ACSOL’s Conference Calls

Conference Call Recordings Online
Dial-in number: 1-712-770-8055, Conference Code: 983459


Monthly Meetings | Recordings (3/20 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings

General News

General Comments October 2018

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

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  • Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  • Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  • Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  • We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  • 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.
  • Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  • Please do not post in all Caps.
  • 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.
  • We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  • We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  • Please choose a user name that does not contain links to other web sites
  • Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
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.  
 
383 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Gov. Brown appoints five CA Court of Appeal justices For those that like to know who were are up against, we now have some fresh faces for us to find out about: This link takes you to full pictures and details about these judges http://www.lakeconews.com/index.php/news/58508-gov-brown-appoints-five-court-of-appeal-justices California Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. on Friday announced the appointment of Gabriel P. Sanchez as associate justice, Division One, Carin T. Fujisaki as associate justice, Division Three and Justice Stuart R. Pollak as presiding justice, Division Four of the First District Court of Appeal; Peter A. Krause as associate justice of the Third District… Read more »

Believe me I will be pushing the issue about changing facts and all that in my brief to the 9th. IDK how I did not see this Nevada case from 2012. http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2012/02/10/08-17471.pdf What a complete switch over for the 9th to make after concluding the Alaska statute as punishment originally. Although SCOTUS is the supreme law of the land, it just goes beyond reason that the 9th could change its collective tune so dramatically just because SCOTUS over ruled one of their decisions on a first generation law that the 9th struck down. Crazy, Just because SCOTS is the law… Read more »

@mike r:
Thanks for the kudos, but no, I did not ever mention this case. This is the first I know of it. It seems to build on the 9th’s self-reversal, which does indeed make challenge more difficult. Though Muniz and Snyder weigh counter, unfortunately they’re only persuasive.

I see the libel statement and other issues stated by Ginsburg was in the concurring opinion in Conn v Doe… Interesting…

And I see Souter actually wrote that.

In Conn v Doe, where is the following,
[For opinion of Justice Stevens concurring in the judgment,
see post, p. 110.]

Here’s recent case where a Federal judge in NC ruled that SORNA violates non-delegation and is punitive (and thus EPF for those convicted before its passage): https://mitchellhamline.edu/sex-offense-litigation-policy/wp-content/uploads/sites/61/2018/10/United-States-v.-Wass.pdf.

1. Wow, that judge wielded a hammer.
2. I can’t find the original complaint by googling it. Can you? As one who travels for work domestically and (formerly) internationally, I’d like to understand what he did to get charged. THAT is scary.

@E: No, I couldn’t find it either, which is why I relied on the URL I provided. It’s on appeal to the 4th, but that’s fine…at one point or another, it’ll end up as a petition to SCOTUS. I may dig into PACER to see what’s what and d/l other docs of interest. If I do, I’ll post links here. (I gotta be careful though, my last couple bills from PACER have been a bit higher than expected or desired!) I, too, thought the judge hit pretty hard. I also had the thought that if SORNA is found unconstitutional and/or… Read more »

I couldn’t resist, so I checked into things on PACER. The guy was indicted by a Grand Jury for FTR under SORNA 18 U.S.C. 2250(a). Note that this wasn’t a trial, it was a Motion to Dismiss the Indictment, which was granted. As such, there aren’t any other documents worth review.

I looked up the Court of Appeals info and as of 8/24/2018 it’s been ordered held in abeyance until Gundy is resolved at SCOTUS. So this appeal is going to be siting idle for many months, and then may take many more to be heard and decided.

Ah, now the grand jury reference makes sense. Wish I could see the indictment, though, as this is about travel in interstate commerce. Just recently on this forum we discussed the fact that we have not seen many FTRs stemming from travel violations. (Have we?)

@E: There’s not much to the indictment, as much was redacted and under seal. Here’s the text of the Indictment: ***** During a period of time beginning at a date unknown, but no later than September 2016, and continuing through on or about February 27, 2018, in the Eastern District of North Carolina and elsewhere, EDWARD JAY WASS, the defendant herein, being required to register under the Sex Offender Registration apd Notification Act, and having traveled in interstate commerce, did knowingly fail to register as required by the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, all in violation of Title 18,… Read more »

Maybe it’s a plain ol FTR, but brought under federal instead of state charges (possible only because he had traveled across state lines??). Weird. Thanks for sharing this.

That was an extraordinarily powerful, clear, and direct takedown of SORNA by the judge in this motion to dismiss the SORNA FTR indictment against the defendent. Too bad it was only a motion to dismiss, and not a constitutional challenge of SORNA, like the Gundy case. Speaking of which, this case is held in abeyance until Gundy is resolved, but Gundy is only addressing the nondelegation principle with respect to the retroactivity of SORNA. The judge dismissed the indictment in this case based on nondelegation, separation of powers, and EPF (finding that SORNA was punitive). Separation of powers is the… Read more »

Thanks @AJ for the Hamline doc out of the Eastern District of NC and the FTR dismissal. Quite the impressive doc written by Justice Boyle this past summer! I would like to hope it makes it ways to SCOTUS to read for learning some things today, but know that is not probably going to happen until later. Just going to say again, out of NC this comes, the state that really likes to hammer registrants!

@TS:
“Just going to say again, out of NC this comes, the state that really likes to hammer registrants!”
—–
Yeah, and the State has what seems to be a consistent pattern of LOSING.

@AJ. Ok, well although it does not change the position of my case (punishment I believe will not cut it in the 9th no matter what, just about because I do not believe in impossible no matter what, just about anything is possible, hell horses can fly if you put wings and a jet pack on em. lol) it does make me feel a little better knowing that you did not know of the case either. Just because I know you are a smart cookie and if you missed it then I do not feel so ashamed. I hope that… Read more »

@mike r:
“…the Boyd case from Washington just bypassed the 9th…”
—–
No, it didn’t bypass the 9th. It was never in the Federal Court system. It went through the WA courts and is now headed to SCOTUS….just like Muniz didn’t bypass the 3rd because it was wholly within the PA courts, then went to SCOTUS.

Man all the petitions to SCOTUS on all different reasons they are going to have to take one up soon. Hopefully it will be a sufficient one and not some lame as attempts. I wonder if they are just waiting for more splits or for one that addresses the real issues that they stated (I would say hinted at, but the SCOTUS opinions straight stated what challenges could be brought, still dumbfounded no attorney brought the issues. Like I stated the attorneys should be disbarred, or at minimum be sanctioned or reprimanded in some way, for not doing so instantly… Read more »

Here is some of the case law regarding how courts cannot just shirk the duties, although it is on substantive due process. just throwing this out there… Here, “[t]he inescapable fact is that adjudication of substantive due process claims may call upon the Court in interpreting the Constitution to exercise that same capacity which by tradition courts always have exercised: reasoned judgment…That does not mean we are free to invalidate state policy choices with which we disagree; yet neither does it permit us to shrink from the duties of our office.” Casey, 505 U.S. at 849. Beller v. Middendorf, 632… Read more »

I don’t live in California. I’m a registered citizen, and I was thinking of going to a conference out there with my wife. What are the laws? Can I just pop in for 2 or 3 days, and then leave without going through any sort of registering with law enforcement? Thanks in advance.

CA law says you have 5 working days.

Go to the Alliance for Constitutional Sex Offender Laws (https://all4consolaws.org/) and look at the gray box at the top. You will see in blue the title “Registration Laws for All 50 States .” If you click on California, that will give you information about California’s registration requirements.

Right, so if they deny then the ruling stands (only on federal constitutional grounds) and pretty much eliminates any future challenge in Washington state courts on federal constitutional challenges. But if SCOTUS accepted the case and reversed and said it was ex post facto then that would have national implications even though it is an appeal from the state courts. That is what I meant by just bypassing the federal court altogether. I mean I thought the normal process is you go thru superior courts to state SC and then you have to go into the federal district and appellant… Read more »

@mike r:
“I thought the normal process is you go thru superior courts to state SC and then you have to go into the federal district and appellant courts.”
—–
Absolutely not. Federal Courts and State Courts are independent judicial fora.

Recommended readings:

https://info.legalsolutions.thomsonreuters.com/pdf/perspec/2001-winter/winter-2001-7.pdf

https://authorzilla.com/n6eRmaROR3tWcDUx/which-court-is-binding-georgetown-law.html, with Page 5 being the meat of the document. (This PDF used to be available directly from Georgetown Law School, but it appears to have moved out of public viewing.)

Read and learn the info in these two docs, and you’ll never again be confused.

Got it and on it.

Go to the Alliance for Constitutional Sex Offender Laws website (https://all4consolaws.org/) and look at the gray box at the top. You will see, in blue font, the title “Registration Laws for All 50 States .” If you click on California, that will give you information about California’s registration requirements.

Thanks NPS.

NPS, I am glad I reached out to you and talked to you. We had a rough start there and we are on different ends of the spectrum on many issues but there is no reason for us not to put those differences aside and be civil and have productive conversation. Your background is great and I feel for you getting caught up in this crap. It sounds as though you should be no where near this registration crap but here you are thrust into it by no fault of your own. For what it is worth I apologize if… Read more »

Another 4th Amdt. case petitioned to SCOTUS (http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/harper-v-leahy), another chance for them to show their interest in either strengthening or further gutting it. I suspect I know where Gorsuch will fall on this and probably Alito as well (polar opposites), but the rest I have no idea. Roberts seems to be slowly grasping how far they’ve allowed LE to overstep.

So, this bunch, the “Sexual Assault Felony Enforcement Task Force (S.A.F.E.)” which I first found out about the hard way in 1994 (they descended upon my house in a team of approximately twelve multi-agency gangbusters) is now doing “compliance checks” which this local tv “news team” gave a Halloween-theme. You should watch this as there are several very interesting statements made by both a man who is helping out “sex offenders” on parole as well as the DA’s hardly credible claims about reoffense rate. Here’s a story from Riverside County: “EXCLUSIVE: Sex offender task force raids valley homes, checks felon… Read more »

Thanks for posting that, David.
I’d love to see a new segment like this in which a law enforcement officer or a district attorney is HONEST and states – for the viewing public – the truly low recidivism rates for individuals previously convicted of sexual offenses.

(Don’t worry – I’m not holding my breath.)

On crappy phone so cant research and post best links to this, but start here: https://floridaactioncommittee.org/7th-circuit-sex-offender-case-appealed-to-scotus/ Apparently scotus requested the state reply by nov 30th so good chance they could take case. This may be an even better case than packingham to get a good decision from scotus that could affect all restrictions on those off probation or parole and still subject to restrictions unless scotus narrowly tailors ruling. It has substantive due process as one of the challenges. Someone on a computer please research and comment as I cant the next few days due to finally getting a job.… Read more »

@Chris F

This is the same case out of the 7th which is discussed here, posted Oct 26, and has some discussion about it: https://all4consolaws.org/2018/10/general-comments-october-2018/comment-page-2/#comments

Search on AJ, TS, CR, or James to find it near the bottom of the page

Sorry Chris this was the first time that I was able to get on the pc so I was not able to post that for you.

Anyways, can anyone find the complete docket of juvenile male?http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2009/09/10/07-30290.pdf
I really want to look at the substantive due process that was originally being argued….

@chris F
I will research and post links when i get home and get the kid to bed!!!!!!

The court cannot just dismiss the following statements simply because they are applied to adults and some of the info is already public record. This is prima facie evidence that at minimum registration notification is partially responsible for the adverse effects. And also, that the in-person reporting requirements are not “minor” nor “indirect” “It also seriously jeopardizes the ability of such individuals to obtain employment, housing, and education.” “The disadvantages that flow to former juvenile offenders on account of having a public record as sex offenders must be attributed to SORNA alone.” Juvenile male “Every former juvenile offender subject to… Read more »

One more for now.. Punitive intent… I no I am jumping back to the punitive issue but I had to while reading juvenile male… I should have included selective citations from this case in my original complaint and objections, but I will be in the appeal. Unlike Alaska’s statute, which contained no legislative purpose statement and was passed pursuant to legislative findings that focused solely on public safety, SORNA’s legislative purpose statement reveals an additional goal: to respond to the heinous crimes committed by sex offenders. SORNA was enacted “[i]n order to protect the public from sex offenders and offenders… Read more »

So, anyone that has any citations to any arguments on substantive due process and sex offender registration please post>>>

Figured I would throw it out there in the moniker see if I can get anyone to help me find any and all citations to any sex offender substantive due process arguments. Whether it is courts or academia. I will read them all. This is the only chance we are going to get to do this in the 9th so I hope people step up and put your skills together and make this happen and not make me go this alone, or with just a couple of us researching. We really need to put all the BS aside and all… Read more »

@Mike R
Ill be doing some research over the weekend to see what i can find. My husband and i wll help you anyway we can!!!

@Chris F, thanks for posting that. I haven’t read it yet, but I skimmed the first few pages. I saw this statement, which does not comport with my understanding of recidivism rates:

“Studies show that pedophiles have a fifty-two percent recidivism rate and that rapists have a thirty-nine percent recidivism rate.”

It refers to note 5:

5. Jill S. Levenson & Leo P. Cotter, The Effect of Megan’s Law on Sex Offender Reintegration, 21
J. CONTEMP. CRIM. JUST. 49, 50 (2005).

Hope I’ll have a chance to read it this weekend.

@CR:
Here’s a follow-up study to the 2005 one: https://ccoso.org/sites/default/files/import/BSL-Levenson-etal-2007.pdf

It’s a bit more thorough and encapsulates what the 2005 paper found.

Thank you guys, I was feeling kind of alone there for a minute. I get discouraged just as anyone else probably would when they get smacked down by court decisions that they were unaware of like that Nevada case. I really need your continued support with this in order to keep my mind straight on course with this. Thanks again. So I think I may be on to some thing with the en banc hearings. The following is from a 2004 case right after Smith. “Thus, although the Does possess liberty interests that are indeed important, Smith precludes our granting… Read more »

110 California Sex Offenders Arrested:

Ironic that most of these were for weapons and drugs. 28 had adult porn, 2 with child porn.. I guess when the headline says sex offender and sweep, reasons don’t matter.

https://www.mercedsunstar.com/news/state/california/article220957925.html

Some wise words from the late theologian William Barclay (1907-1978): ***** The first duty of authority is to try to understand the force of the temptations which drove the sinner to sin and the seductiveness of the circumstances in which sin became so attractive. No man can pass judgment on another unless he at least tries to understand what the other has come through. The second duty of authority is to seek to reclaim the wrongdoer. Any authority which is solely concerned with punishment is wrong; any authority, which, in its exercise, drives a wrongdoer either to despair or to… Read more »

@AJ

Hear hear! I’ll toast to what Barclay said and raise my coffee to that this morning.

Great quote AJ, thank you.

I think I’ll mail that to all members of the Texas legislature at the beginning of the next legislative session, around January 8th of next year.

I heard on the radio today about the ballot measure in Florida that, of passed, will restore voting rights to convicted felons …… except for those convicted of murder or a sexual offense. WTF is with that State that we are always their favorite scapegoat??? Please help me to understand why someone was previously convicted of assaulting a police officer, stalking a lawmaker, or making terrorist threats against an agency or department of government could have his/her voting rights restored…… but not someone who had consensual sex with the teenager in a Romeo Juliet situation. Someone remind me not to… Read more »

It’s outrageous and I can’t see how any real American could support it. It was no big deal to throw murderers in there because very, very few of those will ever be out of prison. It will only affect a handful of people. But it is good cover so it just doesn’t say “$EX offenders” and nothing else. That would not be very defensible.

woman charged with violation registry laws after registering her own child at day care. https://www.theherald-news.com/2018/11/02/prosecutor-woman-broke-sex-offender-law-after-registering-children-at-daycare/avzsiui/

Hey here is some incentive for pro se, or anyone with the skills to prosecute a claim against the gov. I did not find this, but I just had a gut feeling and it made sense that is why I included I want attorney fees in my original complaint. I was just unaware of exactly what statutes applied, which with some collaboration I was just provided with. (feeling sad, thank you very much, hope you do not mind me giving credit where credit is due) Lol. section 1021.5 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, authorizing the award of attorneys’… Read more »

383
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x
.