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
-
Senators call for audit of TSA’s facial recognition tech as use expands in airports | The Record from Recorded Future News
Source: therecord.media 11/22/24 A bipartisan group of 12 senators on Wednesday sent the Department of Homeland... -
-
SORNA Case Advances in Federal Court; PLF Files Motion for Summary Judgment
The Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) filed a motion for summary judgment on November 18 in its...
Given that the Adam Walsh Act is a federal law, and it is the umbrella for the state laws, does the Seventh Amendment apply when the government takes property evicting a RC from his home? Would that mean it would require a jury trial to do so?
United States Supreme Court
PERNELL v. SOUTHALL REALTY, (1974)
No. 72-6041
Argued: February 19, 1974 Decided: April 24, 1974
Some delay, of course, is inherent in any fair-minded system of justice. A landlord-tenant dispute, like any other lawsuit, cannot be resolved with due process of law unless both parties have had a fair opportunity to present their cases. Our courts were never intended to serve as rubber stamps for landlords seeking to evict their tenants, but rather to see that justice be done before a man is evicted from his home.
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/416/363.html
While reading “DATABASE INFAMIA: EXIT FROM THE SEX OFFENDER
REGISTRIES,” (wisconsinlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Logan-Final.pdf) I followed one of its footnoted citations. It’s a CA SC ruling in 1983 that said, at least back then, that 290 is punitive. Not being in CA, nor being interested in digging through CA case law, there must be some way the CA courts or legislature have “fixed” this problematic ruling. The case is In re Reed (http://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/3d/33/914.html), and though I am sure some of the offenses mentioned as not requiring registration now do, perhaps there is some legal footing that could be achieved through this case.
Both the paper and the CA SC case reference a 1972 CA case, In re Birch (http://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/re-birch-22943), where legal counsel failed to tell the offender he would need to register. This raises a question in my mind: if registration is not punitive, why would *anyone* need to raise it during court proceedings? To my understanding, the only items discussed during plea considerations, discussions, and negotiations would be about punishment.
Anyway, I toss this all out for any of you CA armchair-legal-beagles to pick over and through.
I will be doing exactly what AJ suggested and I will not discuss what I learn in the court room, but everything else is going online, and I will in fact be depending on you guys to help me through this process. I am sure I can go to kinkos and have them upload any docs I get so that I can post them….I feel all the support from all of you guys and let me tell you it is almost bringing me to tears…..I am doing this for us all and we will prevail “Pro Se” !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Show that the courts are there for us, and nothing should prevent anyone from seeking redress for any reason……Getting inspiration from the Larry Flint movie with Woody Harrelson, lmao… Love that movie…
You know, I do not understand why all these cases are always naming anyone and everyone as defendants. The AG and DOJ are the ones that have authority over the registries, and I just don’t see any reason to name everyone else..I hope I am right, I mean, it might be for good measure to name them all, but I don’t see how it is actually necessary unless you are only targeting those aspects or specific agencies, and not the entire scheme……………
WOW!!! That case is extremely similar to the one I just filed…Love it..Added a couple more issues like double jeopardy and the contracts clause but pretty much exactly the same…This is great…..
This is not an RC article specifically, but I think what it voices here directly folds into the hysteria that is feed into the public, resulting in ever more fear and restrictions placed on RC’s.
https://www.thestar.com/life/2016/09/13/if-you-leave-your-kids-alone-its-not-predatory-strangers-who-are-a-risk.html
Off to the Marshals…It’s kind of interesting also that that brief doesn’t cite any case law and is so short and to the point with very little evidence in support of their claims…..I don’t know if that is good or bad…..
I can’t recall if this has been posted before, but “The New Civil Death: Rethinking Punishment in the Era of Mass Conviction” (http://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1067&context=penn_law_review) is worth reading. It addresses how “collateral consequences” (such as registries) could possibly rise to being a new type of “civil death.” Civil death is a form of attainder and SCOTUS has ruled it punitive. The juicy bits for the most part start on document page 1816 (PDF page 28), “Civil Death and Collateral Consequences as Punishment.” The latter portion of footnote 176 (PDF pp. 32-33) also caught my eye.
While reading this document, I couldn’t help but think of Judge Matsch’s decision in Millard. Some of the points made sound familiar to what he said in his Opinion.
Did you know Los Angeles used to require all felons to register?
Abbott v. City of Los Angeles (1960) 53 C2d 674
http://online.ceb.com/calcases/C2/53C2d674.htm#XLA000008
Interesting case.
SCOTUS conference day (Sept 25) for SNYDER case is getting closer and closer. Grant or not to grant cert seem like good news to me. Just more reasons to be hopeful. This year has been really positive for registrants. Let’s hope that momentum will carry over to next year! Fingers and toes cross!
The one line (troubling fact…) from Packingham case and Michigan’s brief show case the many conflicting “civil” restrictions upheld by most circuits are enough for me to concur that SCOTUS surely will grant cert. There is also another pending cert sex offender case dealing with civil commitment. It should be interesting to see whether they will grant this one as well. The out come of this commitment case will also affect us since the case deal with substantial due process.
Ohio Republicans Move to Ban Sexting Between Teens
https://reason.com/blog/2017/09/22/ohio-introduces-bill-to-ban-teen-sexting
A news story coming out of florida, a registrant charged with a felony for putting a sticker on his driver licence to cover the words “sexual predator”. http://www.actionnewsjax.com/news/local/report-clay-county-sex-predator-tried-to-alter-drivers-license/612636899
There was a an article I read recently that shed light on the reason AG recommended SCOTUS denial of SNYDER cert was because he was not too comfortable with the current make up of the COURT, especially after seeing KENNEDY’s troubling statement in the Packingham case. The tactic was to sacrifice the SNYDER case and wait till Trump has a chance to replace a few justices. At the time rumor has it that Kennedy was thinking of retiring, and Girnburg would not last too long given her age and current health. Actually SCOTUS denied cert would not meant much even though it will “temperately” give victory to all in 6th circuit. Let not forget, there have been MANY bad sex offender rulings coming and pending before SCOTUS, with many cert being denied (ie. 2nd circuit, 3rd Circuit, 5th circuit, 7th circuit, 8th circuit and 11th circuit). The point I am trying to make is…….SCOTUS needs to accept this case and settle the laws once and for all. A denial of cert would meant it will take another several years before another case will be brought before them, by then the make up off the SCOTUS will definitely changes!
Reading the oral argument of smith vs doe case provided by AJ there was a hidden gem provided by Justice Souter when he noted in his concurring opinion…
The fact that the [a]ct uses past crime as the touchstone, probably sweeping in a significant number of people who pose no real threat to the community, serves to feed suspicion that something more than regulation of safety is going on; when a legislature uses prior convictions to impose burdens that outpace the law’s stated civil aims, there is room for serious argument that the ulterior purpose is to revisit past crimes, not prevent future ones. That statement was also cited by Maine Supreme court in STATE v. LETALIEN, <<< Mike R, where are you?
Id. at 109, 123 S.Ct. 1140.
It is interesting that no one here claims to be 100% innocent. Or perhaps the claims are minimal. Most likely that is because what would be the point of making that claim? True, there would be no way to prove it and even the clientele here likely wouldn’t believe it. You know, because the police wouldn’t arrest and the prosecutor wouldn’t charge unless guilty.
That is the point of this post. How many of you support the various innocence projects across the nation? Support could be following their news and giving a thumbs up, to stating facts, to donating or more.
It matters because the arrogance of the narcissistic states thought the system was perfect and flawless. The innocence projects are putting that meme to shame. A system capable of introspection is more just and reliable.
The same goes for the death penalty. Many of the exonerated were on death row. So I support innocence projects and death penalty abolition. Do you?
Upcoming 2nd petition of civil commitment in SCOTUS that challenge due process claim….good reading for all
https://sajrt.blogspot.com/2017/08/us-supreme-court-to-decide-karsjens-v.html
Well Folks I have been trying not to think about tomorrow by watching a lot of Football today, but it is getting harder the closer tomorrow gets, like I said before I really hope it is denied tomorrow, for us here in Michigan Ohio and Tennessee and Kentucky so that it will finally be over.
Then of course the other side of me that say’s accept it, so that everyone across the country will be effected, and not just the four states associated with the 6th circuit ruling.
Sorry to keep rambling about the same thing over and over again, but this waiting is harder then I thought it would be now that it is about only 12 hrs away before the conference starts. Thanks for letting me vent a little tonight.
Weekend Reading for Supreme Court Buffs
In Justice Today is a publication of Harvard Law School’s Fair Punishment Project. We monitor news sources from around the country, and talk to local journalists and advocates, so we can share the most important stories with you. This is a special U.S. Supreme Court edition. Starting on Monday, the Court has dozens of criminal justice related certiorari petitions to consider. Here are the ten petitions we’re following closely, which cover issues including civil commitment, sex offender registries, non-unanimous jury verdicts, death in prison sentences for juveniles, the death penalty, prosecutorial misconduct, Double Jeopardy protections, and solitary confinement
http://mailchi.mp/fairpunishment/in-justice-today-scotus-weekend-reading-303847?e=%5BUNIQID%5D
Thanks for the link: http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2017/09/terrific-review-of-scotus-petitions-to-watch-from-folks-at-in-justice-today.html
Hello Everyone,
Well not sure how many of you out there are as anxious as I am to find out what SCOTUS as decided concerning The Snyder Case. So I emailed Ms Aukerman to ask if she knew yet what SCOTUS decided about Snyder. She said we probably won’t know anything until Thursday, unless it some how gets leaked out before Thursday. Just thought everyone would like to know what’s going on with Snyder
I thought there was a deadline for the CA Megan Website to be accurate with dates and scores and such….
I have no dates, 20 something years later and no dates, like I’m fresh out of lockup
wtf
I don’t think CA DOJ ever gave a sh#t what the settlement required. It’s law enforcement and they would never be held accountable or punished. No one will ever be demoted or fired. Will a court hold them in contempt of the settlement? No. Will the court demand the S.O. Registry website be shut down until properly updated? No. They’ll just grant CA DOJ whatever extension it requests….one year, five years, 10 years. No one will hold them accountable. They get $$$$millions to run the websites, and $$$millions to harrass us with Compliance Checks, but no one will hold them accountable….not courts, not lawmakers, not the hysteria-prone public.
LE can’t bother to make their records accurate. For endless years, they’ve done Compliance Checks and still retain their own notably incorrect physical description of me. This only confirms that they have transitioned from law enforcement activities to simple, blatant oppression.
Here’s a stat:
“Between 2016 and 2017, the Texas Education Agency reportedly opened at least 300 investigations into possible sexual relationships between educators and students, Express-News reported, the most in at least seven years”
But let’s focus on the already punished.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/092817zr_9o6b.pdf
So am I correct in saying that they are not taking up the Michigan case, and are allowing it to stand?