Comments that are not specific to a certain post should go here, for the month of July 2018. Contributions should relate to the cause and goals of this organization and please, keep it courteous and civil.
Related posts
-
CA: Purchasing a child for sex is a misdemeanor in California, lawmakers to debate classifying it as a felony
Source: kcra.com 4/13/24 SACRAMENTO, Calif. —California lawmakers next week are set to debate a proposal that... -
NE: Nebraska lawmakers pass a bill to restore voting rights to newly released felons
Source: apnews.com 4/12/24 OMAHA, Neb. (AP) — Nebraska lawmakers passed a bill Thursday to restore the... -
MA: Former Mass. city councilor accused of having explicit images of a child apparently joined Russian army
Source: wbur.org 4/11/24 A U.S. Air Force veteran who fled a charge of possessing sexually explicit...
Hi everyone. I need some advice on housing in California. I’ve been in one place for almost 20 years and the landlord died. Now I have to move. Do any of you have experience navigating the background check and other issues that may sway a renter of a room, house or apartment? My registry listing does not include an address, zip code only, but I don’t know if that makes any difference to renters. It appears there is a chance I could end up homeless for a while, which could be very much a hassle. Tips welcome!
Thanks.
I had some success getting my photo removed from mugshots.com. Yesterday Amazon AWS (mugshots.com webhost) informed me they had deleted the photo of me following a DMCA complaint I filed. My situation may be somewhat unique because I do in fact own the copyright of the photo they had posted (in Maine, registrants are required to provide their own photo to law enforcement rather than being photographed by police).
Amazon AWS has not yet responded to my general abuse complaint against mugshots.com regarding the California charges brought against the owners for extortion. I would encourage all of you to file your own abuse complaints with Amazon AWS regarding mugshots.com:
Use the form here: https://aws.amazon.com/forms/report-abuse
Or email here: abuse@amazonaws.com
Also, if you see other such websites, the major credit card companies (Visa, MC, Amex, Discover, PayPal) will cease doing business with them if you report that they are charging people fees to remove negative information like mugshots.
There are 900,000 of us and 535 congressmen. It boggles the mind that they have so much power to implement a system this complex. For every win we get it seems they add 20 more levels of complexity. Even if we defeat IML the other countries will continue this witch hunt. I wish I could find a shred of anything to be optimistic about.
Two things:
-Has anyone here gone through with an expungement? I’m eligible for one and I am going to get rolling on that. I have letters of recommendation from former professors and supervisors and I was squeaky clean during probation. Problem is, the crime was violent and the public defender that I talked to said that expungements aren’t granted often. Thoughts?
-I’m moving forward with putting a complaint through with Department of Fair Housing and Employment. A potential employer offered me a job and then pulled it due to using the Sex Offender List ( I have this in black and white in an email). I also never got a copy of a background check or a reason for denial. I was just kinda ghosted. Has anybody gone through with this process? I’m not holding my breath, but might as well try, right?
Given all the time they asked for, why in the hell can’t the DOJ assign tiers starting Jan 1, 2021? Or before!!! This is from the Attorney General office:
When does SB 384 take effect?
The new tier-based sex offender registration system takes effect on January 1, 2021. At that time, the
CA DOJ will be determining the tier statuses of registrants.
On or after July 1, 2021, tier one and two registrants who meet their mandatory minimum requirements may petition the superior court in their county of residence to request termination from the sex offender registry. On or before January 1, 2022, the CA DOJ shall make information available to the public via the Megan’s Law Website in accordance with SB 384.
The current lifetime sex offender registration laws will stay in effect until December 31, 2020.
https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/csor/registrant-faqs.pdf
Hi Group,
any word about the IML challenge from Janice? I thought the court date had passed or very close to being heard.
Another federal lawsuit has been filed in Texas. This is also challenging the registry. At This time two federal lawsuits are in two separate federal courts.
Well hello everyone,
I was finally able to get a hold of Mrs Aukerman at the Michigan ACLU concerning the Class Action Lawsuit, and what is going on with it. I was actually able to get a response and my questions answered.
I know it was filed on June 28th around 3:45pm, and this is what else she said as well
We are glad to report that we have indeed filed the class action. We do not have the ability to keep every single person the registry – there are over 40,000 – updated about the case. We will work on updating our website with more information. The court will hear argument on the class action, and whether to certify a class in August. My guess is that we will have a decision sometime by late fall.
Best,
Miraim
So does anyone know what this means exactly, I mean will we finally have a decision where Michigan will finally have to do their job and fix the stupid registry like they were ordered to do months ago or will it be a few more years for a final decision. She also said to pay close attention to their website, and the local news. What does she mean by certify? I also know it was filed in the Eastern District Court, but I can’t find anything on it as of yet. So if they don’t certify, does that mean were back to the drawing board again.
I always thought Michigan was out of options and had to comply with the 6th Circuit ruling especially after SCOTUS denied review. If anyone can put this in laymen’s terms I would appreciate it. Thank you.
I heard that there’s a candidate running against Chris Smith for the US Congress NJ 4th District, name Josh Welle, would it be a good idea to inform him about the IML that Chris Smith passed?
There is a new Paul Dubbeling/NCRSOL/NARSOL filing on the case out of NC for those who followed that case (@AJ specifically). It has grown yet was streamlined interestingly enough.
https://narsol.org/2018/07/narsol-streamlines-original-lawsuit-ncrsol-files-new-lawsuit/
I am putting forth a scenario.
You find a boat crew that is willing to smuggle you offshore for an agreed upon amount. From what I understand and have researched there are respectable, trustworthy people out there. Once an overseas destination is reached, you simply live your life. Yes it is not for everyone, but could it be worse than being in constant depression and fear of retaliation?
I read that there are over 500,000 fugitives with warrants at any time in U.S. Are they really going to put effort into looking for a misdomeanor failure to register. I would wager once overseas, you can contact and tell them you are off the continent and won’t be returning. I look at the vast # of illegal immigrants here that live fairly good lives. Honestly , with a little effort, how hard could it be?
@ AJ and others: Brett Kavanaugh… thoughts or analysis? I was hoping the MI guy would get it; maybe he was influenced by Does v. Snyder
Regarding the Brett Kavanaugh nomination to the Supreme Court. No doubt many of us are madly Googling his name and “sex offender” or some variation thereon to try to divine his thoughts in our regard right now. From the Wall Street Journal is this, possibly germane, but inevitably confusing, factoid: “John Doe VIII v. Exxon Mobil Corp. (2011): Fifteen Indonesian villagers sued Exxon Mobil, claiming that local security forces hired by Exxon during natural-gas extraction work within the country committed murder, torture, sexual assault and other acts against the villagers. The panel ruled the villagers could bring a claim against Exxon under a 1789 law called the Alien Tort Statute.
Judge Kavanaugh disagreed, ruling that the law didn’t extend to claims relating to events that happened in other nations. He wrote:
“Here, the sparse text of the ATS does not support application of the law to conduct in foreign lands. The ATS refers to conduct committed in “violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States.” To be sure, such conduct can occur world-wide. But as the Supreme Court has explained, the mere fact that statutory language could plausibly apply to extraterritorial conduct does not suffice to overcome the presumption against extraterritoriality. Otherwise, most statutes, including most federal criminal laws, would apply extraterritorially and cover conduct occurring anywhere in the world.” So, the question I have is “Are ANY U.S. laws against sex offenses committed outside of the U.S. by U.S. persons Constitutionally enforceable?” This extra-territorial claim on the actions of U.S. Citizens is certainly one of the most disturbing mission-creeps we have seen in recent decades and, to date, these prosecutions have been blithely accepted by the judiciary. Possibly encouraging in another, ex post facto, case: “Hamdan v. U.S. (2012): The D.C. Circuit, in an opinion by Judge Kavanaugh, tossed out a military tribunal’s conviction against Salim Hamdan, a former driver for Osama bin Laden. Judge Kavanaugh wrote that the charge of providing material support for terrorism wasn’t made a crime under U.S. law until well after Mr. Hamdan was detained by the U.S. in 2001. Judge Kavanaugh wrote:
Because we read the Military Commissions Act not to retroactively punish new crimes, and because material support for terrorism was not a pre-existing war crime…Hamdan’s conviction for material support for terrorism cannot stand.”
I wish I was concerned for no reason, but I’ll bet checking airline manifests might be next. If that’s the case (“We don’t serve your kind here”) then the IML restrictions don’t matter anyway unless you leave by boat!
This guy was acquitted! But who cares. Let’s ruin his life anyway.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5935373/Woman-sues-United-Airlines-claiming-drunken-passenger-sexually-assaulted-her.html
Just received a SCAM CALL from “Alameda County Sheriff’s Department” 510-926-4104 x 4 “Deputy Thomas Starling” of the “sex offender unit.”
Immediately, he wanted to ask me questions confirming my identity before he would tell me what it was about. Since I don’t live in Alameda County but in SF, this was even more bizarre. I refused to answer any of his questions and said that I would confirm his identity and call him back. I asked for his phone number which he provided (including the X4 extension) and then hung-up.
I called the actual Alameda County Sheriff’s Department to ask about his name and phone number (which had also appeared on caller id) and the staffer said that they were running a scam and didn’t seem to be particularly concerned. He did say that they had been unable to locate or identify the individuals behind the scam and said that, most likely, they were calling from out-of-state. He recommended ignoring them.
The phone number is answered by an unconvincing synthesized voice identifying it as “The County Sheriff’s Department” with no reference to any particular county. Also, “If this is an emergency, hang-up and call 911 immediately.” Yeah, real convincing. Shall we all call them?
Watch Chris lets see if anyone gets what i am stating….
Look I am going to give anyone on the registry that is either low risk, male female, low static 99 score, hell whether your young old or for so many other reasons a slam dunk to kill the registry as-applied to you and all those similarly situated individuals across the state. I would have already jumped on it f I was not in Federal court right now…
You know I do not know if the other attorneys used these RFAs in any of their cases because this is behind the scenes and are not filed but I bet they do not. To stupid. And of course they do not use the judicial notice in any of the cases with the only exception (that I am aware of) being the attorneys in the Taylor residency restrictions case. And guess what????They won!!!!!!!!!
https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/2015/s206143.html
If you have not read that case it is a must I think. It is what prompted me to take action because of the language used about the unreasonable, arbitrary, and oppressive official actions, and the reports or references to reports that are very similar to the ones that I requested judicial notice of and how the singled out a subclass of offenders. Like I stated before they would have to rule the same way if I brought this in state court or they would be basically overturning their ruling in Taylor……..Same type of reports stating the same thing, and just as they considered the parolees in San Diego county a subclass of offenders they would have to consider low risk offenders a subclass of offenders. That is what blew my mind most about that case is that they created their own subclass of offenders and claimed the law was unconstitutional and had no rational basis only for that subclass. You know what I am saying?? Out of all the parolees in the state of CA they singled out a group based solely on location, kind of like how Chris has always been saying that we are a protective class; this is how I think we hit them with it. If they can single out a group based solely on location then it only goes to figure and reason they would have to do the same thing dependent upon any number of factors, i.e. low to high risk, static 99 score, male female, young old, date of convictions, etc… They cannot rule one way and then turn around and rule the opposite just because the issue or challenge is about a different statute…That would be classic violation of equal protection and like I stated it would basically be overturning Taylor………Make sense??…Slam dunk easy peasy……
Oh BTW, for those of you whom are not on paper you enjoy more than what the court stated in Taylor concerning parolees “albeit limited constitutional protection” You have FULL CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION………..Could you just imagine with all the reports that I have provided and with you being off paper? It would be beyond overruling Taylor’s decision but it would be overruling the reasoning behind that ruling. No way could they get away with it…..To blatant of a equal protection violation..I really hope people are taking in what I am saying because I have seriously just provided the ticket you need……….I also took time away from my physics class to state it. But whatever…..:)
MCH ~ Here is how I understand the expungement law in California. If you were sentenced to Jail and not Prison and received Probation and not Parole, upon completion of probation (if there were no violations of probation), the judge HAS to grant the PC1203.4 (some offenses are excluded, though). Even with a violation, it is still possible to get the case expunged, but it might be up to the discretion of the judge at that point. If the charge is a wobbler, it is up to the judge to grant the reduction from a felony to a misdemeanor. If not reduced, he still has to grant the request for expungement. It is the law. We went through record gone and they did everything. No character letters needed. Now, the PC1203.4 does not relieve from the duty to register, only a COR will do that, and I think, you would have to have your SO offenses expunged before applying for a COR, so it is definitely best to obtain the PC1203.4 as soon as you are off probation. You don’t have to wait. Do it the minute you are off probation. With the tiered registry coming, they will no longer have an option for a COR, so it might be best to obtain the COR (at least try) before the tiered registry since removal from the registry is not automatic, which I believe is a bunch of crap. What good does it do if we still have to apply to be removed and will most likely be denied. Hopefully, there will be some changes before the tiered registry goes into effect. The whole reason for it was to reduce the ever-growing list. Correct me if I am mistaken on the PC1203.4…but that is what I have learned.
Insanity…:(
Would have preferred somone from 6th circut, but feel Trump will soon have another pick . The Supreme court will be more constitutional as its written.
Date has been set!
Gundy v. United States (to be argued Oct. 2, 2018): Whether the federal Sex Offender Notification and Registration Act improperly delegates to the U.S. attorney general the authority to decide whether the act’s requirements should apply to sex offenders who were convicted before the law was passed.
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/gundy-v-united-states/
HE HAS A BIG TEAM ON HIS SIDE!
I guess I am a little confused how a Gundy victory works for us exactly.
Yes, SORNA illegally gave the AG the job to define the rules that both incorrectly allowed it to be retro-active and (as many forget) also allowed it to re-define the common term “convicted” to also mean “not convicted” in cases where someone plead guilty or no contest in exchange for deferred adjudication and had no conviction on record.
But, since the actual sex offender laws are based on each State’s implementation of SORNA created by their actual legislators, the State’s laws didn’t delegate any authority and would stand, right? Can’t you pretty much remove and ignore the entire federal SORNA since it is no more than a suggestion to the states and the states can use as much of it as they want to?
I found this article and thought it was very true in how it describes the hardship not only for the actual registrant but also their family members, friends or neighbors. If you don’t want to read through this whole article, you can focus on the tables they provided that show how the registry effects the individual in their day to day life, years or decades after their offense.
http://www.cjcj.org/uploads/cjcj/documents/frenzel_et_al_collateral_consequences_final_formatted.pdf
This is why the registry needs to be abolished all together. The families need to stand up, not just the registrants. We all suffer the same.
“The Power of Prosecutors: An Overview” A video from the ACLU.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5jeoY4QB58