ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings | Recordings (6/12 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings

Click here to sign up now for ACSOL’s Online EPIC Conference: Empowered People Inspiring Change Sept 17-18
Download a PDF of the schedule

General CommentsGeneral 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.

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

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 Court of Appeal; and Frank J. Menetrez as associate justice, Division Two of the Fourth District Court of Appeal.

Gabriel P. Sanchez. Courtesy photo.

First District Court of Appeal, Division One

Gabriel P. Sanchez, 42, of Oakland, has been appointed associate justice, Division One of the First District Court of Appeal.

Sanchez has served as a deputy legal affairs secretary in the Office of Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. since 2012. He served as a deputy attorney general at the California Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General from 2011 to 2012 and was an associate at Munger, Tolles and Olson LLP from 2006 to 2011. He served as a law clerk for the Honorable Richard A. Paez at the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit from 2005 to 2006.

He earned a Juris Doctor degree from Yale Law School, a Master of Philosophy degree from the University of Cambridge and a Bachelor of Arts degree from Yale College.

Sanchez will fill the vacancy created by the retirement of Justice Robert L. Dondero effective October 31, 2018.

This position requires confirmation by the Commission on Judicial Appointments. The commission consists of Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, Attorney General Xavier Becerra and Senior Presiding Justice J. Anthony Kline. Subject to being confirmed, Sanchez plans to continue serving in his current position in the Governor’s Office until the end of the year.

He will be the first male Latino justice ever appointed to the First District Court of Appeal, if confirmed.

Sanchez is a Democrat.

Carin T. Fujisaki. Courtesy photo.

First District Court of Appeal, Division Three

Carin T. Fujisaki, 59, of Walnut Creek, has been appointed associate justice, Division Three of the First District Court of Appeal.

Fujisaki has served as principal attorney to the chief justice at the California Supreme Court since 2015, where she was a judicial staff attorney from 1991 to 2014 and a staff attorney from 1990 to 1991.

She was an associate at Howard, Rice, Nemerovski, Canady, Robertson and Falk from 1986 to 1990 and a research attorney at the San Francisco County Superior Court from 1985 to 1986.

Fujisaki earned a Juris Doctor degree from the University of California, Hastings College of the Law and a Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of California, Los Angeles.

She fills the vacancy created by the elevation of Justice Peter J. Siggins to presiding justice, Division Three of the First District Court of Appeal.

This position requires confirmation by the Commission on Judicial Appointments. The Commission consists of Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, Attorney General Xavier Becerra and Senior Presiding Justice J. Anthony Kline.

Fujisaki is a Democrat.

Justice Stuart R. Pollak. Courtesy photo.

First District Court of Appeal, Division Four

Stuart R. Pollak, 81, of San Francisco, has been appointed presiding justice, Division Four of the First District Court of Appeal.

Pollak has served as an associate justice in Division Three of the First District Court of Appeal since 2002.

He served as a judge at the San Francisco County Superior Court from 1982 to 2002 and held several positions at Howard, Rice, Nemerovski, Canady and Pollak from 1965 to 1982, including partner and associate.

He served as an attorney at the U.S. Department of Justice from 1963 to 1966 and served as a law clerk for the Honorable Earl Warren, the Honorable Stanley Reed and the Honorable Harold Burton at the U.S. Supreme Court from 1962 to 1963.

Pollak earned a Juris Doctor degree from Harvard Law School and a Bachelor of Arts degree from Stanford University.

He fills the vacancy created by the retirement of Presiding Justice Ignazio J. Ruvolo. This position requires confirmation by the Commission on Judicial Appointments. The Commission consists of Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, Attorney General Xavier Becerra and Senior Presiding Justice J. Anthony Kline.

Pollak is a Democrat.

Peter A. Krause. Courtesy photo.

Third District Court of Appeal

Peter A. Krause, 49, of Sacramento, has been appointed associate justice of the Third District Court of Appeal.

Krause has served as legal affairs secretary in the Office of Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. since 2014, where he was chief deputy legal affairs secretary from 2013 to 2014.

He served in several positions at the California Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General from 2007 to 2013, including supervising deputy attorney general and deputy attorney general.

Krause was an attorney at the Judicial Council of California, Office of the General Counsel from 2005 to 2007 and an associate at Sheppard, Mullin, Richter and Hampton from 1996 to 2005.

He earned a Juris Doctor degree from Loyola Law School, Los Angeles and a Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of California, Berkeley. He fills the vacancy created by the retirement of Justice George W. Nicholson.

This position requires confirmation by the Commission on Judicial Appointments. The Commission consists of Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, Attorney General Xavier Becerra and Presiding Justice Vance W. Raye.

Subject to being confirmed, Krause plans to continue serving in his current position in the Governor’s Office until the end of the year.

Krause is registered without party preference.

Frank J. Menetrez. Courtesy photo.

Fourth District Court of Appeal

Frank J. Menetrez, 52, of Claremont, has been appointed associate justice, Division Two of the Fourth District Court of Appeal.

Menetrez has served as a judge at the Los Angeles County Superior Court since 2015. He served as an appellate judicial attorney at the Second District Court of Appeal from 2005 to 2015. He was an associate at Horvitz and Levy from 2004 to 2005 and at Sidley Austin from 2001 to 2004. Menetrez served as a law clerk for the Honorable A. Wallace Tashima at the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit from 2000 to 2001.

He earned a Juris Doctor degree from the University of California, Los Angeles School of Law, Doctor of Philosophy and Master of Arts degrees from the University of California, Los Angeles and a Bachelor of Arts degree from Johns Hopkins University.

He fills the vacancy of a new position created on July 1, 2018.

This position requires confirmation by the Commission on Judicial Appointments. The Commission consists of Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, Attorney General Xavier Becerra and Senior Presiding Justice Manuel A. Ramirez.

Menetrez is a Democrat.

The compensation for each of these positions is $228,918.

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. 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 of the land the 9th is supposed to just bow down and follow SCOTUS’s lead no matter the changes or differences on the statutes and their previous precedent is beyond me.
Anyway, this forecloses any case in the district court in the 9th’s district as well as in the 9th on the punishment issue unless I can distinguish it from that case, which I would have really focused on if I would have seen this case. How can I have not of seen this 2012 case being the great legal mind that I am. LMAO… Hatton could easily be argued against but this Nevada case not so much and would take a precision instrument, not just a hacksaw such as I used. Whatever. So, now I know exactly what to focus on in my appeal… Why Joe or NPS never mentioned this case is beyond me since they were bashing me so bad this would have been great fodder and I would not have been able to refute my lack of expertise on that issue and I would have had to bow down with my great legal mind and head hanging low, lol. I am sure AJ must have mentioned it, but for some reason I must not have seen how important it was in my legal infancy. It’s cool though.. So now I know at least 3 issues for appeal that I will hammer down on.
1. My argument about no meaningful de novo review under Mendoza-Martinez as required as a matter of law, the term they like to use. 2. The fact that my criminal background record is not available thru routine background checks because of CA 7 year background limit law. 3. The exact argument that AJ has made about how when facts change the court must take notice. Of course I have plenty of time to update these and perfect them or eliminate them as well. Those are probably going to be my main points right there though as I am going to pick the most powerful points and hammer them so as not to give the court an easy exit. If I would have taken notice of the Nevada case I would not have even went there with all the other irrelevant crap that I included. Yes, I say irrelevant because it is since the 9th has already ruled on it. This has definitely been a learning process. It’s cool though since it will be there for SCOTUS if they take it up. And I sure as hell have not hurt our cause in the least either, which I feel pretty good about. I like the Bethea argument and brief though and expect it to go to SCOTUS. I believe it is powerful enough to get the punishment issue thru before I even get to the 9th, which will reverse whatever the lower courts have to say pretty much. I like the plaintiff much better than my situation as well. Although they have not pounded the recidivism issue, he has already been adjudicated as a non-threat and his convictions were from an almost Romeo and Juliet type of incident compared to mine as an adult online. My offense looks bad in the eyes of the general public (and the courts) as compared to his. That is what I was saying about the Frank Lindsey issue, he would be a perfect candidate, but for some reason is not playing ball.
I am also going to pound home the involuntary servitude issue more.
Remember, this is only addressing the punishment issue and the involuntary servitude issue. The real meat of the case is now coming to the head. I am really interested in seeing how the AG responds to these other claims. Especially the arbitrary action, substantive due process, and reputation issues. I need to understand why Ginsburg stated that an element of the substantive due process issue was libel. Libel, as most people are very aware of, is dissemination of false information. How that comes into play “exactly” needs to be determined. Is it because the registry infers dangerousness, which could be considered non-factual? IDK, I have tried to think outside the box to get at her meaning, but that is as far as I have come. Any comments or suggestions???? She also mentions equal protection as well, what exactly did she mean? We need solid answers and not just postulation, but any suggestions would be a great start.

@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):

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.

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 punitive, how easy it would be to leverage that against the state laws fashioned off it, many of which are more severe. If Federal SORNA falls, so do most State SORAs, IMO.

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?)

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, United States Code, Section 2250(a).
I’ll maybe (read: probably) check into the Motion and Response to see if there’s anymore meat.

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 basis for the nondelegation principle, so whatever SCOTUS says in Gundy is undoubtedly going to address that. But they need not reach the question of whether SORNA is punitive despite it’s characterization as civil in order to answer the question they posed in Gundy. At least, I see no reason why they would have to. And since they don’t have to, they are unlikely to.

If SCOTUS finds that the delegation of lawmaking authority to the executive branch was not unconstitutional, but they do not reach the question of whether SORNA is punitive, then it seems to me that the judge’s EPF analysis in the SORNA FTR case would still stand, and the indictment would be dismissed. Right?

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!

“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 makes sense. The fact that no one on here, or anywhere for that matter, ever mentioned that case is troubling. I wonder why it did not come up on Ross or anywhere, anytime. Well like I stated, no big deal really as the Bethea case is strong and the Boyd case from Washington just bypassed the 9th and is going straight after SCOTUS and it is pretty damn strong as well. So were are covered on every other front on ex post facto. Now my claims 1-5 are going to be pounded home. I am just going to embarrass the 9th by stating how I am arguing on the ex post facto, and tell them “but of course you are just going to go like a blind dog following a bitch in heat”. Of course it will be acceptable language but you get my point. I have to be subtle so as not to piss them off, just make them a little introspective on the issue. Have to point out the complete reversal from their original stance before SCOTUS spanked them and how much worse these laws are and they are just shirking their constitutional and judicial duties…

@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 after Smith was decided).

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 F.2d 788, 807 (9th Cir. 1980) (“[S]ubstantive due process scrutiny of a government regulation involves a case-by-case balancing of the nature of the individual interest allegedly infringed, the importance of the government interest furthered, the degree of infringement, and the sensitivity of the government entity responsible for the regulation to more carefully tailored alternative means of achieving its goals.”).
Then there is this when and if it ever gets to SCOTUS just for a reminder:
Stare decisis. In an opinion written by Chief Justice Rehnquist and joined by Justices Kennedy and O’Connor, the Court addressed whether the principles of stare decisis counseled standing by the flawed opinion in Pennsylvania v. Union Gas 491 U.S. 1, 13–19 (1989). See Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 (1996) “Nevertheless, stare decisis was no more than a “principle of policy” and not an “inexorable command.” Id. “[W]hen governing decisions are unworkable or are badly reasoned, this Court has never felt constrained to follow precedent. Our willingness to reconsider our earlier decisions has been particularly true in constitutional cases, because in such cases correction through legislative action is practically impossible.” Id. (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

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 ( 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 courts. That is how my criminal case went so I just assumed that was how the system worked all around, of course I filed a habeas corpus while still locked up though. So damn I could of just petitioned SCOTUS straight from CA SC denial, there was obviously issues as at least one of the three justices wanted to accept it in the SC. I have to admit I was ignorant on the issue but yeah, I thought unless SCOTUS had original jurisdiction it would have to go thru the system of intermediate courts of appeals before you could get to SCOTUS. From your statements and after reading more it appears that as long as it is a federal issue then you can jump straight from the state SC to SCOTUS. Probably basic knowledge but I did not know that… Did not pay to much attention to Muniz and it did not click until you just mentioned it again. That was a bootless attempt by the state right? since the state court already ruled it was unconstitutional, correct? If I would have known that you can do that straight out of state SC court, and about the 9th’s Nevada case, I would have definitely went state first, with both state and federal challenges though. Pretty much pissing in the wind right now on the punishment issues in federal court and wasting time, unless I can some how convince the 9th to revisit the punishment issues and basically over rule their relatively recent ruling in Nevada. Which I will still have to attempt, but between Hatton, the Arizona decision, and especially the Nevada case I can expect no traction on the punishment issue in the 9th. I felt I could refute Hatton and the Arizona case but combined with the Nevada case, I really have to say good luck. Hey this is how you learn shit though, got to be wrong “sometimes” in order to eventually be right. lol

@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:, 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 ( 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 I was a jerk. I get that way sometimes and I am trying not to be like that. Anyways, absolutely you can still became a attorney. Just as Chance (I am sure that must have been who you talked to, he seems like a very caring and consciences man as well) I am sure explained, he was able to be re-instated by the bar after getting his conviction expunged or CoR or whatever he did. I talked to him once about it myself a few years ago when they were up here in SAC. I also came across a good little inspirational article the other day on this exact issue because I was actually considering doing paralegal or even law school. Here is an excerpt;
While serving a 12-year sentence for bank robbery, he became a jailhouse lawyer and managed to get two cases in front of the United States Supreme Court. Now a professor at Georgetown Law, Hopwood recently represented Tarra Simmons before the Washington Supreme Court. The three years Simmons served in prison for drug charges almost kept her from becoming an attorney. The Washington Bar Examining Committee, citing character and fitness issues, wouldn’t permit her to take the bar exam. Arguing before the same body that admitted him, Hopwood helped make Simmons’s own legal career possible.
Here is the link if you want to read the entire thing. I did and found it really cool.
I thought it was very inspiring just because it is amazing that a convicted felon could get up in front of the highest courts in the land and argue, and win cases (although the article did not state if he prevailed in SCOTUS, as far as I can remember anyways, read a lot of case law and articles in the last few days since the district judge granted the AG’s partial motion to dismiss). Maybe Chance would help you in the same way.
Also, if you are into it, check out this substantive due process article and tell me what you think. I hope we can all work together to get something done. Regardless of what I state or how I act I am not an attorney and I do worry about creating bad precedent and I should not be preaching to others on what they should be doing or pointing out what they may not be doing. I just could not stay on the sidelines and had to do something and all I can do is give it everything I have since no one else was. Anyways, the following article is a must read for people on the registry that want to go after them on substantive due process. The real meat of it starts on p. 16 but the entire article is spot on I think. After all, I am going to be arguing this exact issue coming up real fast.

Another 4th Amdt. case petitioned to SCOTUS (, 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 compliance. Our cameras were along for the ride.”

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:

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. Thanks!

@Chris F

This is the same case out of the 7th which is discussed here, posted Oct 26, and has some discussion about it:

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?
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 SORNA, by contrast, must register in person four times a year for at least 25 years.12 This requirement for appearances every three months before law enforcement officials is neither “minor” nor “indirect.” Doe, 538 U.S. at 99-100. Every three months, the former juvenile offenders will be required to be absent from work, appear before public officials, and publicly reaffirm that they are guilty of misdeeds that were previously protected from disclosure.” Juvenile Id.
“As we have already stated, this factor weighs heavily in support of a finding that SORNA’s juvenile registration requirement has a punitive effect. Given the severity of its burdens, it would be difficult to reach any other conclusion.” Juvenile male Id.

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 against children, and in
response to the vicious attacks by violent predators against
the victims listed below . . . .” 42 U.S.C. § 16901 (emphasis
added). The statute subsequently lists seventeen individual
victims and details the crimes that were committed against
them, strongly suggesting that the motivation behind
SORNA’s passage was not only to protect public safety in the
future but also to “revisit past crimes.” Doe, 538 U.S. at 109
(Souter, J., concurring in the judgment). Senator Grassley’s
floor statement similarly reflects a retributive sentiment that
colored the legislative proceedings: “Child sex offenders are
the most heinous of all criminals. I can honestly tell you that
I would just as soon lock up all the child molesters and child
pornography makers and murderers in this country and throw
away the key.” 152 Cong. Rec. S8012, S8021 (daily ed. July
20, 2006) (statement of Sen. Grassley).
[12] The purpose of the Ex Post Facto Clause is to prevent
the passage of “potentially vindictive legislation.” Doe, 538
U.S. at 109 (Souter, J., concurring in the judgment) (quoting
Weaver v. Graham, 450 U.S. 24, 29 (1981)) (internal quotation
marks omitted). SORNA’s legislative text and history
contain substantial warning signs that its aim, while principally
regulatory, to be sure, is also in some measure punitive.

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 of us with any skills to be working on this. If we all jump in we can make a solid case. All this other crap aside, anyone especially in CA or the surrounding 9th districts should be helping for sure.

@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.

Here’s a follow-up study to the 2005 one:

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 them relief.
Because we do not believe that Glucksberg and Smith permit us to reach any other result in this case, we conclude that the Alaska law does not violate the Does’ rights to substantive due process.”

This is not good, but there is this.
(b) Petition for Hearing or Rehearing En Banc. A party may petition for a hearing or rehearing en banc.
(1) The petition must begin with a statement that either:
(B) the proceeding involves one or more questions of exceptional importance, each of which must be concisely stated; for example, a petition may assert that a proceeding presents a question of exceptional importance if it involves an issue on which the panel decision conflicts with the authoritative decisions of other United States Courts of Appeals that have addressed the issue.

I need any federal court decisions such as the following that have ruled in our favor, not on residency or juvenile issues either, but on adult sex offender registration on ex post facto, substantive due process, whatever…?
Doe v. Snyder, 834 F.3d 696 (6th Cir. 2016) ) (holding Michigan Sex Offender Registration Act violates ex post facto clause).

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.

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 resentment, is a failure. The function of authority is not to banish the sinner from all decent society, still less to wipe him out; it is to make him into a good man. The man set in authority must be like a wise physician; his one desire must be to heal.
Even if society ignores the first duty, the second duty and the function are absolutely crucial to the betterment of society and the individual.


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 cry when global warming submerges 2/3 of that state.

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.

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’ fees for private enforcement of any “important right affecting the public interest.”
Look it up…. Private attorney general… Incredible how crap comes together. All I have to do is prevail now 🙂