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
-
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,...
WOW this might be one of our best works.
https://gofile.io/?c=b4W4HB
Comments people.
I think it would be interesting to find out how many of us still support families we are not allowed by our government(or other governments) to be with.
I for one live in a cheap apartment in a gang neighborhood while making sure my family in Thailand has what they need, puting my niece and nephew through grade school and college, as well as maintaining my mother’s home and her medical expenses overseas. I support my family there. I could forget about them and live a better life here, but I choose responsibility over comfort.
Mean while we have deadbeat parents here that don’t take care of their kids, fathers that would rather get more women pregnant than take care of the children they fathered. Parents neglecting their kids to get drunk and stoned. But we are the problem. We are the outcasts.
How many of those deadbeats pay taxes, have jobs, contribute in ANY way? But we are the bad people.
I am really liking the part where I use the “modern public square” against them for shaming purposes. How can the court claim it’s the “modern public square” for 1st amendment purposes and not for shaming purposes? I think it must apply just as heavily in both cases other wise they are contradicting their own decision. Isn’t the “public square” where historical shaming took place? Rhetorical question….Of course it is.
Shaming:
Under the Mendoza/Martinez factors, Plaintiff contends: (1) that IML (International Megan’s Law to Prevent Child Exploitation and Other Sexual Crimes Through Advanced Notification of Traveling Sex Offenders,” Pub. Law No. 114–119, 130 Sta. 15 (2016), Compliant pp 37 at 5-17) with its unique sexual offender marked passport; (2) the exposure on the Megan’s Law Internet Website “modern public square”; reaches the threshold of “shaming”. In Packingham the Court stated “Far from merely facilitating access to public records, the Internet is “the modern public square.” Id. (slip op., at 8) (satisfies the Mendoza/Martinez factors for “shaming”).
Try this one….
https://gofile.io/?c=Hndzef
Emergency Regulations implemented at Coalinga State Hospital, written in collaboration with Michael St. Martin, Detainee/Patient.
On January 11, 2018, the California Office of Administrative Law issued a “NOTICE OF APPROVAL OF EMERGENCY REGULATORY ACTION” which proclaimed: “The Department of State Hospitals is amending section 4350 of title 9 of the California Code of Regulations to address the possession, viewing, and distribution of illicit materials by removing digital memory storage, other means of memory storage, specified digital media players, and digital media burners from the personal possession of patients.” They stated that the possession of child porn had reached “epidemic” proportions.
The actual “emergency” was, in fact, not an explosion of child pornography possession in Coalinga State Hospital at all but California’s enactment of the “Electronic Privacy Act” which would have prevented CSH from carrying out continuous searches of civilly detained patient’s property at Coalinga State Hospital. Realizing the significance of the Privacy Act and its impact on the Hospital’s policy of treating Patients as if they were incarcerated prisoners without rights, the decision was made to simply outlaw nearly all electronic devices and storage media that were owned by Patients.
Indeed, since Coalinga State Hospital opened in 2005, only seventeen patients have been convicted of possession of child pornography out of a total number of 2,387 patients (per a Freedom of Information Act request). Over eleven years, seventeen patients can hardly constitute an “epidemic.” Fewer than 1% of the patients had been convicted.
Armed with this “emergency” administrative law, CSH Director Brandon Price, working with the Fresno County District Attorney, immediately put together a plan to seize the property of CSH patients.
On January 16, 2018, CSH posted a letter from the office of Lisa A. Smittcamp, Fresno County District Attorney, and authored by Senior Deputy District Attorney, Gregory Anderson, addressed to all patients, staff and law enforcement at Coalinga State Hospital. The letter announced a new amendment to Title Nine, Section 4350 of the California Code of Regulations, making items previously allowed as patient property illegal [see link, below]. The new legislation was legally supported by recent California case law in regard to Robinson 2017 Cal App Lexis 1164 [see link, below] which ruled “The confiscation of contraband electronic devices by the Department of State Hospitals is legal.” It goes on to describe things which can be possessed by Patients.
Intriguingly, the letter announces an “amnesty/grace period” during which Patients can voluntarily surrender their property without fear of prosecution for possession of child pornography:
“Starting at 9:00 a.m. Friday, January 19, 2018, and running to 4:00 p.m., Sunday, January 28, 2018, Patients will be allowed to dispose of any of the above-prohibited items without concern of being arrested or prosecuted for the possession of the items or anything contained in these items. These items will be destroyed by the Hospital without being reviewed for content. After 4:00 p.m. on Sunday, January 28, 2018, possession of any of the above-prohibited items will be deemed ‘possession of contraband’ and Department of State Hospitals shall take any action under the law it deems necessary, up to and including arrests and criminal prosecution. Patients who are currently in possession of any of the above-listed prohibited items may grant consent permission to the Department of State Hospitals for any of the items to be reviewed for illegal material without file, folder or documentation type limitation other than documents protected by attorney/client privilege. The search will be conducted by the Hospital. If no illegal material is found on the prohibited item, they may be mailed to a location designated by the Patient or stored at the Hospital.”
Under their December 22, 2017 filing for emergency regulations to the Office Of Administrative Law, the Department of State Hospitals quotes a new law, enacted in October of 2015, known as the “California Electronic Privacy Act” which was signed into law by Governor Brown as “California Penal Code Section 1546.1” (2015). It mandates that “Any search of any electronic device is not permitted without permission of the possessor or without a search warrant.” They allege that the new law “further frustrates the ability to enforce facility and public safety.” Their so-called “emergency regulation” is a reaction to this law and is a manipulation by the Department of State Hospitals to circumvent the strongest data protection laws in the country. Their special pleading in arguing for these emergency regulations is clearly that civilly committed sex offenders represent a “crimen exceptum” who should not enjoy the protections of a law that was lauded by privacy advocates and civil libertarians. This amounts to an end-run around the privacy law and was shepherded through an approval process without input from those parties. Their justification is that Detainees in CSH are so dangerous because they have lots of child pornography, stating “It is this revictimization [through the viewing of child pornography] that DSH seeks to prevent as quickly as possible through the adoption of emergency regulations. DSH has been actively working with the Fresno County District Attorney’s office in investigating and prosecuting cases involving child pornography.”
Unmentioned by them is that the overwhelming number of illegal materials found in CSH were found before 2013, with most of it having been brought in by staff of whom none have been prosecuted. Child pornography was also once used by clinicians in the treatment programs although this practice was discontinued before the treatment program’s move from Atascadero to Coalinga. Child pornography has only been found on the devices of a small handful of Detainees – fewer than 1% – at Coalinga. Nevertheless, the Department of State Hospitals has decided that they will simply eliminate the possession of nearly all electronic devices as a policy going forward in response to the protections afforded by the Electronic Privacy Act. In addition to the electronics, the possession of more than thirty commercially available CDs, DVDs, or Blu-Ray disks are no longer allowed. Even so, many of the patients have now had ALL of their disks confiscated.
_____
Coalinga State Hospital, “NOTICE OF EMERGENCY AMENDMENTS AND FINDING OF EMERGENCY, Regulations for Electronic Patient Property.” December 12, 2017.
[ http://dsh.ca.gov/Publications/docs/Regulations/2017_12_22/NoticeRevisionElectronicPatientProperty.pdf ]
Office of Administrative Law, “NOTICE OF APPROVAL OF EMERGENCY REGULATORY ACTION, Section 4350 of the California Code of Regulations.” January 11, 2018
[ http://dsh.ca.gov/Publications/docs/Regulations/2017_12_22/OALapproval.pdf ]
California Electronic Privacy Act:
“California Electronic Privacy Act, California Penal Code Section 1546.1” [ http://codes.findlaw.com/ca/penal-code/pen-sect-1546-1.html ]
“So What’s in the California Electronic Communications Privacy Act?” [ https://lawfareblog.com/so-whats-california-electronic-communications-privacy-act ]
“CALIFORNIA NOW HAS THE NATION’S BEST DIGITAL PRIVACY LAW” [ https://www.wired.com/2015/10/california-now-nations-best-digital-privacy-law ]
==========
Their special pleading in arguing for these emergency regulations is clearly that civilly committed sex offenders represent a “crimen exceptum” who should not enjoy the protections of a law that was lauded by privacy advocates and civil libertarians.
==========
Scary how this mimics the registration scheme of circumventing “involuntary servitude” upon a free person. Both cases using fear as the reason (epidemic fear), when in truth rates are far, far minuscule – 1% or less for both the Coalinga patients and the CASOMB reporting.
This was a pretty interesting debate and congrats to Emily Horowitz for persuasively winning the votes to her win. Only paranoid and unreasonable people would consider a registry.
https://floridaactioncommittee.org/overwhelming-win-for-emily-horowitz-in-yesterdays-debate-on-abolishing-the-sex-offender-registry/
If any one can see any fallacies in my Memorandum feel free to comment. Tomorrow 10 am is the big day. Here is my latest draft.
https://gofile.io/?c=crbkC2
Definitely a little nervous about tomorrow.
@ Looking for insight,
Amen ta That
wow I just put that on gofile and checked it to be sure it was a good link and now I’m ar school and it appears to be no good. Damnit. Sorry man I will have to wait untill I get home unless AJ or Chris see this and can post it for me.
Here people. A link to my site where you can view the latest, including the Memorandum and Prep for Oral arguments.
http://mllkeys20112011.wixsite.com/mysite
Sorry about the other link, I don’t know what’s going on with Gofile but whatever.
So I wonder will anyone from on here or relevant show up??? 10 am people, Federal courthouse, Sacramento room 26. Guess we’ll see.
Man wtf is wrong with that lady in the debate. This lady straight lost her mind and definitely doesn’t understand what a debate is talking for five or ten minutes about Nasser. Blaming Pen State and everyone else. What the h*&^&% does that have to do with registries? Absolutely Nothing. Irrelevant. This lady has some severe mental disability, Stupid fake unreliable irrelevant studies 1 in blah blah victim of sex abuse, under reporting blah blah. Are these people just on auto pilot? Are they some kind of government robot or something> Same worthless crap spouted over and over.
That was an interesting debate. Every time the lady stated this study or that study I wish Emily would have said whoa wait a minute, stop, cite them. Everything the lady stated was conjecture, speculation, personal perspectives. No evidence of anything. I tell you what, that shi&**&&*^ isn’t going to fly with me. I will vehemently object and demand they cite their studies and that they are by government agencies where there determinations can not be refutable or even questionable (this is what the AG even stated). Reasonably relied upon evidence, not speculations. Nice job though.
This is from the AG’s own words.
“The contents of the referenced article (or study) are not the proper subject of judicial notice, because they are not “generally known” and cannot be “accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably questioned.” Fed. R. Evid. Rule 201(b).
Burnt, irrelevant and speculatory.
“MISSING SEX OFFENDER” “87-year old Roger Whaley has removed his G-P-S monitoring device.”
Run Roger, run!! This is a 2018 version of “Thelma and Louise.” Without the Louise or the bonding. But still… I know who I’m rootin’ for!
I say we all go and offer our comments of support.
[ http://knoxradio.com/news/local/missing-sex-offender ]
I’m really nervous about the outcome of Mike R’s Pro-Se oral arguments against the request to dismiss his lawsuit.
This will be a big test to see if a good Pro-Se challenge against an all-powerful Attorney General with tons of legal resources can even stand a chance. I say it is a “good” Pro-Se because of the amount of research Mike has done for years on this, and the help he has gotten from people on here, even though not from any attorneys. On the plus side, by not using attorneys, his attack comes from a fresh perspective and not just re-used arguments that the other side is already well prepared for.
Best of luck Mike R, we are all counting on you, and you should be in the courtroom right now.
Little summary here. The Judge did showed real concern over the attacks on my wife and I and asked the AG “so no matter where Plaintiff moves he will face these kinds of threats of violence and harassment”. She was really reaming the AG on the Millard case. The AG stated the court is bound by CA case law and Smith and the judge referred to Millard and pointed out that they went against case law so why shouldn’t this court consider it. Beautiful, AG had no response and I could tell it irritated the judge even more that the AG didn’t know details of the case, or any other of the cases, but just regurgitated Smith and Elk shoulder are controlling. It was really cool when the judge was reaming the AG on her Motion to dismiss. Told the AG that the court traditionally disfavors Motions to dismiss, especially in Pro SE Complaints and got on the AG about why she needed to file a separate Motion to dismiss in the future and the court “REALLY” (I put all caps because the judge was very condescending (if that’s the right word) to the AG, expressed she was very upset anyway) doesn’t like multiple Motions to dismiss as it complicates the case for Plaintiff and delays disposition of the case unnecessarily. Of course once again the AG had absolutely no rebuttal and didn’t say a word about it, just sat there and took it. Absolutely loved it. We’ll see what happens but from the concerns the judge raised without even reading my Memorandum yet was very encouraging. I have to admit (not just being vain) but I did a hell of a job people. Never faltered, answered every question completely and eloquently, really hit on the main issues, although we didn’t get to the recidivism or efficacy issues simply because this wasn’t the proper venue to discuss detailed arguable facts. But I did read off the summary of all the effects and the judge stated that she, and a district court judge presiding over her, will consider my Memorandum and all the evidence when weighing her decision, so I had to go with my gut and not push the issues during Oral and let it stand in my Memorandum. The judge can read my Memo at her own leisure and the AG won’t even be able to comment or dispute until after the decision on the Motion to Dismiss. So the judge stated that we should have her decision within a week.
Thanks for all the support people, it is really encouraging. About dressing up oh yeah had a custom tailored suit from mens wharehouse, looked very professional, it cost me a little over a hundred bucks because I ordered it online. Normally $700,
My charge ( 311.11(a) ) has been reduced to misdomeanor. I am now looking to leave U.S. for the civilized world. My question is multiple:
1. What is considered the “friendliest” country to reside. I speak German fluently, and have distant relatives there, so that is very high on my list. But can pretty much accept anywhere.
2. If living overseas, does the 10 yr. Statute still apply? In other words, can I petition to be removed off federal list. Or do I need to reside stateside to be eligible. My long range plan is to move back to Thailand ( I speak Thai as well) , live in my home , get my business back, and rebuild my life. But I don’t want the burden if the registry or the collateral crap that it drags around with it.
I currently reside in California, and understand the requirements for state dismissal. No legal mind I have contacted wants to bother with this ( no money in it for them ). Hoping an expat reading this can give some advice.
Way to go Mike R. I’m happy for you! A classic David vs Goliath story. Good luck and keep us posted.
I can’t recall if I or someone else ever posted this paper, but it’s a good read, even if a bit longer: “The Evolution of Unconstitutionality in Sex Offender Registration Laws” (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID2025074_code359075.pdf?abstractid=1916726&mirid=1). Some good analysis (from 2012, no less) of where things were headed legally, and also touches on the difficulty of pursuing a SDP claim in court.
@mike r: This paper is chock full of good court cases and citations, including picking at Smith.
You can get a custom suit from online becuase they send it the store where you go pick it up and pay them about $30 to tailor it. Realy nice CK suit. I was really suprised, I got the entire suit, another beautiful blazer along with it and all tailored for about $160 all together. Couldn’t beat it. I have to admit my wife and I looked really good. lol..
I was really suprised how much emphasis the judge put on the out of jurisdiction Millard case. But it is sound reasoning and as the judge told the AG was a good example of a district court veering from precedent. She actually clocked the AG when the AG repeated several times that the court was bound by Smith and Elk Shoulder. After stating it a couple times the judge straight told her the court can consider the evidence and come to its own conclusions regardless of precendents. Loved it, shut the AG up on that issue.
Here’s a case from the 9th that points to there being some conditions (mandatory registry checks by licensing agencies) where MLs meet the “stigma-plus” test and require Due Process procedures: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1276651/humphries-v-county-of-los-angeles/. Though SCOTUS reversed the decision, that reversal was about a county or municipality being sued under a particular Federal Law. The stigma-plus analysis and rationale stands…SCOTUS made no mention of it whatsoever.
When reading the case, save some time and skip down to “II. Analysis”–or if familiar with stigma-plus, skip to “b. Plus”. When reading, replace “CARNA” with “SORA” or “SORNA”.