as a joke, because after reading the rest of his dissenting opinion there are numerous examples where it has not been a bill of attainder when an entire class didn’t necessarily contain a certain feared characteristic.
I think there are other good arguments in the dissenting opinion that make a case where this would still be a bill of attainder against sex offenders. He points out that this particular law shouldn’t be bill of attainder because it doesn’t satisfy the Mendoza-Martinez factors, but we know sex offender registration does easily meet these factors.
Read through it all here if you guys can, and hopefully we have time to iron out the best approach for proving Bill of Attainder:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/381/437
Search for “common knowledge” to skip to the dissenting opinion. There is a lot of good stuff here, and I haven’t even read the majority opinion yet, which should have much more we can use.
Oh, Mike R, I will try to read the involuntary servitude part on Monday. You may want “New Person” to help since he has the most knowledge on this. I’ve always been of the mindset that Involuntary Servitude is good to challenge briefly, as it adds to the arguments of the other issues, but I don’t think it is the most winnable or the most egregious constitutional violation to focus on. I believe too much text in that section could put off a judge that feels that argument is too much of a reach and could make us out to look like whiny brats when they don’t really understand how troublesome their registration burden really is.
I hear you guys…didn’t the scrotus just rule against mandatory sentencing laws? There goes mandatory registration. Then we have an equal protection issue since no other criminals whether felony or misdemeanor are subjected to these types of punishments. I think the ” these types of punishments ” is a very important issue in an equal protection argument especially when we have the lowest recidivism rates of any others..Then we have cruel and unusual punishment which you see in my argument is much more complex than just the old ” shock the conscience ” scrutiny. it is also used for excessive and disproportionate legislation. All my arguments still have merit in light of anything I’veheard or read so far it just has to be articulated correctly..words have power especially in a court of law its all about how you put those words together that matters. between all your guy’s help and my own abilities we have a real chance.
still researching the bill og attainder issue but I just received the following email that Janice or other non profits might be interested in..I know I sure would like to know what Watson would come up with..interesting avenue ig you ask me that should be pursued..
Mike,
I read your postings on the CA site all the time. This is a suggestion. The IBM super computer Watson is available for legal research. I saw a Ted talk about using the super computer to do legal research. I understand that a non-profit group may use the computer free of charge. If you have any contacts with any of the groups like ACSOL, RSOL or WAR, or any of them, this might be an avenue to pursue. The super computer not only has access to all of the documents but also “thinks” and can formulate strategies with legal precedent.
Just an idea.
Mike
I think I will look into more and if it is feasible I will pay to find out what it can do…
I’ve already checked into it and subscribed but they wanted money so i just dismissed it and didn’t really consider it as much as I should of maybe..
How long before some asshat politician “offers” these to Registered Citizens?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/digger/wp/2017/07/24/a-u-s-company-offers-to-implant-chips-in-its-employees/
I don’t know where they got this statement or cite from but I have searched extensively and can not find it in any of the cases mentioned….
Finally, the Court concluded that the legislation must not be intended to punish; legislation enacted for otherwise legitimate purposes could be saved so long as punishment was a side-effect rather than the main purpose of the law.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjpzI_y4aLVAhXhiVQKHSejBmsQFggrMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fsupreme.justia.com%2Fcases%2Ffederal%2Fus%2F433%2F425%2F&usg=AFQjCNH7VRwGjg6TSzzhXZranbV9Brj-Gg
If someone can find that quote I would love to see it and to know in what context it was made……….
I have found so much in that case that is in our favor its incredible…This is obviously without a doubt a separation of powers issue as well as a bill of attainder issue…..Without a doubt……..There is nothing in the concurring opinions or in the dissenting opinions that would lean any other way….
AJ that case only bolsters that contention that sex offender registration as a mandatory sentence may not be invalid or unconstitutional as a separation of powers issue ( even though I can make a solid argument that it is) it is a attachment to the original crimes and therefore has to be considered when imposing a sentence for the committed offense. A lifetime of punishment would certainly weigh heavy in the sentencing phase of a trial on the amount of time a person is to be incarcerated.
Wiki cites several times quotes that cannot be found in case law but was only cited as the following…
Stark, Prohibited Government Acts: A Reference Guide to the United States Constitution, 2002, p. 30.
Wiki refers or implies that the quotes are from the Nixon opinion and I have not found a single one of their quotes in that case or any others….I might be wrong and enlighten me if I am.
Yeah I don’t see anything that suggest the legislator can impose a minimum or maximum sentence outside of that which is included in statute for the committed offense. Hence mandatory registration……….
From wiki on Booker v..
In a split but majority ruling, the Court struck down the provision of the federal sentencing statute that required federal district judges to impose a sentence within the Federal Guidelines range, along with the provision that deprived federal appeals courts of the power to review sentences imposed outside the Guidelines range. The Court instructed federal district judges to impose a sentence with reference to a wider range of sentencing factors set forth in the federal sentencing statute, and directed federal appeals courts to review criminal sentences for “reasonableness,” which the Court left undefined.
This ruling was the direct consequence of the Court’s ruling six months earlier in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004), in which the Court had imposed the same requirement on a guidelines sentencing scheme employed in the State of Washington. The Blakely decision arose out of Apprendi v. New Jersey in which the Court held that, except for the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the defendant’s punishment above the statutory maximum punishment had to be submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
Here is just one tidbit of case law I have found in the last couple of hours and I have a lot more that will go into my motion…..
Any case in this Court calling upon principles of separation of powers, rights of privacy, and the prohibitions against bills of attainder, whether urged by a former President—or any citizen—is inevitably a major constitutional holding. Mr. Justice Holmes, speaking of the tendency of “[g]reat cases like hard cases [to make] bad law,” went on to observe the dangers inherent when
“some accident of immediate overwhelming interest . . . appeals to the feelings and distorts the judgment. These immediate interests exercise a kind of hydraulic pressure which makes what previously was clear seem doubtful, and before which even well settled principles of law will bend.” Northern Securities Co. v. United States,193 U. S. 197, 400-401 (1904) (dissenting opinion).
Well-settled principles of law are bent today by the Court under that kind of “hydraulic pressure.”
Mr. Justice Miller observed for the Court that encroachments by Congress posed the greatest threat to the continued independence of the other branches.[2] Accordingly, he cautioned that the exercise of power by one branch directly affecting the potential independence of another “should be watched with vigilance, and when called in question before any other tribunal. . . should receive the most careful scrutiny.” Ibid. (Emphasis supplied.) See also Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U. S. 1 (1976).
David if they abolished all the registry and all the laws pertaining to the registry and i mean everything, IML, notification, rules regulations and restrictions, everything. I would submit to the chip. it wouldn’t bother me even though it would be unconstitutional I could swallow that pill much easier…
you’re right though some A hole is going to intro legislation that requires the chip as part of the registry…its only a matter of time before we all have to go get chipped on top of the registry if something doesn’t prevail in court soon that abolishes the registry or forces the government to seriously revamps it.
Booker is extremely relevant in my case since the court sentenced me to the maximum sentence it could give me for the offenses committed….So if the registry in any form is considered punishment in any way the court has to present evidence to a jury to prove a fact that justifies the increased punishment and that fact has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt is true, another words the jury would have to find beyond a reasonable doubt that I WILL re-offend in order to justify the registration scheme being imposed upon me outside of the mandatory maximum that I was already sentenced to…Haaaaa, good luck with that….Every case I have read only bolsters my argument and it is unambiguous and undeniable…..
My god the Booker case even takes the discretion of the judge out of the picture and puts it directly in the hands of a jury to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt…Am I reading this wrong or am I reading this correctly????????