General Comments June 2018

Comments that are not specific to a certain post should go here, for the month of June 2018. Contributions should relate to the cause and goals of this organization and please, keep it courteous and civil.

Related posts

285 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Hey Mike R, AJ, and anyone else interested in a great research paper. Check out this link:

https://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=260116123082074085066119076125074089014010017032055005018070013097031070101009083124103017054013044015041123093075025075107088011074041011058088007119069112024073009052104022111113126030067086012082121118007096124090068068065018027005003117002125&EXT=pdf

Yeah, it’s a long link, but will take you straight to the pdf file in your browser. Some excellent, rational information in here.

If the doll legislation saves one Barbie, how could you oppose it? (I believe this legislation was co-sponsored by Mattel and Hasbro and has the full support of the toy manufactuters’ association of America.)

With Snyder, it listed in-person reporting was punitive. That was recent. The SCOTUS chose not to review it, in agreement that Snyder was correct.

Now, flashback to California.

In 1958, Kelly v Municipal stated three things:
1) PC 290 cannot supersede 1203.4 (expungement)
2) Compulsory in-person police reporting was criminal or quasi-criminal in nature.
3) Once you have earned the 1203.4, then you longer are part of the registry scheme.

In 2003, Smith v Doe was decided by the SCOTUS. A couple of points here:
1) The registry scheme was not punitive, but regulatory
2) In-person reporting was not part of the registry, which would be a disability/penalty.

In 2014, People v Hamdon denied relief of the registry using Kelly v Municipal because:
1) PC 290.5 re-wrote the law, superseding 1203.4 (which was not discussed as debated within Kelly)
2) Stated that the registry wasn’t punishment, citing Alva.

In 2017, Snyder v Does was not seen by SCOTUS, answering the following:
“Whether retroactively applying a sex-offender-registry law that classifies offenders into tiers based on crime of conviction, requires certain offenders to register for life, requires offenders to report in person periodically and within days of certain changes to registry information, and restricts offenders’ activities within school zones imposes “punishment” in violation of the ex post facto clause.”

Because it was not seen, then SCOTUS agreed with Michigan Does. In that agreement, in-person reporting imposes “punishment”.

Because Snyder was upheld by default via SCOTUS, in-person reporting is punishment. Snyder did use the 2003 decision as a basis that in-person reporting was not part of the registry scheme.

Snyder now negates Hammond’s stance that in-person reporting isn’t punishment. SCOTUS was in agreement. California cannot supersede SCOTUS decision that in-person reporting is punishment, but also re-affirms that compulsory in-person reporting is criminal or quasi-criminal in nature as stated in 1958 Kelly case decision. That means 1203.4 (expungement), at least with respect to in-person reporting, means all those registrants who earned 1203.4 should no longer have to register b/c in-person reporting is punitive via SCOTUS 2017, Snyder, SCOTUS 2003 Smith v Doe, and Kelly.

So what do you guys think?

Wow! Is this modern insanity or what??? A Pennsylvania man is sentenced to 25-50 years for kissing a 13 year old boy. https://www.publicopiniononline.com/story/news/crime/2018/06/14/mechanicsburg-man-sentenced-franklin-county-sex-assault-boy/702445002/

Scroll down the webpage/story to another highlighted article about a DUI driver getting 4-8 years for killing someone.

https://www.publicopiniononline.com/story/news/crime/2018/06/01/fannett-township-man-serve-4-8-years-dui-death-kim-burdge/663764002/

25-54 years for kissing vs. 4-8 years for killing! That’s insane!!

I greatly fear that airlines will become the next airBnB or Comfort Inn, disallowing people on the registry. Is there a way to be proactive on this? FBI having a big hoopla at an airport due to 68 assaults. Divide that into the number of people who flew the same year and I bet the rate is AS LOW as assaults are on the ground.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/crime/bs-md-in-flight-sexual-assaults-20180618-story.html

We’ve discussed this topic before here and it has tones of relevance to registration when you read what Gorsuch says in it. This will be a big outcome IMO.

Supreme Court Will Decide If Civil Forfeiture Is Unconstitutional, Violates The Eighth Amendment

https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicksibilla/2018/06/19/supreme-court-will-decide-if-civil-forfeiture-is-unconstitutional-violates-the-eighth-amendment/

I finally got an answer back from that other civil rights org. I am so tired of hearing the same old crap I sent them the following in response to the following. I will not be so rude as to eliminate any possibility of help but I am also not being so frigging nice about it anymore.

Joe Martyak
Jun 18 at 6:52 PM

Dear Michael,
Thank you for contacting us. Our amicus brief for the case Gundy v. United States focuses on process issues that we believe violate the separation of powers among the legislative, judicial, and executive branches of government. We are not involved in the particular merits of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), nor with the merits of individual cases related thereto.

While we fully appreciate the seriousness of your situation and the ramifications of each case, we are not in the position of providing legal counsel for other cases involving SORNA.

We hope you are able to obtain appropriate counsel to assist you.

Sincerely,
Joe Martyak
Director of Communications
New Civil Liberties Alliance

Sent them the following:

Same old story. I guess we have no civil rights organizations left in this country when it comes to ex-sex-offenders. Well, hopefully for the sake of our country I, a Pro Se litigant, will have to prevail. Thanks anyways.
Michael.

In other news, USA pulls out of UN human rights council.

Really?

Can’t take care of their own to begin with…

I’m a registrant, but I’m not on the website. I was wondering if any registrant similar to me has recently applied for a job at a big box store like Target or Home Depot and been hired for employment?

Might be time to get worried. A passport identifier is irrelevant if airlines won’t let you fly their planes for domestic or international flights.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/what-the-airline-knows-about-the-guy-in-seat-14c-1529499085

This is following up on the recent post about sexual assaults “increasing” on US flights: “ In 2014, 38 cases of in-flight sexual assault were reported to the FBI. Last year, that number increased to 63 reported cases, but officials believe the crimes are significantly under-reported.“ (Don’t you love the “underreported” phrase). https://wtop.com/travel/2018/06/fbi-warns-about-sexual-assaults-on-airline-flights/slide/1/

That’s out of 2.5 Million passengers PER DAY. 63 ANNUAL assaults. The sky is falling.

This is just how bad “sex offender” civil commitment is in the U.S.

“Sex Crimes and Criminal Justice. Formerly incarcerated sex offenders say civil commitment programs deny proper rehabilitation.”

Update on the Millard appeal at the 10th: The Millard legal team has been granted a third, and seemingly final (“The court will not grant additional extensions absent extraordinary circumstances.”), extension. Briefs are now due by 7/16/2018. Hopefully they are whipping up a zinger of a document!

In Major Privacy Win, Supreme Court Rules Police Need Warrant To Track Your Cellphone

https://www.npr.org/2018/06/22/605007387/supreme-court-rules-police-need-warrant-to-get-location-information-from-cell-to

I’ve been doing some brainstorming over “compliance checks” and would like some group thoughts and feedback. Specifically, I’m trying to see if there’s a way to equate these checks with police roadblocks. With roadblocks, LE must have “special needs, beyond the normal need for law enforcement” (https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/531/32.html). A helpful article addressing this can be found here: https://traffic.findlaw.com/traffic-stops/can-the-police-set-up-roadblocks-for-any-reason-.html. From that URL, “[u]sing checkpoints and roadblocks to help combat crime generally runs afoul of the Fourth Amendment[.]” Okay, so if that’s the case when one is out and about on public roads, the same–or higher–standard certainly applies within one’s curtilage and at one’s door. What’s worse is that LEOs are not “stopping” all citizens, nor all criminals, nor all felons. They are “stopping” RCs…with what reasonable suspicion? Presence on a state-mandated list? What basis is there to doubt the RC completely and correctly completed whatever registration paperwork? I get that LEOs have equal license to knock on my door as do the Girl Scouts, but that’s not my issue. My issue is the rationale and process used that lands them only at the doors of RCs. (I wonder if it may be helpful to FOIA some LEAs to see what system they use to create the list of RCs they visit.)

Also, at what point does “a too permeating police surveillance” kick in? (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/332/581/case.html) Is it when they visit over and over? When they, as I believe Lake County has detailed, find you into town and block your vehicle from movement? (Which would seem to be a detainment without probable cause.) Is it requiring one to give Internet IDs and the like?

Please feel free to chime in with thoughts, or even questions. There’s gotta be a way to stymie this BS tactic which is nothing more than a “we’re watching you” threat. (Even the USDOJ guidelines say this is a reason to do them, IIRC.)

Big difference with DUI check points as well is the fact that when you get a drivers license you are implicitly stating that you will submit to a sobriety check at any time by any peace officer. Voluntarily complying is implied when you get the license. Every administrative search or seizure is voluntary not compulsory. At some point in time you when you applied for that license whether it be a business licence or a drivers license you consented to those regulatory administrative procedures including submitting to whatever regulation such as searches or compliance with regulatory rules when you applied for your license…..We have not voluntarily consented to shi(&*%^%^. That is the biggest difference between any other regulatory requirement in any situation. Every one of them are voluntary. The only other Gov. compulsive regulation was the affordable care act. I challenge anyone to find another gov regulation that is mandatory that you have not at some point in time agreed to comply with the rules. Good luck.. And the only reason the ACA mandatory compliance was considered constitutional was because the court manipulated it into a tax but they failed to address the issue that even those that did not work were subject to the regulation which made that part of the regulation unconstitutional because it was completely compulsory with penalties for non-compliance. Taxes you agree to pay when you sign your employment agreements and you have a choice not to work without penalty. Completely different and if someone would have challenged the ACA on my claim it could not have survived the tax application either because it was compulsory regulation for just being alive. No go…..No regulatory scheme is mandatory without your consent at some point in time is my point….

Once you mandate a regulation (I am not talking penal codes or other rules that apply to everyone either and/or that have a statistical purpose, they also only require you to not do something and do not compel any actions by anyone) with compulsory requirements by a citizen you run a foul of bill of attainder and involuntary servitude just to begin with….Even going to the station and registering is a involuntary detention that requires there to be some credible public threat or probable cause. Like AJ stated, there is also an enormous amount of empirical research showing how devastating and rampant DUI is and even then you have already consented to DUI checks from any LE at any time when you got your license…..

The draft and jury duty maybe. But even those you can avoid by either disavowing citizenship or giving reasons why you cannot be a juror such as prejudice or undue hardship and many other reasons. Both of those examples also have real and present value empirically.

Thete are so many parallels in the arguements concerning the immigration detainments and the RSO laws.
Unfortunately, human rights only apply to those that people feel will make them look compassionate in the eyes of the voter.

Yeah it is beyond doubt that anyone including LEOs can approach your residence or your person if you are in public. Now if you have a gate that states no trespassing might be a different story. But that bkocking your car or not leaving your property when asked or detaing you in anyway is a entirely different animal as well.

10 Stages of genocide.

Stage 1: Classification
Categories that distinguish people into “us and them” by ethnicity, race, religion or nationality.

Stage 2: Symbolization
Giving names or characteristics that distinguish people by classification.

Stage 3: Discrimination
Dominant group uses laws, custom, and political power to deny the rights of other groups.

Stage 4: Dehumanization
Members of a group are equated with animals, vermin, insects or diseases.

Stage 5: Organization
Plans for mass killing, formally created by the state or in a decentralized manner with terrorist groups.

Stage 6: Polarization
Extremists drive groups apart and eliminate moderates who may stop the genocide.

Stage 7: Preparation
Perpetrator leaders build armies, indoctrinate the population with fear of the victim group.

Stage 8: Persecution
Victims are identified and separated. Death lists are drawn up. Victims are forcibly relocated.

Stage 9: Extermination
Mass killing (legally called “genocide”) begins in a systematic way.

Stage 10: Denial
Perpetrators try to hide evidence of their crimes and continue to govern until removed by force.

We need to have resolutions past in legislatures in each state for a finding of fact of the real recidivism numbers that way when they write new bills they cant contain BS info to pass them.

@Lake County,

I just ready about the massive fires up there. I hope you’re okay.

I heard this on morning cable news (MSNBC). There is a discussion among the Democrats to push for the abolishment of ICE. Obviously this is in response to the current border policy. But I was wondering if this could have an effect on travel by RSOs. Theoretically, would this also stop the Green Notices if the agency were closed?
This could create a window of opportunity for “escape” while the government is in limbo. Any thoughts?