Comments that are not specific to a certain post should go here, for the month of February 2018. Contributions should relate to the cause and goals of this organization and please, keep it courteous and civil.
Related posts
-
AZ: I sent an Arizona man to prison for 290 years. His case still haunts me
Source: azcentral.com 8/26/24 I sent plenty of people to prison during my career as a judge.... -
Restricting Freedom of Movement Is a Favorite Tool for Repressive Regimes
Source: reason.com 8/26/24 Needing permission to travel hands a dangerous tool to authoritarians. When you don’t... -
Janice’s Journal: We Did It!
Thanks to almost 50 individuals, we did it! We raised $10,175 for the matching grant program...
Hello Everyone,
So for anyone that is interested especially for people that live in Michigan such as my self, I spoke to Mr Caballero today through e-mail. just to ask what I need to do to get the Michigan Legislature off their ass and start making changes to the registry, and this is what was said between the two of us.
Mr Caballero
I don’t mean to bother you again, but who do I start complaining to ,so they start making the changes to the registry, I know they are dragging their feet especially now because of this Larry Nasser crap. They are probably hoping people forget about the registry, but I am not going to forget about it.
Thank you for your time, I appreciate every the Michigan ACLU is doing for us.
Bobby
Bobby,
If you want to start advocating a ready target would be for you to speak with your state representatives about this. While MSP and state police departments are in charge of enforcing the Sixth Circuit decision, they’re throwing out some pretty wacky legal theories to justify implementing the decision in the way that they see fit (which is to say not at all). This makes it clear that they’re not going to take the lead in properly implementing Does unless they’re compelled to act by either the courts (which is what we’re looking to do with the class action lawsuit) or the legislature (which we’re also looking to pressure). As a Michigan resident and constituent, you have quite a bit of clout to bend the ear of your state representatives to make sure they’re paying attention to this issue. Different representatives have varying levels of awareness and interest in the SORA legislation and it is certainly worth going to their open hours or other times they designate to meet with constituents and talking about these issues face to face. You can also try sending letters or calling these representatives’ offices, which is also effective, but the most effective tactic tends to be in-person meetings. With enough collective action from everyone maybe we can get the state legislature to feel the pressure and start to get the ball rolling on reforming the law.
Juan P. Caballero
Hello
Thank you for your response I would just like to know is there a certain legislature I need to contact or it does matter in these case
I am from South Lyon which as you may know is in Oakland County, so do I speak with the people that represent South Lyon and Oakland County or just contact all the Legislatures. Thank you again for your response.
Bobby
Given that the legislative advocacy is in its early stages, you should focus on contacting the legislators representing South Lyon and Oakland County. As we move the legislative change along, we will be able to target specific legislators whose votes we will want to secure.
Juan P. Caballero
So those of us in Michigan, need to start bugging the crap out of our legislature and demand they start making the changes to the Michigan registry, if they want to keep their job.
Bobby
A random thought: isn’t the prohibition of 290s from utilizing the ML site a violation of the Equal Protection Clause? If the guise is public safety, how can the State claim “this group” doesn’t merit public safety equal to all/any others? I know the purported reasoning behind it, but that doesn’t change the fact that the prohibition implicates a RC’s constitutional right–which requires intermediate or strict scrutiny. I’d love to see the State’s compelling reason behind it and what narrow tailoring they did. It’s probably not worth the time and money to sue over by itself, but if part of a larger suit, it would be a nice cherry to throw on top.
Hey everyone, does the information on the tiered registry posted on the attached link look correct? I’m referring to the info on which tier each registrant would be classified. Thanks in advance.
https://www.shouselaw.com/registration.html
My husband is not required to be posted on the public ML website. Somehow after 10 years, he ended up being posted earlier this year in error. Don’t know how long he was on there before we found out. When we did, we had it corrected through DOJ and he was removed. However, I just googled our address and he comes up on a site called Homefacts.com
Does anyone know how to get this removed from this website?
Thank you
While looking at the LVMPD RC site (https://www.lvmpd.com/en-us/RecordsFingerprintBureau/Pages/ConvictedPersonsRegistration.aspx), it made me wonder if there’s a way for a non-NV resident to “extend” that 48-hour requirement. The site says fingerprinting can only be accomplished M-F, 8-3, excluding holidays.
Suppose I arrive in town after 3:00PM on the Friday before Presidents’ Day (Mon, Feb 19), and leave prior to 8:00AM on the Tuesday after. It seems I would be able to administratively leverage things into over 3 days.
Thoughts?
Hey, I am having problems locating the fed rules for time to file pleadings such as the response to my opposition. I have rule 6 but it doesn’t seem to say anything about responses. I know I seen somewhere that they have to file at least seven days before the hearing but I cannot locate the actual rule. Any help? I believe that the AG has until Wed to file a response…
And so it begins.
“Colleges have the authority now to set restrictions on enrollment and accessibility,” McDonald said in a statement. “Some, however, may be reluctant to act or not fully realize the authority they now have. My bill would make it crystal clear — we cannot allow level three sex offenders to use our college campuses as hunting grounds to find their next victims.”
First it’s the level threes but of course it will end up capturing us all. I tell you what, the first time I get denied entry into a college there is going to be bad things that happen…Just saying. I knew this would be coming down the pipeline someday soon. It was only a matter of time before they ran out of other places they could ban us from.
I really hope Janice or someone responds to this bill immediately if they actually pass it, which I am sure it will since 99% or more of this type of legislation passes.
A bill under consideration by the state House of Representatives has been introduced in an effort to protect minor-aged college students, such as those in Running Start, from level three sex offenders.
The bill, House Bill 2783, was introduced by Rep. Joyce McDonald, R-Puyallup, and was discussed in a public hearing Tuesday in the House Higher Education Committee.
McDonald introduced the bill after being contacted by a parent whose child was attending college classes through Running Start at a community college where a level three sex offender was also enrolled, according to a news release from the state House Republicans.
“In this case, the offender had been convicted in 2013 of multiple felonies for unlawful imprisonment of teenage girls, possession of pictures of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct, and failure to register as a sex offender. The court terms of his release prohibits him from having any form of contact with minor females,” McDonald said in a press release. “However, he had been granted unrestricted access to the community college, which has many female students in … Running Start who are minors.”
McDonald was also concerned that students were unaware that the sex offender had enrolled in classes.
The bill would prohibit a convicted sex offender or kidnapper classified as level three — considered the highest risk to reoffend — from enrolling in courses where minors are enrolled. It would also require the offender to enroll in online or remote learning and prohibit the offender’s access to certain campus facilities where minors or vulnerable people congregate.
The House Higher Education Committee has until Friday to take action on the bill, according to the state House Republicans.
This will require immediate filings for a TRO and permanent injunction.
Here’s the text.
AN ACT Relating to protecting public safety by authorizing
2 certain educational institutions to impose reasonable restrictions on
3 registered sex and kidnapping offenders enrolled at those
4 institutions; adding a new section to chapter 9A.44 RCW; and creating
a new section.5
6 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:
7 NEW SECTION. Sec. 1. The legislature is committed to protecting
8 the safety and well-being of the public from sex offenders. The
9 Washington state community protection act, requiring the registration
10 of sex and kidnapping offenders, is a critical component of a larger
11 system designed to protect the public while reducing recidivism. The
12 legislature finds that the current registration classification
13 system, which is based on risk rather than type of offense, should be
14 utilized by certain educational institutions as a basis for
15 evaluating whether to impose reasonable restrictions on students
16 classified as high risk to reoffend. The legislature intends for
17 restrictions to protect the safety and well-being of personnel and
18 students, especially minors. Restrictions are not intended to be
19 punitive, but instead to accommodate the registered student’s access
20 to education without risking the safety and well-being of others.
H-3757.1
HOUSE BILL 2783
State of Washington 65th Legislature 2018 Regular Session
By Representatives McDonald, Irwin, and Van Werven
Read first time 01/16/18. Referred to Committee on Higher Education.
p. 1 HB 2783
1 NEW SECTION. Sec. 2. A new section is added to chapter 9A.44
RCW to read as follows:2
3 (1) When a community or technical college receives notice under
4 RCW 9A.44.138 regarding the enrollment of a student who is a
5 registered sex or kidnapping offender classified as a risk level III,
6 the college may impose reasonable restrictions on the student in
7 order to protect the safety of other students, teachers, and
8 personnel at the college. Restrictions may include, but are not
limited to:9
10 (a) Prohibiting the student from enrolling in courses or programs
where minors will be enrolled or present;11
12 (b) Requiring the student to enroll in online or remote learning
13 courses where he or she will not have in person contact or
interactions with other students or teachers;14
15 (c) Prohibiting or restricting the student’s access to certain
16 campus facilities or areas where minors or other vulnerable persons
regularly congregate.17
18 (2) If a community or technical college authorizes a registered
19 sex or kidnapping offender classified as a risk level III to attend
20 traditional, in person classes, the college may notify the teacher
21 and other students enrolled in the course or program of the name and
22 risk classification of the student. Notice under this subsection must
23 be made in a form likely to be received and read by teachers and
students.24
25 (3) For the purposes of this section, “community or technical
26 college” and “college” refer to a community college or technical
27 college as those terms are defined in RCW 28B.50.030.
It appears that it is a Washington bill but I am sure it will be hailed across the country as the new attack on sex offenders and every county and state are going to be racing to enact similar or more restrictive measures in order to outpace their rivals just as the residency restrictions did. This is very concerning…
Notice how all these laws state “it is not intended to be punitive”? Right there they are stating that they are fully aware of the punitive nature of such legislation. Enough so as to include it in the text of every piece of legislation directed at us. Just further proof of legislative intent.
Uhhhh huh.
While drugs used to diminish an offender’s sex drive can be effective, they are mostly successful with offenders who want to change their behavior and take them as prescribed, said Frank Zimring, a law professor at University of California at Berkeley and an expert on sex crimes.
But he said the laws are generally about good politics since sex offenders are an easy target, and not necessarily about sound criminal justice policy.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/oklahoma-considers-chemical-castration-sex-offenders-143924906.html
Suggestions on how long I should wait after probation termination to file reduction.
311.11(a) 1 count santa clara co. Off probation 3 wks.
P.O. said to wait 2 yrs(?). Whatever! I don’t want to spend money on lawyer filing if it will get shot down.
Man I really hope that Janice or some org takes this seriously (because it is serious) because this could blowup into a major issue for RC’s who are in college now (like myself) and in the future. Especially considering the average age on the list has been getting younger lately……….I hope I hear what position ACSOL is going to take on this issue, if any.
WOW, bill being considered in the Tennessee House/Senate amending the law. New bill states that it is OK for a “sexual offender against a minor” to attend therapy within 1,000 feet of a school, park, playground, etc.
My questions are: “Why wasn’t this OK in the original bill?” and “What about working within 1,000 feet of said locations?”
If therapy is OK, why not employment?
So….in other states people can be removed from the Registry.
Does that mean somehow that us California registrants are more dangerous or something?
I’m getting really tired of being complacent and it shows.
Counting, I received 5 years Summary Probation. I filed my reduction after 3 years. The worst case scenario is the judge says come back next year! Good luck
I remained on probation for 2 years after, while motion granted
Could somebody please explain to me WTF this guy’s previous (six-year-ago) conviction has to do with the current hit and run charge??!
Scumbag media trolling for eyeballs! 😡
http://www.silive.com/news/2018/01/sex_offender_pleads_guilty_in.html
Two more days people and the AG has to file their reply to my opposition, if they are going to, which I am sure they will. This ought to be pretty interesting……….. So it appears my case is moving along faster than the one in North Carolina, with their 134 Plaintiffs (bad call if you ask me). It also appears that my Opposition is going to be heard on the same day as the Idaho suit. We filed our oppositions on the same day
Get ready for “Turpin’s Law”: https://www.dallasnews.com/news/education/2018/02/01/could-case-13-abused-siblings-fire-debate-home-schooling. One extreme example means all home-schooling is bad.
The UK courts recently ruled that they will not allow a British computer hacker to be extradited because the US prison system is “medieval.”
https://gizmodo.com/british-hacker-wont-be-extradited-to-the-us-because-ame-1822721269
The more I re-read stuff, some thing else pops into my head that I didn’t see before.
This focus will be on CA’s 1203.4 statute (immunity program). I will omit sub-sections or sections of the statute that isn’t relevant to my thoughts.
Legal Law Link: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=1203.4.&lawCode=PEN
*******
1203.4.
(a) (1) In any case in which a defendant has fulfilled the conditions of probation for the entire period of probation, or has been discharged prior to the termination of the period of probation, or in any other case in which a court, in its discretion and the interests of justice, determines that a defendant should be granted the relief available under this section, the defendant shall, at any time after the termination of the period of probation, if he or she is not then serving a sentence for any offense, on probation for any offense, or charged with the commission of any offense, be permitted by the court to withdraw his or her plea of guilty or plea of nolo contendere and enter a plea of not guilty; or, if he or she has been convicted after a plea of not guilty, the court shall set aside the verdict of guilty; and, in either case, the court shall thereupon dismiss the accusations or information against the defendant and except as noted below, he or she shall thereafter be released from all penalties and disabilities resulting from the offense of which he or she has been convicted, except as provided in Section 13555 of the Vehicle Code. The probationer shall be informed, in his or her probation papers, of this right and privilege and his or her right, if any, to petition for a certificate of rehabilitation and pardon. The probationer may make the application and change of plea in person or by attorney, or by the probation officer authorized in writing. However, in any subsequent prosecution of the defendant for any other offense, the prior conviction may be pleaded and proved and shall have the same effect as if probation had not been granted or the accusation or information dismissed. The order shall state, and the probationer shall be informed, that the order does not relieve him or her of the obligation to disclose the conviction in response to any direct question contained in any questionnaire or application for public office, for licensure by any state or local agency, or for contracting with the California State Lottery Commission.
(4) This subdivision shall apply to all applications for relief under this section which are filed on or after November 23, 1970.
(b) Subdivision (a) of this section does not apply to any misdemeanor that is within the provisions of Section 42002.1 of the Vehicle Code, to any violation of subdivision (c) of Section 286, Section 288, subdivision (c) of Section 288a, Section 288.5, subdivision (j) of Section 289, Section 311.1, 311.2, 311.3, or 311.11, or any felony conviction pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section 261.5, or to any infraction.
(g) Notwithstanding the above provisions or any other provision of law, the Governor shall have the right to pardon a person convicted of a violation of subdivision (c) of Section 286, Section 288, subdivision (c) of Section 288a, Section 288.5, or subdivision (j) of Section 289, if there are extraordinary circumstances.
(Amended by Stats. 2013, Ch. 143, Sec. 2. (AB 20) Effective January 1, 2014.)
*******
.
.
My point is to prove that registrants are being excluded from the immunities provided to all convicts that qualify from statute 1203.4.
1203.4 (a)(1). “the court shall thereupon dismiss the accusations or information against the defendant and except as noted below, he or she shall thereafter be released from all penalties and disabilities resulting from the offense of which he or she has been convicted”
*Translation: All penalties and disabilities will be removed. Only exceptions will be listed below.
1203.4 (a)(4). This subdivision shall apply to all applications for relief under this section which are filed on or after November 23, 1970.
*Translation: Relief is applied to all who qualify for the application of 1203.4. (This is the new item.) It doesn’t specify “some relief” is applied to all. It says “relief” is applied to “all”, which included registrants.
1203.4 (b). Subdivision (a) of this section does not apply to any misdemeanor that is within the provisions of Section 42002.1 of the Vehicle Code, to any violation of subdivision (c) of Section 286, Section 288, subdivision (c) of Section 288a, Section 288.5, subdivision (j) of Section 289, Section 311.1, 311.2, 311.3, or 311.11, or any felony conviction pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section 261.5, or to any infraction.
*Translation: This is the first exception for Registrants who cannot qualify for the immunity.
1203.4 (g). Notwithstanding the above provisions or any other provision of law, the Governor shall have the right to pardon a person convicted of a violation of subdivision (c) of Section 286, Section 288, subdivision (c) of Section 288a, Section 288.5, or subdivision (j) of Section 289, if there are extraordinary circumstances.
*Translation: Although there are exceptions denoted in 1203.4 (b), some of the exception can still qualify for a Pardon by the Governor.
…
..
.
Again, nowhere in 1203.4 does it state that a registrant must continue to register. In fact, 1203.4 (a)(4) states any who qualify for the immunity shall get relief. Please note, penalties and disabilities are not defined as punitive or civil, but rather the inclusive “all” term.
Now, there is an exception not pertaining to registrants in 1203.4:
1203.4 (a)(2). Dismissal of an accusation or information pursuant to this section does not permit a person to own, possess, or have in his or her custody or control any firearm or prevent his or her conviction under Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 29800) of Division 9 of Title 4 of Part 6.
*Translation: A dismissal does not permit you to own a firearm. But this only pertains to those who still have a felony with a case dismissal. Once you have your charge reduced to a misdemeanor, then you are able to own a firearm once again.
…
..
.
The firearm exception is duly noted within 1203.4. Certain sex convictions exceptions to disqualify from 1203.4 is duly noted within 1203.4. Nowhere within 1203.4 does it state specifically that registrants must continue to register like it does with the firearms exception of relief.
That means all over relief must be applied. To whom?
1203.4 (a)(4) states that relief must to all applicants.
What relief?
1203.4 (a)(1) states, ” the court shall set aside the verdict of guilty; and, in either case, the court shall thereupon dismiss the accusations or information against the defendant and except as noted below, he or she shall thereafter be released from all penalties and disabilities resulting from the offense of which he or she has been convicted,”.
…
..
.
I want to re-iterate the term “all” is utilized in 1203.4 (a)(1) relief and 1203.4 (a)(4) qualifications.
The firearm relief exception is applied to all under 1203.4. The registry relief isn’t applied to all, but it was not denoted as an exception either under 1203.4.
Now, conflate that with CA Const, Art 1, Sec 7(b):
“A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens. Privileges or immunities granted by the Legislature may be altered or revoked.”
Link: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=CONS&division=&title=&part=&chapter=&article=I
1203.4 applies to all who qualify. All those who qualify have their cases dismissed and are given all relief from their conviction save relief of owning a firearm.
It’s different for registrants. For those who qualify for 1203.4, they only are awarded a case dismissal. There is no relief from the registry, which is both a penalty and disability. Penalty such that there is punishment for not abiding by rules and restrictions set by the state that no other sets of convicts share. Disability because of said restrictions that no other sets of convicts share, especially with a minor. A registrant cannot volunteer until he or she discloses that information to the local PD and if the local PD permits it.
So the 1203.4 relief program doesn’t relieve registrants from registering even though they qualify for all relief. No other sets of convicts need to report to the local PD once a year to disclose their information, or report to the local PD after a significant change in their equity (home, auto, school, job).
What’s the distinction between those registrants who qualify for 1203.4 and those who do not? A case dismissal, but both remain on the registry for life.
Here’s a recent case from Illinois:
https://floridaactioncommittee.org/illinois-appellate-court-rules-lifetime-sex-offender-registration-grossly-disproportionate-punishment-for-21-year-old/
In that case, they denote there’s no distinction between registrants. The fact there’s no distinction between a low-risk registrant and a high-risk registrant pits the courts into stating the punishment is disproportionate.
In CA, they’ve yet to identify the registry as punitive. Fine. But the registry is a civil penalty and a civil disability. Remember, the registry is applied at conviction. It is a loss of privacy.
CA Const, Art 1, Sec 1:
“All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.”
It is an inalienable right to pursue and obtain privacy. That right was taken away when one is put on the CA registry as you’re on there for a “lifetime” term.
1203.4 is a relief program that should allow a registrant have relief from the registry and regain privacy. Although, nowhere within 1203.4 does it state it doesn’t give relief from the registry, it is not granted. The negation to obtain privacy through the 1203.4 relief program is thwarted. That runs contrary to the State’s Constitution. 1203.4 is supposed to grant relief with the only exception is firearm felonies and those who are eligible. The State of CA has negated my right to pursue and obtain privacy with the 1203.4 relief program, to which CA Const., Art. 1, Sec. 7(b) is supposed to employ equal immunity.
Now, here’s a kicker. We go back to 2003 Smith v Doe, from the opinion.
Link: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/538/84/case.html
*** “In contrast to those punishments, the Act’s stigma results not from public display for ridicule and shaming but from the dissemination of accurate information about a criminal record, most of which is already public.”
My Take: Only convictions of a criminal record are to be disseminated. In CA, 1203.4 is a case dismissal. There no longer is a criminal record. If CA is calling the registry punitive and based upon the 2003 Smith v Doe case, then CA is breaking law by continuing to disseminate information that is no longer public.
*** “Also unavailing is that court’s assertion that the periodic update requirement imposed an affirmative disability. The Act, on its face, does not require these updates to be made in person. The holding that the registration system is parallel to probation or supervised release is rejected because, in contrast to probationers and supervised releasees, offenders subject to the Act are free to move where they wish and to live and work as other citizens, with no supervision. ”
My Take: 2003 Smith v Doe stated that in-person reporting is a disability. Aside from annual updates, there is an in-person reporting required for a change in occupation, acquiring a vehicle new to the registrant, volunteer work, going to school, moving a residence, or travelling abroad. For myself, every semester I have to do register in-person with the school’s PD. So if I do fall, winter, spring, and summer semesters, then I have registered four times in one year in addition to the city’s in-person registration.
The requirements to inform the local PD where I work or volunteer is a type of supervision. Compliance check is a type of supervision. Registering with the school’s PD is supervision.
The scope of employment is also limited by being on the registry. I am excluded from being a firefighter in my local city.
*** ” While the Act does differentiate between individuals convicted of aggravated or multiple offenses and those convicted of a single nonaggravated offense, these broad categories and the reporting requirement’s corresponding length are reasonably related to the danger of recidivism, and this is consistent with the regulatory objective. Fourth, the Act has a rational connection to a legitimate nonpunitive purpose, public safety, which is advanced by alerting the public to the risk of sex offenders in their community. ”
My Take: In CA, there is only one term for the registry: “Lifetime”. I do not see any distinction between a single offense and multiple, aggravated offenses as all CA registrants are lifetime terms. But please note, that the fourth factor is alerting the public with the use of public information. But a dismissed case states you have no criminal record and thus should no longer participate in any form of dissemination of any information, according to this opinion.
…
..
.
Recap: Dismissed cases are no longer public information because they do not exist. Yet, your registration requirement still exists, which is still subject to public information because a registrant must continue to provide updated information annually, at a minimum.
Yet, if we tie this back to the Illinois case of disproportionate punishment, CA has designated all registrants with a “lifetime” classification. That classification negates all CA registrants from federal Housing and Urban Development (HUD) assistance.
Because CA doesn’t award relief from the lifetime termed registry supposedly offered in 1203.4, CA has negated the inalienable to “acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety”. With HUD assistance, a registrant gets into a domicile, which is property. And on that property, they are pursing and obtaining safety by not living as a homeless person.
The removal of CA Constitutional inalienable rights is a penalty and disability. How are registrants who qualify for 1203.4 not afforded such relief like all those other convicts who benefit from relief from all penalties and disabilities due to their conviction? Doesn’t the “equal immunity” statute within the CA Constitution hold any weight?
Nice argument New Person. I like your reasoning on this BS. If only someone with the 1203.4 would jump on that and file then they could set a precedent. I was reading one of the cases I had and it straights states that you guys are entitled to the full benefits of that 1203.4. If I see it I will post it.
Man I can’t believe, or rather I can believe, that the Brits say our prison system is medieval and wont expedite to the US. That is a big deal if you ask me. First they refused to extradite people accused of multiple child molestation and now this. Wow. America is looking good ain’t it?
In process of reducing charge to misdomeanor. Now here is my question.
Why do misdomeanors have the same restrictions as felonies. Every other offense has different parameters between a felony and misdomeanors, yet even the lowest of misdomeanors labeled as a sex offense suffers. And now the attempt to broaden the scope of the “sex laws” puts so many at risk. We are no longer a country of laws, but a country of lists!
Florida Action Committee is looking for litigants to sue the state to remove out-of-state registrants from the Florida registry. They must reside outside the state of Florida but be listed on the Florida registry.
https://floridaactioncommittee.org/are-you-on-the-florida-sex-offenders-registry-but-no-longer-in-florida/
This is insane. Sitting at the multimillion dollar federal courthouse in Sac so that I could sit in on a hearing and it is absolutely a ghost town. Nobody but the 8-9 guards downstairs. Incredible….What the hell is wrong with people? Absolutely no one utilizing this is disgusting. I know I shouldn’t be surprised but I am. You would think someone would be using the civil courts. All I can say is WOW what a waste…