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.
Related posts
-
MD: Wilson would consider limits to landmark law compensating child sex abuse victims
Source: marylandmatters.org 1/22/25 The lead sponsor of a 2023 law that vastly expanded the ability of... -
Ped*philes could see death penalty under new House GOP bill: ‘Taken off the streets permanently’
Source: foxnews.com 1/14/25 Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla., is unveiling a new set of bills that... -
ND: Lawmakers discuss adding computer-generated images to definition of child pornography
Source: northdakotamonitor.com 1/20/25 Possessing a computer-generated image of child pornography would be punishable as a felony...
“Sex offenders have access to kids on Halloween. No Mass. law to stop monsters with candy” Remember Wendy Murphy? ““Halloween is like Christmas for sex offenders,” said attorney Wendy Murphy. “They know they’ll have lots of access to kids and that they can’t get in trouble even though they’re required to stay away from children.” http://www.bostonherald.com/news/local_coverage/2018/10/sex_offenders_have_access_to_kids_on_halloween
@AmericasMostHated
I think you are panicking over this and you don’t need to. If they don’t give you an identifier, then just proceed forward in life without one, and stop worrying that they’re going to screw you over in the middle of everything. Don’t let them get to you until they do something to get to you, then work past it. You’re gonna be ok.
Snow flake, butterfly, who cares. Kind of got a little more on my plate with differential functions, logarithms, velocities-ranges-speeds-and locations of particles, slopes, tangent lines, derivatives of functions, oh and lets not forget, geologic history and formations of the universe, solar systems, planetesimals, the earth. Yeah I think whether it is butterfly or snowflakes is really inconsequential and you get my point.
Anyways, enough bickering…Hate me or love me I could care less really…
This defamatory suit is a real viable prospect. You have to use the exact language against them. Here is an example, someone states you are a pedophile when in fact by definition you are not. That could be considered libel and defamatory. They are stating something about you that by the very definition you are not. Pedophile has a very distinct definition and very few of us fit that definition so they are defaming with false accusations. These type of technicalities are what lawyers feed off of and for good reason. It is factual basis to bring suits. Another ex. someone states somewhere you are a SVP when in fact you are not. Once again, SVP has exact definitions, if you do not fit that definition then this is defamatory, it is untrue, and if it causes damages, I would think you would have a good case.
These are exactly the kind of actions I try to get people to take, I do not mean to sound like I am saying I am better than anyone else. It took some hard working people from on here to help me get my case going, and the mote people that do these things the better. I really like this libel idea. It is very feasable and ordinary people can file. Just do as o did, go inline, type in the type of claim you wish to file for examples, and use those to base and prepare your own docs. It really is not that hard, and the courts will sometimes just take over for some one that has actual claims with merit. Not always but it does happen, and if you have a case with merit there are statutes that state you maybe entitled to assistance of counsel even in civil cases.
i have a point for all the legal minds to ponder:
In many States across this once great Nation, a registered SO must have a DL or ID card with their address and every time they move they only have so many days to update it. Doesn’t this create a law that effectively makes homelessness illegal in many states? I don’t think you can have address in the woods between old road and new road.
Also should you become ill suddenly or are in an accident or an unexpected illness or injury and you are in hospital for 1 week 6 weeks 3 months or taken by ambulance or medical transport from hospital to a rehab facility or nursing home you are violating a law as there is no exception to residing somewhere other than your address and if you are in a hospital you may be sleeping there past the x amount of days you legally have to update address.
chances of being arrested is doubtful but the law is the law and these SO laws there is no exception to the law and you could be arrested for it!
yes i’m in Florida
I love this.
“Anyone can sue for anything. Even if the suit was lost, it would make a statement and Wendy Murphy may start thinking twice before disseminating fear mongering bullshit. And the press coverage would get the point across and some voters who read those kinds articles would think twice before believing the Halloween propaganda. Wendy Murphy fans need that the most.”
ABSOLUTELY RIGHT…………..
Especially this part..
“Anyone can sue for anything. Even if the suit was lost,”
Why people do not is beyond me. It is our country, our public officials, our gov. and OUR COURTS. FILE FILE FILE………………..Who even cares if it just gets dismissed, all the better, waste the court time, money and resources, use the system against them. All they can do eventually is shut down your filings as frivolous, but only after multiple filings, and even then if you have merit they have to take it…10, 20 thousand lawsuits would throw some fuel on the fire and definitely start getting some attention. I will look in to haw ow to file pseudonymous to see if that helps anyone.If you do not want to file do research and post it. Whatever…Oh and Mack, if you see this I really do not see how my filings will help with your parole issue but you can certainly use my docs as templates to get your case against the parole board going. Here is a link to those filings, http://mllkeys20112011.wixsite.com/mysite Just copy and paste my friend with your info and manipulate it to fit your needs. There are perfect boiler plate breifs. A guy named Lawyerdude, who was a disbarred attorney because the FBI raided his offices back in the 70s and found coke they disbarred him. He went on to win several cases for people on overboard vague statutes working on the side. The dude was a brilliant mind. Check out his web pages as they still exist. Everyone should look at his webpages, They are comprehensive and wide spread…http://www.fathersunite.org/Legal%20Templates%20and%20Help/writing_motions_from_lawyer_dude.html Well, he died right before I got out of prison but before that we were hitting the courts hard with his boiler plate motions while fighting my case. I would have prevailed except for Ic hickened out at the last minute and let the DA, and judge talk me out of representing myself.
That dudes websites and collaboration online and over the phone is what started my legal aspirations. You would most likely have to exhaust all other legal remedies first though, 602 filings with the parole department, appeal of that 602 when they shoot it down, and I believe if I am right then you send it to the parole hearings board or some shit after all that. After exhausting all you administrative remedies then you file in court..
I am leaving this here for all to read as they see fit to about polygraphs, which we have discussed here previously at various times. Yes, it is related to employment, specifically gov’t employment. However, there is a lot of good data points here, e.g. who administers or who is taking it, that should be considered on the topic overall, not just for employment. My conclusion: it is a scare tactic system and nothing more.
The Lie Generator: Inside the Black Mirror World of Polygraph Job Screenings
https://www.wired.com/story/inside-polygraph-job-screening-black-mirror/
For those of you who live in Oregon, do they have residency restrictions? I haven’t seen anything so far to indicate that they do.
1203.4 I am starting to look into getting my attempted 288(a) reduced using People v Todd Lewis and want to find out how many in CA have used this and been successful?
Thanks
I remember looking into this and am almost positive attempted 288(a) only if no prison, which should be an equal protection violation, but that’s a different story.
@Mot, I plead no contest to a 288(a) in 1988 and was granted a 1203.4 upon completion of probation in 1991. I don’t know how the law reads now but it wouldn’t hurt to check into it,
From the Keystone State:
Five Teenage ‘Mean Girls’ Falsely Accused A Boy Of Sexual Assault. They Weren’t Punished.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/36917/five-teenage-mean-girls-falsely-accused-boy-sexual-ashe-schow
Lawsuit accuses ‘mean girls’ at Pa. school of targeting boy with false sexual assault accusations
https://www.pennlive.com/news/2018/10/lawsuit_accuses_mean_girls_at.html
I was wondering if anyone has ever encountered issues with your kids being in sports, or in dance, or extra stuff outside of school? My husband is still on probation and our daughter is young, but I am curious for after he is off and our child(ren) get older. I am just looking for experiences, I know different locations and clubs may have different rules.
I’m just looking for some hope in the plight, I guess!
Welp, I go in in the morning. I’ll be booked, photographed, fingerprinted, forced to sign a 12 month contract with the state of California and then hopefully released back into the general population.
Wish me luck.
@Joe, I know for a fact pc 288{a) is a felony. I also know for a fact that I do not have a felony on my record.
Not sure if this is still good law, seem to remember some case after this but cannot recall, do research. I am 99% sure if you did prison term not applicable, only probation, but like I stated there was talk about this a while back and it seems like another case came up after this one.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17327942123573961904&q=People+v.+Lewis+53+Cal.Rptr.3d+40&hl=en&as_sdt=2,5
Do not listen to this, it is totally wrong. If you notice there is no 288(a) in there it is 288a which is different.
Laws change. It may have been possible 27 years ago, but it isn’t today. The law, PC 1203.4, specifically states that all sections of 288 are ineligible. Here is the paragraph effective January 1, 2014:
(b) Subdivision (a) of this section does not apply to any misdemeanor that is within the provisions of Section 42002.1 of the Vehicle Code, to any violation of subdivision (c) of Section 286, Section 288, subdivision (c) of Section 288a, Section 288.5, subdivision (j) of Section 289, Section 311.1, 311.2, 311.3, or 311.11, or any felony conviction pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section 261.5, or to any infraction.
Like I stated, there is the most recent case that I remember but research because it seems that this issue came up again in court and was over ruled but I may be wrong. Like I stated I am 99% sure no prison time, because I have an attempted 288(a) and checked in on it thoroughly and since it did not apply to me I stopped following what was happening with it. But that cited statute above is irrelevant, it has no 288(a) which is completely different from 288a or any thing cited.
If anyone has any thoughts on this I would appreciate it. My PO told me that he terminated my probation that gave me the 290 charge and sent the info to the DOJ. I was taking an SO theraphy program but didnt graduate yet. The following week I went to my schduled session with my therapist and he told me I need to take a poly and pass it before he can grad me. I would like to know if I am required to take it and finish the program? If so what happens if i dont pass? Im in CA and still have another probation for violating registration. Any comments are appreciated.
No, I do believe I am correct. What I meant to say is 288(a) is included>> not 664/288(a)<<>>>Not sure if this is still good law,<<<<>>>> seems like another case came up after this one.<<<<<>>>>>since it did not apply to me I stopped following what was happening with it. But that cited statute above is irrelevant, it has no 288(a) which is completely different from 288a or any thing cited.<<<<<
As of the last time I looked that was good case law, as explained, and also as explained, do your own research. I do remember a case after the one I provided but it was not the cases mentioned. Did not apply to prison terms so I did not follow it.
“In this case, the trial court denied defendant’s motion based on subdivision (b) of section 1203.4, instead of subdivision (a) of that section. Section 1203.4, subdivision (b), states in part that the relief provided in subdivision (a) “does not apply to any… violation of … Section 288.” Defendant, however, did not plead guilty to a violation of section 288. Instead, he pleaded guilty to an attempted violation of section 288. Therefore, the People agree with defendant that the trial court erred in denying defendant’s section 1203.4 motion.”
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17327942123573961904&q=People+v.+Lewis+53+Cal.Rptr.3d+40&hl=en&as_sdt=2,5
Google scholar or not, irrelevant…..
This is a must….
“`[I]n construing a statute, a court [must] ascertain the intent of the Legislature so as to effectuate the purpose of the law.’ [Citation.] In determining that intent, we first examine the words of the respective statutes: `If there is no ambiguity in the language of the statute, “then the Legislature is presumed to have meant what it said, and the plain meaning of the language governs.” [Citation.] “Where the statute is clear, courts will not `interpret away clear language in favor of an ambiguity that does not exist.’ [Citation.]”‘ [Citation.]” (People v. Coronado (1995) 12 Cal.4th 145, 151, 48 Cal.Rptr.2d 77, 906 P.2d 1232; see also Graham v. State Bd. of Control (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 253, 259-260, 39 Cal.Rptr.2d 146.)
The other cases that were cited have nothing to do with attempted, therefore it is dicta and irrelevant.
AND actually it has only been criticized. Ross is way better the Lexis or ?????…. 203 Cal.App.3d 782, B029918, People v. Chandler, 203 Cal.App.3d 782, 250 Cal.Rptr. 730 (1988)Criticized
203 Cal.App.3d 782, B029918, People v. Chandler, 203 Cal.App.3d 782, 250 Cal.Rptr. 730 (1988)Criticized
https://eva.rossintelligence.com/#/brief-analysis/result
I am not bothering reading them, research it yourself, I just gave you what you need….
I see Joe was enjoying himself. “This from the great legal mind that routinely dumps on lawyers and is about to end the registry as we know it. SMH”
lOL Sorry to ruin your fun there…..
Could not even find the following cited case with a quick google search so not even looking more, but does not matter anyway. Ross says it is still good law so I would think it is…
People v. Mercurio 2009 WL 74345, Cal.App. 1 Dist
Even the criticized cases have nothing to do with the statute at issue, they were over turned on different statutes and different grounds but since it is connected with the 1203.4 it comes up as criticized. I am not bother reading the other one.
People v. Mercurio 2009 WL 74345, Cal.App. 1 Dist
https://eva.rossintelligence.com/#/case/5a52c6206f2813266a772920
AVVO lawyer, this was 2009, so research it a little but it appears to be good law to me.
“I have no idea whether he got a certificate of rehabilitation; the case you cite deals with the issue of whether an attempted 288(a) would keep a person from obtaining relief under 1203.4. The court held that an attempt is not the crime itself and therefore that Mr. Lewis was entitled to 1203.4 relief which is a dismissal of his conviction after his probation is successfully terminated.”
https://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/need-help-on-a-pc-664-288-a–104338.html
Unless you went to prison, then it does not apply. 1203.4 is very clear, only applies to probation, like I stated, a clear violation equal protection but whatever, could of included it in my case, but I am not worry about now that my case is going.
@MOT “1203.4 I am starting to look into getting my attempted 288(a) reduced using People v Todd Lewis and want to find out how many in CA have used this and been successful?
Thanks”
Does not get reduced, gets dismissed.
Also, does not relieve you of duty to register…Pretty much useless. This is also why I did not pursue it even if I could convince them it was a equal protection violation with prison/probation, I am sure I could of argued that..I am not sure if you can get reinstatement or rights though, maybe. That would mean gun rights mainly, since we can vote and all that here in CA.