The date for the hearing in the ACLU case which was originally scheduled for Nov. 27 in Los Angeles has been delayed due to government request, so we will not be at the courthouse on Nov 27.
There is not yet a new date.
We will notify you as soon as we know what the new hearing date will be.
Lost my job, I’ll be there. I got the time now. I hope a lot of people show up
GOOD!
TAKE NOTE: The needs of a human are not outweighed by the needs of a data base.
HUMAN > MACHINE
A simple formula!
Can’t wait to see how this goes.
Not everyone’s crimes had to do with alcohol, and some parolees aren’t prohibited from drinking. Not all parolees’ crimes had to do with computers, and some aren’t barred from computers. But every registrant parolee is prohibited from social media and religious practices, even though most crimes of this nature didn’t involve social media or church?
I only wish the travesty that is Sharper Future – and the heinous conflict of interest involved with its chairman – was included in this lawsuit.
Sharper Future will get away with it. They’ve gotten away with everything else. Sharper Future’s CEO, Tom Tobin, is also the vice-chair of CASOMB. Even though it’s a conflict-of-interest, Tobin and his company get away with it. Scot-free. The list goes on; but the obvious is right in front of our eyes (which ought to tell us something about what happens beneath the surface).
I’m actually surprised that Tom Tobin and Mary Perry Miller have gotten away with their SHARPER FUTURE scheme. Everything they do is so questionable. First, the conflict of interest between Tobin as CEO and Tobin as CASOMB vice chair. Second, the questionable “treatment” contracts and containment model in which said ‘treatment’ is a free for all. Third, the mere fact SHARPER FUTURE is no longer hiding the fact that they use “unlicensed clinicians.” Forth, SHARPER FUTURE’S use of shaky “science” — polygraph, Abel, Static 99R. Fifth, has anyone ever looked more into the CDCR/Sharper Future contract? I’m thinking that there must be a lot of shady clauses in that thing that is geared to bring in the money for Tobin and Perry Miller. At face, it just seems so wrong that Tobin as CEO of a private company can also be second in command of a government agency that licenses that very private company. Tobin’s power in CASOMB is probably how he monopolized most of the ‘treatment’ contracts for SHARPER FUTURE.
In case you’re wondering, the whole “SARATSO tool” and Static-99R risk assessment propaganda being pushed by Tom Tobin is, not coincidentally, designed to create more business for Tobin. By separating the “low” scorers from the “high risk” sex offenders, Tobin can rationalize more “treatment” for the only reason of having a “high” Static score.
So naturally, more treatment — by means of more individual and group “therapy” — means that CDCR (by way of taxpayers) will need to pay more money to fund Sharper Future’s contracts. When you simplify everything, Tobin wants to protect his business and funnel more contract money his own way. If that requires pushing fake science, influencing his fellow bureaucrats along the way, then Tobin will do it.
CDCR:
C = California
D = Department of
C = Corruption and
R = Retribution
CDCR.
If any of you are interested, here is a good “First Amendment Audit” video of the Parole Office located in Van Nuys:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzxrqR1SVSE
This is definitely something you can’t get away with when you’re on parole. But once the parole agent gets the sense that the photographer, Johnny Five O, is not on parole — and knows of his rights — the parole agent backs down. Kind of like a bully who comes across a kid that stands up for oneself?
Anyway, it’s interesting to watch as the citizen flexes — or abuses? — his First Amendment by asking the parole officer: “Is your mom on parole?”
LOL
WOW! And this whole time I didn’t think the ACLU cared. It’s nice too see the powerful people at ACLU fight back against the crooks at CDC”R”.
The other ACLU chapters often fought for registered citizens. Remember, it was the Northern California chapter that fought and won Smith v. Harris. Packingham was ACLU. So was Does v. Synder (in Michigan).
The Southern California ACLUs have, until now, stood aside from helping any registered citizens. I understand it’s not a very popular subject. Being that we live in Hollywood probably doesn’t help — as Hollywood likes to villainize anyone labeled a “sex offender” (and what worse enemy for the ACLU to make than those in Hollywood). There are probably a slew of many other unknown reasons why the Socal ACLUs have avoided a sex offender case until now. But maybe Packingham gave the Socal ACLUs a second thought??
To correct myself, I mean Doe v. Harris (not “Smith v. Harris” [as I was mistakenly also thinking about Smith v. Doe]). Doe v. Harris was argued by Michael Risher in the 9th Circuit. Surprisingly, the panel, who decided In favor of the “sex offenders,” consisted of at least one very conservative judge. If I am not mistaken, I think Janice and the then CA RSOL also played a part.
The way Hollywood is going in the recent accusations and scandals there will be many joining the price club either by way the of the legal court system or by the way of the court of public opinion.
Maybe they gave the plaintif what he/she wanted to avoid “an official, on the record” outcome??