Comments that are not specific to a certain post should go here, for the month of March 2018. Contributions should relate to the cause and goals of this organization and please, keep it courteous and civil.
Related posts
-
Watch the March 3 D.C. Vigil on live streaming!
We are very pleased with the number of people who are coming to the Washington DC... -
ACSOL Online Meeting March 22, 2025
You are invited to join ACSOL Executive Director and civil rights attorney Janice Bellucci and an... -
UT: Utah senator says former AG Reyes’ office used lawmakers as ‘pawns’ in push for increased penalties
Source: utahnewsdispatch.com 2/24/25 A Utah state senator said the Utah Attorney General’s Office, under the leadership...
That’s excellent thinking New Person. Throw it out there in a legal argument as best you can and I may use it. I am hammering this out night and day since this has to be filed this coming week. Anything anyone can come up with would be great.
Can someone explain to me why CASOMB’s legal framework resides within the Penal Code? Specifically, it is in PART 3. OF IMPRISONMENT AND THE DEATH PENALTY [2000 – 10007] | TITLE 9. PUNISHMENT OPTIONS [8000 – 9003] | CHAPTER 3. Sex Offender Management Board [9000 – 9003]
Why would it be placed in “Punishment Options” if regulatory? Also, take a look at the definitions of “Management” and “Supervision” in Section 9000.
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=PEN&division=&title=9.&part=3.&chapter=3.&article
Very powerful AJ. Here is what I whipped up…
The Smith panel admitted the argument of in-person reporting requirements were not in the Alaska Statute and yet the Court still held significant weight and showed concern when comparing the requirements of the ASORA to probation. Plaintiff contends the Court may place much more weight on this issue since there is onerous in-person reporting requirements, and for all the other reasons stated in Plaintiff’s Complaint, Opposition, as well as supra and infra. The Smith Court noted “The Court of Appeals held that the registration system is parallel to probation or supervised release in terms of the restraint imposed. 259 F. 3d, at 987. This argument has some force, but, after due consideration, we reject it. Probation and supervised release entail a series of mandatory conditions and allow the supervising officer to seek the revocation of probation or release in case of infraction. See generally Johnson v. United States, 529 U. S. 694 (2000).” (emphasis added) Id. at 101.
Plaintiff suffers and is obligated to an extreme “series of mandatory conditions” and “law enforcement” are the “officers who seek the revocation” of Plaintiff’s liberty and imprison him for even innocuous and innocent unintended registration (“infractions”) violations with “Significant Prison Terms” that are longer than what Plaintiff served for his triggering offense, and which are definitely much longer than from any infraction Plaintiff may have endured from probation or even from parole.
Furthermore, the “management’ and supervision” roles are codified in the Penal Code Part 3. of Imprisonment and the Death Penalty [2000-10007], Title 9. Punishment Options [8000-9003], Chapter 3. Section 9000 et seq., besides the probative value of where this section is codified, the relevant section is 9000 (e) which states ““Supervision” means a specialized approach to the process of overseeing, insofar as authority to do so is granted to the supervising agency, all significant aspects of the lives of sex offenders who are being managed, as described in subdivision.” (emphasis added). Plaintiff remains under the direct “supervision” of the state in “all significant aspects” of Plaintiff’s life. This “supervision” along with all the onerous in-person reporting requirements, the interference in Plaintiff’s child custodial rights, the prohibitions from residing in certain areas and banned from even being present in a vast array of locations, the at home compliance checks, having to give notice every time Plaintiff visits another county or state, including 21 day advance notice if he plans to leave the country, the list goes on and on and it very well is “every significant aspect “ of Plaintiff’s life. This is undoubtedly synonymous with probation or parole and even “more” sever in many aspects.
I’m curious if anybody (RSO) in California has had their felony reduced to a misdemeanor, and, if so, which county showed you the love? Would you be willing to share the process, possibly the charge? I think that the felony charge should have a corresponding misdemeanor, so please correct me, inform me and educate me.
Thanks
AJ, I’m not so sure. As a practical matter, only those registered to vote or licensed to drive are considered for jury duty but that’s because those are the easiest ways to gather the names and addresses for the jury pool. I don’t think that it says anywhere that only drivers or voters are eligible for jury duty.
Sure, there’s the draft but then, like so many other gender-based social role-playing, it is in flux and were we to go back to actually drafting people and not just registering them for the draft, it would almost certainly have to include women. It could be no other way such is the level of gender equality expectations today.
As for road-building, I’ve never actually been called upon to build a road despite being a homeowner. So, I assume that that is antiquated.
I disagree on the income tax thresholds as all people are subjected to those same rules and can move up-or-down as a function of income and financial circumstances.
But yes, I get it; there are historical examples of “civic duty” that fall selectively upon the citizenry. However, in none of those cases are those duties to be borne as a condition of debased or degraded citizenship. I think that that must be a salient distinction.
As for “consideration” I feel sure that this must be considered within the context of civic duties as part of a social contract. As a term of legal art: “a vital element in the law of contracts, consideration is a benefit which must be bargained for between the parties, and is the essential reason for a party entering into a contract. … In a contract, one consideration (thing given) is exchanged for another consideration.” In our case, there is no consideration extended to us at all.
Well, it sounds like the Austin bomber was at least correct about the sex offender registry:
“Why we might want to consider doing away with Sex Offender Registration.
In theory, these registries are list of every sex offender in the state, with the his house location and other pertinent facts to help people avoid exposing themselves to such people. Megan’s Lawrequires sex offenders to register and update law enforcement every time they change location.
This is not the result. You have to really hate the guy to make him suffer for the rest of his life, even when his prison time is up. This sounds perfect for a serial rapist or pedophile, but its not such a great idea if something as trivial as public indecency or streaking can put you on the registry right alongside them.
So you have a guy who committed a crime. Will putting him on a list make it better? wouldn’t this only make people shun him, keep him from getting a job, and making friends? Just for a crime that he may have committed over 15 years ago as a adolescent? On a side note, one fifthof all rapes are committed by a juvenile.
And how effective is it? Even if you know about a registered sex offender in the neighborhood, what’s to stop him from doing it again? And that’s not taking into consideration that 95 percent of all cases are from someone the victim had already knew? And if he was really going to do it again, would the fact that he is on a list really going to stop him?”
https://heavy.com/news/2018/03/mark-anthony-conditt-social-media-blog-facebook-instagram/
Look I think the following alone is enough to get past Smith here in California.
Plaintiff’s case is “meaningfully distinguishable” as presented here, and throughout his Complaint because Plaintiff suffers, among others, statutory loss of parental and grandparental rights, plaintiff is statutorily barred from federal housing as well as barred from vast swaths of residential communities, Plaintiff is statutorily barred from employment as well as barred from vast swaths of communities which barres Plaintiff from myriad employment, Plaintiff suffers vigilante attacks (Plaintiff’s family as well) Plaintiff’s background information is statutorily barred from beyond a seven-year limit. all the negative probative effects of registration described herein and all the other violations of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights and protected liberty interest outlined in the Compliant claims 1-9.
Wow that is way out on that bomber diary or what ever it was. That is all I can say is woow. He must have known somebody on the list otherwise why would a kid that age know so much about it.
Look at this people, this should be applicable to nearly anyone in CA. So if I survive thousands of people will be able to get relief. I really believe just these issues as stated are enough to break the camels back or were screwed because it will mean the state can do anything short of locking us all up or killing us. A case does not getting much stronger than what I have. I need case law on those last two issues. >>>??????????
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.”
Presence prohibitions also directly interferes in Plaintiff’s custodial and visitation rights by barring him from being present in many locations, i.e. schools, libraries, parks, beaches, places of worship, anywhere where “children congregate.” In addition, Plaintiff contends this phrase is unconstitutionally overbroad and vague.
See also, Troxel v. Granville 530 U.S. 57, 65 (2000) (“the interest of parents in the care, custody and control of their children—is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by this Court.”); Cameron v. Tomes, 783 F. Supp. 1511, 1525 (D. Mass. 1992) (holding that prohibiting visitation with grandchildren restricts one’s liberty).
EEOC (US Equal Opportunity Commission) web site specifically lists government registries like the Sex Offender Registry as valid research tools to deny employment, even though the lengths of time on the registry far exceeds the time other criminal convictions can be used to deny employment. https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/arrest_conviction.cfm#sdendnote24sym [visited March 20, 2018].
Cal. Pen. Code § 290.45(a)(8). The “person at risk” exception protects employers (e.g., construction and general contracting (Plaintiff’s field of employment), and any position where Plaintiff may come in contact with the public, hospitals, senior centers, and the like) from liability if they use the Registry to evaluate the fitness of their employees or prospective employees. Additionally, the phrase “person at risk” is unconstitutionally overbroad and vague.
Presence prohibitions also directly interfere in Plaintiff’s field of employment, see infra.
See also Humphries v. Cnty. of L.A., 554 F.3d 1170, 1187, 1188 (9th Cir. 2009) (holding that government’s inclusion of Humphries on CACI altered their rights in several ways), rev’d on other grounds, 131 S. Ct. 447 (2010). “holding that loss of future employment was sufficient to satisfy stigma-plus test.” id. at 1170, 1191; Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 711 (1976) (clarifying that procedural due process protections apply when individual suffers stigma from state instituted reputational harm that results in loss of certain rights); Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 570-71 (1972). See also Valmonte v. Bane, 18 F.3d 992, 1001 (2d Cir. 1994) (stating that Valmonte’s inclusion on New York Registry statutorily barred her from working in certain professions). Plaintiff is statutorily barred from working in certain professions and he is effectively barred from his own profession.
Plaintiff is also statutorily prohibited from Federal Housing. “The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requires that all Public Housing Authorities (PHAs) establish lifetime bans on the admission to the Public Housing and Housing Choice Voucher (Tenant-Based Section 8) programs for: Sex offenders subject to a lifetime registration requirement under a State sex offender registration program.” 24 CFR 960.204; 24 CFR 982.553. 42 U.S.C. § 13663 explicitly purports to deny housing to “dangerous sex offenders,” but in fact requires Public Housing Authorities to deny eligibility to anyone listed on a state sex offender registry, many of whom cannot be considered dangerous, but are guilty of offenses that were non-violent or consensual. See, Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 332 (1976) (recognizing entitlement to government benefits as important private interest).
Plaintiff is also subject to documented vigilante attacks on Plaintiff’s wife, his stepson, and Plaintiff as well (Opposition at EXHIBIT A-E). Plaintiff has fundamental privacy rights as well as a right to protect himself and his family from harm which Plaintiff cannot do because he is not only statutorily barred from owning any weapons, including even mace or other non-lethal weapons, Plaintiff’s non-disclosable current address and current photo are on a government hit list.
See Reporting Requirements, California Penal Code 290 et seq.
California’s seven-year background limit law prohibits background checks for convictions older than seven years. See, Civil Code § 1786.18.
I am on it Chris, sorry if I haven’t got back to you but I am taking everything you state and including them. You are right on the issues you stated. I am including some of your markups ups here.
Will the sanction’s operation promote the traditional aims of punishment—retribution and deterrence?
The Smith Court noted that the State conceded that the statute might deter future crimes. Id. at 102. For the reasons stated herein California’s SORA advances all the traditional aims of punishment, incapacitation, retribution, and specific and general deterrence. Its very goal is incapacitation insofar as it seeks to keep sex offenders away from opportunities to reoffend. It is retributive in that it looks back at the offense (and nothing else) in imposing its restrictions, and it marks registrants as ones who cannot be fully admitted into the community. Further, as discussed herein, it does so in ways that relate only tenuously to legitimate, non-punitive purposes. Finally, its professed purpose is to deter recidivism (though, as discussed herein, it does not in fact appear to do so). This factor has little weight but nonetheless does support the conclusion that SORA serves the purpose of general deterrence.
Elevated scrutiny
Plaintiff’s claims on the unconstitutional nature of these laws should receive an elevated level of scrutiny, and not just rational basis, since these laws apply only to a politically powerless and hated group defined as sex offenders, and not the general public. It is not a requirement for a group to be one of the protected classes to receive extra scrutiny, as that requirement only applies to laws that equally target all citizens. It is not possible to change these targeted laws through the traditional legislative process, such as would be the case if they applied to all citizens, and only the courts can force them being struck down. Though these laws should not pass even a rational basis review, Plaintiff contends that strict, or at least intermediate scrutiny is warranted.
Is the behavior to which the sanction applies already a crime?
Plaintiff will rely on the language and deduction of Alaska’s Supreme Court in Doe v. Alaska for this factor since in this aspect of California’s Megan’s Law is identical, “As the state concedes, ASORA applies only to those “convicted” of specified offenses.122 Defendants charged with sex offenses but who plead out to non-sex offenses such as coercion or simple assault do not have to register even though they may have engaged in the same conduct as individuals who do have to register.123 Likewise, even convicted defendants whose convictions are overturned for reasons other than insufficiency of evidence of guilt do not have to register despite having engaged in the same conduct.124 An adult who commits sexual abuse of a minor in the first degree by engaging in sexual penetration with a person under thirteen years of age,125 but whose conviction is overturned due to an illegal search, does not have to register. Finally, ASORA does not require registration for those charged with sex offenses but acquitted, even though they may have engaged in the same conduct as convicted sex offenders and might even be found civilly liable under a lesser standard of proof.” Ibid.
“In other words, ASORA fundamentally and invariably requires a judgment of guilt based on either a plea or proof under the criminal standard. It is therefore the determination of guilt of a sex offense beyond a reasonable doubt (or per a knowing plea), not merely the fact of the conduct and potential for recidivism, that triggers the registration requirement. Because it is the criminal conviction, and only the criminal conviction, that triggers obligations under ASORA, we conclude that this factor supports the conclusion that ASORA is punitive in effect.” Ibid.
As was the case in Alaska, California’s SORA applies only to those not acquitted. Any finding or plea of guilt, at any phase of a trial, triggers SORA requirements. Even an individual found Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity (“NGRI”) is subject to SORA. A NGRI individual essentially has incarceration “held in abeyance” until either completing a commitment term equal to the maximum length of time possible in criminal sentencing, or until found sane, at which point s/he is transferred to California Department of Corrections and “rehabilitation.”(CDCR) for incarceration for the remainder of that term. This factor supports the conclusion that California’s SORA is punitive in effect.
Last day before filing and I think the Judge is going to have a hard time dismissing. I guess we’ll see.
Man I think I should have an intro or background statement. I watched that video with my Magistrate judge stating that she hates receiving briefs that don’t give any background details since the court is probably either not familiar with the case r has so many that they cannot possibly remember every case that went before them.
I guess I can just throw in something like the following.
Background
Now before the court is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations (MFR) and herein Plaintiff’s Objection to the MFR. Plaintiff’s Complaint was filed on September 5, 2017 and is directly challenging the constitutionality of California’s Sex Offender Registration (SORA) statutes. Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and after Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss had been fully briefed with all parties present in the hearing in front of the Magistrate Judge on February 14, 2018 Plaintiff timely filed his objections herein to the MFR assertions.
Also the AG stipulation only extends time until April 25 for parties to hold the meet and confer conference so I guess the AG thinks the district judge will rule that quickly on the Motion to Dismiss. Hm, sure seems fast.
I’m not sure if this has been posted before or elsewhere, but here’s a link to the Oral Arguments for People v. Pepitone before the IL SC. This case is about IL law that prohibits RCs with offenses against minors from ever being in a park, for any reason (i.e. punishing innocent conduct). The audio runs just over 50 minutes. Neither attorney sounds that sharp to me, and I got zero feel for how the court may rule.
http://multimedia.illinois.gov/court/SupremeCourt/Audio/2018/010918_122034.mp3
In 1980, the SCOTUS agreed that the Black hills had been taken illegally. They offered $102 million to the Oceti Sakowin to relinquish their claim to the land. That amount would not even cover the gold that was taken out of there let alone address the murder of the Indians’ very existence as a culture defined by its sacred spaces. What is more representation of free speech than is ones relationship with the land that holds your culture and ancestors? Would we sell Arlington to Saudi Arabia or Japan for the bright price? Good luck Oklahoma first peoples. The US has a long history of buying the original people off cheaply, or if that doesn’t work, simply making a law that allows the theft.
(FRANCE) Mother convicted for killing her five newborns over six years by drowning them. She has been sentenced to eight years in prison having gotten it lowered from twelve years essentially because she shows remorse.
I provide this to give a perspective of European v. American criminal sentencing.
https://www.francetvinfo.fr/faits-divers/justice-proces/quintuple-infanticide-en-gironde-la-mere-condamnee-a-8-ans-de-prison_2670870.html (Linked article in French)
NEWSFLASH !!
Our lame us government is at it again !!
CRAIGSLIST has SHUT DOWN their personals section because of : HR 1865, “FOSTA”, seeking to subject websites to criminal and civil liability when third parties (users) misuse online personals unlawfully.
Although it is probably meant for sex trafficking, but making a website liable for what users post is WRONG, you cant hold a gun maker liable for shootings in FL, you cant have a double standard and be hypocritical….
If i talk to joe blow in a conversation and say something to him, he isnt responsible for what I say… its called FREEDOM OF SPEECH !
Our LAME US GOVERNMENT is slowly taking away things… and also the blood on its hands cause of the registry and the RSO that got killed….
Im waiting 100% for the CIVIL WAR against our government, when it happens im all in….
Making LAME laws, the people are getting tired of it and we are only going to put up with so much !
here in CA I dont know if they got all of the signatures yet (I think they are close) to REPEAL the GAS TAX and registration on your car tax increase….
people are getting tired of this SH!T… just waiting for the revolt ! 🙂
just like the 290 that got killed in CA cause of the registry, GOVT dont wanna admit it as they have blood on their hands and if they admit it registry could go away…. its only a matter of time ! I hope I see it to be here and fight against the govt and topple them !!!! If I could leave this country I would but the passport lame crap…. I threw mine in the TRASH… right where the GOVT Belongs !!
Jesus I wish you would have stated that before I filed my Objections because I would have definitely included your statement in it. That is exactly right, thousands of actual children are being hurt because of these laws because of the regurgitation of the same Ol’ ” illusionary threat of harm” and to “save one illusionary child.” Oh well I think I have filed the best damn brief ever against the sex offender laws as of yet. I see a couple typos but other than that, A1. I simply cannot see how any judge whether reasonable or flat corrupt could deny my Objections. Their are to many statutorily barred fundamental rights alone to pass muster let alone all the other issues I brought forth. Check it out people it is on m my site, just click on Objections and take a look. If this gets shot down nothing will pass muster short of being murdered or actual imprisonment.
http://mllkeys20112011.wixsite.com/mysite
I am extremely impressed with it !!!!
Thank you all that helped contribute and special thanks to AJ, Chris, and New Person, you guys have been indispensable. In their court “pun intended” now, lets see how they want to play the game now. I bet the AG is going to shi***&^ her pants when she reads this.
I may have to visit Kentucky later this year. After reading the Kentucky registration law, I believe that I either have 5 days to register, or no obligation to register, so long as I am not intending to move to the state permanently. This is based on my understanding of the Kentucky registration law, http://www.lrc.ky.gov/Statutes/statute.aspx?id=46774
I do not have a conviction. I have a deferred adjudication in Texas. I have a duty to register in Texas, but I don’t believe that meets the criteria of the Kentucky registration law, because I don’t have a conviction.
Here is the subsection that I think is pertinent to me:
(6) (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this subsection, any person who
has been convicted in a court of any state or territory, a court of the
United States, or a similar conviction from a court of competent
jurisdiction in any other country, or a court martial of the United States
Armed Forces of a sex crime or criminal offense against a victim who is a
minor and who has been notified of the duty to register by that state,
territory, or court, or who has been committed as a sexually violent
predator under the laws of another state, laws of a territory, or federal
laws, or has a similar conviction from a court of competent jurisdiction in
any other country, shall comply with the registration requirement of this
section, including the requirements of subsection (4) of this section, and
shall register with the appropriate local probation and parole office in the
county of residence within five (5) working days of relocation. No
additional notice of the duty to register shall be required of any official
charged with a duty of enforcing the laws of this Commonwealth.
The state of Texas has notified me of a duty to register, and I’ve done so since 1997. But I don’t have a conviction. My deferred adjudication is not a conviction, and it was in 1992.
So I think I can visit Kentucky for as long as I like, so long as I’m not intending to reside there…
In any case, I’ll be there for less than 5 days.
Do any of you know anything about Kentucky registration laws, especially as they pertain to visiting registrants from other states, convicted or not?
“College-bound sex offenders tend to land at community college” That’s because universities often block the admission of Registrants.
Yes, our expectations are to be downgraded in all spheres of life.
https://www.mydaytondailynews.com/news/college-bound-sex-offenders-tend-land-community-college/i4O6u4IBgh6GyUhAG8dxiK/
“Sex offender says Ohio’s registry ‘destroys lives,’ should be abolished”
Derek Logue speaks very powerfully in this video.
https://www.mydaytondailynews.com/news/sex-offender-says-ohio-registry-destroys-lives-should-abolished/ANVp5LPEWrptbGOIgR5XDJ/
In thinking about the recidivism reports that are out there, We know they are false and misleading. Just how misleading are they?
What most of us do know is the re arrest rates are usually not sex based, but some other form of arrest/conviction.
Are they including summary arrests/conviction in there numbers? Is not a speeding ticket, failure to stop, or any traffic offense in fact an arrest, that you are not taken into custody for. Then if you plea guilty, are found guilty pay your fine and costs it then is entered into the system as a conviction of summary offense.
We all know they need to be more specific on a break down on the reports/studies, but it never ever should include any summary charges/convictions, right?
This was only a one year report but…it does break it down on re arrest for like crime.
Recidivism by Offense Type of New Arrest
Offense types of new arrests are categorize
d differently than offense types of original charges
, to allow us to analyze in more detail .11
Overall, public order offenses are the most common type of
new arrests, with 11.5% of those released to Philadelphia from PA DOC and PDP in 2015 re -arrested at least once for public order offenses. The next most common arrest type was drugs, with 8.6% of the returning citizens having such an arrest, followed by 6.5% for property offenses.
Five percent of the group had a new arrest for a violent crime, and 1.3% were
arrested for a sex offense within one year of release (Figure 14). Weapons arrests were the least common, with 1% incurring a charge of this type. In comparing releases from PDP and DOC, there are some differences between the two populations . The most ma
rked differences are for public order and property offenses, where re-arrest rates for people released from local incarceration at PDP are nearly twice those for people released from state incarceration at PA DOC.
https://beta.phila.gov/media/20180313092612/Calculating-a-Unified-Recidivism-Rate-for-Philadelphia-Final-March-2018_1.pdf
Many of us want to leave comments on news media’s websites when they carry articles or editorial/opinion pieces about Registrants. But we can’t – many media sites only have a Facebook platform to leave comments and many of us do not have Facebook accounts. So now is the time for you to write to the editors and publishers of those newspapers simply saying “I am very uncomfortable with using Facebook. Could you please provide another platform, such as Disqus, for me to leave comments on your news articles and op-ed opinion pieces??”
No need to explain anything more – just ask them to provide a new platform so that we can begin leaving OUR responses to articles about sex offenders. (Now is the time because – with the Cambridge Analytics fiasco – Facebook is already receiving a huge amount of negative publicity for invasion of people’s privacy and lack of security.)
It is important for us to respond to negative news articles with facts and information arguing against the Registries.