It was recently revealed that the upcoming film ‘The Predator’ had a scene removed because it was discovered that one of the actors n the scene was a registered sex offender. Full op-ed piece
Revisiting the Brock Turner CaseSource: newyorker.com 3/29/23 In the midst of the #MeToo movement, California voters recalled a judge for...
FL: Sex offender acquitted in kidnapping and rape case sentenced to 8 years on other chargesSource: news-journalonline.com 3/28/23 A sex offender acquitted last year of kidnapping and rape charges was found...
Action Alert for Washington Residents: Write Today to Support Youth Offenders Bill ESHB1394Source: Washington Voices Washington residents, this is our last chance support bill ESHB1394, which regards Sexual offenses...
What’s in Olivia Munn’s closet?
It is interesting to note that…
a) this registrant professional actor playing his role (“lusting” after her) made professional actress Ms. Munn so uncomfortable that she felt compelled to speak out long after the scene was shot, and
b) I have not seen any language condemning her galpal Asia Argento for her alleged contact sex crime. Perhaps I have missed it…. after all…. Ms. Munn has stated that she has nothing(!) but contempt for those who hurt children and animals. Up to and including off color conversation.
Here’s the thing – if this did not involve $EX then no one would know anything about it or care. The guy could’ve knocked the child’s teeth out with a hammer and that would be just fine. That alone makes Munn’s behavior unacceptable.
I think Munn should probably just do her job and mind her own business. I will boycott anything she is involved with. In the future, I will be successful at getting others to do the same. I will not forget to do it for the rest of her life.
We hold that the case-specific statements related by the prosecution expert concerning defendant’s gang membership constituted inadmissible hearsay under California law. They were recited by the expert, who presented them as true statements of fact, without the requisite independent proof. Some of those hearsay statements were also testimonial and therefore should have been excluded under Crawford. The error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, we reverse the jury findings on the street gang enhancements.
That is exactly right, for any kind of enhancement there is a beyond a reasonable doubt requirement, such is the case with sex offender registration. It is an enhancement applied to already statutory maximums which requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt of the facts and elements for such an enhancement……….This is what I have been saying for years now, and just like all my other predictions, this is the case and you will hear those words come out of a court’s mouth in due time….Thank you for providing the specific case.
Just on under reporting….I have an entire argument dedicated to this exact issue…And yes any hearsay is now hearsay as it should, so any proxy interviews on any subject are crap regardless who brings it. I wonder how a expert witness would try and weasel his way out of answering the real questions and refuting him on these proxy interviews. You know they are going to try and bring this up as usual…
Plaintiff wishes judicial notice of each one of the following government citations that were all incorporated into Plaintiff’s Complaint for consideration by the Court concerning Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, and for subsequent review on all Plaintiff’s other claims in his Complaint, as well as for subsequent review on appeal.
Reports concerning alleged under-reporting:
The following are governmental reports conducted concerning only alleged high rates of under reported of sex crimes, and even though not relevant to recidivism rates, they are relevant in that the authors concede the fallacies in such research because the methodologies use anecdotal and conclusory self-reporting for their statistics. These reports are relevant since the proponents of these laws often use under-reporting as somehow justification for these laws.
Michael Planty et al., Female Victims of Sexual Violence, 1994-2010, BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS (2013).
“The data in this report were drawn from the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ (BJS) National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS). The NCVS collects information on nonfatal crimes reported and not reported to the police from a nationally representative sample of persons age 12 or older who live in U.S. households.” Pp 2.
“Many of the variables examined in this report may be related to one another and to other variables not included in the analyses. Complex relationships among variables in this report were not fully explored and warrant more extensive analysis. Readers are cautioned not to draw causal inferences based on the results presented” pp 10. https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fvsv9410.pdf [visited on April 7, 2018].
David Finkelhor et al., Sexually Assaulted Children: National Estimates & Characteristics, JUVENILE JUSTICE BULLETIN 8 (Aug. 2008).
“Using proxy interviews to obtain information on crime victimization and other sensitive topics has never been a preferred methodology and has sometimes yielded poor results” pp 10 https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/214383.pdf [visited on April 7,2018].
I doubt that Munn supports Duterte’s extra judicial killing of suspected drug users and dealers. Yet the basic premise is here, punish those who you perceive have damaged society and do it outside the courts. Of course, killing one’s body is worse than making someone unemployable. Or is it?. It is acceptable to cause a type of social death to registrants. This is lifelong and many times leads to actual death by vigilante or suicide.
I just wanted to point out that by 20th Century Fox and Olivia Munn having discriminated against the actor, they seemed to have violated Section 290.4(d)(E). Specifically:
“(2) Except as authorized under paragraph (1) or any other provision of law, use of any information that is disclosed pursuant to this section for purposes relating to any of the following is prohibited:
(A) Health insurance.
(F) Education, scholarships, or fellowships.
(G) Housing or accommodations.
(H) Benefits, privileges, or services provided by any business establishment.”
According to this section:
“(4) (A) Any use of information disclosed pursuant to this section for purposes other than those provided by paragraph (1) or in violation of paragraph (2) shall make the user liable for the actual damages, and any amount that may be determined by a jury or a court sitting without a jury, not exceeding three times the amount of actual damage, and not less than two hundred fifty dollars ($250), and attorney’s fees, exemplary damages, or a civil penalty not exceeding twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000).”
So why does this actor not sue to show that Registered Citizens are, at least in one way, somewhat of a protected class? Sue 20th Century Fox and Olivia Munn. Show people that Registered Citizens have a RIGHT to move on with their lives. They certainly have the money…
This is all wrong in many ways and drives me batty everytime
I hear it.
“no one has a right to be employed, nor does anyone have a right to be forgiven, or a right not to be shunned by those who disapprove of them or dislike them, or a right to force anyone else to associate with them.”
Lets hit this one at a time.
“no one has a right to be employed”
Um a matter of fact, each and everyone of us have a constitutionally protected right to property and prosperity including the right to earn a living.
“nor does anyone have a right to be forgiven”
Once again, we have a constitutionally protected right to rehabilitation and reintegration back into society, although we may not have a constitutionally protected right to be personally forgiving by the public we do have one to be forgiving by our gov.
“or a right not to be shunned by those who disapprove of them or dislike them”
Constitutionally protected right to not be targeted and ostracized by our fellow citizens.
“or a right to force anyone else to associate with them.”
Finally, constitutionally protected right to travel freely, associate with whom we want wherever we want, so yes the populace is obligated by law to associate with us in many settings. The one thing that no one has a constitutionally protected right to is the illusionary “right to know” that the terrorists and the ones who want to be life long victims or champions of moral codes claim they have. Will Allen hits it almost on the head when he states we have to stand up for our rights or no one is going to listen or respect any of us…This is the trend and foundation of our country, if you are not willing to make a stand and battle your enemies in the name of justice then you will never earn your way back to full citizenry and respect from your fellow man. And stop claiming we do not have rights when we absolutely do…I apologize if I am being to critical of wording here but it drives me crazy to see people just give in and give the domestic terrorist some kind of legitimacy when they are in fact enemies of the country…
@mike r. The “authorities” are probably monitoring you here, don’t discount that. Maybe they are working on a plan that takes out your case in one fell swoop.
I’m with Static 99R scam. The actor should sue. ACSOL could reach out to the actor so that he can at least get a few thousand in damages. Fact is Olivia Munn and Fox didn’t take the actor’s current risk into account. This would be somewhat of a risky strategy; but reading some of the comments in the articles, even though the media gives a spin against the Registrant, people seem about 50-50 for/against the actor (which is surprising to our benefit). ACSOL—with a well-reasoned lawsuit—could make the case that the actor was beyond rehabilitated. And that Munn did not truly feel in danger.
You could totally spin a lawsuit so that ACSOL could gain some political momentum—as well as serve as a deterrent for those that wish to discriminate against one who had long ago served their punishment. Look at Blacks, look at LGBTQ. They all sued to get equality. Of course, Registrants are of a different category. But we—like every other oppressed group—are people too.
SUE OLIVIA MANN AND FOX!!
By “current risk,” I’m saying that you should put forward the fact that the actor has been offense-free almost a decade, any community service, doctor opinions. To be clear, none of that Static 99 bullshit.
Again, my opinion is that ACSOL could spin this to our benefit with a well-argued lawsuit—as well as proper spin by Janice and Chance. Janice has done a good job making her case to the media before. Why not this time in standing up for an actor that was clearly on “the right track.”
Read the comments in the articles. We have a lot of supporters—people who support a second chance—too.
You know CR I am not looking to argue with anyone, I just hate it when people push that false narrative that we do not have rights. I understand your premise and agree for the most part, but nonetheless we do have all the rights I stated and then some and I believe we should always push that fact and never let our guards down and admit in “ANY” way that we some how do not have rights…That is all i am saying….
How could there be a “right to know” that justifies the Registries? If there were such a right then we would have to have millions of people listed on national, public, lifetime Registries. Frankly, when I see a law enforcement criminal or other harasser talk about a “right to know” to justify the Registries, I think they have an I.Q. of perhaps around 80 to 90. Really, that is what I believe. How could they be so stupid to believe there is a “right to know” only for $EX crimes and/or that people would believe them if they said such a thing?!!
And it always surprises me that people in the media, who at least know enough to read and write, very rarely call the stupid people out. The lemmings just eat it all up.
As far as saying people who are Registered do not have certain rights, I don’t accept that. The criminal regimes that have enabled and promoted that are not legitimate. They are no more legitimate than any other war criminals have been in the past. No more legitimate that the “legitimate Nazi government” telling Jewish people where they could live or if they could live. Just for the main extreme example of surely thousands+.
People who support the Registries are war criminals. This country belongs to me and I am going to keep my rights and take more, at their expense. Today, lots of them depend on me and they are keeping my family well off. That is their use. They need to enjoy their Registries, they are paying dearly for them. The Registries are like the meth they use – they will “enjoy” both of them but it’s going to hurt them.
Bammmm…. They are completely violating precedent and statutory law…….WTF….I am just starting too…
The Supreme Court’s decision in DOJ v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S 749, 762-71 (1989), held that a privacy interest can exist, under the FOIA, in publicly available – but “practically obscure” – information, such as a criminal history record.
One district court has declined to “recognize a new exception to [subsection (b) of the Privacy Act] based on California public policy to protect persons investigating acts of child abuse.” Stafford v. SSA, 437 F. Supp. 2d 1113, 1121 (N.D. Cal. 2006). In Stafford, a Social Security Administration employee disclosed to California Child Protective Services “the precise diagnosis of mental illness on which the SSA had made its determination that [the suspected child abuser] was disabled and thus eligible for benefits.” Id. at 1116. The suspect brought a subsection (b)/(g)(1)(D) claim against the agency. Id. at 1114. The agency argued that the court should recognize a new exception because “[t]he public interest in detecting and eradicating child abuse is so strong that under California state law, malicious acts or acts taken without probable cause by investigators such as [the Child Protective Services employee] are immunized.” Id. at 1121. The court explained that “Congress enacted the Privacy Act as a limitation on the sharing of private information among government agencies to further what it determined was an important public policy” and stated that “[t]he Court cannot create an exception to a federal statute based on state policy.” Id.
That last phrase seems pretty relevant….
“In light of Reporters Comm., personal information of the sort protected by the Privacy Act is less likely to be “required” to be disclosed under the FOIA, within the meaning of subsection (b)(2). Specifically, where an agency determines that the only “public interest” that would be furthered by a disclosure is a nonqualifying one under Reporters Comm. (even where it believes that disclosure would be in furtherance of good public policy generally), it may not balance in favor of disclosure under the FOIA and therefore disclosure will be prohibited under the Privacy Act – unless authorized by another Privacy Act exception or by written consent. See, e.g., DOD v. FLRA, 510 U.S. at 497-502 (declining to “import the policy considerations that are made explicit in the Labor Statute into the FOIA Exemption 6 balancing analysis” and, following the principles of Reporters Comm., holding that home addresses of bargaining unit employees are covered by FOIA Exemption 6 and thus that Privacy Act “prohibits their release to the unions”); Schwarz v. INTERPOL, No. 94-4111, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 3987, at *4-7 & n.2 (10th Cir. Feb. 28, 1995) (balancing under Reporters Comm. and holding that individual clearly has protected privacy interest in avoiding disclosure of his whereabouts to third parties; disclosure of this information would not “contribute anything to the public’s understanding of the operations or activities of the government”; and thus any information was exempt from disclosure under FOIA Exemption 7(C) and does not fall within Privacy Act exception (b)(2)).”
Hey there is also mention of the elusive “need to know” term but it only applies to intra-agency situations….No exceptions for mass dissemination yet….
These cases and laws seem pretty unambiguous to me…
Yeah and here is the actual code section and conditions for public disclosure and I do not see any exceptions. Of course this is not out of the Privacy Act of 1975, this is just federal code. Privacy Act creates no exceptions for public dissemination at all, only intra-agency and barely that in many cases. Hell, the way i am reading it, it completely precludes the court from even considering public policy as an exception.
(b)Conditions of Disclosure.—No agency shall disclose any record which is contained in a system of records by any means of communication to any person, or to another agency, except pursuant to a written request by, or with the prior written consent of, the individual to whom the record pertains, unless disclosure of the record would be—
(1) to those officers and employees of the agency which maintains the record who have a need for the record in the performance of their duties;
(2) required under section 552 of this title;
(3) for a routine use as defined in subsection (a)(7) of this section and described under subsection (e)(4)(D) of this section;
(4) to the Bureau of the Census for purposes of planning or carrying out a census or survey or related activity pursuant to the provisions of title 13;
(5) to a recipient who has provided the agency with advance adequate written assurance that the record will be used solely as a statistical research or reporting record, and the record is to be transferred in a form that is not individually identifiable;
(6) to the National Archives and Records Administration as a record which has sufficient historical or other value to warrant its continued preservation by the United States Government, or for evaluation by the Archivist of the United States or the designee of the Archivist to determine whether the record has such value;
(7) to another agency or to an instrumentality of any governmental jurisdiction within or under the control of the United States for a civil or criminal law enforcement activity if the activity is authorized by law, and if the head of the agency or instrumentality has made a written request to the agency which maintains the record specifying the particular portion desired and the law enforcement activity for which the record is sought;
(8) to a person pursuant to a showing of compelling circumstances affecting the health or safety of an individual if upon such disclosure notification is transmitted to the last known address of such individual;
(9) to either House of Congress, or, to the extent of matter within its jurisdiction, any committee or subcommittee thereof, any joint committee of Congress or subcommittee of any such joint committee;
(10) to the Comptroller General, or any of his authorized representatives, in the course of the performance of the duties of the Government Accountability Office;
(11) pursuant to the order of a court of competent jurisdiction; or
(12) to a consumer reporting agency in accordance with section 3711(e) of title 31.
That privacy issue, wherever it was argued, if it really has been meaningfully challenged, must not have been very good because everything that I am reading states they cannot do this. SCOTUS and the majority of federal district courts have stated specifically, especially in the CA and 9th courts specifically addressing child abuse justification is of no merit, that public policy regardless of it’s purpose is not relevant and has absolutely no bearing on a privacy act violation….This seems pretty huge to me but I have been wrong before…
Someone reach out to this guy and sue for damages under 290.4(d)(2)(E), at minimum. Also, what about defamation, slander, libel? Did Olivia Munn take the actor’s current danger level into account when she made her comments? From what I’ve seen and heard, Munn wasn’t harassed, threatened or even mildly offended for any other reason(s) than the actor’s bogus “sex offender” label. If not for the dumb and stupid registry, everyone would have been on their merry way.