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,...
I’m a registered citizen and would like to fly from US to Denmark. Can I fly direct to Denmark or is Spain the only point of entry? I apologize if there’s another place on this site to post this question. I hope this is allowed here in ‘general’. Thank you.
I am on it AJ..Yeah, I agree totally with you on Young…The AG rep. states that federal court has no subject matter jurisdiction but then cites Young which specifically states that they do. I believe they are only referring to the claims that they wish to dismiss, 6-9. I am not sure yet. I have posted the docs on my webpage, gofile didn’t seem to want to work, so ya, here’s the link again.
http://mllkeys20112011.wixsite.com/mysite
Although I know a motion for summary judgement by default for not answering my complaint completely will fail, I think I will file it anyways and claim that the court should grant me summary judgement on the issues the AG did not seem to want to address, 1-5. Or order them to answer or show cause why they haven’t or wont. To me this seems like a blatant due process violation if they intend to argue any points on any of the other issues simply because they are not treating me the same as a qualified attorney by not answering every claim and they are trying to subvert justice by hobbling me even more then I already am by not providing me with what arguments they are going to bring against those other claims thereby denying me my ability to prepare a proper response when we go in for the hearing. I am thinking about adding in the motion that I am already at a disadvantage since I am not a legal expert and have no formal training or experience in these types of fields and settings. The AG reps. are seasoned, skilled, experienced attorneys with unlimited resources at their disposal so in order for me to have any resemblance of a fair due process I at the very least need to be a able to prepare a response to whatever arguments they want to bring in court…..Without this fair process and with the AG trying to subvert justice, already, I should be granted summary judgement or have the court order the AG to properly respond…What do you think? Read their responses on my site and let me know what you guys think……
I really believe that they are saying Young doesn’t apply only to the federal and other states ordinances or issues. Such as IML and any other state laws…Which like I said I was expecting….I will contest this as I did cite local ordinances and I have to look into it more since I believe the state officials are enforcing some kind of federal laws somehow to me……Looking forward to hearing your responses….Oh, and hey, what about this protected class of offenders now? Um seems like a real equal protection issue since are info is available for life and easily accessed thru their website why other felons or ex cons do not face the same consequences and their records basically go away or are not used after so many years…..I am sure I can manipulate this issue in some way to our advantage…..
Here is a good resource. Although it is pertaining to prisoner rights, it also applies to civilians not incarcerated. I am glad I read this since I was unsure if I actually had to reply to this motion to dismiss. I am definitely responding…..
OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS; MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT BY DEFAULT; REQUEST FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE OR ORDER TO FILE PROPER RESPONSE
I really believe that is how I am going to respond….They will either laugh it off or take notice that I am not playing and will not stand for any unethical and/or nefarious actions by the AG…..
Right on point Chris, we can do this and already you bring a valid point…
Just throwing ideas out there ,,,,I might have to file with the DOJ. I have major homework so any feedback would be great.
https://www.justice.gov/crt/addressing-police-misconduct-laws-enforced-department-justice
Since SCOTUS is a hot topic here always, this was found and thought to be interesting to read and discuss amongst the peeps here:
Chief Justice Roberts a secret liberal?
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-chief-justice-roberts-a-secret-liberal/
I say AJ and David Kennerly, the Toxic Radioactive man who is Addicted to Love, will provide some rather insightful comments to start this off, but could be wrong.
I will say, this is an interesting way to use statistics that could be seen as “frightening and high” within their respective elements
Yeah, great comments, this is what is going to help win my case. I made a big leap of faith tonight and talked to my Sociology professor at class tonight about my situation, my court case, everything about whats going on. He is involved with reintegration programs at Folsom state prison, his family is all hells angles over in Italy but he wanted out so he came here about 25 years ago and got his masters in Sociology. Anyways we talked for over a hour and a half and he is very interested in helping me in any way he can. He will be a expert witness and is going to stand by my side when I go to court. He is really in to social change and is disgusted we government overreach and the lack of rehabilitation and reintegration of ex cons and said he was amazed at the timing because he is just starting to get informed about the sex offender registration issues and has great respect at my courage to go this alone and at how I have pulled myself back from the abyss. This guy is incredibly intelligent, incredibly qualified, and has incredible insight and experience into the prison and reintegration sides of the criminal justice system, and he is willing to go fight tooth and nail right along with me..I am so stoked, and I know he is for real and serious. I know just by the way he has discussed the issues in class and how he reacted when I brought it up after class that he is for real. I am going to one of his sweat lodge meetings that he has in his back yard in a couple weeks and have emailed him a link to my site and the docs. on my case. I showed him a sneak peak at what I have on my phone but am unable to pull up the original complaint on my phone for some reason…..This is crazy, it is like something is making all the stars line up in my life to make this happen……Keep your comments coming man. I am going to start on the opposition as soon as I get a chance . This is almost finals at school so I am having to juggle everything to make shi*^&%% happen. I decided not to do the summary judgement or order to respond. I will just note that they can not argue any legal merit of any other issues other then those that they have responded to or I will bring a procedural due process claim…..
Perfect argument Chris…I am so lucky to have your guy’s help.
As for the AG saying California is not liable for things like IML and other things outside California’s control, that is not actually true. California is the Gatekeeper of the California registry and they participate in sending that list to the Federal Government for the sole purpose of whatever actions or restrictions the Federal Government deems needed against someone so dangerous that they need to be on “the list”. If California didn’t violate your Substantive Due Process and Equal Protection rights by including you on that list, you would not be subjected to the Federal restrictions and restrictions by the other states and even cities. It would not be practical to sue every city in the country for protecting themselves from such a presently dangerous individual to be included on “the list” when California is well aware of what them putting you on “the list” means and them providing “the list” to the Feds. California is in complete control of who is affected by IML in their state.
This is great….They way you articulated it CA is in complete control over every federal or state law across the country that applies to me….Excellent!!!!!!!!!!!! There goes their motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction….
I know i am asking a lot from you guys but, if you can go to my site and write me some arguments in order and addressing each claim the AG made in that response. If not I will have to figure out how I am going to juggle this while I am trying to pass my classes. I am already barely passing my math class because I am spending so much time on this…..And Chris and AJ, you guys are very perceptive and articulate so feel free if you have time…..
They lay out six arguments that need to be addressed….any help will will be great…..
Ok Mike R, here is my take on the AG’s motion to dismiss:
I don’t know about California’s Jessica’s Law and how it only affects those on parol for residency restrictions. They may win on that.
You are affected by other state’s residency restrictions, but those would have to have the other states as defendents and is out of CA control since they are based on who needs to be registered in those states.
Pg 4 Line 15 – Sex offender registration is designed to promote the state’s interest in controlling crime, facilitating investigation of sex crimes, and preventing recidivism in sex offenders.
*Point to your filing’s lines that counter these points and show it increases recidivism as well as how it’s design is not constitutional or narrowly tailored or allow Substative Due Process to challenge inclusion on the list
Pg 7 Line 9 “…Ninth Circuit has determined that SORA’s registration requirements are non-punitive”
*Need to research that case and state why they reached wrong conclusion and reference the new cases that find it punitive.
Pg 7 Line 12
Under the Supreme Court’s decision in Smith V Doe, Megan’s Law is also non-punitive.
*Point back to the lines in your filing showing how things changed since Smith V Doe as well as the incorrect assumptions of “frieghteing and high” used in Smith.
Pg 8 – all of it – SORA’s Registration Requirements Do Not Apply Retroactively to Plaintiff and Are Non-Punitive
*You can show that Sora is now punitive and the false “frightening and high” demonstrates the incorrect data used to come to past incorrect conclusions by the courts. You can also show changes to SORA after 2004 are retroactive to you as well as IML triggered by California including you on the list.
Pg 9 – “The Public Notification Provisions in Megan’s Law Are Also Non-Punitive…”
They are punitive and relying on Smith V Doe is not relevent to the current scheme as it would fail the test from Smith V Doe as well as Smith V Doe relied on incorrect information on recidivism to form it’s conclusions.
Pg 11 Line 17 “a person is authorized to use information disclosed pursuant to this bill only to protect a person at risk”
*The information is used for far more than that, and there are more narrowly tailored methods of notifiying nearby families if that were a valid government concern. The global lifetime public dissemination of the original crime is such an extreme method to reach such a localized goal it is nothing but punitive.
Pg 12 Line 12 “Finally, throughout the legislative history, the enacting representatives discussed how Smith V Doe provided a “green light” for this legislation”
*The decision of Smith V Doe being based on mis-information about sex offender recidivism that lead to its conclusions and the extreme burdens added since that decision are well documented in the original complaint. This statute is clearly punitive in effect regardless of what legislators claim.
Pg 13 Line 19 – California Penal Code Section 290.46 is Not Punitive in Effect
*Yes it is – Per almost all factors listed as demonstrated in the complaint.
Pg 15 Line 18 – Factor 3: On Smith, the Supreme Court ruled that Internet publication of the sex offender registry did not impose any affirmative disability or restraint…
*It does now…it allows web sites like “Nextdoor” and “Facebook” to exclude you from membership in violation of your freedom of speech and triggers inclussion on IML as well as being declined for international travel and cruise lines and exclusion from federal housing assistance. It allows museums and amusement parks to deny you admitance.
Pg 18 Line 5 – A bill of attainder claim has three elements…
*Part (2) Punishment is satisfied because the cumulative effects of the notification scheme marks me as a moral leper forever and feeds the national database that triggers inclusion on IML and housing assistance denial. Part (3) lack of judicial trial is satisfied because there was no trial to determine what danger I pose to the public or for what duration I should be marked with such a derogatory label as “Sex offender” and no way to challenge it or be removed.
Pg 18 Line 10 – SORA and Megan’s Law Do Not Impose Punishment
* Yes they do. They meet all 3 factors as outlined in the original filing. The legislative records show numerous statements by legislators of an intent to punish even when they fabricate what looks like they are protecting the public . They fail to acknowledge any real statistics, fail to acknowledge government reports that state the registry does the opposite of its intent and continue to restate the false data from Smith V Doe.
Pg 19 Line 12 – Plaintiff Was Convicted in His Criminal Trial
*The fact that I had a trial to determine guilt for a particular crime has no bearing on the third essential element of Bill of Attainder, lack of a trial. My trial did not determine if I was an ongoing threat to society, to what degree, and for how long, if at all, I should be subjected to the harsh and permanent stigma of being declared a sex offender and danger to society. In fact the opposite, as the sentencing portion of the trial determined how long I should be under the state’s supervision which the Sex Offender registry does not take into account. ***INSERT PACKINGHAM QUOTE HERE ABOUT SCOTUS CONCERN OVER RESTRICTIONS AFTER SUPERVISION IS UP****** Legislature simply added the registry and all negative aspects on top of what the judiciary determined adequate for my crime, knowing that a group as politically powerless as anyone convicted of a sex crime has no chance to stop it. It is by definiation, a Bill of Attainder.
Pg 19 Line 24 – The Eight Claim for Cruel and Unusual…
*As stated above, the Sex Offender Registry scheme as a whole is punishment, and it’s lack of being narrowly tailored, challenged, under the direction of a judge, or taking into account the individual circumstances makes it very Cruel and Unusual.
Pg 20 Line 9 – Involuntary Servitude
*Hard to argue this one
Pg 21 Line 17 – Sixth Through Ninth Claims
*From my post earlier on all4consolaws:
As for the AG saying California is not liable for things like IML and other things outside California’s control, that is not actually true. California is the Gatekeeper of the California registry and they participate in sending that list to the Federal Government for the sole purpose of whatever actions or restrictions the Federal Government deems needed against someone so dangerous that they need to be on “the list”. If California didn’t violate your Substantive Due Process and Equal Protection rights by including you on that list, you would not be subjected to the Federal restrictions and restrictions by the other states and even cities. It would not be practical to sue every city in the country for protecting themselves from such a presently dangerous individual to be included on “the list” when California is well aware of what them putting you on “the list” means and them providing “the list” to the Feds. California is in complete control of who is affected by IML in their state.
Beautiful Chris. Thanks, that is the boilerplate beginning I needed to start my arguments. I work so much better when I have a basic starting point like that….Once I throw authorities and citations in there the AG’s motion is thru. I agree with every point you made and damn good spot on points at that.I also agree involuntary servitude is a hard one so I may concede that one unless I can come up with a plausable argument….Excellent…..It doesn’t appear that they are trying to dismiss all the other claims to me, what’s your veiw on that?
As far as Jessica law goes, I did not challenge that law but only referenced it as a spring board that all the local municipalities are using as a blueprint to enact their own residency bans on. Contrary to the AG claim, I did lay out and cited numerous CA municipality codes which is what I am arguing the AG has authority and jurisdiction over. And which play a role in a lot of my other arguments.
Keep it coming Chris, you are brilliant, I can tell you that. Where’s AJ? He needs to chime in on this so we can get the full force of our collective power going on this crap….Yes that is even more proof that the legislature was told and were aware that their positions concerning recidivism rates were in question but did not act and do any legislative fact finding to confirm any of their stated facts. And like you stated, it is undisputed facts since it came from the AG themselves…. Brilliant…..I am going to continue that argument stating that if they would have researched they would have fund that the recidivism rates are even exponentially lower then what was stated in the proposal by that single study mentioned….The legislature were aware and have been continuously informed by all the state sponsored studies that included that the recidivism rates were the lowest of all ex offenders and in no way close to a frightening and high rate, yet they continue the myth and pile more and more burdens and resources into a non existent, mythical problem.
Not that it came from the AG, you know what I meant. They msut concede that it is undisputed facts since they are including it in their response. I know it states that they will move to dismiss other unspecified claims at some other time, I just want to make sure that they are not trying to pull some tech. on me and have my entire case dismissed if I don’t properly respond. Which I am going to do anyways, but yeah, I will contest any attempt to dismiss. I will make some argument for the involuntary servitude also just to keep it open and valid for the appeals and later hearings.
What I meant by a Procedural Due Process claim is if they try to subvert justice and try to intimidate me, get the suit dismissed on a technicality, or do anything unethical or nefarious such as trying to provide the court with misinformation then I have a “procedural” due process claim. A lot of people misuse or don’t understand when or what “procedural” due process is. For those that don’t, it is after you have a case in the court started and there is some type of violation of the judicial process in any way then it is a procedural claim…..
Can a RSO live with children? Like their own or step children? My gf is pregnant with my child but also has a kid of her own and we plan to move in and I can’t find anything about this or any law regarding this issue. Any info would be greatly appreciated.
Stanford sex offender Brock Turner is appealing his conviction
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2017/12/02/stanford-sex-offender-brock-turner-is-appealing-his-conviction/?utm_term=.4b982180726a
Concerned, CA law says you can’t have unsupervised visits and/or have or live with someone that has physical custody. I don’t believe they are enforcing the law but it is on the books, it is one of this issues in my motion, go check it out. New Person, great response, I am sure I can create an argument out of what you wrote. All this feedback is great, you guys are great, all this free flowing info and diversity is very powerful, especially when I manipulate it and add authorities and citations. I can’t wait to get the feedback from my sociology professor. He has a unique perspective since he is so involed with cdcr and the reintegration and re-entry programs as well as lecturing parole/probation officers on how to treat and help people instead of looking for violations to send them back to prison.I realize I am taking a big risk with the guy but I think I have good instincts when it comes to people’s characters.
1. I am largely restricted from directing the care and upbringing of my children and my grandchildren, not only by these types of local ordinances but by actual state laws that severely restrict whether I can live with them or interact with them unsupervised, in violation of my liberty interest in the upbringing of my children or grandchildren. See CA Family Code sect. 3030. “(a) (1) No person shall be granted physical or legal custody of, or unsupervised visitation with, a child if the person is required to be registered as a sex offender under Section 290 of the Penal Code where the victim was a minor, or if the person has been convicted under Section 273a, 273d, or 647.6 of the Penal Code, (2) No person shall be granted physical or legal custody of, or unsupervised visitation with, a child if anyone residing in the person’s household is required, as a result of a felony conviction in which the victim was a minor, to register as a sex offender under Section 290 of the Penal Code.” So this makes it virtually impossible for me to reside with my children/grandchildren, or even my family, in any residence if they have children. I cannot even enjoy any normal activities with my children, grandchildren, nieces, nephews, etc. unless I am under constant supervision. This makes it impossible for me to have any semblance of a normal relationship with my family or friends. If I am reading this correctly it also means that my wife, other children, brothers, sisters, mother-in-law or any other person cannot have physical or legal custody or unsupervised visits if I cohabit with them.
In addition to the restraints and burdens stemming from the registry laws inclusive, registrants are also subject to severe social penalties stemming from the Government’s continued assertion, and resultant public belief, that presence on the registry indicates that an individual is likely to recidivate. See CA Family code sect. 3030, (3) “The fact that a child is permitted unsupervised contact with a person who is required, as a result of a felony conviction in which the victim was a minor, to be registered as a sex offender under Section 290 of the Penal Code, shall be prima facie evidence that the child is at significant risk”.1. Also see, International Megan’s Law to Prevent Child Exploitation Through Advanced Notification of Traveling Sex Offenders. Pub. Law No. 114–119, 130 Sta. 15 (2016). (IML), which is implicitly stating that I am a danger to young children in other countries.
2. The fact that the government is disseminating my conviction and personal information internationally, created codes that prevent me from having physical or legal custody of, or being in contact with, any minors, including my own children/grandchildren unsupervised and has created residency and presence restrictions is prima facie evidence that the government is implicitly stating that I am a danger to children. See para 11, 13-14, 17-18, and para 120, 148.
Ya they are going to have a hell of a time refuting my claims……This one for example, one of many, has no defense by the AG.
If anyone comes across something important or relevant to my case remember to post it here on general since I can not check every other topic simply because of the time restraints that I am under right now. Thanks…..
I heard that Alabama wants to pass a law to have all registered citizens whose conviction is against minor to be castrated.