Comments that are not specific to a certain post should go here, for the month of September 2017. Contributions should relate to the cause and goals of this organization and please, keep it courteous and civil.
Related posts
-
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... -
Plaintiff Files Final Brief in Missouri Halloween Sign Challenge
Source: ACSOL Today the plaintiff in the case challenging Missouri’s Halloween sign requirement filed his final...
Illinois Sex Offenses & Sex Offender Registration Task Force Public Hearing is scheduled for Sept 20.
If you can get to Chicago, please come to testify. I anticipate that there will be many victims advocates and other special interests opposed to a sensible approach, so whatever we do to counter their arguments will be very, very helpful. You can also submit testimony in writing, so let’s inundate them with logical, thoughtful, reasonable, accurate, informative, but passionate, advocacy.
The Sex Offenses and Sex Offender Registration Task Force will be presenting the Illinois legislature with recommendations for a new, and hopefully more lenient sex offender law by Jan 1, probably including tiers and early relief (it’s currently life for almost every felony conviction in the state of Illinois).
The Sex Offenses and Sex Offender Registration Task Force requests public testimony from people affected by state sex offender law and policy, and researchers, advocates, policy experts, and concerned citizens on how Illinois can improve its sex offender laws and policies.
Public testimony must be germane to the Task Force’s mandate of making recommendations to improve Illinois sex offender laws and policies. Oral testimony must be limited to five minutes per person.
Wednesday, September 20, at 10:00 a.m. Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority Headquarters 300 West Adams, Suite 200 Chicago, Ill.
To provide testimony in person on September 20, all speakers must either:
1) Send an email to CJA.SORTF@Illinois.gov signaling the intent to speak. Please include name, organization, and contact information. Email must be received by Tuesday, September 19. Or
2) Sign up in person at the hearing on September 20. Speakers must sign in by 10:30 a.m. to be ensured time.
The Task Force also requests written testimony, which can accompany or be provided in lieu of oral testimony. Please email written testimony to CJA.SORTF@Illinois.gov by Wednesday, September 27. They have been having hearings since last December and you can read about their findings so far in a number of PowerPoint presentations, and see who the members of Task Force are at this website:
https://soortf.icjia.cloud/
Illinois Sex Offenses and Sex Offender Registration Task Force (312) 793-8550
cja.info@illinois.gov http://www.icjia.state.il.us
I thank god that the tiered registry did not pass…I think this is a major part of why we have an extreemly airtight case…The following is very important and I think I read somewhere in the decision how important the issue was when they stated the following…
SORA allows some but not all registrants to petition for removal from the registry and/or
have the CBI remove their information from the State’s internet site. C.R.S. § 16-22-113. Certain
persons required to register may file a petition with the court that issued the judgment for the
conviction that required registration to discontinue that requirement or internet posting, or both.
Such a petition may be filed after a period of five, ten, or twenty years after discharge from
incarceration or other completion of all sentencing requirements; the length of the applicable
period depends on the statutory classification of the sex offense for which the registrant was
convicted. C.R.S. § 16-22-113(1)(a)–(c). Persons convicted of certain offenses are subject to
SORA’s registration requirements for the rest of their lives. C.R.S. § 16-22-113(3).3
I just had another question pop into my head regarding IML. IML requires me to give a 21-day notice of my full travel itinerary. What does one do if permanently moving to another country? I understand I would “deregister” with my home State, but that is independent of any IML criteria. Though I am permanently relocating, that is still “travel.” It would seem that it is impossible for to me comply with the provisions of IML, and could therefore be arrested as I try to board. This is similar to what mike r (and probably others) have raised about being able to roam the globe. My study and depth of knowledge of IML isn’t sufficient to have the answer to this myself.
Ref. text from IML: “(b) INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL REPORTING VIOLATIONS.—Whoever—
(1) is required to register under the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (42 U.S.C. 16901 et seq.);
(2) knowingly fails to provide information required by the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act relating to intended travel in foreign commerce; and
(3) engages or attempts to engage in the intended travel in foreign commerce;
shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.”
If I’m moving, I am unable to provide, “‘(7) Information relating to intended travel…outside the United States, including any anticipated dates and places of departure, arrival, or return, carrier and flight numbers for air travel, destination country and address or other contact information therein, means and purpose of travel, and any other itinerary or other travel-related information required by the Attorney General.’’ I have no idea when I anticipate returning, and what if I have yet to obtain lodging? There just seem to be so many frickin’ constitutional holes in this law! I mean, I even have to provide where I’ll be staying overseas “or other contact information”? Nothing like extrajurisdictional travel supervision. It’d be one thing if the country I’m entering asks me that detail, but the USG has no business knowing.
Anyway, I’d appreciate thoughts, opinions, (oxford comma) or answers.
What is there preventing someone from traveling to a temporary destination (say Mexico), spending a night or a week, then buying a ticket to your final destination. It seems to me this would be legal and even better you wouldn’t have to tell uncle Sam where you are living. – be sure not to follow my legal advice
Oh, TS. I revised every problem you described..Proper indentation, and everything else….Thank you….Here’s the link once more since we are in a new month..
https://gofile.io/?c=vgt6xm
I already fixed what TS stated and revised the CaU, adding proper punctuation and grammar, so disregard any of that…
Whenever they start claiming that the laws have not adversely affected us, my argument is that: did the Jim crow laws effect African Americans? The answer is undoubtedly yes: They were not always physically prevented from using the whites only water fountain, but would be subject to arrest, or worse if they did use it , so therefore they did not do it out of fear of retribution (effected); they were not always physically prevented from the front of the bus, but were subject to arrest and/or worse if they did, so therefore did not do it out of fear of retribution (effected); they were not always physically prevented from moving into white neighborhoods, but were subject to arrests and/or much worse if they did, so therefore they did not do it out of fear of retribution (effected). Just because we haven’t tried to do any of the things that are not allowed, or not did something that we are required to do, does in no means that we do not have standing and haven’t been adversely effected. It doesn’t take an arrest to trigger the standing claim….
Hey do we have access to the original briefs in Colorado????Not the closing briefs, but the original opening and response on both sides……..
Today is LABOR DAY and after reading the comments recently about the Tiered and then CO courts I think we should focus our LABOR to the abolishing the REGISTRY completely. If a murderer, DUI, drug dealer etc can be free to go where they want to go without tags then this group and our members should work to have the same rights. So I want to see Janice and Chance and the group move the focus to getting rid of the registry completely
Happy Labor Day to all especially those who labor for the freedom of RSO
So in relation to compliance checks, were does the law enforcement agency get off the hook of providing us probably cause for the visit and by threat of their presence, demand to see our faces (personal property of the most basic) in order to verify that non court verified probable cause?
http://www.shestokas.com/constitution-educational-series/fourth-amendment-origins-court-battles-lead-to-revolution/
Is being on the registry none other than a general warrant, an unannounced attempt to garner information for a particular government interesest ? Is it not an an assumption that we are owned by the state and that the State of California’s presumed natural right to privacy doesn’t apply to us?
I heard that New York State will introduce a bill banning all Californian registered sex offenders from residing in the the state for more than 12 hours.
https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/09/02/federal-judge-rules-state-sex-offender-registry-is-unconstitutional/23195014/#slide=5070791#fullscreen
The comments left on that article are typical of the ignorant public in regards to the registry:
“Liberal judge (who is actually a Nixon appointee) must not have kids.”
“My children’s rights come first. I want to know where these creeps live.”
“Let those offenders live next door to that judge!”
“just shoot sex offenders…… problem solved” – (had 15 likes last count).
What do you guys think, should I go with Newperson’s argument for Involuntary Servitude???Something short and sweet like the following…The one thing I didn’t agree with Newperson is the contract issue. I believe we are forced into a contractual agreement (sex offender registration form and agreement) through coercion, under duress, and under color of law with the threat of imprisonment for failing to comply.
1. Involuntary servitude is prohibited unless to punish a crime.
2. Thus, if the registry is not punishment, then it cannot “force” anyone to do any service for them. Remember, it’s stated on ML’s website that “it’s your duty to registry.” Duty means service.
3. Service to who/whom? The state of California. Wait, but I am a free person and the registry has always been deemed not a punishment.
4. I’m a basic layman (redundant, I know). That Constitutional law is one sentence long. It basically states that no free person can be forced to serve. The only exception is if it for punishment, which means you’re under custody and not a free person. The registry laws cannot co-exist with Involuntary Servitude law. Forcing a free person into service is prohibited!
5. This false guise of public safety is unconstitutional. If there is a threat, then it’s called punishment and that individual will be kept in prison much longer. The registry is continued services to the State well beyond its legal capacity once an individual is no longer under custody (a free person).
6. Again, there are four traditional factors for involuntary servitude: a) Contract; b) Term; c) Compensation; d) Domination.
7. CONTRACT – Sex Offender Registration Form. I am coerced into a contract under duress, under color of law, with threat of imprisonment for failing to enter, or comply with, that contract. It’s a part of your punishment detail. This is a red flag. A free person working under a contract that I was coerced and forced into under threat of imprisonment.
8. TERM – In California, it’s a lifetime term. Again, this is a serious red flag. There are no lifetime contracts that a free person cannot get out of.
9. COMPENSATION – There is no compensation. This actually ventures into being a slave since the service is administered upon a free person. (A person going to a police station and scribing information. That’s you and that’s a police employee. Both of you are appointed to the police station. Both of you are scribing information, one by hand and the other via computer. Yet only one of you is compensated for that time scribing as a free person.)
10. DOMINATION – As a registrant, you cannot leave this service. You are bounded by law to comply or be hunted down, sent to prison (punishment), and returned to service. The PA court system has already deemed this act punishment b/c the penalty for not registering is going to jail.
11. My question is why do the court systems not deem the possibility that Involuntary Servitude exists in today’s era? It’s like what the Colorado case stated about the online registry – Justice Kennedy did not realize the scope of what the World Wide Web can do when Kennedy chastised the potential harm initially in Smith v Doe and has recanted in his decision for Packingham case.
12. Recall, Doe v Smith stated that the registry is regulatory. Great. So if the U.S. Supreme Court continues to claim that the registry is not punishment, then it must recognize that it is a service. A service upon a free person. That’s where the four factors of involuntary servitude come into play. Why can’t the injustice of “involuntary servitude” exist in today’s era? The U.S. Supreme Court has now stated that the internet now resembles that of a town square. Packingham. Now we know it’s much worse than a town square as it involves the whole world. Japanese Internment Camps and Jim Crow Laws are a few examples of the U.S. Government abusing its powers and not protecting all citizens.
13. I am entitled to relief because: a) I am forced into a contractual agreement (sex offender registration form and agreement) through coercion and under duress, under color of law and threat of imprisonment; b) I must report at least once a year in person for the rest of my life, monthly if I become homeless, and every time I enroll or unenroll in school or change any information that the state requires me to report, which means that I may have to report at the very minimum 25 times in the next 25 years, plus since I am enrolled in college, I must report at least 50 more times ( each time I start or end a semester, (fall, spring and summer semesters)) in the next 10 years and for an unknown amount of times for other reasons such as information changes or, if I become homeless (which is a real possibility and which I have already had to endure), then we are talking about hundreds of in-person onerous reporting sessions and contact with law enforcement; c) It cost me thousands of dollars in lost wages and travel expenses to comply with these registration requirements, that I am not being compensated for. I get paid for my time; therefore my time is a service for which I must be compensated; d) Failure to comply will result in the return to prison for a lengthy time, and then I will be subjected to the subsequent intensive and life debilitating consequences of parole once again, and be placed right back into the same regime that becomes a never ending cycle of incarceration and supervision.
@ registry rage I hope you were just talking about bucket heads 15 likes , and stupid comments , lol , I am use to the threating comment on articles , but not here ,lol ,
Actually I like the following much better..
14. Recall, Doe v Smith stated that the registry is regulatory. Great. So regardless if the U.S. Supreme Court continues to claim that the registry is not punishment, it is the intent of the legislature that these laws be strictly regulatory, so they therefore are legislative acts that constitute a “service” to the government (Involuntary Servitude), whether they are determined to be punishment or not, does not matter. A service upon a free person. That’s where the four factors of involuntary servitude come into play. So why can’t the injustice of “involuntary servitude” exist in today’s era?
Hello Everyone,
below is something Trump wanted if you want a new regulation you must kill two.
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
Are sex offender registries unconstitutional?
https://hotair.com/archives/2017/09/02/sex-offender-registries-unconstitutional/
Interesting comments
I have a question about the current registration requirements for California. Particularly #13 that states, “If I have more that one residence address that I regularly reside (regardless of the number of days or nights I spend at each address) I must register in person…with the law enforcement agency having jurisdiction.” This is incredibly vague. Does the word ‘have’ mean it is my property or just a place I frequent? What is the definition of residing? Is that visiting, sleeping, or what? This could mean if I attend a bible study in someone’s home, play cards at a friend’s on Fridays, do regular maintenance work at a property, or have girl friend I occasionally stay with, I would technically have to register all those places. Is that correct???? Arizona and Utah define ‘residing’ as a place you stay at for several consecutive days. So I could stay at my girlfriends without having to register if I live in AZ. The key word is ‘have.’ Does that mean the residence is my property? If not, then technically every SO would have dozens of registered addresses, and could in fact be picked up for violation for visiting a friend’s home. Webster defines ‘have’ as to hold, own, or possess. How does one change the registration requirements in CA to make them more livable???
Yeah, screw it Chris, like I said, I am just going to keep it short and sweet. Like you stated, it’s not the main issue but it can only bolster the other arguments, and who knows, SCOTUS decides in favor on issues that you may never think they would ..
Here it is people, the final draft. I am filing tomorrow!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
https://gofile.io/?c=Uck9w1
I guess we’ll see how good of a job we all did, right????? I got rid of the “Great”, and a couple of other repetitive or irrelevant words or remarks……….Let me know what you think….
This apropos of little recent discussion but I thought this was a very revealing discussion of, in this case, sex offenders attending “Your Church,” and is from the perspective of the insurance and liability exposure.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DVemC6lRKA
Hmmmm. I wonder why Janice referenced the CA state Constitution in her suit that she filed in federal court…
From NARSOL:
https://narsol.org/2017/09/tenth-circuit-splits-in-holding-revocation-enhancements-for-sos-unconstitutional/
Interesting case. I read the judges’ opinions. I don’t see too much to use in other cases to help us, but it is good to know the majority upheld the Constitution even though it was a sex offender involved.
In reading the dissent opinion though, I do not understand at all how that judge comes to the conclusion that you can increase the original sentence due to a new charge where the offender did not get a trial by jury under the “beyond a reasonable doubt” requirement and instead just got review by a judge under the “preponderance of evidence” lower standard. I’ve read his short dissent multiple times and I just don’t get how he comes to that conclusion.
Opinions:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3986316-United-States-of-America-v-Andre-Ralph-Haymond.html#document/p1
I do like the “Booker” SCOTUS references, and wonder how it can be used to defeat the registry since judges are supposed to only use mandatory max and min sentencing as “guildlines” to keep discretion with the judges, yet sex offender registration is imposed on all as mandatory by legislators and take away all discretion that “Booker” says a judge must have.
Filed my brothers @!!!At the casino, I will post a copy of finished and filed motion when I get home…It’s really a beautifully written peice of literature….Wait and see….
Well, here is what I filed, address and phone # redacted (why I don’t know, since you can easily find it on the net, right?) Way different then what we had, so check it out…Thanks TS, but it’s a done deal man……
https://gofile.io/?c=DfsiZR
Insights???????????? For those that said, do it already and stop talking about it, well I put my money where my mouth was, and I hope you pray right along with the rest of us for success….
Gee. A massive hurricane is going to hit Florida
\_(“~”)_/
Just received this email from Illinois Voices For Reform. Hope you will join me in participating in this very beneficial cause.
Our partner attorneys have been asked to file an Amicus Brief (also known as a “Friend of the Court” Brief) in support of a case that is going before the Illinois Supreme Court. This case involves the retroactive application of registration requirements. At issue is whether or not the state can require someone to register based on a law that passed after a person was convicted.
This is an important case for all of us, and we could use your help. We need people who are willing to share their story about how being on the registry has impacted them. It is important to note that this is about the registry, and not about the restrictions that are based on conviction.
Examples of the types of stories we’re looking for:
•If you were turned down for employment, or lost your job, and you know for sure that it was because someone found you on the registry (and not just because of your conviction), that is the sort of story we want to hear.
•If you were denied housing, or were forced to move, because the landlord looked you up on the internet, that is another story we’re looking for.
•We’re also looking for any negative experiences you’ve had with the registration process itself, for example being harassed, extremely long wait times, not being allowed to register, being charged with failing to register even though you tried to comply, etc.
•Finally, if you have experienced other negative problems as a result of being listed on a public registry, for example being harassed or threatened by neighbors, damage to your house or car, children being teased by other children, and you know these were because someone found you on the registry, we need those stories, too!
In order for a story to be included in an Amicus Brief, actual names have to be used. We know that is a problem for many of you, but we encourage you to share your story even if we can’t use it for this particular case. We want to compile as many stories as possible that can be used either now or in the future.
In order to be considered for this Amicus Brief, we need your stories by Monday, September 11, 2017. (That’s this coming Monday.) I know it’s a short time frame, but the attorneys have to submit the Amicus Brief by early October in order to get it into the record.
To share your story, please visit our website, http://www.ilvoices.org, and click on “Get Involved” and then choose “Share your Story.” The Share Your Story form asks for a lot of personal details about your offense. You should know that is ONLY so the attorneys have enough background in order to make the best decision on what stories to include. We never share any of that information with anyone but the attorneys! The attorneys base their decision on getting stories from a variety of unique situations, and they don’t automatically dismiss a story because of the offense.
Thank you for considering this request. Together, we will make a difference.
You can read about this case, as well as other important legal action, on our website. As always, thank you for your continued support.
Any questions, please email will@ilvoices.com