There is a Direction that Registered Citizens can take to become Free

[sosen.org 6/10/18]

Below is a article that was posted in August of 2015 related to another article that was posted in June of 2015, in light of recent events I thought maybe it was time to resurrect this article. We have come a long way since 2015 in proving that there never was a high re-offense rate that the United States Supreme Court was given by federal prosecutors representing that registered citizens re-offense rate was 80%, The Court use that 80% to justify the need for public safety. We now have enough proof to show that the re-offense rate for people on the registry is less than 1% nowhere close to the 80% that was used to justify the decision in Smith versus Doe, in fact there were studies going back to the 1960s including the Jack study that was done in 1967 that showed a re-offense rate for sexually related crimes of 3.2% over a 15 year. That’s 2/10 of one percent per year nowhere even close to the 80%. Now this information was available to the courts at the time of the Smith versus Doe decision and it was a valid study where as the 80 percentile information was not based on any empirical evidence and since has been proved to be entirely false.

Read more

 

Related posts

Subscribe
Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...

 

  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t and a**
  4. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Use person-first language.
  5. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  6. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  7. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  8. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  9. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address that are not personally identifiable.
  10. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  11. Please do not post in all Caps.
  12. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  13. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  14. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  15. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people.  Do not use your real name.
  16. Please do not solicit funds
  17. No discussions about weapons
  18. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), Person Forced to Register (PFR) or any others, the first time you use it in a thread, please expand it for new people to better understand.
  19. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  20. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  21. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
  22. If addressing another commenter, please address them by exactly their full display name, do not modify their name. 
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  
 

26 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

I’d never heard of it before, but based on what I came up with on a google search, a Writ of Coram Nobis is probably not applicable to Smith v Doe. The criteria are explained here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coram_nobis

Explained more fully at the above link, Doe can’t meet any of these criteria because it was not a criminal case. That is, assuming Wikipedia is correct.

A petition for a writ of coram nobis in a federal court must seek to vacate a federal criminal conviction.

A petition for a writ of coram nobis must be directed to the sentencing court.

A petition for a writ of coram nobis may only be filed after a sentence has been served and the petitioner is no longer in custody.

A petition for a writ of coram nobis must provide valid reasons for not attacking the conviction earlier.

A petition for a writ of coram nobis must provide adverse consequences which exist from the conviction.

The writ of coram nobis is an extraordinary remedy to correct errors of the most fundamental character.

Also see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Morgan_(1954)

According to that article, there is also a 10 to 60 day time limit (depending on the circuit) for filing such a writ. Also, it’s not clear that such a writ can be filed to SCOTUS.

Interesting article on SCOTUS mistakes based on bad data or outright lies, including the sex offender cases like Smith V Doe:

https://www.propublica.org/article/supreme-court-errors-are-not-hard-to-find

The only way to put a stop to the SOR is to convince the US Supreme court to over rule there prier Decision that the SOR is a public safety measure. With the new available data’ they can admit there recidivism rates used in there prior decisions, have been proven to be wrong and there is no proof of enhanced public safety there for the ex post facto rules take effect… just my thoughts!

The recidivism rate is irrelevant because the Registries don’t protect anyone or lower the rate. Rate could be 3%, it could be 90%. Doesn’t matter.

Personally, I am 100% sure that the Registries increase recidivism, obviously cause a very large amount of very anti-social behavior, and increase crime in general. There are no benefits except for people making money, helping politicians, and similar immoral, un-American “benefits”.

“in fact there were studies going back to the 1960s including the Jack study that was done in 1967 that showed a re-offense rate for sexually related crimes of 3.2% over a 15 year.”

Hey can you please cite these studies? As many as possible that date back to that time frame. I have all the recent but only one from back then and that is only from the 1994 New Jersey study and I would love to have these older studies showing no appreciable difference in the rates as well as showing that the legislature knew as far back as possible that the false narrative that they used for the creation of the registry was known. I would love to add these to my arsenal.
Thank you.

See this is what I am talking about academia, Notice this is from a gov website but it relies on academic which is not facts but skewed numbers based on some special interest. I want hard indisputable numbers.

This is the only important part of that entire report. Academia cannot be relied upon by a court. Adjudicative facts, that is all that matters. Just as In Re Taylor that referenced the judicial notice of facts any court case that comes before the courts needs adjudicative facts that the courts take judicial notice of. Bottom line…I cannot wait to see how the court treats my judicial notice request and how it is used in the partial motion to dismiss.
This is classic problems with academia compared to Docs from CDCR and other department of corrections or DOJs.
“Because of wide variations in offender characteristics, research methodology, measurement
definitions, and follow-up time, a comprehensive understanding of sex offender recidivism
cannot be gained from research literature. However, a few conclusions can be made by judging
the overall patterns of the results:”

I do not mean to braggadocios but I am slamming the AG better than any case I have seen. I have controlled the entire process so far and have made the AG look like a fool several times. Let me list the events. I did not really have a plan when going into this and everything that I am stating is just happenstance that this occurred in the way that it did but it has been classic and if you looked at it like I meant to do these things you would think this guy is a brilliant legal strategist ( but of course it has been all happenstance like I said). Stick with me and follow along with the sequence of events.
1. I filed an omnibus complaint that was around 90 pages long which included everything I would need to reference as the case moves forward and which was confusing and vague so as the AGs had a hard time pinpointing exactly what was being challenged and how it was being challenged which throws a seasoned or rookie attorney off kilter because they were all taught to follow certain procedures and that they cannot deviate from those conventional teachings. Big burn on the AGs.
2. I filed against both the CA AG as well as the US AG.
3. By the CA AG filing her “Partial” MTD (PMTD) and was depending on the US AG to pick up the rest of the claims she started the ball rolling against her that is still playing out right now and has at every stage of the proceedings so far. Big mistake.
4. Soon then after the US AG files his MTD I turned around and dismissed without prejudice against the US AG which stuck the CA AG with the PMTD and prevented her from filing another one so she is stuck with it.
5. By requesting a Magistrate judge the decision to grant the PMTD was not a final ruling so while it is pending for the district judge to decide I slam him with my sandbagged judicial facts which is the only thing that the court can consider outside of the original complaint when deciding the PMTD and which I am sure the CA AG never expected me to do properly because I was not proper in my request in my opposition to the PMTD so I looked like I was stupid and did not know what I was doing (which was kind of true lol) until I slammed them with a proper request for judicial notice.
6. Then because she did not move to stay the proceedings (another big mistake because I am sure the court would of granted it) the rule 26(f) status conference went forward which opened up discovery.
7. Now I can slam her with all the discovery tools available to me such as most importantly my Request for Admissions and guess what? she has to answer and she cannot just deny, she has to address every request I give her with substantial answers or it will be admitted as true and undisputed. Brilliant.
8. So now she is stuck answering my discovery request and she cannot even file anything but a summary judgment until she files a complete answer to the rest of the claims, as the court reamed her about it at the status hearing. Beautiful.
9. So now, no matter what, if she disputes even one of my request for admissions than there goes her summary judgment out the window as she will be admitting that there are disputable facts. I swear I could not have planned this it is so classic. So now she has to answer the complaint in full and I will have all my admissions and whatever discovery I get out of her as well to use against her in any subsequent pleadings.

Academic report you guys cited from ACSOL. No solid numbers from CDCRs which are solid man. There is no questionable methodologies. Like I said we will see how much effect my judicial notice have an effect and I am hoping as much as the reports in the Taylor case about the efficacy of the residency law which is basically exactly what I provided except about the entire registry. I am REALLY interested to see how they handle this. The efficacy issue with the registry is just as bad or worse I would say. Check out what they took judicial notice of in Taylor. They are from the same entities and are stating the same crap about the registry. If this was in state court they would be thru instantly just because of this with the reports I provided.

Alright peeps. Just mailed off my RFAs to the AG. I guess we will see haw well they were done and if the attorneys at AVVO were any help. I finally got it to where they were stating “why do you think they would not be proper? they are simple admit or deny questions so yes.” Here they are.
https://ufile.io/avje8
I bet the AG is going to like these……:)