Comments that are not specific to a certain post should go here, for the month of August 2017. Contributions should relate to the cause and goals of this organization and please, keep it courteous and civil.
Related posts
-
Wicked Riches: Victims’ compensation rewards liars and cheats
Source: bettinaarndt.substack.com 2/26/25 What a story! Our media was agog at the recent NSW police announcement that... -
ID: Idaho House widely passes bill to limit youth access to ‘indecent sexual exhibitions’
Source: idahocapitalsun.com 2/25/25 Bill, drafted by the Idaho Family Policy Center, was inspired by drag shows... -
Watch the March 3 D.C. Vigil on live streaming!
We are very pleased with the number of people who are coming to the Washington DC...
that’s excellent info for a lot of people I’m sure. I really like the fact homefacts.scum removed you as well.thats good news…hey anyone know if lyft ride share in CA will hire us? their terms say they do background checks at the minimum of 7 years and talks about violent felonies which I have non-violent felony and I’ve read about their spokespeople standing their ground in New York saying they think everyone whos paid for their crimes should have a chance to earn a living and even as far as trying to fight the new law denying level 1offenders. I guess we’ll see because I’m going to apply soon as i get my student loans..
People keep objecting to the development and use of GPS implantable tracking chips. I think a much bigger concern is the installation of license plate readers that are being installed at the entryways and throughout many cities. This technology doesn’t have any real rules or guidelines. I would imagine they will also use it to track parolees, probationers and registered citizens. So if you think you’re being followed, you are. The people in Brentwood, CA mostly gave positive comments on their use. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution article is old, but brings out some interesting points.
Are automatic license plate readers a violation of privacy?
http://www.ajc.com/news/are-automatic-license-plate-readers-violation-privacy/qfzyS5SE5V43a6WKMQwqjJ/
Brentwood License Plate Reader Program Already Making Impact
http://eastcountytoday.net/brentwood-license-plate-reader-program-already-making-impact/
City of Clayton Installs Cameras, License Plate Readers at City Entrances
http://claycord.com/2017/08/16/city-of-clayton-installs-cameras-license-plate-readers-at-all-city-entrances-photo/
Hello,
Just want to confirm that, in California, you don’t have to update your registration when you buy or sell a vehicle? You only have to be sure to update at your yearly… am I correct?
I am on probation right now and I bought a new car last week. As it’s a new car there is no plate yet. I contacted my probation officer and updated her on the new car. Told her I’d let her know the plate number as soon as I got one.
Now here’s where it gets interesting… she told me to call the local PD and let them know as well. I don’t think that’s correct but gotta do what the PO says right. I called the detective where I register to let them know. She wanted the VIN number of the car so I gave them that.
Nothing I can do about any of this until I’m off probation right? I have to do whatever the PO says? I was actually thinking the detective was going to just say that I didn’t need to do that so surprised she asked for the VIN.
Thoughts?
I also recommend, depending on what your conviction/s are, getting the heck out of California as soon as you are able to do so.
I moved outta there and now I’m no longer required to register.
Do some research; find a friendlier state with more sane and reasonable laws, and GET OUT!
Well, after 7 years of being on the registry (and non-disclosure and non public list), I have been fired from my job due to my status, and my now former boss has disclosed my status to my colleagues. =(
Something occurred to me recently regarding IML. I wonder if the way to attack the law is via the 21-day and 48-hour requirements it imposes, and not on the Interpol notice. Getting any proof as to what goes on between Uncle Sam and a foreign nation could prove difficult, if not impossible. Besides, even if you could show the US sent a notice, the defense will simply be, “the other country exercised its rights as a sovereign nation to deny entry,” and that’s completely correct. Even if one were to argue it was due to the US “whispering in their ear,” the US could turn around and show all the countries where RCs have been allowed entry. This would bolster their argument that the Interpol notices are not in and of themselves the reason, it’s simply sovereign nations making choices.
Is perhaps the way to attack IML through the notification requirements? Even in Smith, SCOTUS addressed the fact the law imposed no restrictions on travel. Obviously IML does. I am no longer allowed to do a last-minute international trip, whether two weeks out or even a last-second whim, whereas other citizens can. Therefore, I believe my Equal Protection Rights are violated and the law is excessively broad, despite any compelling government interest. Nor are the rules narrowly tailored to achieve the stated purpose of IML, namely prevention of sex tourism.
A further question is what happens if a State has stricter tiers than the Feds? For the feds, misdemeanors and CP possession are Tier 1, but in at least a few States, those are or can be Tier 2. The Feds require 15 years, and a State may require 25 years or even life. Suppose I’m tier 1 (15 years) federally, but tier 2 (25 years) for my State. After 16 years, I decide to travel. My State requires me to submit info 21 days out, and they send it along to the Feds. What do the Feds do with it? Do they adhere to their own tier structure and simply ignore my info? Or, do they follow a “the greater of Federal or State law” system and send my info along? If they do the latter, there is again an Equal Protection problem, simply due to my state of residence.
Thoughts, anyone? I kind of feel I’m missing something here, and not having read SORNA or IML much, figure I probably am.
you hit it AJ. its the reporting requirements that is the main issue with IML but the fact that the angel watch program is notifying other countries means they are implicitly stating we are more likely to be involved in the sex trade which is tarnishing our constitutional right to our reputation. man its a no brainer..im filing Tues so I hope you and chris go over my motion one last time because I’m filing it….its to bad we cant get more help from people like Ron but whatever I guess they’ll reap the rewards without any effort….
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/08/19/inside-minds-women-who-have-sex-with-boys.html
Teachers specifically…..
Man negative vibes and comments. ya I have been working on this for a couple years now what have you done joe? sure haven’t helped with this at all. I don’t even care what people think anymore look forward to hearing what you think Chris.
really starting to make me sick knowing that all the people who have been negative towards me and who haven’t lifted a finger to help may get relief from other’s efforts. if you don’t do anything to help yourselves and criticize someone who is actually trying too then you really don’t deserve relief.
At least I will be able to say I honestly tried instead of sitting around whining or supporting and depending on someone else to do it for me…
@Mike R
First question, in places where you reference other sections, are you manually making sure the line numbers still match or does your word processor do it automatically?
For example, In number 25 of the first section:
“See, claim 7 line 257-259” – Is this kept correct even after changes?
Next:
Opening, #33 “restrict a broad range of activity ”
I would say “restrict a broad range of normally legal activity to try to prevent something else happening that is already a crime”
SECOND CLAIM
(Right to Equal Protection)
Add something about how all other felons are allowed a judge and access to the appeals process to decide how and how long to punish, rehabilitate, and protect the public instead of legislature mandating an arbitrary duration and restrictions.
Also add something about how 7 years after release from government supervision, other felons benefit from 3rd party background checks and company policies that only go back 7 years not seeing the convictions over 7 years old, while registered Sex Offenders with lifetime supervision will always appear with that conviction information on background checks and have it used against them.
THIRD CLAIM
(Right to Travel and Association and Unconstitutionally Vague).
#7 and #8 – I would greatly shorten this, as I don’t believe judges like to see references to how the law affecting you isn’t fair just because it is more justifiable to affect other people with other laws than you with this one. It comes across as winy and suggesting judges should legislate from the bench. It may also not be needed to include “retroactive” statements, since it’s just as bad that these things can occur to future or more current offenders.
You may wish to consider consolidating #7 and #8 into this which I’ve trimmed and changed and added to:
*****
#7 I’m not sure how it doesn’t “shock the conscience” that every one of our 19,354 cities are allowed to make laws against an identifiable group such as “sex offenders”, with that identification based merely on their past conviction or pleading no contest or guilty to a list of specified crimes and who are no longer under government supervision; even with many having convictions set aside or deferred and not actually being convicted or no longer having a convictions on their records. By that logic, that means anyone that was ever charged, convicted or pled guilty/no contest to a DWI charge could have a plethora of laws applied to them and they would have to research every city they drive through to determine if they are violating some city ordinance or state law by doing so. After all, driving is a privilege and isn’t even a protected liberty interest. Assuming every city is allowed to create laws pertaining only to “sex offenders”, that means they may also individually restrict anyone coming from any jurisdiction in the United States convicted of an offense similar to DWI from things such as driving a vehicle unsupervised, driving a vehicle at all, being near liquor stores or bars, from having children in their cars or driving where children gather, and even require them to have lifetime ignition interlock devices installed on their vehicles to drive through a town. Obviously, this cannot work in a free society and restrictions based on past criminal conduct should only be placed on an individual one time, by a judge during the fair sentencing portion of their trial, and not seperately by every municipality of the United States that chooses to at any time they wish.
*****
Actually, that entire re-write part of #7 above may be better used under your “Substantive Due Process” claim. Is it wrong to use it in both? Have to think about that.
FOURTH CLAIM
(Right to be free from Unreasonable, Arbitrary, and Oppressive Official Action)
1. The sex offender registration and notification laws violate my right to be free from unreasonable, arbitrary and oppressive official actions.
I would keep the first line and then insert the new lines I’ve created as points 2,3,4, and 5:
******
#1 The sex offender registration and notification laws violate my right to be free from unreasonable, arbitrary and oppressive official actions.
#2 They are unreasonable in that they in no way took into account my particular situation, circumstances, or actual threat to society and are instead based on unsubstantiated fears and rhetoric while also extending beyond the judicially determined sentence of what was needed to punish, rehabilitate and protect the public.
#3 They are arbitrary due to the length of time mandated to be on the registry and offences to be included are not based on any data or research to further any of the state’s legitimate goals and is in no way determined by a judge during sentencing.
#4 They are oppressive due to the substantial number of inalienable rights they infinge upon as detailed throughout this motion.
#5 As noted in unanimously striking down a law infinging on a Sex Offender’s freedom of speech in the recent majority opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court in Packingham V North Carolina (2017), “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”.
EIGHTH CLAIM
(Separation of Powers Doctrine and Bill of Attainder)
#55 – You need to fix this paragraph, as it repeats “”the fear that the legislature, in seeking to pander to an inflamed popular constituency…” a couple times.
##################
Overall, I think it will work, and I understand we can’t tweak it forever. Thankfully, it is pro-se and you should have some leniancy for error.
However, for those that may benefit in the future it would be nice to keep cleaning it up.
This was created by taking the best from cases and literature we could all find on the various topics and mashed together. It would be nice if we had the time and luxury to use all of this but start fresh to weed out a lot of redundant info and quotes and drastically shorten it. For instance, starting off by addressing the history, real recidivism, false data, real data, failures, and how the laws don’t work and keep that only in the first section would allow us to clean all of that out of the individual Constitutional challenges. Essentially, we could look through and pull out lines that pertain to multiple challenges and stick them at the beginning.
I’ll try to think of more, but if you adapt some of my suggestions I think your good to go. Congrats!
I think it is the way to go the justices in the supreme court pa said the same thing. We have the right to un restricted travel.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FI9O0igMs5Y
Hey ditto as AJ.. Welcome back Chris hope you enjoyed your time away….
As far as the line reference numbers yes I will revise them once I get it completely done since the # lines keep changing…
OK done Chris. So you think it’s ready?/ You’re right that it is never going to be perfect and that we can spend years trying to perfect it so I think it’s ready to file myself…Any typos or technical errors should be dismissed by the court simply because like you said I am Pro Se, and I even included the citations to that exact point in the opening….
Glad to hear it Chris…
I Just watched that video….LMFAO….OMG that was the best thing I have watched in a very long time…Read the constitution while laughing at the dude and all the guy could come up with is deffer to the legislature….Especially funny at the very end when you can hear the judges laughing and talking about how all he had to to do was read the first amendment to see reputation issue…So exactly what I have in my motion was argued in this case except my motion contains much more evidence, many more issues, and is incredibly more in depth and convincing , although it wasn’t even a question really that it is unconstitutional just on the reputation issue alone….Love them judges and that is a beautiful example of American Jurisprudence and justice in action…..
Man it’s going to be a slam dunk…When the justices asked what other factors besides the Mendoza-Martinez factors make the statute punitive he could of stated, how bout what was stated in Smith v Doe in which scrotus stated that they were to free to move, work and travel like other citizens, and that there were no in person reporting requirements at issue there, and the statements by the legislatures stating exactly what concerned these justices that the legislature were simply trying to expel these individuals from their communities ( which I have evidence of those exact words), all the psychological damage being done because of the psycho social stressors from being on the public website, and the fact that even a minor inadvertent mistake could land you in prison on a subsequent felony offense, just to name of a few…Also we can now cite the Packingham court’s statement that this is punishment applied well after the person was sentenced and completed their punishment phase, and all the other decisions from Ohio, Indiana, and the many other cases…Oh and he barely touched on the fact that we are extremely impaired in the upbringing of our children and grandchildren and on and on….
OK man it’s a wrap..
http://mllkeys20112011.wixsite.com/mysite
I am going to file Tues. Wish us all luck, pray,or whatever you feel will help..lol……
Disregard the numbering or format, it is correct in my doc it just didn’t paste or format the same on my site…
I agree Chris. That dude seemed like he was barely out of law school let alone have the ability to represent the state. ejther your scenario is correct or they felt confident the courts would continue to just rubber stamp it as they have with so many others.
Want to hear some crazy and bizarre events?? Well when I went into register at the campus police there were 3 other guys doing the same thing. It took the Sargent over two hours to do us and I still had to come back because I had to go to class and didn’t have time to complete the BS. That’s the crazy…Now for the bizarre
Right after I finished my motion and stated that I am filing on Tues. I went to my SOC300 class last night and call it ironic, bizarre, or if your a religious person call it a omen or a sign. Anyways I went to this class for the first time and low and behold the professor is a counselor at Folsom prison working with lifers and also he works with underprivileged kids who are acting up. Then he also teaches probation and prole officers how to listen and have empathy and a willingness to help people reintegrate back into society instead of just punishing them forever. Here’s where it gets crazy. He specifically talks for about two hours about cdcr and haw they are starting to see the value in the R and how all the people that he was meeting in prison that 80% or more were there for non-violent offences. He was really disturbed by this fact and it showed in his rant about it. The whole time, I am not sure if campus police told him I was in his class but I don’t think they did, well he is basically addressing me and barely looking at the rest of the class. I am not the smartest guy in the world but I can tell when someone is practically talking straight to me and barely recognizing the rest of the class. bizarre right?? It gets better. So after that two hour rant he seems to focus his attention even more on me, if that was possible, and starts talking about we as individuals have the rights to access courts and to redress if the government is wrongfully targeting us..NO shi…this really was happening. He went on for the last hour about how much better off we would all be if each ad everyone of us stood up and fought for whats right and that it is actually a responsibility as a member of a society to do just that. He stressed that if you can help other people in anyway by easing the pain and giving them chances to better their lives no matter what they did that you must put aside personal fears and biases and do your civic duty…I was floored by this. I know for a fact that I was not just tripping out but this is exactly what this guy was saying almost verbatim for the entire three hour class. He says most of the class is going to be focusing on the injustices in the world especially in the US and ways to combat it and rectify it through the courts and as political activist. Well anyways I just wanted to throw that out there because I was just mouth open astounded that right after I said I was finished with my motion and will be filing it Tues. hours later I am in this class with this professor who has extensive background in the CDCR and judicial and political systems was staring right at me with eye contact almost the entire class and was practically telling ME that I need to proceed with what I am doing no matter what the consequences and no matter what the hurdles are. Crazy I know but there it is….
@mike r
Win or lose you can feel good that you fought a good fight.
Yep like I said before I couldn’t have done it with out all your guys’ help and this forum. So thank you Janice and all at the organization and each and everyone of you that contributed to this. We are going to change the country for better or for worse right….I have faith and confidence it is going to prevail…This is actually a huge opportunity for someone like me to actually make a difference and I will probably become pretty famous if this wins.. I don’t know what that will mean but for better or for worse it is probably true…
Man I am reading through this line for line and you know what guys? We did a hellll of a job. This is incredible…..