General Comments July 2017

From what I am reading OI could just walk in to court and say Booker give me a jury and be done with it but nonetheless I will continue on my path and here is just another tidbit of case law out of about ten pages I have now….This is the last I will post of these lengthy post unless I find something else incredibly relevant such as the Booker case…….

Statutes that trench on fundamental liberties, like *527 those affecting significantly the structure of our government, are not entitled to the same presumption of constitutionality we normally accord legislation. Moore v. East Cleveland, 431 U. S. 494, 499 (1977). The burden of justification is reversed; the burden rests upon government, not on the individual whose liberties are affected, to justify the measure. Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, 431 U. S. 209, 263-264 (1977) (POWELL, J., concurring in judgment). We recently reaffirmed the standard of review in such cases as one of “exacting scrutiny.”
“We long have recognized that significant encroachments on First Amendment rights of the sort that compelled disclosure imposes cannot be justified by a mere showing of some legitimate governmental interest …. [W]e have required that the subordinating interests of the State must survive exacting scrutiny.” Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U. S., at 64.

Constitutional analysis must, of course, take fully into account the nature of the Government’s interests underlying challenged legislation. Once those interests are identified, we must then focus on the nature of the individual interests affected by the statute. Id., at 14-15. Finally, we must decide whether the Government’s interests are of sufficient weight to subordinate the individual’s interests, and, if so, whether the Government has nonetheless employed unnecessarily broad means for achieving its purposes. Lamont v. Postmaster General, 381 U. S. 301, 310 (1965) (BRENNAN, J., concurring).

And, MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL in Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U. S.618, 634 (1969), stated that when “fundamental” rights are at stake, such as the “right to travel,” government must demonstrate a “compelling” interest, not merely a “rational relationship between [the underlying statute] and [the] . . . admittedly permissible state objectives ….”

the Government has nonetheless failed to choose narrowly tailored means of carrying out its purposes so as not unnecessarily to invade important First and Fourth Amendment liberties. The Court demanded no less in Buckley v. Valeo, and nothing less will do here. Cf. Hynes v. Mayor of Oradell, 425 U. S. 610, 620 (1976).

To the contrary, he said flatly: “It would be archaic to limit the definition of punishment to `retribution.'” Indeed, he expressly noted that bills of attainder had historically been enacted for regulatory or preventive purposes.
“Historical considerations by no means compel restriction of the bill of attainder ban to instances of retribution. A number of English bills of attainder were enacted for preventive purposes—that is, the legislature made a judgment, undoubtedly based largely on past acts and associations . . . that a given person or group was likely to cause trouble . . . and therefore inflicted deprivations upon that person or group in order to keep it from bringing about the feared event.” United States v. Brown381 U. S., at 458-459.

There’s no doubt that this is a classic separation of powers and bill of attainder issue on top of all the other issues……..There is no way of getting around it under the current case law.

In CA we are also banned from receiving financial help from the Victims of Violent Crimes Fund. We are the only group that is excluded. All CA residents (except sex offenders) can receive up to $46,000 in medical, death or wage loss if you are a victim of a violent crime.

Here’s an interesting (and fairly easy) read I stumbled upon: “Constitutional Constraints on Retroactive Civil Legislation: The Hollow Promises of the Federal Constitution and Unrealized Potential of State Constitutions” (http://scholars.law.unlv.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1527&context=nlj)

It does a really good job of talking about the futility of challenging civil laws at the Federal level, and points to the higher chance of success at doing so at the State level–depending on the State.

That was an interesting read AJ and I understand it’s a long shot on some issues but I think once we establish that registration is now punitive then we open the door for all these other issues to be brought up..Remember they are now infringing upon numerous constitutional liberties now with these ramped up super registration schemes. The court already recognized that the right to reputation is a fundamental right requiring strict scrutiny, the right to raise ones children without interference, and they have straight up said that we have a substantive due process issue and in the CA court pretty much stated that we have an unreasonable, arbitrary, and oppressive official actions claim not explicitly but implicitly by declaring there was no rational basis for residency restrictions opening the door for no rational basis for any of the restrictions or even the registration scheme. I think we have a very good chance in the federal court on every argument I have in my motion and it is only getting stronger everyday….He…if even we don’t win in the federal court, which I know we will, we always have a slam dunk in the state level right??? I just want a federal court to declare it’s unconstitutional and that states or the federal government cannot apply it to anyone without a fair hearing and at the very least proving with the clear and convincing evidence standard that they pose a threat great enough to justify inclusion on the registry..even though I want to abolish the registry I think it is very reasonable to demand at least that…..

Please forward to Janice or anyone that could make or decide this. You know I got to thinking, whatever we said or write in this forum, it is only to VENT our FRUSTRATION, ANGER, SADNESS, and AGREEMENT toward our point of views of how the Federal and / or states government and public are treating us. It is merely a forum to express within the confinement of THIS forum. What can we do or collectively as a group to better take a COURSE OF ACTION to make better our situations, we could donate to make our causes, but do we have the cause of actions in writing to set a goal that we can better see or envision our goals to help all that are being supressed by the ever changing laws to target registrants? For now all I see is alot of frustrations in writings within the confinement of this forums. Beside the fights of writing letters to legistatures to opposes certain bills, can we set aside the targets and donations toward certain ongoing or planning litigations toward certain laws that we are planninng to litigate? Can we, as members see the goals and or the amount of donations toward certain cases or lititation that we wish to pursue? Is it possible as members to see this being displayed so we could make this an even stronger goal toward our goal to abolish the registry or at the minimum a fair and just registry for the truly and dangerous people? Feel free to edit as u seem fit…

Rep. Ted Poe, Republican from Texas is speaking in the House of Representatives on C-Span right now. His subject is sexual violence, victims rights and how rape is worse than death. And how we need harsher penalties for offenders. (11:00am PT)

The process changed a bit about two years or so ago. Previously, you would phone in for an appointment. On that day you would go into the main lobby of the downtown station. A custody officer or cadet would handle all of the paperwork while you waited in the main lobby. When everything was ready, you would go inside for printing and photographing.

That changed recently. You call in for the appointment, and are told that on that day, you go to the back of the building and get buzzed into the custody section. There, a custody officer handles the paperwork updates. After its all ready, you sign and give the thumbprint. They then have you come back through the security door. The custody guy is required to search you for weapons. After that, its printing and photos as usual.

Some complained that moving the process to the back is more embarrassing, but to be honest, it is actually better than being out front. Everyone in the custody area is there for the same thing. The guy I’ve had do my work for the past two years is extraordinarily professional. Anaheim has a lot of transient offenders, so they are really used to the process (every 30 days for those folks). It goes pretty much like clockwork and I’ve had no complaints.

Here’s a legal Article that makes a compelling argument that could quite easily apply to DLs with “sex offender” somehow included on them: http://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1060&context=clevstlrev

Hopefully the OK case comes out in our favor.