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
-
We need to reframe how we think about juvenile sex offenders
Source: salon.com 4/24/24 Most youth who exhibit problematic sexual behavior don’t need punishment. They need help... -
IL: DOC can’t outright ban parents convicted of sex offenses from speaking on the phone to their children while they are on supervised release
Source: courthousenews.com 4/19/24 CHICAGO — The Seventh Circuit ruled that the Illinois Department of Corrections may... -
QAnon Was Born Out of the Sex Ad Moral Panic That Took Down Backpage.com
Source: theintercept.com 4/27/24 For years, the political establishment opportunistically railed against sex trafficking. Then came Pizzagate....
Mike R— Good Luck on Tuesday.
mike r: Okay, I finally put my nose to the grindstone and went over your doc. I’ve posted a PDF of it for you (and the whole world) to download at https://gofile.io/?c=h7KkMg. The link and doc will expire on Monday, August 28, so I hope you get it soon. (If not, I can do it again.)
I apologize for my editorial style changing between start and finish. That’s what happens between late-night and midday!
Well done, brother, and I hope it all goes well.
P.S. There must be something wrong with me, because at one point I was wishing you had provided a version suitable for court filing. I’ve read so many legal documents, I’m starting to prefer the format! 8)
Wow frigging ten hours later. Well I made all the changes you suggested AJ.. Very good calls and I appreciate all the hard work and time you put into that. Lost the C&U and the involuntary/slavery part too . I totally agree with your analysis.
Oh man I love this Gofile site..It shows my formatting and the works so when I get it completely revised tomorrow probably I will post it for all to see. You guys sure I should just let everyone have access to this? After all we put in the work and most of these guys have been doing nothing but bashing my effort and me personally..If either one of you, Chris or AJ say no I shouldn’t I’m not going to and I’ll send you the link privately somehow…It’s your guy’s call man because you put in a helllla lot of work just like me..If you say post it I’ll post it otherwise these other guys can you know*&^^$%$%^off. Other then the few others that have encouraged and helped in anyway I’ll be happy to help them anyway I can…….
Damnnn dude you can enable editing and the works. Anyone who gets this will be able to tweek it and make minor adjustments adding their particular situations and info and bam, go file it….Hmmmmi
Alight…Here it is.. I put an expiration date for the 30th…If you guys see any changes that need to be made let me know by tomorrow because I’m filing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
https://gofile.io/?c=TABVi0
Much nicer hey AJ??Actually court ready format, nothing left but a little touch up maybe and file it…and you assumed right Chris..no CaU no servtude issues cluttering it up..much cleaner and as the courts would say much more “cognizable”..I will do a search for CaU ane servitude and delete..look forward to your comments..
I just found a great resource for Due Process citations of SCOTUS cases.
Unfortunately, it’s on Facebook and since many on here can’t use Facebook, just ask and if the moderators don’t mind I’ll post all 28 of them here or if someone can put them on another web page that would be great.
https://www.facebook.com/GeorgiaCopBlock/posts/549161235195653
Here are a few examples of my favorites that pertain to us:
1. When a person of ordinary intelligence does not receive fair notice that his contemplated conduct is forbidden, prosecution for such conduct deprives him of due process. U.S. v. Nevers, 7 F.3d 59 (9th Cir. 1993)
5. Due process of law is violated when government vindictively attempts to penalize a person for exercising protected statutory or constitutional rights. U.S. v. Conkins, 987 F.2d 564 (9th Cir. 1993)
6. Prosecution of Citizen who is unaware of any wrongdoing for “wholly passive conduct” violates due process. U.S. v. Layne, 43 F.3d 127 (5th Cir. 1995)
7. For the government to punish a person because he had done what the law plainly allows him to do is a due process violation of the most basic sort. U.S. v. Guthrie, 789 F.2d 356 (5th Cir. 1986)
@Mike R
I’ve read through it once, and didn’t see anything major wrong. I’ll try to re-read it as I can. I think it’s the best filing I’ve seen even if it still has some repetition and flow issues.
I wasn’t able to find in your filing a reference to the drop in housing value to those close to a sex offender. You may want to add that into your 1st challenge to reputation:
Being on the registry draws the scorn of nearby residents due to the fact that home values drop as much as 12 percent within a tenth of a mile, based on a 2008 report http://www.leighlinden.com/Megans_Law_AER.pdf. As the modern technology of smartphones makes it even easier to instantly identify a sex offender’s residence, this percentage drop of home values is highly likely to increase over those 2008 estimates.
I am really glad to see that fix it list get smaller and smaller. I’m on it, see anything else let me know, I will wait till Thurs. to file to give you guys more time. If you have that cite for Packingham post it or I’ll look for it and post when I find it. I still have a ton of homework due tomorrow.
12 point font Times New Roman……
Texas Voices confirmed that a PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI with SCOTUS was filed and hoping to be accepted on the Residency Restriction issue in Lewisville TX.
I know I’ve been very vocal about my displeasure with the decision of the lawyer to focus on only Procedural Due Process instead of Substantive, but it sounds like they have a good argument anyway. Either SCOTUS will realize Connecticut Department of Public Safety V Doe 2003 is a completely different situation and take the case, or they’ll use the excuse that it’s similar enough they don’t want to entertain another Procedural Due Process case on a similar subject.
I’ve seen the brief and if I find it in the public somewhere I’ll link to it here in General.
Essentially, Con DPS V Doe failed because being on the registry was based solely on committing a particular sexual crime and giving someone a trial to see if they were dangerous isn’t an issue because danger was not implied. With the Lewisville residency restriction, the state claims the same thing, that no trial is needed because it is based on the past crime. The difference though, is that the state is inferring dangerousness in the act of restricting where they live, so before depriving someone of liberty there should be some process. The Texas courts didn’t care though.
It’s a tough one. I don’t understand why SCOTUS didn’t see it as depriving someone of the liberty interest to privacy and reputation to put them on a list based solely on crime and not determine if they are actually dangerous and need their lives ruined by a public shaming list. Perhaps it was because, back then, they all believed in the false 80% recidivism rate that was “frightening and high”. If so, maybe they will take this case to fix that big error and horrible lack of fact checking and due diligence.
Okay, unless someone sees some obvious flaw I am going to go print today and file Thurs. or Fri.
U.S. District Court Considers
Legality of 2-for-1 Order
By Gary L. Visscher, Esq
The May 2017 newsletter reported on President Trump’s “two-for-one” Executive Order (E.O. 13771), and litigation challenging the Executive Order which was filed in the U.S. District Court in Washington D.C. E.O. 13771 requires that an agency or department which proposes or promulgates a new regulation must identify at least two existing regulations to be repealed, and requires that the cost of any new regulation must be off-set by repeal of other regulations, so that the “total incremental cost of the new regulations… to be finalized this year shall be no greater than zero.” For fiscal years after 2017, the Executive Order requires that an agency issuing a new regulation identify offsetting costs from regulations that have been or will be repealed. According to the Executive Order, each agency will be issued an annual “regulatory budget” which will state the total amount of incremental costs that will be allowed the agency in issuing new regulations. The “incremental costs allowance may allow an increase or require a reduction in total regulatory cost” imposed by the agency’s regulations.
In April, the Office of Management and Budget issued guidance on the implementation of the Executive Order. Amount other clarifications, the OMB guidance states that offsets will only be required for “significant regulatory actions,” which are generally items that have an annual incremental impact of $100 million or have other substantial impacts on the economy. On the other hand, the OMB guidance allows any cost reductions from changes in regulations and guidance to count as off-set. Thus for example, any costs saved by elimination of paperwork requirements may be counted.
The Executive Order was challenged in court shortly after it was issued, on the basis that it violates the Constitution’s separation of power s by imposing factors on regulations that are in addition to and unrelated to the criteria set by Congress in enabling legislation. The plaintiff’s also argue that the Executive Order violates the President’s constitutional duty to “take care that the Law be faithfully executed,” as well as the Administrative Procedures Act.
The Department of Justice, and proponents of instituting a regulatory budgeting approach as is embodied in E.O. 13771, have argued that the lawsuit challenging the Executive Order is premature (not “ripe” for judicial review), because no regulations have been rescinded or proposed for rescission, as a result of the Executive Order (though regulations may be reviewed for other reasons and counted for purposes of the off-set). Proponents of the regulatory budget approach have noted that such an approach have been used by other countries (though structured differently) to help to control the overall costs of regulations.
The District Court held oral argument in early August on the motion to dismiss by the Department of Justice, as well as a motion for summary judgment filed by the plaintiffs (Public Citizen, Natural Resources Defense Council, and the Communications Workers of America). The Court did not rule on the motions, but is expected to issue a decision soon. If the District Court grants either side’s motion, an appeal is likely to the Court of Appeals
Thought this would be helpful with the 2 for 1 regulations…..
I wonder how Registered Citizens in TX are dealing with evacuations and registration issues during all of the flooding. I looks as it will be awhile before many will get to go home. Some police departments are flooded, so they won’t be able to handle annual registrations or updates. I doubt TX will offer any leniency to registrants.
If anyone knows how this is being handled, please advise us. I would imagine that this is a stressful situation to be in especially if it isn’t clear what registrants need to do to stay in compliance with the many regulations we are subject to.
Alright AJ I have already changed a lot of those mistakes and I will go over it tomorrow and finish fixing the rest that you have pointed out.. Great job dude I am really impressed with your consistent help and your dedication to this. You and Chris have been really instrumental in helping get this to the masterpiece that it is today….It really is powerful and I don’t think any professional attorneys could have done any better….Except one of the scrotus judges, maybe. So ya, I’ll fix it up and post it and let it sit till next Tues. before I file then…
Well, I went ahead and stayed up all night and fished our motion. Here’s the link…
https://gofile.io/?c=IziPcR#69268
It’s up until the fifth so everyone can see it and have a chance to comment or download a copy for themselves.
Thanks for the grammar and punctuation lesson AJ, I really needed it since I am going to be starting my English 301 next semester..Seriously though, thanks, I know you had to have spent a lot of time doing that….
@Mike R
Mike, the discussion above about the drop to house prices was getting a little long, so I’ll continue it again here so it doesn’t get lost.
My reason for you including it isn’t for your personal loss in home value, but the loss of your neighbors. It makes a huge point in your right to reputation argument and points to why the people want to banish you. Perhaps something like this added to your 1st challenge to reputation:
Being on the registry draws the scorn of nearby residents due to the fact that home values drop as much as 12 percent within a tenth of a mile, based on a 2008 report http://www.leighlinden.com/Megans_Law_AER.pdf. As the modern technology of smartphones makes it even easier to instantly identify a sex offender’s residence, this percentage drop of home values is highly likely to increase over those 2008 estimates. Not only does this negatively impact my reputation, but also greatly impacts my right to freedom of association, and contributes to the motivation behind residency restrictions that effectively banish those publicly labelled as sex offenders.
Hey AJ.. I know this maybe a stupid question but you, or someone, mentioned plagiarism, Is it absolutely necessary for a private citizen to cite every source is they use the language verbatim? I know it’s definitely good practice, and that it’s especially necessary in college or academic papers, but can I be sued, can the court use that against me in some way, what are the consequences if I quote in court docs verbatim without quotations and citing????
I found a great source about sex offenders and homelessness,
http://ir.library.louisville.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3153&context=etd
and I want to cite something like the following, which already cites the sources in its text…
For example, Florida banned all sex offenders from homeless and hurricane shelters (Levenson & D’Amora, 2007). These additional laws consequently have pushed homeless sex offenders to live in locations that do not violate residency restriction laws, including a wooded area (USA Today, 2014) on private property unbeknownst to the owner, and under bridges (see Julia Tuttle Causeway, CNN, 2007; Zandbergen & Hart, 2006).
Another example of such policy is in Columbus, Ohio, where 5 publicly funded homeless shelters signed “good neighbor policies”, which forbid homeless shelters from housing sex offenders (Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless, 2003).
My Annual is coming up and have to call in advance to have an appointment. I did so and asked a question over the phone, “Is it possible to come into the station days before the appointment to pick up the paperwork so I can fill it out at home? That way I don’t have to wait as long.”
I was told no. The hour scheduled for me was to process the paperwork. Then I was told that if I wanted to come earlier, then I can do that and fill out the paperwork.
I’m lost here. This is supposed to be a civil item, but I’m forced to fill out paperwork at the station that can be filled out at home. What is the purpose of making me fill out paperwork there? Note, I’m forced to fill out paperwork there when it has no consequence to my appointment time. So now it’s taking an hour plus away from my day. Last time I checked, this wasn’t probation.
I truly don’t want to spend any extra time at the station that’s making me re-live my past on or around my birthday. But seriously, it’s only paperwork. And the person on the phone said I can fill it out earlier than my appointment time there as my appointment time doesn’t have anything to do with filling it out at all. To me, it just signifies that I’m still under custody of the state. It’s a small detail for others, but not for me. My service to the state ended already and no other services should be required of me as if violates involuntary servitude. You can’t force someone into any service unless to punish a crime.
I hate this time of the year.
Okay. here it is.. I am not adding anymore, it is incredibly time consuming and arduous to do the line referrals. I will fix any grammar or punctuation if anyone points them out otherwise……….It’s a wrap o amigo…….
https://gofile.io/?c=uBVp83
I also figured out to add to my website, ( comma– LOL..) which I will do soon….
Where are you located Newperson? I am in Sac. and I have never had to make an app. I know what you mean though about the reliving and waste of time and all that though..It does take at least two or three hours here…
I also posted the motions link to Sosen. See if I get any comments from Will or Derek….I would really like to here from Janice and team, but if not oh well….I still appreciate the platform….
Wow!
http://denver.cbslocal.com/2017/08/31/sex-offender-registry-constitution/
A federal court judge in Denver has called the public sex offender registry in Colorado “cruel and unusual punishment.”
This must be a first!
This is just stunningly beautiful:
“Federal judge holds Colorado registry is punishment; violates Eighth Amendment”
https://narsol.org/2017/08/federal-judge-holds-colorado-registry-is-punishment-violates-eighth-amendment/
Calling a Spade a Spade: Understanding Sex Offender Registration as Punishment and Implications Post-Starkey.
http://digitalcommons.law.ou.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1036&context=olr
This was a good read. Covers all the basic constitutional issues with sex offender laws. Has a long list of citations.