Comments that are not specific to a certain post should go here, for the month of November 2017. Contributions should relate to the cause and goals of this organization and please, keep it courteous and civil.
Related posts
-
FL:What’s behind the recent uptick in local child predator arrests?
PORT ST. LUCIE, Fla. (CBS12) — This week, we have seen an alarming number of child predators arrested.... -
CA: 11/14/24 CASOMB Reports have limited information this month
Source: CASOMB, reported by Janice The California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) met on November 14,... -
TX: Texas Cops Fired for ‘Inappropriate’ Sexual Contact With Massage Workers
Source: reason.com 11/13/24 As a result of the internal affairs investigation, three Lewisville officers were fired,...
SCOTUS granted cert in a CA case that may be worth watching in support of IML and marked DL suits. The case is a compelled speech case. Of course CA is saying it’s merely regulation. Sound familiar? 🙂 I read the CATO amicus, and, surprise, surprise, they toss out Riley (factual compelled speech), Barnette (Pledge of Allegiance compelled speech), and Wooley (license plate motto compelled speech) as case law references. Though this case has to do with professional speech, if it’s ruled as subject to strict scrutiny, it’s all the better for us, as private speech is held to an even higher standard than professional.
From the petition itself, here’s the question to SCOTUS: Whether the Free Speech Clause or the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment prohibits California from compelling licensed pro-life centers to post information on how to obtain a state-funded abortion and from compelling unlicensed pro-life centers to disseminate a disclaimer to clients on site and in any print and digital advertising.
Hopefully SCOTUS tackles the Free Speech angle instead of the Free Exercise one. But regardless, I’m hopeful for some more compelled-speech doctrine to come out of it.
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/national-institute-family-life-advocates-v-becerra/
Listening to the news today, there has been 15 million payed out by the US Government to cover claims much of it relating to sexual harassment. I hope that someone soon does a FOI request to shed some light on what has been going on. If the wealthy and powerful were all held accountable to the degree of those on the registry, maybe some laws would change. There would at least be more money for legal action.
Well AJ and Chris, the representative for AG for CA called me and asked me if we could reschedule our court date for Dec. 20 at 10 am. and claimed that they will be filing a motion to dismiss some of the issues. I really hate to agree with anything the opposition wants, but I agreed, since it is going to get the case in front of the judge as soon as possible. The thing I need to research is, can the AG for CA file, and it seems as though they want to severe their arguments from the federal issues, or they are trying to get a judge to dismiss it outright by claiming they are not a federal agency and therefore they have to be sued in state court before I can take it to the federal level. I am not sure if they have a nefarious intent here, and are working some kind of technicality but I am going to always assume they do and are. I know if they try to subvert justice and deny me a fair and just judicial process, I am not going to let it go, I can tell you that. I know that they have to work in good faith to remedy this case ethically without getting a procedural due process claim against them. Like I said, I have to research this more but I wanted to get your guy’s take on this.
I know that there is a “supplemental jurisdiction” rule that allows federal courts to rule on state issues and defendants.
“Supplemental jurisdiction is the authority of United States federal courts to hear additional claims substantially related to the original claim even though the court would lack the subject-matter jurisdiction to hear the additional claims independently. 28 U.S.C. § 1367”
I imagine that the CA AG is aware of this rule which is why they are going to file a motion to dismiss some, but not all claims, in the federal court. I really don’t see any downfall for agreeing to this hearing date, so if anyone can enlighten me as to why I should not agree to this hearing please feel free to express your opinions.
Thanks…………..
This might even be a good sign since when I was in prison fighting for my halftime credits I received a letter from the warden on Christmas eve stating that I won my appeal, and my halftime credits, along with my new release date; which was about a two year difference…Maybe I will get a decision on or about the same time….Wouldn’t that be ironic…..
Seriously, they scrutinize RCs’ travel plans, but this “violent psychopath” has no trouble boarding an overseas flight?? WTF!! 😡 Good work, TSA!!
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2017/11/15/escaped-psychiatric-patient-flew-to-california/865502001/
Here’s an interesting case involving Playboy TV that could well apply to marked DLs and passports: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/529/803/case.pdf. Though the specific case is about cable TV operators needing to block sexually explicit channels from minors, the constitutional issue is content-based regulation of free speech. In this case, the regulation is restrictive, but since free speech is defined as speaking (or not) and/or listening (or not), the direction of regulation matters not. As well, this case states, “[t]he distinction between laws burdening and laws banning speech is but a matter of degree. The Government’s content-based burdens must satisfy the same rigorous scrutiny as its content-based bans.” (A burden/ban is compelled speech through forced silence; the complement of forced speech on a DL or in a passport.) It’s all subject to strict scrutiny, and Government must show a compelling interest and use the least restrictive means. For DLs, that would be the existing ML websites. For IML…I’m not sure. Compelling interest is probably going to be rooted in “foreign policy,” since the US Government may have interest in protecting children overseas, but compelling? Hmmm. As for least restrictive means, the Government already sends Green Notices, and perhaps other messages, to foreign entities. Even if they don’t already have less restrictive means, they still must create and use them. So says strict scrutiny.
Thanks AJ. I will definitely be going over my brief like you said. This is kind of a tricky situation since I am not claiming any CA constitutional issues but only US constitutional issues, I severed all references to the state constitution on purpose so as to leave those arguments available if some how I don’t prevail on the fed issues. I will bring a lot of the issues pertaining to the CA constitution in the state courts, which is even more likely to succeed then the feds. State const. usually have greater protections then the fed so I want to keep that ave. open….I guess it’s just all speculation on what they are going to try to come up with, I will know more as soon as I am served their brief. I do find it semi comforting that she stated that she was going to be filing a motion to dismiss some of the claims, most important I think is the statement “some” and “not all”. That apparently means that they are having a problem with at least some of the claims I raised which they cannot just dismiss on technicalities, or other obvious reasons….I will keep you posted, What happened to Chris? I am going to need all the brilliant minds I can get once I get their brief. I will not have much time to prepare since the date is set for the 20th Dec. That is coming up very fast and I am almost at the end of my semester which is going to be hectic until about the tenth. really I have at least ten days I can just focus on rebuttals. >>>>>>>>>> Janice, ACLU, NARSOL, W.A.R., any orgs. or civil rights advocates, Derek, Will, SOSEN, someone feel free to jump in any time now….It’s getting real now and this is extremely important to many Americans, not just me…………I really cannot believe that these civil rights leaders or orgs. are going to let me go this alone, but I am ready, if that’s how it’s going to be then so be it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Thank you for the prayer Sons, and your input…Yes I have already contacted every person I can think of, including Miss Carpenter, along with Ira Ellman, Emily Horowitz, and all these civil rights orgs. to no prevail. Carpenter actually emailed me back stating that she was in Europe and could not assist me, and she didn’t have any legal resources other then her research that I can use. I will be attempting to contact all these people again with another request for immediate assistance, or any assistance at all. I am not holding my breath though….It is kind of ironic that I have been searching for some good advice on pro se civil litigation for some time now and last night the first search I did resulted in the following article, which I suggest should be mandatory reading for all US citizens….AJ, if you haven’t read this already, you should find this incredibly interesting…Check out the link, its up forever….It’s beautifully articulated, and is a masterpiece about the subject and just confirms everything that I have been stating and more…..
https://gofile.io/?c=SJxeoq
You have to read the entire article to really appreciate what is being stated……Massive amounts of relevant, and authoritative citations….I am currently researching all the statutes and codes that show reasons for dismissals that the might try and about how I may be entitled to court appointed counsel of some sort…I only want stand by or assistance of counsel, not to give up the reigns to anyone ever again….
Sometimes ignorance of the law *is* an excuse. MN SC overturned a conviction of FTR due to the RC not having knowingly violated the law: https://cases.justia.com/minnesota/supreme-court/2017-a15-1701.pdf?ts=1510769244. Between this and Lambert (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambert_v._California), it does sometimes pay to be a bit “dim” on things. Unfortunately, it’s probably a tough argument to be made that you didn’t know State X has a registry law. Also, other States may not have the “knowingly violates” clause in their laws like MN apparently does. (Anyone wanna bet the Legislature amends the Statute to get rid of that phrase?)
hello everyone,
I watching the 2nd oral argument to the Michigan v Temelkoski case, and decided to ask Ms Aukerman or the Intern Tim a question, and here is the question I asked.
Hello Tim, or Ms Aukerman
I was watching the 2nd Oral Argument on the Temelkoski case, and at about 52 minutes in the AG or SG say’s because of the 6th circuits decision, Michigan is NO LONGER allowed to apply the 2006 and 2011 amendments to ANYBODY, but yet I still have to check in come December my profile still says I am a tier 3 and have to register for life. WHY?
If you remember I was convicted in 1992 when there was NO REGISTRY yet because I was on parole in 1995 the legislature passes Megan’s Law nd puts me on the registry unconstitutionally, how can the legislature force some one to register, when that is up to the Judiciary, this seems like a clear violation of the Supremacy Clause/ Article 6 Paragraph 2.
I shouldn’t of never been placed on the registry for 25 years, let alone have it changed to life, and was does the AG say everything has go back to the 2005 amendment, well I looked there is NO 2005 amendment to be found, there is a 2004 amendment, and a 2002 amendment a 1999 amendment and 1994 amendment, so why does he keep speaking about the 2005 amendment.? .
So can you please tell me WHY he keeps mentioning 2005 amendment when there is not one, or WHY they are still applying the 2006 and 2011 amendments when he clearly says they are no longer allowed to apply those amendments to anyone retroactively anymore. Thank you for your time.
Bobby
and this was her reply back to me,
Bobby,
We are working on a class action that will ensure that you and others get the benefit of the 6th Circuit decision
I am a bit confused since she really did not my question, does Class Action, mean that Michigan is refusing to do their part in replacing the registry, or Michigan is dragging there feet to slowly, I mean I have to check in ,in December and I will, but what is the point when the guy just admitted that Michigan is NO LONGER allowed to apply the 2006 and 2011 amendments. anyone have any theories on this confusing situation. Thanks in advance.
I stumbled across what may be a helpful SCOTUS snippet for those fighting being prohibited from religious services. Delivering the Opinion in Brown v Entertainment Merchants Association (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/564/786/), Justice Scalia stated in Footnote 3, “what is good for First Amendment rights of speech must be good for First Amendment rights of religion as well.” That would seem to allow one to parlay the Packingham decision into a religious freedom claim as well. I wonder if one could also parlay it into other First Amendment rights, such as freedom of assembly (which is burdened when I cannot attend *any* event on school property).
(BTW, the Footnotes in this case are great examples of how Scalia would pillory those Justices not agreeing with him.)
@mike r:
Some of your “liberty interest of reputation” claims will probably get knocked by Paul v Davis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_v._Davis or https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/424/693/case.html). From the Opinion, it would seem any defamation would need to be pursued in State court.
There’s also a notable line that may apply to Green Notices: “Imputing criminal behavior to an individual is generally considered defamatory per se, and actionable without proof of special damages.” Hmmm…actionable without proof of special damages. Nice!
That PSP amicus mentioned something from Smith that caught my eye. SCOTUS stated: “The process is more analogous to a visit to an official archive of criminal records than it is to a scheme forcing an offender to
appear in public with some visible badge of past criminality.” In using this contrast, SCOTUS clearly felt, “some visible badge of past criminality,” to be more than benign. This statement came from their analysis of traditional shaming using the Mendoza-Martinez Factors. Also mentioned in that analysis was that traditional shaming involved forcing one to endure, “permanent stigmas, which in effect cast the person out of the community.” Isn’t this *exactly* what’s going on with marked DLs and passports??
Former Oklahoma state senator pleads guilty to child sex trafficking charge: report
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/361073-former-oklahoma-state-senator-pleads-guilty-to-child-sex
Murder isn’t the end of the road as it is for someone who committed a sexual offense. Irony: I agree this guy is moving on with life well and LOVE the fact that the city is standing up for him! Hooray! I’m just “a bit” jealous.
http://www.denverpost.com/2017/11/16/colorado-school-board-member-served-time-for-murder/
⛥⛥ A federally complaint “Real ID” will be available to California residents starting in January. I plan to get mine ASAP (before some jackass politician decides it, too, needs a “unique identifier” on it for Registered Citizens.) ⛥⛥
https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/realid
I agree, I’m on it asap. Everyone should be too. Thanks for the heads up…
You know, I was just thinking about how the moniker “predaror” is always used and attached to most of these cases, including mine back in court. The more I think about it the more I believe such a moniker is actually a defamatory remark since its original meaning connotes an organism or animals that stalks, attacks and kills its prey. Just because it has made it in the lexicon to a person who preys on another doesn’t negate the force if the word or the original meaning which there’s a very stark disconnect between the two definitions. Thr CA AG called again asking me to change the court dste to Jan 24 at 10 am which I knce again agreed, even though I wanted to tell her got to he…. I want it heard assp and if she files her response on monday the timeline requires that I have so many days to respond which wouldn’t if happened by Dec 20..Just thought I would give a heafs up….
The hypocrisy of the Republican party is clearly evident in the stance toward Roy Moore. They posture and spout about sex crimes and being tough on crime, to the point of electing, at the very least the misogynist Donald Trump as president. Now it is even more clear as they will state that they support Roy Moore who is an unconvicted sex offender, because he is better than a Democrat. That puts their ideology in perspective.
Does anyone have a list of past and ongoing cases related to sex offender laws? It would be great to have a list of all state and federal cases involving registration, punishment, so-called collateral consequences, and so forth, in order to know how courts have ruled on various challenges.
Chris Smith we know you’re next:
https://news.vice.com/story/anti-gay-ohio-lawmaker-caught-having-gay-sex-now-facing-30-more-accusations?utm_source=vicenewsfb
You guys could be right about the AG but I think you are giving them to much credit on competency…I believe she just realized she has to give me 60 days notice from time of filing. Apparently ine of her clerks writing the brief caught this armature mistake and schooled her on how the rules work…I maybe underestimating them, but if they are like a lot of these other attorneys representing the state I am leaning toward incompetence. As far as “poking the bear” so to speak and angering the opposisition, I am sure they are already there….All this court date is a practice run, because they still have to answer to the complaint in the March hearing. I don’t know yet how the judge is going to react and rule on this since I already have a date set in March. They might moot this hearing or they might decide the federal to state arguments. She said she was filing Monday so we’ll find out soon what’s up their sleeves….
How about this latest: “DOJ moves to strip citizenship for immigrant child sex offenders”
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/11/21/doj-moves-to-strip-citizenship-for-immigrant-child-sex-abusers.html
I wonder if the same DOJ would encourage other countries like Mexico to strip the citizenship from those RSO’s who fled the oppression of life in the United States as an RSO and began a new life in another country?
With the season in mind, I am certainly very grateful for Janice, Chance, Frank and ACSOL for all they do to protect, defend and further our civil rights.
And I am very thankful for community members like Abigail Kokai:
“I mean are they going to be punished for the rest of their life and never be able to live as a functional human being as a result of something that has happened, or do we assume or hope that our rehabilitation processes have allowed that person to successfully be a part of society again?” Kokai questioned.”
http://kbbi.org/post/personal-rights-and-stigma-when-and-where-can-sex-offenders-participate-community