Comments that are not specific to a certain post should go here, for the month of April 2018. Contributions should relate to the cause and goals of this organization and please, keep it courteous and civil.
Related posts
-
Senators call for audit of TSA’s facial recognition tech as use expands in airports | The Record from Recorded Future News
Source: therecord.media 11/22/24 A bipartisan group of 12 senators on Wednesday sent the Department of Homeland... -
-
SORNA Case Advances in Federal Court; PLF Files Motion for Summary Judgment
The Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) filed a motion for summary judgment on November 18 in its...
She does appear to make an effort but falls short by not including case law or empirical or factual evidence. It doesn’t really look like she is being dishonest but it appears she is just incompetent and inexperienced and does not care if she hurts future litigation. IDK, she almost makes good arguments but than falls short in not providing enough facts. I may be wrong since I am not an attorney but Snyder sure as hell used all kinds of empirical evidence, case law, and facts.
AJ, Chris, or anyone, can you provide a link to the actual briefs filed by Doe’s ?? I would truly like to read them….
So I sent that lawyer another email.
If you truly wish to help registrants than you will dismiss your class action and file an as-applied challenge using Snyder as a boilerplate and include an extensive record of empirical and acedemic evidence such as was provided in Snyder….I can provide you with extensive evidence in general but you will have to research Texas applications. I apologize for the scathing email I sent you but I am very concerned when it comes to bad precedents.
What to Teach Kids Instead of ‘Stranger Danger’
https://offspring.lifehacker.com/what-to-teach-kids-instead-of-stranger-danger-1824126614
“First, emphasizing stranger danger overlooks a more pressing problem. While viscerally disturbing, child abduction by strangers is exceedingly rare. What’s true is that 90% percent of the harm done to children is by people they already know.
“Telling kids not to talk to strangers fails to protect children at the most basic level,” writes early childhood expert Heather Shumaker in The Daily Beast. “Children are most often harmed by friends and family. This unsettling statistic is one we wish would go away. It’s far more convenient to blame the faceless stranger than to confront domestic violence, incest, and other abuse.”
Well, well, there is the 90% stat again of people the child will already know… Looking inward is uncomfortable so people find blame elsewhere.
@AJ. That’s what I want to read, the original complaint. I want to know how powerful it is and how thorough. I might if already read it but I would like to read it.
AJ, you might like this site if you have not already seen it. It is the complete filings for the class action internet identifier case. I am still reading because I really think I need to file for a TRO on one issue out of my case that is causing irreparable and immediate harm that cannot continue and can not be denied. I do not want to discuss it on here. Anyways here is this site.
https://www.aclunc.org/our-work/legal-docket/doe-v-harris-internet-free-speech
What we are up against is group think. No matter what we do, it’s wrong. What we need to find are other groups present or past, that have faced the wall of group think and found out how to exploit the cracks in it not having the power to blow it up all at once. There are a lot of chinks in the fortifications but we tend to attack the biggest and most solidly obvious bulwarks first — it’s human nature — like going to the top dog in the enemy’s camp, Jerry Brown, and asking for mercy, or having one big successful case that blows it all up. We are a lot of Don Quixotes born out of desparation.
I think this will shed light on my issue.
CA Family Code § 3030 et seq. prohibits registrants, and those with whom the registrant cohabits, from having physical or legal custody of, or even unsupervised visitation with, a minor child, even if the minor is the registrant’s child, grandchild.
(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.”
Moore v. City of East Cleveland
“This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, 414 U. S. 632, 414 U. S. 639-640 (1974). A host of cases, tracing their lineage to Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U. S. 390, 262 U. S. 399-401 (1923), and Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510, 268 U. S. 534-535 (1925), have consistently acknowledged a “private realm of family life which the state cannot enter.” Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U. S. 158, 321 U. S. 166 (1944). See, e.g., Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113, 410 U. S. 152-153 (1973); Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U. S. 205, 406 U. S. 231-233 (1972); Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U. S. 645, 405 U. S. 651 (1972); Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U. S. 629, 390 U. S. 639 (1968); Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479 (1965); id. at 381 U. S. 495-496 (Goldberg, J., concurring); id. at 381 U. S. 502-503 (WHITE, J., concurring); Poe v. Ullman, 367 U. S. 497, 367 U. S. 542-544, 367 U. S. 549-553 (1961) (Harlan, J., dissenting); cf. Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, 388 U. S. 12 (1967); May v. Anderson, 345 U. S. 528, 345 U. S. 533 (1953); Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U. S. 535, 316 U. S. 541 (1942). Of course, the family is not beyond regulation. See Prince v. Massachusetts, supra at 321 U. S. 166. But when the government intrudes on choices concerning family living arrangements, this Court must examine carefully the importance of the governmental interests advanced and the extent to which they are served by the challenged regulation. See Poe v. Ullman, supra at 367 U. S. 554 (Harlan, J., dissenting).
Ours is by no means a tradition limited to respect for the bonds uniting the members of the nuclear family. The tradition of uncles, aunts, cousins, and especially grandparents sharing a household along with parents and children has roots equally venerable and equally deserving of constitutional recognition. [Footnote 14] Over the years, millions
Page 431 U. S. 505
of our citizens have grown up in just such an environment, and most, surely, have profited from it. Even if conditions of modern society have brought about a decline in extended family households, they have not erased the accumulated wisdom of civilization, gained over the centuries and honored throughout our history, that supports a larger conception of the family. Out of choice, necessity, or a sense of family responsibility, it has been common for close relatives to draw together and participate in the duties and the satisfactions of a common home. Decisions concerning childrearing, which Yoder, Meyer, Pierce and other cases have recognized as entitled to constitutional protection, long have been shared with grandparents or other relatives who occupy the same household — indeed who may take on major responsibility for the rearing of the children. [Footnote 15] Especially in times of adversity, such as the death of a spouse or economic need, the broader family has tended to come together for mutual sustenance and to maintain or rebuild a secure home life. This is apparently what happened here. [Footnote 16].
Janice and team should jump on this issue. It cannot continue….
Somebody needs to file a TRO or I guess I am going to have to do it in state court. This is a much more major issue than the Internet identifier issue but has received no attention. WHY ??????????????????
Yeah AJ, I found where they cite the Hanson study in that link I provided…..Excellent….
Man that is crazy that all that recidivism evidence was not even mentioned in either of the court orders but it sure gives me my citations that I was looking for to the Hanson declaration.
Man that case has many good citations and quotes that can apply to RSO’s.
Euclid held that land use regulations violate the Due Process Clause if they are “clearly arbitrary and unreasonable, having no substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare.” 272 U.S. at 272 U. S. 395. See Nectow v. Cambridge, 277 U. S. 183, 277 U. S. 188 (1928). Later cases have emphasized that the general welfare is not to be narrowly understood; it embraces a broad range of governmental purposes. See Berman v. Parker, 348 U. S. 26 (1954). But our cases have not departed from the requirement that the government’s chosen means must rationally further some legitimate state purpose.
Also this is where the following statement came from that I used in my complaint.
“. . . [T]he full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution. This ‘liberty’ is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property; the freedom of speech, press, and religion; the right to keep and bear arms; the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on. It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints, . . .
Although I left out the following because I did not know where this came from until now.
…and which also recognizes what a reasonable and sensitive judgment must, that certain interests require particularly careful scrutiny of the state needs asserted to justify their abridgment.”
Check out this quote which states that the courts must refer to and respect what history and the evolution of our country has taught throughout its history, i.e. slavery, women’s suffrage, Japanese internment camps, going all the way back to the beginning of CA history with the foreign tax on the non-whites during the gold rush. At least that is how I am reading that…
“Understanding those reasons requires careful attention to this Court’s function under the Due Process Clause. Mr. Justice Harlan described it eloquently:
“Due process has not been reduced to any formula; its content cannot be determined by reference to any code. The best that can be said is that through the course of this Court’s decisions it has represented the balance which our Nation, built upon postulates of respect for the liberty of the individual, has struck between that liberty and the demands of organized society. If the supplying of content to this Constitutional concept has of necessity been a rational process, it certainly has not been one where judges have felt free to roam where unguided speculation might take them. The balance of which I speak is the balance struck by this country, having regard to what history teaches are the traditions from which it developed, as well as the traditions from which it broke. That tradition is a living thing. A decision of this Court which radically departs from it could not long survive, while a decision which builds on what has survived is likely to be sound. [Footnote 8] No formula could serve as a substitute, in this area, for judgment and restraint. ” Page 431 U. S. 502
This is exactly what is happening here and the justice was exactly right, any decision that parts from what history has already taught us will not survive if our constitution still has any meaning at all….Very powerful case…….
Oh here is the link for anyone interested..
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/431/494/case.html
i don’t understand this. I had three minor children and the only issue I ever had was with DCFS and Family Court at time of arrest. I gained all my parental rights back with in 6 months of my arrest. Even AFTER felony conviction my parental rights were never an issue.
Yes, but just because LE or anyone else is not smart enough or knowledgeable enough of their own codes, so therefore may or may not enforce it, does not make it inconsequential or irrelevant. It “is” the law in CA……….
Hi Group,
I was placed in the lawsuit in Texas and sorry I see lot of reviews. I just got this in from another attorney. This is not the attorney who filed the lawsuit another one.. maybe some help here reading this.
I am aware of the legal theory that applying retroactive registration laws to plea-bargain cases constitutes a breach of the plea contract. I am not aware, however, of much success with the claim. Indeed, courts often refuse to address it altogether. In Cooper v. Thaler, 2011 WL 1230278 (S.D. Tex., March 30, 2011), for example, Cooper sought habeas corpus relief on the basis that his guilty plea was breached because retroactive statutes were later applied to him. The Southern District of Texas explained that “although Cooper attempts to cast his primary claim as a breach of his 1982 plea agreement, his central argument is that the State of Texas retroactively imposed restrictive conditions of supervised release for sex offenders in violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause.” And as to that argument, I’m afraid it’s fairly well-settled that sex offender registration programs like Chapter 62 may be applied retroactively to sex offenders. See Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84, 93, 105-06, 123 S.Ct. 1140, 155 L.Ed.2d 164 (2003) (upholding Alaska’s retroactive application of sex offender registration requirements); Reynolds v. State, 423 S.W.3d 377, 382 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014)(“The plain meaning of [the 2005 amendments] is simply that the amendments to the law apply to those with a reportable conviction [or adjudication] that occurred on or after September 1, 1970[.]” The savings clause language present in the earlier statutes was deleted by the Legislature.); Rodriguez v. State, 93 S.W.3d 60, 79 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (rejecting ex post facto challenges to the SORP statute, and upholding the constitutionality of the 1997 amendments to sex-offender registration statute because they were civil and remedial in nature, and not so punitive as to categorize them as penal in nature).
Familial relationships is a well rooted fundamental right (I provided all the case law) that is being abridged by interfering in my custodial or visitation of my grandchild that is happening at this very moment. This is causing tremendous irreparable harm to my grandson, my wife, and myself. I cannot take my grandson to the movies, a park, or even have him at my house without constant supervision other than someone who lives with me. This is causing a great divide and is emotionally devastating to both my wife and myself and my grandson by preventing me or my wife from bonding with and having a familial relationship with him. This is undoubtedly a blatant violation and encroachment into my family affairs. I do not believe family court would be the place to handle this……………
Here is the actual language of the statute…….
California Family Code § 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, (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.”
I guess to get help (if even then) it might take getting my grandson ripped away from his grandmother and grandfather at some point by the cops and placed into a receiving home until their parents pick them up, I guess that is how it would work as they did this to my son when he was about 8 because my ex was doing doing something, I cannot even remember what it was about but it took me two days to get my kid back from them after an extensive confrontation that I created until the cops were called because I was not leaving without my son and having him standing on the other side of the door screaming he wants to go home with his dad. This could be devastating for my grandson and very traumatic at his age as well as the impact it would have on my wife or my son and his GF.
Just because it hasn’t happened or someone says it wont doesn’t mean anything to me. The law is what the law is….
In a different issue, I cannot seem to find any examples of how to answer or format an answer to the status conference order, if the court grants the motion to dismiss and refuses to accept my evidence on recidivism and other gov docs then I have to figure out how to introduce it correctly at the status conference since it appears I can I just have to do it another way. I am sure the AG will object so we will not be able to do a joint report since we will not agree. I am not even sure how it works in that sutuation.
Any help with actual examples would be great.
Thanks AJ I guess I should’ve looked at it closer.
AJ or anyone I need help finding this case. Sounds to good to be true. If they cannot apply registration to someone on parole for a conviction older than fifteen years then I really do not see how it can hold water for people not on paper. If this is solid case law and has not been overturned this could be incredibly important.
And what is this crap about tiers in 2011?
United States v. Moore, 449 Fed. Appx.
677 (9th Cir. 2011) (probation condition requiring registration for a tier I offender more than 15 years after the conviction was invalid)
Suit targets WL (Windsor Locks, CT) ban on sex offenders in public places
http://www.journalinquirer.com/connecticut_and_region/suit-targets-wl-ban-on-sex-offenders-in-public-places/article_35268b7a-38ea-11e8-a80a-e3b77213783e.html
I need help interpreting this new bill. Just briefly did I hear about it on ABC7 News for Los Angeles. Is this only for federal cases, and does it include sex offenses? They were mentioning that some people might be eligible to get an automatic expungement rather than paying a ton of money to get it through an attorney. I have to get to work and can’t really research today. This is the Bill H.R.3578 – Expungement Act of 2017.
I think we should start wearing green triangles in our registration photos like the Nazi’s made all the criminals wear. it would be a good protest if we could unify. It would have to be up around your collar area so it was visible in the photos.