Curtis Hart is scheduled to receive the names of most of Cowlitz County’s 570 level 1 sex offenders Wednesday, but a few names likely will be withheld.
One offender was granted a temporary injunction Sept. 11, and requests for injunctions to block the release of at least four other names were filed Monday on behalf of individual offenders. They are each represented by Vancouver attorney Elijah Marchbanks, and all are referred to as “John Does” in court documents. Full Article
Also see:
WA: Man plans to publish names of level 1 sex offenders
I posted this is another thread, but in case someone tries this in California, and maybe Washington has similar laws.
Found it. The case is Westbrook v. County of Los Angeles (1994).
The trial court expressed concern over the loss of privacy which would result from giving private companies access to this information, but found appellants’ position (agreeing that respondent could have some information on computer tape and other information only by traveling to each individual court to obtain it) nonsensical. After taking the matter under submission, the trial court ruled that respondent was entitled to copies of the entire MCI on computer tape not more than one time per month upon payment of a reasonable amount for each such copy.
Appellants contend the judgment must be reversed because it violates the state constitutional right of privacy and Penal Code section 13300. Amicus curiae, the Appellate Committee of the California District Attorneys Association, joins in these contentions. Appellants also contend the judgment must be reversed because it exceeds the relief sought by respondent.
https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/4th/27/157.html
See also:
Judicial Records: Can Privacy Concerns Co-exist with Public Access?
California communities have begun to wrestle with a major public policy problem that pits traditional concepts of access to court records against individuals’ rights to privacy.
by Harry Hammitt / April 30, 1996
http://www.govtech.com/magazines/gt/Judicial-Records-Can-Privacy-Concerns-Co-exist.html
Someone should make a FOI request for this guy’s address and phone number he gave the county sheriiff when requesting all the SO names. That information would be publicly available too, and should be posted on the Internet. Any and all personnel information this guy gave to sheriff when making the request should be posted as well.
I would not advocate he be harassed at all, and never would. It should be posted with a disclaimer that no one should call this guy late at night, overload his voice mail, send him nasty emails and filling his inbox, protest in Front of his home. No, no one should do that.
good! RSO made it harder for him
People needs to understand RSO are not to be toyed with .
This guy, Hart, is monumental steaming POS. Here he is wearing a Gadsden flag on his hat. Oh, the irony.
https://tdn.com/news/justice-officials-want-curtis-hart-to-stop-taking-justice-into/article_581c5b97-3572-5096-a1ca-2ac844cfe573.html
This mother blanker better sleep w/ one eye open.
Washington was my State of Conviction, so I follow stuff happening there. Regarding this vigilante, what he is doing isn’t new; it was “pioneered” by an even more monstrous vigilante ! Backin 2016, D—— Z—- published 21,000 names, which included the Level one people. Just Google “Former Mesa mayor posts 21,000 sex offender names after long legal battle” from the Tri City Herald, Nov 26, 2016.
The primary reasons for the names NOT to be published is because of Charles D Gilson aka Chuck Rodrick and Brent Oesterblad. These two rear-end wipes have terrorized registered and non-registered citizens for many years now.