General Comments September 2017

Hello everyone,

As I have stated before, I am not the brightest light bulb in the box when it comes to this stuff? , so can some one please tell me what this means exactly. I think I know maybe for example the AG Shitty (Schuette) wants to put his 2 cents into the oral arguments is this correct.?

I am not sure why he would want to keep embarrassing himself, when he know’s he is about to lose the Snyder case, but ok it’s his funeral. Anyway here is the link: http://publicdocs.courts.mi.gov:81/SCT/PUBLIC/ORDERS/150643_141_01.pdf

Thanks in advance

Anyone hear about this? Apparently, it’s passed the U.S. Senate and is on its way to the House. Another, very scary law to address a crime which hardly exists.

Wiretapping Sex Workers, Punishing Pre-Crime, and National Strategy to Stop Sex-Buyers Approved by Senate

Introduced by Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley, the bill (S.1312) gives the attorney general power to file a civil suit against anyone suspected of committing or planning to commit “any action that constitutes or will constitute” a violation of various federal statutes. If a court agrees, the person or entity would have to stop whatever activity allegedly contributed to a current or future crime.”

S.1312 – Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2017 whose “friendly” title is “FREDERICK DOUGLASS TRAFFICKING PREVENTION ACT OF 2017”

Wonder what Frederick Douglass would have made of it?

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/1312/text

Not sure where to go from here.

I just found out that back on 6/15/17 the Texas governor signed into law SB1553. This bill took affect 9/1/17 and requires anyone on the sex offender registry to notify school administrators every time they go onto school grounds:

*****
a person subject to registration under this chapter who enters the premises of any school in this state during the standard operating hours of the school shall immediately notify the administrative office of the school of the person ’s presence on the premises of the school and the person ’s registration status under this chapter. The office may provide a chaperon to accompany the person while the person is on the premises of the school.
*****

There is an exception. You can get written approval from the school that they will allow you. I’m not sure how many schools will do that, if any.

Here’s the problem. I’ve chatted with Mary Sue of Texas Voices and she says her and her group can’t find a lawyer to take this case and a bad lawyer could cause more harm than good. The Texas ACLU won’t touch sex offender cases. As big as Texas is, we have the least organized efforts and support other than the determination of Mary Sue, but she can only do so much.

Another thing about this issue. It is RETROACTIVE legislation covering people registered anytime before the date it goes live. Even CIVIL regulations CANNOT be retro-active in Texas. Ex-Post facto doesn’t matter so we don’t need it to be “punishment”. It’s in the Texas Constitution, and I’m not sure how some other registration issues get past this other than we have elected judges that will ignore our own state Constitution to avoid losing votes.

Even though this is a State Constitution issue, and not US Constitution, I’m thinking the best fight is in a federal court. According to the link AJ posted, a federal court can handle a state issue as long as they use State Court cases as the basis for their conclusion. That’s fine with me, because while our state court conclusions have often determined retro-active legislation to be against the state constitution, I believe the elected state judges would still rule against a sex offender while the federal court would rule based on previous state court examples.

Now, the next problem is how to get this in court and ask for an injunction to stop enforcement until it can be heard in court. Texas Voices doesn’t have a forum, so I can only chat with those from Texas that appear on here. I will be off the registry next April, so I can’t do a case myself because it won’t get heard before I’m not relevant to it.

Is the only choice to find a Texas registrant with kids in school that is smart enough to file Pro-Se in federal court?

I think more than just retro-active legislation needs to be challenged, as it shouldn’t hurt those families new to the registry either. I think it’s a good Substantive Due Process challenge, since it interferes with sex offenders raising their children and it is applied without a hearing of dangerousness as well as applying to those off probation/parole and no longer under state supervision. I assume it’s also a “bill of attainder”, “cruel and unusual punishment”, and probably “separation of powers” issue. Oh, it’s also a BIG “Freedom of Speech” issue since it compels us to say something we don’t want to say and don’t believe in.

Any thoughts?

Like IML, this is yet again the government forcing us to declare our leper status insinuating us being dangerous and leaving it to an unqualified authority (in this case your average school admin) to determine your threat to them. We know this just means denial, because while the courts are immune from a mistake, the school admins are not and will err on the side of caution. Instead of a judge declaring we are or are not too dangerous to go un-chaperoned on school ground one time during sentencing, legislature is forcing an unqualified person to do it every time we go there.

From the state of Alabama. How the hell can this be constitutional??? This applies to every single registered citizen, regardless of whether or not they are on parole.

http://law.justia.com/codes/alabama/2013/title-15/chapter-20a/section-15-20a-15/

In a recent sex offender case (August 2017) coming out of the 2nd circuit, the court take note of Kennedy’s “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.” Although the case is not pertaining to expo factor but mere fact that courts are starting to take notice of the one sentence in packingham case is reason for us to feel optimistic. See foot note 26 of the case. http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-2nd-circuit/1870134.html

My motion is in front of a judge. It has been screened and approved to move forward. This is the first huge hurtle in the process of making the changes we all want to see. It would be really nice to get support and maybe even a group of supporters to attend these hearings. This is much more important to our cause then any tiered bill, or any other case that has been brought to date , especially in the federal court that will go to the ninth circuit court of appeals. If not I will go it alone, My fiance’ is willing to testify, I have affidavit from my property manager detailing some of the events that have taking place, and I have the power of justice on my side, and for those of you that believe, I have god on my side……….A pre-trial conference is set for March 14, 10:00 am in room #26 in the Federal Courthouse in Sacramento…Case # 2:17-CV-01838-JAM-AC PS RICHARDSON V. SESSIONS ET AL. Thanks for everyone’s hard work……

Just when you thought sanity was appearing on the horizon, a new bogeyman theory springs up. Here’s a law school paper that would be funny were the author not serious: “The Peering Predator: Drone Technology Leaves Children Unprotected from Registered Sex Offenders” (http://scholarship.law.campbell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1632&context=clr)

I find it curious that NC doesn’t want someone within a certain distance of a kid or school, but is fine being in the dark for 15 days about a RC visiting the state. I guess RCs need 16 or more days to get ready to finally reoffend at the frightening and high rate?

@Chris F:
Here’s a law paper that says exactly what you do: put registry determination into the judges’ hands.
http://open.mitchellhamline.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1001&context=policypractice