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...
You maybe right though 290 with the green badge since most of the lames at registration would probably not even know what it is so they wouldn’t complain. I know it’s our right to wear what we want but you know how they are, they can be real pricks if they want to and make you fight for your life if they decide they want to challenge you on it and refuse to register you. Although you never know unless you do it since some of the agents that I have had have seemed very empathetic to my situation…
Seem to have had my other post deleted or something but Yes I totally agree with the green badges and let me re-frame this as it might have been the reason for deletion.. There is also the star that we can wear which many people would know exactly what it means. I think it is one of the best ideas I have read on here in a while…….
Today Backpage.com. Tomorrow WashingtonPost.com, AP, UPI?
https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/6/17207838/backpage-com-seized-website-down-fbi
A little one-sided (zero criticism of Russian prostitution), but great observations of our our broken western world.
The Sexual Revolution Devours Its Own Children In The West – Top Russian Journo Ridicules Hollywood
https://www.liveleak.com/view?t=XEAr_1522940921&p=1
NPS, AlexO, and Mike R,
Look at what I found online? It’s a 1958 case about 1203.4 and the registry.
Link: https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2d/160/38.html
———————————
@ Mike R,
Here’s a quote for you with respect to Involuntary Servitude, Paragraph 14, sentences 3 and 4:
===
But that interpretation, those rulings and those amendments do not affect our problem save to emphasize, by contrast, the fact that the “penalties and disabilities” of the registration and reregistration requirements of section 290 are criminal in character. To illustrate, until the enactment of section 290, a person for the first time violating subdivisions (1) or (2) of section 311, or subdivision (5) of section 647, or subdivision (1) of section 647a of the Penal Code, incurred the penalty of a fine not exceeding $500 or imprisonment in the county jail for not more than six months, or both. Section 290 added a life sentence of compulsory police registration [160 Cal. App. 2d 45] and reregistration. That, clearly, is the imposition of a criminal penalty in the strictest and narrowest sense of that term.
===
From the courts itself stating registration and re-registration are compulsory! But back in 1958, they considered the registry as punishment. Actually, if you utilize Michigan’s Snyder case, they state that in-person registration is a disability.
But since the AG will state that 2003 Smith v Doe categorized the registry as regulatory, then it cannot be qualified as punishment. That’s great! – with respect to the Involuntary Servitude. Keyword here is the description “compulsory” police registration and re-registration!
Also, remember how the AG was trying to manipulate that the registry wasn’t “compulsory”? Well, 290 was and has always been defined as “compulsory police registration and re-registration”. But if the AG is calling the registry regulatory, then the registry now violates Involuntary Servitude as it prohibited unless to punish a crime. The registry is triggered by a conviction. The registry was punishment in CA until 2003 Smith v Doe called the registry regulatory. Because the registry is imposed on free citizens, the “compulsory police registration and re-registration” along with all the new regulations, restrictions, and compliance checks, the registry now violates the CA and US Constitution of Involuntary Servitude.
But if you read before “compulsory police registration”, then you’ll notice the conversation is about 290 registration and re-registration are criminal in character.
Thus, today’s regulatory scheme is designating free citizens to be characterized as criminals, but are no longer under custody. Those are conflicting ideas. You fail to register and that’s a criminal act – which it is.
————————-
@ NPS and AlexO,
Here’s a few snippets to smile upon:
Paragraphs 17 and 18:
====
In short, the fair intendment of these two statutes when read together is that conviction denotes a need for registration and police surveillance when the convicted person is allowed to return to society, whether after serving a sentence or upon the granting of parole or when released upon probation prior to the imposition or the execution of a sentence of imprisonment. But in the case of the probationer who demonstrates his ability to go straight, upon his own, by faithfully fulfilling all of the terms and conditions of his probation, the need for further surveillance and registration terminates upon his release pursuant to the sanction of section 1203.4. fn. *
[4] A word should be said concerning the state’s contention that section 290 should prevail upon the theory that it is a special and 1203.4 is a general statute. They are not in that [160 Cal. App. 2d 46] category. They do not meet the test for the rule which the state invokes, declared in In re Williamson, 43 Cal. 2d 651, 654 [276 P.2d 593], in these words: ” ‘It is the general rule that where the general statute standing alone would include the same matter as the special act, and thus conflict with it, the special act will be considered as an exception to the general statute …’ ” Section 1203.4 deals with all probationers, including those who have committed none of the offenses mentioned in section 290. In addition, section 290 applies to some convicted persons who are ineligible for probation as well as to some who are eligible. Clearly, the rule invoked does not apply.
====
Paragraph 19, sentence 7:
====
Section 1203.4, because it deals with the probationer, has reference to his status as a convicted person during the period of suspension of imposition or execution of sentence.
====
This means the conviction only exists during the probation period (if the convicted person successfully completed probation)! It doesn’t exist anywhere else.
Paragraph 15 and 16 (I added the bracket [1203.4 v 1203.4 registrant] for clarification):
====
Accordingly, we have a seeming conflict between these two statutes. Section 1203.4 releases “thereafter” all penalties and disabilities. Section 290 by imposing the continuing duty to reregister upon effecting a change of address does not expressly recognize any such release. Does section 290, as the later enactment, prevail? We think not.
A means of reconciling this conflict [1203.4 vs 1203.4 registrant] is furnished by the separate and distinct policies which these two statutes were respectively designed to effectuate. One deals with probation and is designed to foster rehabilitation by giving the probationer an opportunity to erase for the future the legal consequences which normally flow from a conviction. The other requires registration of a person convicted of any of the offenses enumerated, upon the theory it would seem that such offenders are apt to repeat and therefore should be kept under close police surveillance at all times. It is a fair inference that an offender found deserving of probation is not likely to be in need of further police surveillance if he responds to the confidence reposed in him as a probationer and faithfully fulfills the terms and conditions of his probation, designed to impress upon him a keen awareness of his obligations to society and induce him to exert every effort to develop and prove his ability to meet and discharge those obligations and remain at large without further police surveillance.
====
Basically, the courts attacked the registry with respect to re-offending and risk assessment. If you qualify for 1203.4, then you’re already deemed a low risk.
Now, let’s review PC 290.007:
“Any person required to register pursuant to any provision of the Act shall register in accordance with the Act, regardless of whether the person’s conviction has been dismissed pursuant to Section 1203.4 , unless the person obtains a certificate of rehabilitation and is entitled to relief from registration pursuant to Section 290.5 .”
So “disregarding” 1203.4 serves to be retributive than rehabilitative as well as contradicts what this court’s case stated about it (paragraphs 1 and 2):
====
Question: Does the respondent court have jurisdiction to proceed with the trial of petitioner upon a complaint that charges a violation of section 290 of the Penal Code (failure to report a change of address) despite the fact that prior to this alleged failure the conviction (violation of Pen. Code, § 288a) upon which the section 290 charge is based was set aside and petitioner “released from all penalties and disabilities” pursuant to the provisions of section 1203.4 of the Penal Code? fn. *
In such a state of facts does such a complaint charge the violation of a public offense? Are the registration requirements of section 290 among the “all penalties and disabilities” from which the convicted person is thereafter “released” when, having been granted probation, he fulfills the conditions thereof, as provided in section 1203.4? We think they are, and that the complaint does not charge the violation of a public offense.
====
I don’t see why I simply can’t use this case again, but this time use to show that PC 290.007 violates the US and CA Constitution.
US 14th Amendment sentence 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. (1203.4 registrants are no different from any 1203.4 recipient.)
US 14th Amendment sentence 2: No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. (PC 290.007 is limiting the immunities of a 1203.4 registrant.)
*******************
1203.4 : Remove all penalties and disabilities. (Kelly v. Municipal Court [Civ. No. 18048. First Dist., Div. One. May 2, 1958.] … States a 1203.4 removes a registrant from PC 290. )
CA Constitution Sec 1, Article 1: Inalienable right to pursue and obtain privacy. (PC 290.007 removed the legal path gain privacy. Pushes it further back to the Certificate of Rehabilitation.)
CA Constitution Sec 1, Article 7, subsection (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. (PC 290.007 removes immunities shared by other convicts of 1203.4.)
CA Constitution Sec 1, Article 9: A bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts may not be passed. (PC 290.007 impairs the obligation of contracts provided by 1203.4 as per Kelly v Municipal Court.)
++++++++++++++++++
Sorry about the length, but I just found this case! And this case was already won by a registrant in the state of California stating 1203.4 removes you from the registry! All we have to do now is show that PC 290.007 violates 1203.4 that was already argued and won in the Kelly v Municipal Court case, “removed from all penalties and disabilities”!
I really don’t know what to say? I’m really giddy right now.
this is interesting…. looks like a court screwed up for once…
Bad if the guy really did this stuff…
but then again 300 years ? really ?… give him 60 he wont get out…
http://kfor.com/2018/03/01/man-sentenced-to-300-years-in-prison-for-child-sex-crimes-released-on-technicality/
I am not even sure what to say about this case. It seems to be an Incredible find New Person…That appears, or at least appears to be, an appeal court even though it states v municipal court…I do not know, AJ may be able to clear that up. I wonder is there any post litigation on this issue or in that case???? It does describe pains and penalties pretty straight forward I just do not know how much water that case holds being so old but it surely brings into question issues about punishment and especially for you New that deals with your 1203 issue….No matter what press forward with learning how to and following thru with a pro se case. No one else is going to do it for you so go after it with all you got man…….For what it is worth, regardless of what you decide to do, any help you need I’m with you all the way, as much as time allows since I am embroiled in my own case and dealing with full time college….Nailing my Political science class. i think the professor is tripping that I know everyone of the SCOTUS justices and have aced every test so far… Love the class….
Check it out concerning the reports and citations out of Millard and the debunking findings.
Although not binding on this court or specific to this case, Plaintiff finds very persuasive the following list of citations and subsequent findings in those citations in determining the intent of the AG’s in that case.
“Letter: Stop Judge Aaron Persky’s coddling of convicted sex offenders
His lenient treatment of Brock Turner is really just one example of his favorable treatment of these dangerous offenders.”
https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/04/08/letter-stop-judge-aaron-perskys-coddling-of-convicted-sex-offenders/
Another joke citation….
“For example, those convicted of molesting boys exhibited a recidivism rate of 35% over 15 years, while convicted rapists exhibited a rate of 24% over the same time period. A.J.R. Harris & R.K. Hanson, Sex Offender Recidivism: A Simple Question, PUBLIC SAFETY CANADA (2004).” pp 6
A.J.R. Harris & R.K. Hanson, Sex Offender Recidivism: A Simple Question,
PUBLIC SAFETY CANADA (2004)
Abstract
“This study examines sexual recidivism, as expressed by new charges or convictions for sexual offences, using the data from 10 follow-up studies of adult male sexual offenders (combined sample of 4,724). Results indicated that most sexual offenders do not re-offend sexually, that first-time sexual offenders are significantly less likely to sexually re-offend than those with previous sexual convictions, and that offenders over the age of 50 are less likely to re-offend than younger offenders. In addition, it was found that the longer offenders remained offence-free in the community the less likely they are to re-offend sexually. [] These results challenge some commonly held beliefs about sexual recidivism and have implications for policies designed to manage the risk posed by convicted sexual offenders” https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/sx-ffndr-rcdvsm/index-en.aspx#a01 [visited on April 7, 2018].
Making the Case for Megan’s Law: A Study in Legislative Rhetoric:
“Clearly, Megan’s Law supporters used rhetoric designed to make opposition to the law politically impossible. They employed a three-part rhetorical strategy that advocates have used previously to push public support for other child protection legislation: typification, statistical manipulation, and melodrama. During the late 1980s, for instance, advocates argued for new stranger child-abduction laws by making these same three claims. First, citing particularly horrible, well-publicized abductions-cases like the Jacob Wetterling incident-they argued that these incidents were typical of the broader abduction problem1 6 Second, they grossly
exaggerated the extent of the crisis, pointing to the high rate of total child abductions (a number which consisted largely of parental kidnappings) as evidence of a massive stranger abduction crisis.” 7 Finally, they described their political struggle as a melodrama: a battle of good (child protectors) versus evil (child abusers).”‘ As a result of this effective rhetoric, activists successfully convinced the public that stranger child abduction was a scourge sweeping the nation.1 9″ pp 362-363. https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1977&context=ilj [visited on April 7,2018].
Most telling is the statement “they continue to ‘believe’ their daughter would still be alive today if they had access to this information.” Plaintiff is very sympathetic to the Kanka’s loss but must nonetheless point out that this is pure speculation, conclusory, and is undoubtedly anecdotal.
So, I have two major questions as soon as I am front of type judge again during the Status Conference: 1) “your honor, do I have a fundamental liberty interest in familial relationships when it comes to the relationship with my own grandchild?; 2) “do I have a fundamental procedural due process right to enter into evidence my supporting documentations I have before this court in the interest of justice and to assist in the speedy expedition of this case and to retain such information for this court’s review as well as for subsequent review?” If the court states no in either case I wish to object on the grounds that I am suffering a procedural due process violation for failure to recognize my material facts that would help expedite the disposition of this case and in the interest of a fair and just judicial process. As far as the familial relationship issue I will let the court of appeals decide that issue but I object to the court assertion that I do not have a fundamental liberty interest in familial relationships with my own grandchild that is being violated by Family Code section 3030 et seq..
I have a question, is it possible to make a discussion about the military UCMJ and how that system collaborates with the registry?
“Convicted sex offender arrested for rape weeks after removal from Megan’s Law website.” Pennsylvania, that is. Well, this was an inevitability. https://www.wpxi.com/news/top-stories/convicted-sex-offender-arrested-for-rape-weeks-after-removal-from-megans-law-website/729786561
“Sex offenders register for a lifetime, but a bill would let some petition for removal” (Missouri)
Also in this bill: “The bill also distinguishes different kinds of sexual offenses, and imposes a lifetime sentence with no eligibility for parole for those who commit a predatory sexual offense.
A predatory sexual offense, as defined in the bill documents, is the offense of statutory rape, statutory sodomy, rape, sodomy, child molestation and sexual abuse all of the first degree, plus child molestation of the second degree. The penalty would be life without parole, which is a possibility for predatory offenders but not mandatory as it would be under this new legislation.”
https://www.columbiamissourian.com/news/state_news/sex-offenders-register-for-a-lifetime-but-a-bill-would/article_4854f698-3c1c-11e8-bbd2-4f7aa65e3c0c.html
I’m not sure if this could apply to the Smith v. Doe case with the “recidivism of sex offenders being frighting and high”, but here is a case where SCOTUS said that using expert opinions based on experience was not as valid as using scientific knowledge or evidence.
I found this info being mentioned due to the many autograph experts that base their opinions on experience and not on scientific evidence by trained forensic examiners that use scientific equipment. Most autograph experts in the sports industry use experts with no scientific experience, only their personal experience in recognizing so called authentic autographs.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/97-1709.ZS.html
KUMHO TIRE CO. V. CARMICHAEL
Kumho Tire moved to exclude Carlson’s testimony on the ground that his methodology failed to satisfy Federal Rule of Evidence 702, which says: “If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact … , a witness qualified as an expert … may testify thereto in the form of an opinion.” Granting the motion (and entering summary judgment for the defendants), the District Court acknowledged that it should act as a reliability “gatekeeper” under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 589, in which this Court held that Rule 702 imposes a special obligation upon a trial judge to ensure that scientific testimony is not only relevant, but reliable. The court noted that Daubert discussed four factors–testing, peer review, error rates, and “acceptability” in the relevant scientific community–which might prove helpful in determining the reliability of a particular scientific theory or technique, id., at 593—594, and found that those factors argued against the reliability of Carlson’s methodology. In reversing, the Eleventh Circuit held that the District Court had erred as a matter of law in applying Daubert. Believing that Daubert was limited to the scientific context, the court held that the Daubert factors did not apply to Carlson’s testimony, which it characterized as skill- or experience-based.
This might not help us with SCOTUS since they accepted the “Frightening and High” testimony, but then again, it cant hurt to bring up the standard they set in this case in regard to expert testimony.
Good contribution Lake, it is nice to see you get in the fight. I know you have legal talent as you have stated and you are smart so any insight and citations like that help…..You never know what we might be able to use and believe me I document everything. Look at the following which blows their “sex offenders sexually re-offend four times higher than other criminals.”
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation 2010 Adult Institutions Outcome Evaluation Report “Figure and Table 11 show that for all releases, the three-year recidivism rate for flagged sex offenders is 3.1 percentage points lower than nonflagged offenders. First-release flagged sex offenders have a lower recidivism rate than nonflagged offenders (5.0 percentage points) while re-release flagged sex offenders also have a lower recidivism rate than those offenders who were re-released without a sex registration flag (2.1 percentage points).” [Ibid].
Therefore, refuting the comparative rate assertions that released sex offenders sexually recidivate at four times higher the rate as non-sex offenders. https://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Adult_Research_Branch/Research_Documents/ARB_FY0506_Outcome_Evaluation_Report.pdf [visited April 4, 2018]. Complaint pp 43 ¶ 176.
I just read that after state registration in Maine the feds sent a form to the registrant regarding SORNA travel. It said any travel plan out of state for any reason must be sent to the board. Has anyone heard of this?
Okay so check it out. I believe this is a game changer (hate the statement but is apropos here).
Judicial Notice:
Under Federal Rules of Evidence > Article II. Judicial Notice > Rule 201 (b) (2), (d) . Plaintiff respectfully request the court take judicial notice of the following:
Plaintiff is including citations and findings and recommendations from multiple state administrative agencies such as California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) as well as multiple Department of Corrections and other administrative bodies statutorily tasked with scientifically conducting, evaluating, and reporting statistical analysis of recidivism and the efficacy of the sex offender registration statutes (these citations are all from governmental administrative agencies’ websites (just as the court’s recognition of the Megan’s Law Website for judicial review purposes) and are “public record from an administrative body of the type subject to judicial notice” and can be reasonably relied upon by the court. Id. Rule (b)(2)). See Magistrates Findings and Recommendations pp 5 at 5-7. Also see, “Courts may take judicial notice of some public records, including the records and reports of administrative bodies.” U.S. v. Richie, 342 F.3d 903, 909 (9th Cir. 2003) (internal quotations omitted) (emphasis added).
Plaintiff is also including Attorneys General’s (AG) and a Solicitor General’s citations from Colorado’s Millard v. Rankin. Which Plaintiff can reasonably infer that these are reasonably reliable reports that the court can take judicial notice of. Id. Rule (b)(2). Also, Plaintiff includes for judicial review Dr. Karl Hanson’s Declaration from California’s Doe v. Harris 772 F.3d 563, 572 (9th Cir. 2014). Id. Rule (b)(1) and (b)(2).
These reports and findings are crucial to the questions of law in many of Plaintiff’s claims in his Complaint. The justification and the efficacy issues are integral to Plaintiff’s case. Plaintiff’s substantive due process claims rely heavily on such facts as presented. Plaintiff’s punitive intent and effects rely heavily on such facts. All these facts are evidence for this and subsequent court review. If the court refuses to take judicial notice of any of the following adjudicative facts Plaintiff request hearing pursuant to Id. Rule 201 (e).
This is big I think and I cannot believe no attorney has done this. This puts an end to the discussion of erroneous misinformation about sex offender recidivism rates as well as the efficacy issues once and for all…..
Here is the draft…Incredible if I don’t say so myself..LOLLLLLL
https://ufile.io/qhf3l
“Fake recidivism numbers!”
From Bill Dobbs:
Fake recidivism numbers: Illinois has a law banishing individuals on the sex offense registry from public parks. In 2017 an Illinois appeals court struck down the statute, saying “it bears no reasonable relationship to protecting the public.” Now comes the Illinois Supreme Court with a unanimous ruling *upholding* the park ban. Fake recidivism numbers don’t seem to bother the court much as fear and spinelessness triumph over reason! Kudos to Marc Pepitone and his legal eagle Katherine Strohl for waging this fight. Stay tuned, one of the claims has been sent to a lower court and the litigation is expected to continue. There’s a link below to the decision. Jacob Sullum has an excellent report and analysis for Reason.com, have a look! -Bill Dobbs, The Dobbs Wire info@thedobbswire.com
Reason | Apr. 11, 1018
Writing Sex Offender Laws Based on Fake Recidivism Numbers Is Rational, Court Says
The Illinois Supreme Court unanimously upholds a law banning sex offenders from public parks.
By Jacob Sullum
Last week the Illinois Supreme Court upheld a state law banning sex offenders from public parks, overturning a 2017 appeals court ruling that deemed the statute “unconstitutional on its face because it bears no reasonable relationship to protecting the public.”
In reaching that conclusion, the justices relied on alarming claims about recidivism among sex offenders, even while acknowledging that the claims have been discredited. The decision, written by Justice Mary Jane Theis, shows how fear overrides logic in dealing with sex offenders and how toothless “rational basis” review can be, allowing legislators not only to draw their own judgments but to invent their own facts.
In this case, both the legislature and the judiciary have assumed crucial facts that simply are not true, as far as we can tell based on all of the research that has been done during the last few decades. Theis is saying laws should nevertheless be written and upheld based on those demonstrably false assumptions until legislators decide to gather data. MORE:
https://reason.com/blog/2018/04/11/court-says-relying-on-fake-recidivism-nu
People v. Pepitone
Illiniois Supreme Court
Opinion and decision April 5, 2018
http://www.illinoiscourts.gov/Opinions/SupremeCourt/2018/122034.pdf
MLK was actually incorrect when he stated that: “Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.”
Yeah, that strategy would never, ever work in our favor. We’ve been forced to relinquish our privacy, safety and security under threat of incarceration. How can we love our elected officials that use weaponized hatred against us?
I actually have pity, NOT love, for LEOs, lawmakers and judges because they’re not fighting the good fight they think they are fighting us every step of the way upholding Megan’s law.
I’m thinking of moving to Brentwood, in Contra Costa co. Does anyone know anything about how It is to live there? What I mean is how does LE treat people there ( compliance checks, notifie neighbors when you move in, etc) or any over zealous citizens with pitch forks? We live in the South Bay now and commute up there several times a week to visit our grand kids and the drive is getting kind of old! We just want to be in their lives and don’t want any more of the bull shit that comes with being on the 290 greatest hit list, it’s been 30 years now.
I applied for a passport and jut received it today. Surprisingly, there is NO IML STATEMENT IN IT!!!! Thanks Janice for the lawsuit! My current job will soon be requiring me to travel and I didn’t want that hassle along with the possibility of losing my job, (I’m making $80k a year).