General Comments September 2017

@Mike R

I just finished reading the entire motion.

It’s a masterpiece and a compilation of all of the ways the government and a society driven by irrational fears has deprived us of our Constitutional Rights.

I recommend that every one on here downloads it and either tailors it to their own needs, or gives it to their attorney. Be very careful though, because for many, if not most, this deep dive into Constitutional law is beyond an attorney’s knowledge and experience in spite of what they may tell you. If they try to tell you one of these claims won’t work, make them quote the case law that backs up that claim and research it yourself. I’m serious here. I’ve spent money on some of the best attorneys in the Dallas area and I can guarantee they don’t know enough to handle many of the claims in Mike’s motion.

This motion has grown over the last two years to include some of the best research available on each of the individual motions as discussed on these forums.

My biggest hope is that the first time this motion is reviewed by a judge, that it becomes a newsworthy event and, much like Colorado, has a domino effect of spreading the arguments like wildfire across the country.

Mike R, great job, and please keep us posted here of any timeframes or reactions from the court so we can all learn how this Pro-Se process can work, or what needs to be done differently in the future. You’re our guinea pig here, and for all our sakes I wish you the best of luck at doing what lawyers have not been able to do in decades!!!

It’s a little old for me to be discussing Packingham now, but I find this interesting and relevant to any current or future registry challenges where the State tries to defend its assertion that its laws are justified due to high recidivism:

Briefing the Supreme Court: Promoting Science or Myth?
By Melissa Hamilton PhD
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2940002

Essentially, the conglomerate of 13 states that filed in support of the North Carolina law banning sex offenders from social media had used irrelevant or incorrect and easily refutable studies to try to essentially “trick” the Justices into ruling in their favor. This is exactly what happened to us in 2002-2003 with McKune V Liles, Smith V Doe, and Connecticut DPS V Doe where no fact checking was one on the “frightening and high” and “80% recidivism” the Solicitor General of the U.S. put forth as justification for Sex Offender laws back then.

I understand that part of the accepted system of justice in our country is that both sides present their side in the best way possible to allow the judiciary to reach a fair conclusion, but shouldn’t there be some consequence or at least acknowledgement when one side purposely uses irrelevant or incorrect data to try and manipulate the judiciary? I would think the Judiciary would take offense to this at some point, but I guess they love the States for giving them the option to rule against sex offenders and can later point the blame toward the states providing false information.

I would like to start a mini-thread to discuss the merits of putting together a case to challenge the registry in California, similar to the way the registry was challenged in Colorado. To be emphatically clear, I don’t want to interfere nor otherwise influence what Janice, Chance, and the other professionals are doing for registrants in California, and in fact they are actively determining the merits of constructing such a case in the same manner, then I would love to hear someone chime in with it. I hate reinventing the wheel.

The optimal result would be to render a decision so substantially in our favor it would supplement the Colorado decision, strengthening the likelihood that a case could be heard regarding the legality of the registry at the US Supreme Court.

On that note, my idea would be to make the same approach as Colorado: First, find four or five registrants who have been clearly impacted with the registry, preferably anyone who has a document trail of registration requirements that, under Mendoza-Martinez thresholds, render the registry punitive.

These four or five registrants would ideally:

• Off paper (not under court supervision)
• Listed on the Internet (preferably with full address, though just zip code is ok)
• One-time offenders with no other offense of any type
• Sex crime was not violent
• Sex crime was not committed against prepubescent children, either physically nor digitally or through images

All registrants must be available for court-related appearances and dispositions as necessary. The case should be filed through Federal Court to maximize the chances of being tied in with Colorado’s decision.

Again, let me repeat: This is NOT a supplement nor even a course of action to actually undertake. This would be more of a way to discuss particular issues, what is needed, citations, etc, etc, etc.

Then if anyone really wants to join, we can discuss this more thoroughly in a private collaboration client such as Slack, where citations and whatnot can be exchanged as well as chat and messaging. Finally, we we get anything substantial, we can forward the results to ACSOL leadership and see what the best course of action would prevail.

Thanks for your time, and would love to hear ideas on moving forward. I would respectfully state that the discussion be limited to actual substantive suggestions, and refrain from just offering oneself as a plaintiff at this point, as this is only to be done as “working research” more than an actual petition.

I guess these guys haven’t scan these threads or noticed that collaborations that they are talking about to create a rock solid, masterpiece of a motion has already happened and is now in the federal district court for the eastern district of CA…The clerk wouldn’t give me a time frame or even an estimate. He said the judge has to approve my fee waiver first, which he said can take a couple weeks, and then it depends on the complexity of the issues, and the merits…I don’t know exactly why the merits of the issues have anything to do with the timing, but thats what he told me….

I need to comment on numerous internet news articles that affect my status as a registered sex offender, but I’m not allowed by State law & by Facebook policy, to have a Facebook profile. A Facebook profile, is the Only way for one to join in on the comments section of these internet news articles. What should I do?

Here’s an overlooked tidbit from the Smith Opinion: “Whether other constitutional objections can be raised to a mandatory reporting requirement, and how those questions might be resolved, are concerns beyond the scope of this opinion.”
This seems similar to the phrase in CT DPS that has been lying there, long dormant and begging attention. Well, SCOTUS has such “objections” awaiting in Snyder and Muniz!

I waited before responding to some of the angry responses to my comment about taking responsibility for our actions because I know better than to engage a person when they are angry. Just FYI I am a 220 and will be required to register for life if the new bill becomes law. My comment had nothing to do with the new bill and everything to do with how we deal with our emotions. I’ve been on the registry for 24 years and lost a lot but I never bow down or lay down. I move forward to the best of my ability in spite of wearing the scarlet letter on my forehead and I couldn’t have survived for 24 years had I not managed my anger and stayed focused on surviving. So no, I don’t know you and my comment was not satire or taken from a text book. It comes from 24 years of experience as a registered sex offender.

Being angry with me for stating the truth about what I hear from some (not all) on this site serves no purpose. Passion is great but should be tempered or it’s just anger disguised as being a good soldier. I have made several comments on this site and none of them supports continued abuse for anyone who has served their time for the crime they committed. Of course the registry should be dismantled; but until the U.S. Supreme Court finds the registries unconstitutional it doesn’t matter how loud we scream about the ruling in Colorado because in California we still have a registry; and in my case I’m on it for life.

As always I only speak for me and I always make that clear when commenting.

We already have that here in CA. We also have a drug offender registry.

This is a favorite of mine, and exactly what i have been saying. We as tax paying citizens have a right to all the public places that our tax dollars have gone to create and maintain. I love it when my logic is confirmed by others, especially judges, and our basic right to fair representation, which no politician represents our best interest.

“but also with such basic rights of citizenship as equal access to the benefits and services supported by their taxes and the fair representation of their elected officials.”