Comments that are not specific to a certain post should go here, for the month of October 2017. Contributions should relate to the cause and goals of this organization and please, keep it courteous and civil.
Related posts
-
Changes to be Made in Treatment for CA Registrants on Parole
Source: ACSOL The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) has agreed in writing to stop... -
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...
can someone explain what tier I’m in, convicted of cp on violation of 2252a (5) (B), 2252A(b)(2) of possession of a single count. With no prior convictions. 9 years ago
Probable murder of Registrant. As usual, the many comments are blood-curdling.
“Missing Florida sex offender found dead, foul play suspected ”
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/wanted-florida-sex-offender-found-dead-xxx/iGJyzp1ifyx1MgLv6kU08N/
Did my polygraph test today. What a joke! First, the therapist asked me background questions. 7 questions. He looked confused and said, ” Well , this should be quick”. He asked me 6 questions . Then asked each again 2 more times. He then took $ 300 CASH ( because this whole therapy / testing thing is a cash cow for them). And said thanks. I asked if I would get results, and he said” you know you passed”. No wonder the ENTIRE SYSTEM is so hosed up. This is just a way for everyone involved, Cops, judges, politicians, therapists, to make a buck off me. I feel like the most used person.
Here’s an interesting tidbit about the fallibility of SCOTUS when it comes to statistics and expertise. “Frightening and high” is mentioned, but is not the thrust of the article. It does highlight how SCOTUS is making course-altering decisions without correct or complete knowledge.
https://www.propublica.org/article/supreme-court-errors-are-not-hard-to-find
Can you use 1203.4 if your conviction and probation were in another state (felony CP possession, no misdemeanor in that state) and then you move to CA and register there?
Great story in ProPublica “It’s a Fact: Supreme Court Errors Aren’t Hard to Find” citing the many factual errors made by the Supreme Court, including the one that has devastated all our lives: “In a 2002 opinion, Kennedy wrote that untreated sex offenders commit new sex crimes at a startling rate, ‘estimated to be as high as 80 percent.’ The statistic came from a magazine article, which did not provide a source. The article’s author has admitted to legal scholars the number was a guess. Studies of sex offenders indicate the true rate is a small fraction of the one Kennedy used.” We know this, of course, but it continues to help the cause to have it cited in mainstream press.
Here’s the link to this story https://www.propublica.org/article/supreme-court-errors-are-not-hard-to-find
The ProPublica story was also featured in The New York Times giving further currency to our cause: “The Supreme Court Justices Need Fact-Checkers” at this link: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/18/opinion/supreme-court-justices-factcheckers.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-left-region®ion=opinion-c-col-left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region
It’s starting to seem like Gorsuch is a bit of a d!ck, or at least incredibly smug and self-assured.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2017/10/why_rumors_of_a_gorsuch_kagan_supreme_court_clash_are_such_a_bombshell.html. His first few writings in SCOTUS cases have been less than impressive.
Why you might need a passport card to travel domestically in 2018…
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/might-need-passport-card-travel-domestically-2018-141115032.html
I wondered how would this play into SO ability to travel interstates in the future.
Operation “Cross Country”
“These are children. They are hardened children but they are still children.” – F.B.I. Special Agent Bernie Riedel.
So, we have another nationwide multi-agency crackdown on “child prostitution” which, invariably, means that they have “rescued” a handful of adult-looking seventeen-year-olds and even older young adults who they attempt to portray as “children.”
It’s debatable if any of these “children” actually wanted to be “saved.”
http://abc7.com/fbi-sex-trafficking-crackdown-nets-120-arrests;-84-underage-victims-rescued/2552074/
Does anyone know what the stated rationale was for keeping the possession of CP as a crime for which there was no relief from registration? Was there any basis that suggested they those individuals were more dangerous than some of the other crimes?
Got a question. As of 11/2016 my conviction was reduced to misdemeanor. After several letters to CA DOJ, they finally removed me from the public website as required by law and confirmed by someone other than me. However, that someone has confirmed my information is still being displayed on the Federal NSOPW with a link (broken) back to CA ML. Anyone have any advice on what I can do to get the information removed from the Federal site since it is only a repository of the state databases in situations where the crime was not federal in nature? Do I write a letter to them as well or get a lawyer to do it? Or do they never remove anything like say Florida where you are screwed for life.
Man AJ, you just have a link to everything don’t you????LMAO>>>>
Of course, these people need to be dealt with in some manner. Can someone please explain how these teens are now adults because they chose to cause harm but when they choose to have sex, they are poor, innocent children and ‘victims’?
http://abc7ny.com/5-teens-charged-with-murder-in-highway-rock-incident/2562471/
I am thinking about moving to Texas. I know they have a tier system and CP is a lifetime requirement in Texas. If I move to Texas, what law am I going by? If I get my California conviction reduced to a misdemeanor and get knocked down to a tier one in California, and possibly get off the registry because of this in California, will I still have to register in Texas?
AJ, Mike R, all,
At some point, we need to do research and have a bigger discussion on the “Collateral Consequences” excuse that we’ve seen used by the government to justify any action they want to take against a convicted (or deferred in many cases) felon.
My initial research indicates the term may have originated with a more unavoidable collateral consequence of not being able to get a job as the result of being convicted and the access to public records. If the state used the term “unavoidable collateral consequences” or even “justifiable collateral consequences” then it would be more accurate to what could be allowed by a judge.
The problem is, with them just saying “collateral consequences”, there is nothing that DOESN’T apply to. They could literally have a law banishing a felon and say “Oh, the US Constitutional ban on banishment doesn’t apply here because this is just a Collateral Consequence of a criminal conviction and they already had due process”.
The law allowing daycares and schools to see sealed criminal records could actually be a “justifiable collateral consequence” since obviously it is narrowly tailored and serves a specific objective. If they allowed construction worker jobs to also see those sealed records, they shouldn’t get away with that since there is no justification, but it would survive in today’s judicial world as long as the state brings up the magical “collateral consequences” declaration.
I think it’s time for a new Judicial precedent to further define “collateral consequences” to something that literally can’t encompass everything. I’ll try to find cases to back this up.
It is pretty apparent to most of us that the most rabid and hysterical of the anti-pedophile campaigners and vocalizers are seriously mentally ill and, collectively (and sometimes individually), represent a significant and continuous danger to us and, in the particular instance cited in this news piece, to others.
Pizza Gate and its obsessors, in particular, have brought this insight into uncontrovertible relief when measured against rational and reasonable people who adhere to evidence-based belief systems.
“Lane chased his parents around their home, spitting in his father’s face while screaming that he wasn’t threatening to kill them, but “pedophiles who were taking over the country.”
He then stabbed his elderly father to death with a kitchen knife, anyway.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/youtube-trumpkin-and-former-milo-intern-kills-his-own-dad-for-calling-him-a-nazi
Question on Federal Forfeiture laws – I have no legal background and my feeble attempts to research this issue have proven to be fruitless so hopefully someone out there may already have the answers or at least links to get me to the right place.
At the time of my arrest I was charged with 288.4(b), soliciting a minor for lewd purposes, and 311.11(a), possession of materials depicting someone under 18 engaged in sexual acts. The LA County SVU folks were involved and one federal agent. I was living on my boat, which was my only place of residence, and after my arrest the federal government confiscated my boat and would not allow me back aboard. The matter was sent to court in Los Angeles County and the feds decided not to pursue it.
My attorney wanted to take it to trial as the 288.4(b) was completely entrapment and would fail as I never initiated the contact (it was SVU pretending to be someone else and they contacted me and pressed for days as I kept refusing to get involved at first). As for the 311.11(a) we could fight it as I did not know what was on my drive. My boyfriend (at the time) had access to my laptop and it was he who had placed some materials on it. Interestingly, the captured texts from SVU to them where they asked if I had any photos of any underage boys to share shows my response, on more than one occasion, was that I possessed no such materials.
Before a trial date was set my attorney informed me that I would have to name names and that the DA wanted me to set up my boyfriend so that they could arrest him. I absolutely refused to do so. And I also felt that an older gay man who dates younger men was not going to get a fare shake at trial.
I accepted a plea deal where I took one count on the 311.11(a) and of course they dismissed the non winnable 288.4(b) as part of it. A small price to pay to protect someone you love.
It is my understanding that the federal government seized my boat because the 288.4(b) would have been committed on board (as that is where I lived). Since that charge was dismissed as part of my pea agreement the feds were not able to keep my boat via federal forfeiture laws and should have returned it. My attorney at the time confirmed this. However, the feds insisted that they were going to keep it and auction it off and my attorney stated that while we could win it back it would require going to federal court and would cost about $30,000.00 to $40,000.00 to fight it, more than half the value of the boat.
My question is this. If the federal government confiscates property belonging to someone being charged for a crime that 1) the federal government does not pursue in court and 2) the charge allowing them to confiscate said property is dismissed in the local court of jurisdiction, would they not be compelled to return the property to the rightful owner or compensate the owner for the value of the property? It seems that not to do so would allow them to arrest people under false pretenses, confiscate property, then just say oopppss, to bad as they sell the property and rake in the money.
I would love any input that any of you may have. There are so many of you that have the experience and knowledge that far exceeds mine and I am trying to see if I am able to find a loophole to recover my losses without starting a federal trial on something that has already been litigated (although I think that would be double jeopardy) Thanks in advance to any and all respondents. Have a wonderful weekend!
Demagoguery, definition of today’s politicians.
Looks like formal announcement about passport markings from IML. https://travel.state.gov/content/passports/en/news/passports-international-megans-law.html
Will this law be challenged now? Seems like things have not progressed on our end. Hoping we haven’t given up.
Just got a response from the ACLU.
“Hi Michael, The chapter does not provide legal assistance. What did you need help with?”
So I replied:
“As stated, I recently filed a motion in Federal District Court for Eastern Ca, Pro Se, and I would like to have amicus briefs or some type of ACLU involvement in my case. This is the biggest civil rights issue since the civil rights act. I have a hearing date set for March 14th at 10:00 am., so what I am asking of your organization is to consider joining me, or supporting me in anyway you can, in helping to restore not only my liberties, but those for hundreds of thousands of people throughout this country. People are being killed by vigilantes, families are being separated, life on the registry is a perpetual punishment that is both popular and gregarious in the general public and the legislature. I think this is way to important an issue to let a laymen challenge without support. I am going against the most powerful attorneys in the world, US Ag and CA Ag, and I have zero formal legal education, and very limited experience. I think your org.,as the biggest civil rights organization in the world, would be remiss if you simply disregard this request and/or refuse to get involved in this case.”
The remiss statement applies to all these org.s that are supposed to be civil rights leaders. They are all remiss in their failure to act in my case….
From CCAP
Case Name: In re J.C. , District: 3 DCA , Case #: C080391
Opinion Date: 8/2/2017 , DAR #: 7457
Case Holding:
Mandatory lifetime sex offender registration imposed on certain juvenile sex offenders is not cruel and unusual punishment. When J.C. was 12 years old, he was declared a ward of the court based on his commission of forcible sodomy on a five-year-old (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (b)). After he failed on a grant of probation the juvenile court committed him to the Division of Juvenile Facilities (DJF), which requires J.C. to register for life as a sex offender (Pen. Code, § 290.008). On appeal, J.C. challenged the mandatory registration requirement as cruel and unusual punishment. Held: Affirmed. Juvenile wards are required to register as sex offenders only “when they are discharged or paroled from [DJF] after having been committed for one of the enumerated offenses,” which include sodomy and lewd acts with a minor (Pen. Code, § 290.008, subd. (c)). A necessary predicate to a finding of cruel and unusual punishment in this case is that juvenile sex offender registration is punishment. (See In re Alva (2004) 33 Cal.4th 254, 260.) J.C. argued that sex offender registration has a disproportionate impact on juveniles, and is therefore cruel and unusual punishment. However, the U.S. and California Supreme Courts have held that mandatory lifetime sex registration is not cruel and unusual punishment. J.C. argued these cases do not resolve the issue because they fail to address the impact of sex registration on juveniles, and the effect of the law is punitive as to juveniles because it mandates public disclosure of information that would otherwise be confidential. But J.C. failed to show that the limited degree of public disclosure applicable to juveniles who must register is sufficiently burdensome to distinguish it from that applicable to adult offenders. Without such distinguishing features, the public disclosure of information for juvenile sex registrants does not render their registration a punitive affirmative disability or restraint that constitutes punishment.
http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/C080391.PDF
Major issue with this case, “facial challenge”….Of course it is going to withstand facial review. For a law to be facially unconstitutional a person has to prove that the law cannot be applied in any case whatsoever. Good luck on that…These attorneys are grossly negligent, or just plain incompetent. Any one with even a hint of law knows this is the case. There are plenty of situations where this law could survive scrutiny, all it takes is one to render it facially constitutional. This is a disgrace, and is a great violation of the liberty interest in a competent attorney. These attorneys should be immediately disbarred, and held liable for this kids damage that he is going to endure, because of their failure to bring forth a as applied challenge. Disgusting that these people are getting away with this type of BS….
“Here, J.C. mounts a facial challenge to the constitutionality of section 290.008,
rather than a challenge to his individual sentence. As the People acknowledge in their
briefing, J.C.’s challenge does not turn on the particular facts of his case, but instead is a
pure question of law that can be resolved without reference to the specific facts of his
case. We have discretion to decide a pure question of law based on undisputed facts
raised for the first time on appeal. (Hale v. Morgan (1978) 22 Cal.3d 388, 394.)
“[A]lthough California authorities on the point are not uniform, our courts have several
times examined constitutional issues raised for the first time on appeal, especially when
the enforcement of a penal statute is involved [citation], the asserted error fundamentally
affects the validity of the judgment [citation], or important issues of public policy are at
issue [citation].” (Ibid.; see also In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 888 [juvenile did
not forfeit her challenge to a probation condition on constitutional grounds by failing to
raise the issue in the juvenile court because her facial constitutional challenge presented a
clear question of law, easily correctable by an appellate court].”
The following statement should be enough to disbar these attorneys..
“Thus we will consider whether section 290.008, requiring lifetime sex offender
registration in some cases based on offenses committed by juveniles, constitutes cruel
and unusual punishment.”
Of course there are situations that this would be appropriate, or at least constitutional, violent habitual offenders, applied, incredibly high risk factors, applied, severe mental abnormalities, applied, I could go on but I am sure you get my point….Absolutely ineffective assistance of counsel in the most egregious way…It appears that the court thought so as well in some of its statements….
Mike r, please post the link to your filing.
does anyone know what tier would be a person with 288 (a) from deadline NBC with no other history base on the new law in California, please? Thank you
only charge, tier two…as long as its not with a 288.2 or felony cp…