ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings 2019 [details]
Emotional Support Group: (Los Angeles) 12/22 [details]

Registration Laws for all 50 States

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.

Join the discussion

  1. mike r

    Show me a more recent case actually overturning Lewis and I will concede, and you need to read the case and make sure it is relevant and not just some tenuous connection, at best, such as what was cited.. LMAO…

    • NPS

      I gave you a case. People v. Lewis, which you hold so dear, does not set precedence which is what “not followed as Dicta” means. Sure, go ahead, use it in your attempt to file a 1203.4. The DA will bring up People v. Mgebrov, where the court stated that Lewis is inconclusive dicta for a 288 case. Lewis is an ATTEMPTED 288 case which can still, even today, qualify for 1203.4, but you are talking about a straight 288. The DA will also bring up Penal Code 1203.4b in that 288 is ineligible for an expungement.

      But go ahead, continue LMAOing.

    • Feeling sad

      @mike r
      What advise do you have to help fight this nonsense?? My fiancee was a tier 1 this whole time and with the adam walsh act has now made him a teir 3. He messed up on parole bc his gf at the time was pregnany with his kid and had other kids of her own and the po came to his house when the kids were there. So they violated him. Then he was forced into taking a plea deal. Not only did he lose his freedom but he lost his first child as well. We now have a kid together and this whole tier 3 thing is complete bullshit. We filed with the ACLU and are waiting to hear from them. We also spoke to his lawyer and all he said was tbey are doing everything they can to fight it. Is there anythibg else we can do??

  2. mike r @MOT

    @ MOT, you actually were on the right case there so go with your gut and research, You will be fine. Have to watch what you hear on sites like this, including whatever I state as well. I am no lawyer and have limited experience but I know enough to tell you that you are on the right track. That Ross intelligence site and the AVVO lawyers are a big help, would not depend on just the one by themselves but when they are both corroborating evidence, hey there is that word (corroborating evidence), then you can at least feel that you are on the right track if not on it.

    Well I see no corrections or challenge to my arguments on the 1203.4 issue there or any “huh” SMH” by Joe either. LMAO….

  3. mike r

    Now I can honestly tell you they are full of BS. It is not going to happen. Never in the history of CA has a governor ever pardoned an RC. If you get your case dismissed you will still be on the list but by CA law if your conviction was older than 7 years it should not be on your criminal background checks (not positive on that as I have not done a actual background check on myself yet) so all that crap is BS. The problem is that you will still be on the Megan’s Law list and publicly disclosed so anytime someone googles your name homefacts.com, or others, display your profile or they create their own. Anyone that tells you they can get you pardoned is out of their minds, I can tell you very confidently….

  4. AJ

    I won’t post a URL, but I see MI’s registry managed to stop a serial rapist in Flint. (End of sarcasm.) There are apparently hundreds of videos, reaching back into the 1990s, each believed to be of an assault. Do a web search for “Michigan man 500 videos” for details.

    Gotta love when a solid law like ML/AWA/SORNA stops crimes. (Sorry…end of more sarcasm.)

  5. mike r

    Serious sarcasm, hell took me minute to see where the sarcasm was at, thought for sure there was at least some connection to the registry, imagine that, years and years of this, shit even if he was originally on the registry still would not have helped. People are dumb-asses AJ. I just hope they are the minority and we will find out coming soon I think.
    Feeling sad what state are you in? (why you asking me? according to Joe I am some lame, lol, more sarcasm). Anyways just kidding, really what state are you in? is it federal? the feds have parole for some crimes.

  6. mike r

    This is all I seen at the time of my posting and I made it clear that I was talking about attempts.
    @B.Wat,
    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:
    NPS, Mot’s entire question was asking about an attempt.
    @ 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?
    You guys are just so ready to jump on me that you could not have just said that you were aware of the fact, and were talking about the attempt difference, instead of letting me go on and on about it and waste my time.
    You guys are the ones that went on some tangent about a straight 288(a) since I was not clear in one of my statements about attempt. Seems that I made it clear in every other post. I never even seen your other statements about the attempts at that time. All I seen was that you were stating no 288 could get relief.
    I do not read every post, especially ones that certain people post. I guess I was a little to quick to jump as well. But whatever…As you guys can see, I was obviously discussing attempts and even stated I knew about attempts because I had one…Whatever…

  7. mike r

    @NPS
    “I gave you a case. People v. Lewis, which you hold so dear, does not set precedence which is what “not followed as Dicta” means.”

    Dicta Law and Legal Definition. The Latin term “dicta” is generally used as an abbreviated form of obiter dicta, a term >>describing those portions of a judicial opinion incidental or not necessary to resolution of the specific question before the court.<<
    Dicta has nothing to do with precedent. It is exactly what I stated, irrelevant to a case. Obviously a Court of Appeal of California decision is not precedent. Precedent to whom, it maybe be persuasive in superior courts in the same district or itself maybe? The precedent issue is so obvious it goes without stating the case sets no precedent…

  8. Sunny

    Just an update for those of you planning to register as a county poll worker for voting day: I received my packet in the mail, including my poll worker ID card, and I have been scheduled for training and my specific post on voting day in Orange County. OC has the same prohibition on registrants working as poll workers as does LA County, so we’ll see if things go smoothly. I’m looking forward to the experience (and it pays better than my regular full-time job). Less than one month to go!

    I hope all of you who can vote, will vote. I’ve never missed a vote since I turned 18 (I was convicted in Maine, a state that does not revoke voting rights for criminal convictions). My first presidential election that I could vote in was in 2008. I was 20 years old and voted absentee from county jail. Unfortunately, despite his otherwise progressive views, Obama gave us the IML. I still believe we must remain actively engaged in the civil process and practice our rights whenever possible.

    • Lake County

      What will you do if you’re assigned to a polling place at a school?

      • Sunny

        There is no ban on registrants from entering schools in OC to my knowledge (I’m not on probation or parole). I have already been assigned to a polling place across from a high school. I live next to a park / playground and I’ve never had any issues. It’s my understanding that nearly all the residency, etc. restrictions have been repealed in California except for some situations where it’s a condition of probation or parole.

        • NPS

          @Guest,

          Did you miss these key words?
          “without lawful business”

          Clearly, Sunny has a lawful business. Voting would be a lawful civic duty. Attending college/university is a lawful business.

        • guest

          @NPS,

          did you miss these key words?

          “written permission indicating the date or dates and times for which permission has been granted from the chief administrative official of that school”

          Clearly, Sunny, though having lawful business at the school, has no such written permission, as he is under the impression no ban exists for those not on parole or probation.

          While Sunny is correct that residency and general presence restrictions have been repealed, the ban to enter any school ground without lawful purpose and written permission remains state law.

          Attending college / university has nothing to do with entering a K-12 school (where many polling places are). Attending college / university (apparently even for online courses) triggers the requirement to register with campus police.

        • NPS

          No I didn’t. I especially didn’t miss the key word “and” (which you clearly did in your response). If I didn’t have lawful business, then I would need written permission. I certainly didn’t need nor get permission to attend graduate school. I didn’t need or get permission to volunteer teaching senior citizens or tutoring university students (and getting paid for it). And all that was while I was on probation. My PO knew but because I was there on lawful business, she didn’t require me to have permission from the official. Why not? Because I was present on lawful business.

        • guest

          @NPS –

          Why do you keep talking about graduate school or university? The question is about entering a “school”.

          A school, in PC 626 is defined as

          (4) “School” means any public or private elementary school, junior high school, four-year high school, senior high school, adult school or any branch thereof, opportunity school, continuation high school, regional occupational center, evening high school, or technical school or any public right-of-way situated immediately adjacent to school property or any other place if a teacher and one or more pupils are required to be at that place in connection with assigned school activities. https://law.onecle.com/california/penal/626.html

          And, per 626.81 a 290 registrant needs both a lawful purpose “and” written permission. That a lawful purpose would eliminate the written permission part is a strange logic leap. Dangerous, really.

          So, no, a 290 registrant may not enter a school without written permission. Ever. Not to pick up their own child, not to vote or volunteer in the process, not to drop off old electronics in the parking lot during a city sponsored recycling event on Saturday, not to smoke behind the athletic field bleachers at midnight.

          Back to university…. no one said you need permission to enter a university. No one said you need permission to volunteer teach senior citizens (how is that relevant?) or tutor university students – paid or unpaid. No one said you need permission to attend graduate school. But if you attend graduate school / university you must register with campus police or the law enforcement agency in charge of the campus. That’s all.

          But that was not the question.

        • NPS

          So a university isn’t a school. Okay. I guess that will exclude churches, too, even though they have elementary schools onsite. I taught senior citizens at an adult school, so THAT is how it’s relevant. And I finished my volunteering with a glowing recommendation from the staff (but that’s not the issue).

          But why not mention Universities? It fits the definition in 626 of “or any other place if a teacher and one or more pupils are required to be at that place in connection with assigned school activities.” I’ve seen lots of high school and middle school students touring university grounds. There are even pre-schools located on university campus. Summer schools from K-12 are housed in some universities (they are at SF State). As for my registering with campus police, that does not constitute permission to attend school.

          But back to the original question. Voting IS a lawful business. Picking up your child is a lawful business, dropping off old electronics in the parking lot during a city sponsored recycling event on Saturday IS a lawful business. Smoking behind the athletic field bleachers at midnight constitutes loitering, and therefore IS NOT a lawful business.

          The law may be on the books, but it won’t be long that this will be on the chopping block much like presence and residency restrictions.

        • Lake County

          I must agree with “guest” on this. You must always have written permission to be on school property. That is the very reason I could not evacuate to the only available emergency shelters in our last major Northern CA fires.

        • guest

          @NPS –

          “And I finished my volunteering with a glowing recommendation from the staff (but that’s not the issue).” Yet you mention it because… ????

          Why not mention universities? Because they do not fit the definition of a school per PC 626. Regardless of any incidental activities that may go on there. Thusly they are irrelevant for the purposes of this discussion.

          If a church has an elementary school on its site? Not sure a church can “have” a K-12 school on its site. Because then it “is” a school.

          And yes, smoking behind the bleachers at midnight is NOT a lawful purpose. That is why I mentioned it. And also to illustrate that picking up your own child or voting or dropping off your old CRT Monitor on Saturday (all lawful purposes) is just as illegal without written permission from the chief administrative official of that school as smoking behind the bleachers.

          This law was part of Prop 83 and has been on the books since 2006. Not sure on what basis you predict its impending demise. The elimination of presence restrictions is irrelevant as the presence restrictions were municipal ordinances and were found to be trumped by (their absence in) state law. This “is” state law. Residency restrictions were found to be an overbroad blanket restriction not tied to a real public safety purpose.

          Nothing would please me more than you being right (you haven’t been so far about any of this) about this prediction. Because parental involvement is a major factor in student success. Depriving children thereof not only re-punishes the parent, it also directly harms the children – who should have thought about the consequences of their parent’s actions before being born to them 🙂

        • Sunny

          @Guest – Thank you for the information. I wasn’t aware of that state law as I have only lived in California just over a year. As I said, the polling place is across from a high school but not on the school’s property, so I’m all set. But it’s nonetheless good to know about that law. Do we know if this law is enforced or one of those symbolic laws like registrants being prohibited from using the Megan’s Law website?

        • wonderin

          @NPS, If you must register you will more than likely be required to initial that you understand the “written permission indicating the date or dates and times for which permission has been granted from the chief administrative official of that school”.
          It was on my form this year and it seems unlikely there’s much we can do to get around it.

        • mike r

          LMFAO, guest, I see no ambiguity in the law:
          “CA Penal Code § 626.81 (2017)
          (a) A person who is required to register as a sex offender pursuant to Section 290, who comes into any school building or upon any school ground without lawful business thereon and written permission indicating the date or dates and times for which permission has been granted from the chief administrative official of that school, is guilty of a misdemeanor.”
          Absolutely states you must have permission as well as the dates and lawful business and all that.
          I see I have no response on the “dicta” or “precedence” (lol) issues I stated. I have to admit though I was impressed that NPS, Joe etc. knew the differences between 664/288(a) and straight 288(a). Most people do not know that. I still think was very uncalled for how you guys attacked me, especially that Joe character. It was a simple misunderstanding and my typo that did not include the 664 before the 288 and instead of just stating that you were aware that 664/288(a) was dismiss-able under 1203.4 and there would have been no argument and I would have actually told you what I just told you, that I am impressed that you guys were aware of that fact. Anyways lets try and work together and who cares if you are proven wrong anyways, it all helps all of us once we get it right. And Joe, I was absolutely right in every word I stated by the way. But yes, there is no ambiguity in that code section, you must have lawful business “and” writing permission, school is generally defined as k-12. Has nothing to do with colleges or universities or any of the other things mentioned….

        • NotEasilyOffended

          On one hand, this whole argument is moot because Sunny said he is working at a polling site ACROSS FROM a high school. My limited and flawed knowledge is that he is within the law to be there.

          There were some interesting questions raised:

          1) Is this enforced or symbolic? One could easily stroll on and off school campuses daily without any problems. However, there could be that day where another parent who “knows” about you makes it an issue. Where I live many (if not most) campuses have onsite police officers, who would be within their jurisdiction and right to make this an issue. I have written permission to be at my child’s school but the principal has told me that my presence has not gone unnoticed but he was able to assure the “well-intentioned” parents that the law was being followed. However, my child is involved in activities that sometimes take place at other schools; I have asked for permission to attend those events and, when denied, I stay away.

          2) Churches with schools. TBH I never considered this. My church has a K-8 school on the grounds. There is, however, a fence that completely encircles the school campus which one could argue creates a school boundary vs church/public area. I can see how one might argue that simply entering the grounds could be a violation. As we already know, common sense is never applied to the benefit of a registered citizen.

          3) University/College. Yes, you must register with the campus police or local PD if no campus PD. However, I would be very cautious if there are dual-use areas of the campus that are for juveniles: summer school for kids, daycare, etc. Stay clear of them. Remember: you are assumed to be the worst of the worst and always on the lookout for new prey. It would give someone great pleasure to see you in trouble for this.

          Yes, the registry is out of control and it’s a wonder we can even leave our houses. Be careful when you do. It just isn’t worth testing to see if you’re right.

        • David

          “….. without lawful business AND WRITTEN PERMISSION….. ”
          I would strongly recommend it any registrant intending to go onto school property get written permission to do so beforehand because you must have both (1) a valid reason and (2) written permission.

        • Will Allen

          NotEasilyOffended (October 15, 2018 at 4:37 pm):

          ACSOL did not like my original comment so I hope I’ve fixed it. I need an editor.

          When I read your issues with schools it made me quite angry. Just F the people who support this nonsense. I pray every day for their _______.

          The people who support this kind of BS are just thoroughly stupid also. They truly are. It is completely amazing that this same treatment is not applied to people who have shot people with guns! Just completely amazing. Or millions of other people. And that alone is 100% proof that it is not really for public safety, protecting children, or any of their other lies. It is for harassment.

          Did I mention that the people who support this are stupid? Stupid. The fact is that when they let the “good” people into the school, they must “watch” those people just as closely as they would any Registered Person (RP). One of the “good” people could be a thousand times more dangerous than any RP. So if they are “watching” people as they must, it doesn’t matter who is in there. And we know that they are NOT watching people as they must and the most dangerous people by far work in the schools. So much for their hateful panaceas.

          Also, I pay many tens of thousands of dollars for our schools via property taxes. F them trying to keep me out of them. They can return all of that money. Thieving scum bags.

          I do try to follow all of their laws regardless and I really hope that I am not arrested for something one day. Mostly because I made a promise to myself that I will retaliate in magnitudes, legally, for anything that they do to me. I keep promises to myself. Arresting me would be a serious offense on their part and the punishment would be very large.

        • guest

          @Sunny – sure this law is enforced. Why wouldn’t it be?

          https://www.dailybreeze.com/2011/02/04/retired-army-major-a-registered-sex-offender-arrested-for-entering-school/

          No bigger bang for the buck as far as law enforcement PR is concerned. Arresting some grandpa with a single decade old conviction for attending story time while saving hundreds of children probably beats the hell out of confronting some MS-13 dudes.

          These days one probably will get stopped by that Raptor System that many if not most school systems employ.

          What gives you the impression the ban on registrants looking at the Megans Law web site is symbolic?

        • NotEasilyOffended

          @Guest & @ Will Allen

          In regards to the news story about the retired Army major: Wow! It is my guess that he was not even aware of the law regarding school campuses (article is from 2011, I don’t remember seeing reference to this law on our annual paperwork until just recently). Doesn’t sound like anyone complained nor was there an incident. Could they have just done a home visit and reviewed the law with him? Sure, but that doesn’t make the news.

          It does make me wonder what supervision is lacking when some schools so vehemently oppose a sex offender on campus. Why should anyone on campus be in a position to harm a student. And yes, real recidivism rates prove it’s such an unlikely event anyway. What of the parent with a DUI that drives the field trip carpool? Or the one with several drug arrests? It’s ok to have them on career day.

          I had to legally fight for the right to be on school grounds with my child. I had legitimate business but that doesn’t mean the principal will just say yes. Ugh, always an uphill battle.

        • James

          Dear Guest:

          Geeze, thanks for posting the Daily Breeze article! (re the retired Major on school premises).

          Just, just unbelievable….sometimes I think I must be living in a fool’s paradise believing that I can just live my life as long as I am reasonably careful….but probably not! They can snag us so many different ways…sigh.

          This will also go down as a sex crime for statistical purposes when of course it is nothing of the sorts….time after time I see these things and I see how the recidivism rates get so very screwed up.

          Years ago I had some experience in doing research and I deeply know how statistics can mask the truth…I have seen smart people here complain about this…but seriously, someone needs to take the time and make the effort to research and analyze what the true Recidivism rate is for actual sex offenses across our population of 100,000 in CA….it is a decent sample size, but to have any validity in my eyes all these non-sexual, registration and like cases need to be identified and backed out of the data then calculate the real sexual recidivism rate…which I surmise will be quite tiny.

          Thanks again for the article

          Best Wishes, James

  9. mike r

    One more little thing here since you guys want to be so petty. Since you already git dicta wrong it is precedent not precedence as you stated>>>

    “The nouns precedence and precedents are homophones and, like many similar-sounding words before them, have inevitably been confused.

    alt-5ace4274d3479
    Allow us to set a precedent on dealing with them.

    Originally, this wasn’t an issue because the words were used synonymously. It’s suspected that precedence may have come about as an error for the plural of the earlier noun precedent, meaning “something done or said that serves as an example or rule.” In modern use, however, each word has distinct meaning, and each is often found in distinct collocations. Knowing what words are arranged with each homophone is useful in making sure you’re choosing the right one.

    Perhaps partly influenced by French précédence, meaning “priority” or “pre-eminence,” English precedence began being used in the late 1500s in senses relating to order and rank. Specifically, it came to denote priority of importance, or the superiority of rank at a ceremonial or formal social gathering—for example, guests at a banquet might be introduced or seated “in order of precedence.” Idiomatically, precedence is often used with the verbs take, have, or give. Family matters can be said to “take/have precedence” over one’s job, for instance; or a piece of legislation might “give precedence” to big business.

    On the other hand, the noun precedent is frequently used in the phrase “to set a precedent,” meaning “to set an example or rule to be followed.” The word is often used in legal contexts, where it denotes a judicial decision that should be followed by a judge when deciding a later similar case. When something contradicts an established precedent or prevailing custom or practice, it is said to “break with precedent” or “go against precedent.” Another common collocation is “without precedent” in reference to something not supported by a prior example or ruling. More commonly, something said to be “without precedent” is unprecedented. Both unprecedented and precedented appear in the English language in the 17th century.”

  10. mike r

    @ Feeling sad, I hear ya. Nevada has gotten out of control, almost as bad as Floiduh. Nevada is in the 9th circuit just as my case will be. I would say sit tight until that Washington case gets denied, accepted, or taken and SCOTUS decides on it. That is both of our’s federal appellant jurisdictions so it could have major implications on cases here in CA, and Nevada. Not to mention around the country. Even if SCOTUS takes the case and claims it is punishment it could be on a very narrow ruling such as specifically applying to that petitioner and those set of facts, I do not know what was originally argued in that case as I will have to see the original complaint and the appeals and all that. I think that is what SCOTUS will do when it comes to these laws, at least until a case like mine comes before them with all the issues and facts. I imagine it would definitely be narrowed to the retroactive part. But on the other hand they may very well say it is punishment and that all the laws are punishment and can only be applied after considerable due process like was the case in the Hendricks civil commitment case. That is going to blow up the system and I just have a feeling SCOTUS may figure a way to keep it narrowly tailored to specific requirements once the do finally decide it is punishment. They are going to give some kind of guidance to the legislatures, as they usually do, so that they can tailor the statutes to conform with their decisions. So my opinion is that you wait this case out see what happens before making a move. If they say it cannot be retroactively applied to anyone then that would be all you would need to bring really if it is retroactive to you. But on the other hand if they shoot the case down then you know not to even go there and challenge on other issues like substantive due process and steer away from the punishment issue. I think it will be pretty damn hard to get them to take another punishment question unless someone can show some serious and major meaningful differences between your case and the one they shoot down. It would be extremely hard because that Washington statute as applied to that individual is extreme in-person reporting so like I said it would be difficult if not impossible to look at it again for a while at least. IDK though I think all the facts that I presented may very well make them take another look regardless.

    • Feeling sad

      @Mike R
      This whole thing is just so discouraging!!! We had a normal life…my fiancee could have been off the registry in 3 years. We wanted to move. Now it seems that we are stuck here bc he is a teir 3 now and has to register forever for a stupid ATTEMPT lewdness charge!!!!! This girl that accused him has put 2 other men in jail for the same acccusation…even her own grandfather!!!!! And now we have to be punished no matter how good hes been. These court proceedings can take years…i dont know if he can wait years…hes upset enough as it is over this whole thing. He so afraid of losing his job or our place to live or our neighbors finding out. He was fine living out his life on a tier 1 simply bc he knows he violated probation and wasnt smart enough at the time to fight instead of taking that plea deal. He wishes he was never forced into taking that deal. That deal cost him his freedom, his first born daughter and his peace of mind. I just feel like there has to be something that can be done bc this is unconstitutional!!! Hes being punished over and over for the same crime, there has to be some lawyer out there that will fight for him….for god sakes they used “love letters” that were supposedly writen by him in court even though they werent supposed to that didnt even match his handwritting but bc he didnt have a good defense lawyer no one would even listen. He was guilty until proven innocent. And now this. Now they make him a tier 3 without any warning or due cause simply bc of the awa. This is just unfair. Thank you for letting me vent and any advice you have that could get us in front of a judge or anything is beyind helpful.

  11. mike r

    @ Feeling sad. Man email me….mikeys20122012@yahoo.com. Sounds like a good TRO issue to me.
    What do you mean lost his daughter? Did the court put her in foster care or did the mother take her and he cannot get custody? Email me. I really really hate to say this, but nobody is going to help you out there. He is going to have to do it himself, wait it out, or pay a attorney that probably will not do crap…

  12. mike r

    Can anyone find this case they are talking about? It is apparently in the fed court right now or has very recently been decided.
    “We’re still fighting the case in district court,” attorney Margaret McLetchie said in an interview last week. “A mistake can’t be undone if you end up on the registry.”
    https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/nevada/articles/2018-06-25/names-of-most-nevada-sex-offenders-to-be-posted-oct-1

  13. mike r

    Yeah this went into effect so I see your situation. Has your husband’s info already been made public?
    “While AB 579 is in effect, the State of Nevada’s, Department of Public Safety is implementing AB 579 on October 1, 2018.”
    I do not know what their subjective criteria was but this system does not sound like it will cut, at least this has been an issue in other courts. This is still offense based they are just trying to get around those rulings by adding an age to the alleged victim to the offense. Still offense based not tailored at all.
    AB 579 eliminates the use of subjective criteria to assign an offender’s tier. Rather, tier levels are established by the offender’s conviction and age of the victim. In general, if there was sexual contact and the victim was younger than 13 years of age or if the offender was convicted of a sexually violent offense, regardless of the victim’s age, an offender is placed into tier 3. Offenders convicted of a crime in which the victim was at least 13 years of age but less than 18 years of age is placed into tier 2. All other offenders are placed into tier 1.”
    Yeah they need to apply for another TRO from the district court…

  14. Rich

    Has anyone traveled to Europe recently with the new passport? Just trying to plan a trip.

  15. ReadyToFight

    random thought here,
    But I think right befor our annual we should cut up our previous registration card/receipt or whatever into the shape of the Star used by Nazi Germany and pin it to us for the photos in protest.
    And maybe put together a collage of our personal experiences and post it in a Public place and give the public a view of the things we and our family have and continue to suffer?

    • CR

      Did you mean to say that he wasn’t an RC?

      • Will Allen

        Exactly what I thought. I would go even further and would’ve instead said, “Surprise! This guy was not listed on any Nanny Big Government (NBG) Registry. Too bad that NBG concentrates on its Registries instead of preventing crimes.”

        However, pointing these things out isn’t really very helpful. It almost shows that the Registries are “working”. Because people who are listed on the Registries are not committing crimes.

        WE all know that the Registries do not work but the stupid people who support the Registries don’t. I personally know that the Registries do nothing to hinder crimes. I know the Registries make people WANT to commit crimes. I know the Registries would really help any person who is listed on them to be really motivated and knowledgeable about how to commit a crime and NOT be caught. I know the Registries are not just worthless, but that they are counterproductive. I know all of that. But Registry Terrorists don’t.

      • Facts should matter

        Correct. Which fully illustrates the phony “safety measures” in place during storms at those shelters. They deny entry for those on the registry, yet those NOT on Megan’s law list (like the John Q. Public “law-abiding citizen” in that article) are not profiled, turned away and are free to enter. It just shows the absurdity of these restrictions and the registry in general.

  16. Jerry

    I posted a week or so ago but can’t find the post. My family and I have been evicted because my landlord discovered my 290 registration. We have to be out by the end of the month. She gave us good recommendation letter though is seems to be genuinely upset. She said she has to protect her tenants because it’s and apartment. I have bee feverishly looking with no luck. We spent 2 years going from one hotel to another every 28 days before this rental. Due to my arrest both my wife’s and my credit tanked. We are fighting multiple barriers. I am hoping that a home owner will see this and be willing to rent. We pay our rent on time every month as my current landlord will attest. We can pay up to $2400.00 per month. There is of us and we really need 3 bed but can do 2 as we are currently in a 2. I have steady employment as Technical manager and my wife works at hospital.

    If you can, please reach out to us and help. You can email me at jayallan1969@gmail.com.

    Thank you so much in advance.

    ***Moderator*** Edit – Original comment here:
    https://all4consolaws.org/2018/10/general-comments-october-2018/comment-page-1/#comment-215050

    • David

      @ Jerry: Please specify where you are or where you want to be…. Orange County….Santa Clarita….Anaheim…. Glendora…. Must know where you are looking, what area. (There are folks on this forum from all over California and many from other states as well.)

  17. NPS

    @Jerry

    I just read the original post. Your landlord does not “have to” ask you to leave no matter how much she claims it pains her. Your landlord is violating the law, and I would point this out to her. 290.46(l)(2)

    (2) Except as authorized under paragraph (1) [to protect a person at risk] 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.
    (B) Insurance.
    (C) Loans.
    (D) Credit.
    (E) Employment.
    (F) Education, scholarships, or fellowships.
    ===>(G) Housing or accommodations. <===
    (H) Benefits, privileges, or services provided by any business establishment.

    You may be entitled to re-location fees that the landlord is mandated to pay especially if its a no-fault eviction. (Usually about 6,000; more is you have a disability.) I don't know about the tenant laws in Glendale, CA but that it is the law in most Bay Area and Los Angeles communities. This is what I found for Glendale: https://www.glendaleca.gov/home/showdocument?id=1745
    Something worth looking into in your area. Might as well get something out of it rather than a nice letter to make your landlord feel good about herself.

  18. mike r

    Yes that article is much more comprehensive. Okay, so they have went back to the state courts after losing in the federal district courts then. Must be challenging on state grounds then as well. Still, I thought TROs were supposed to stay in play until a decision by a court on the actual merits of the case. The 9th really turned around since Smith back in the day when they originally shot it down. Now they apparently are just going to uphold any and all laws, no matter how strict and unconstitutional. Lets hope the state court sees it differently.
    https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1594069.html
    The 9th circuit gave a scathing decision on AB 579 back in 2012 that is not good at all. It actually concerns me for my case as they addressed the in-person requirements and multiple issues. IDK, a different panel with a different case such as mine may very well achieve different results, but the 9th in that case was pretty clear on where they stood on that particular law. O’well, I will just keep pushing no matter what. I am not going to get discouraged by anything.

  19. Gypsy Wolf

    I just wanted to say that I enjoyed the meeting in West Sacramento today. It was a good blend of the normal legal updates that I expect to hear from you, plus the supportive information that got shared – i.e. employers.

    Also, I’d did mention to one individual there – but I’ll add it here.

    But exploring the possibility of getting a meeting somewhere up here in the northern parts of the State. Santa Rosa, Eureka, Redding/Red Bluff, Chico?
    So those of us who are outlying aren’t as isolated from the rest of the conversation?
    And, I am mentioning the larger communities as there is probably a better chance of finding a suitable venue. Then trying for the smaller towns..

  20. E

    80 years ago this month:

    “On October 5, 1938, the Reich Ministry of the Interior invalidates all German passports held by Jews. Jews must surrender their old passports, which will become valid only after the letter “J” has been stamped on them.

    The government required Jews to identify themselves in ways that would permanently separate them from the rest of the German population.”

    https://www.ushmm.org/learn/timeline-of-events/1933-1938/reich-ministry-of-the-interior-invalidates-all-german-passports-held-by-jew

  21. mike r

    There are still residency restrictions as well. Just not a state law like guest referred to, local municipalities, because they all do not seem to get the message yet. I have researched them and challenged a few of the remaining ones in my complaint. Janice I believe is in the process of challenging another right now as well. In OC believe. But all that is irrelevant to the school issue, and I bet they would enforce the hell out of it if they know you are a registrant and you enter the property, especially in this day and age, they would flip the hell out on you and give you the maximum penalty allowed by law. I sure as hell would not do it when my grandkids get that age, but then again, God be willing and I win my case, I am going to be off this crap by then anyways. I could just see a registrant going on campus and other parents or school officials know their status. Like I said, All hell would probably break loose. Hell, might even make the news and all kinds of crap… I can just see the headlines, ‘RC stopped while on campus at blah blah school. Saved the children just in the nick of time’…

  22. JesusH

    Another question about updating registration in California when moving…

    I called the local PD to make the appointment. I asked if I needed to bring anything showing the new address. We’re buying the house so all I really have at this point is escrow, etc paperwork with the new address. Told them that it would be awhile before I actually had any of the usual utility bills mailed to the new place.

    They said that I needed to go the DMV and do a change of address and bring in the ‘brown card’ they would give me. So now I have to find time to go to the DMV? Argh.

    I told them I’m not sure I’d be able to find time and they said “that’s ok, if we have to reschedule your appointment we’ll do it.” I said “but the law says it has to be within 5 days”. Then they said “but it’s ok, we’ll see you’re trying and if it goes beyond the 5 days we won’t violate you.”

    So at this point I’m thinking… wtf? violate me? I’m not on probation or parole or anything. What power does the PD or the Government have over me at this point? I should be a normal citizen now! That’s not right.

    Of course I didn’t say anything and will try and go to the DMV for that ‘brown card’.

    Those of you who have moved though, what documentation have you used?

    • someone who cares

      Hi Jesus ~ From what I understand about registration in California, you have 5 days to report an address change but you have 30 days to provide actual proof if you don’t have any paperwork the time you go in. Maybe, someone else can confirm this. We always do a change of address on the United States Post Office website, and they send you a card with your new address within a couple of days. That has been sufficient for us. Also, if you sign up for any utilities, won’t you get a confirmation at least? I am not taking about an actual bill yet, just a confirmation that the address was changed?

    • Kiwi

      Jesus – I went through the whole buying-and-registration experience a little over a year ago, and I work in the Real Estate industry, so this is (probably) the easiest solution: have the escrow company provide you with a copy of the property deed that the seller signs on the day of closing. You have to ask for this specifically, otherwise you won’t get a copy for two weeks or more after the closing. It doesn’t technically prove residence, but it proves you own the place, and typically shows the new property as your mailing address on the face of the document. When I registered in for the new jurisdiction, they accepted that as proof, so I didn’t need to go to the DMV or come back a month later with a bill from the utilities.

      Hope this helps,

      Kiwi

      • JesusH

        Thanks for the help about the address updates. I didn’t know about the 30 day thing, that might come in handy. It’s been really crazy with packing and everything else going on.

        Man I wish this really were as easy as renewing a Costco membership. I can decide not to renew a Costco membership if I wanted… not so with this 🙁

    • David

      Jesus, why don’t you simply wait until you actually physically move into the new house? In the meantime, clearly you must be living somewhere, so that is your current registration address until you physically move to the new address.

  23. someone who cares

    Jesus ~ It is actually in the 290 paperwork you sign and initial each year. Per 290.015, this is what is says: “If the person claims that he or she has a residence but does not have any proof of residence, he or she shall be allowed to register but shall furnish proof of residence within 30 days of the date he or she is allowed to register.”

  24. TS

    I am posting this article below for all to read and consider how it could be possibly applied to registrant legal cases on appeal. It is basically all about statistics and how it is applied to the WA State death penalty WRT to cigarette stats, which were initially dismissed, but since then have been believed. I believe it is a possible method how the stats we are all aware could be used going forward in registrant cases. I could be off in my thinking here.

    I realize stats are sometimes positively and successfully used on behalf of registrants and many times ignored regardless. If the argument could be shaped to show how what once was dismissed can be used because it is believed empirically, such as the scholars are showing now, then there could be a door to open WRT registrant stats. There is interesting SCOTUS info in this article too in how one justice wished he could change his vote after deciding the case (and retiring).

    Look forward to hearing anyone’s take on this, e.g. @AJ, CR, PK, etc

    How Statistics Doomed Washington State’s Death Penalty
    A half-century after Justice Lewis Powell applied the logic of tobacco manufacturers to dismiss empirical studies, a state supreme court decided to accept their findings.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/how-statistics-doomed-washington-states-death-penalty/572968/

    • AJ

      @TS:
      It’s an interesting read, but I don’t wholly grasp how it could be leveraged for RC cases. Are you proposing more suits be filed in State Courts, where Justices are more willing to accept data SCOTUS may dismiss? I have long felt a State case taken up by SCOTUS will be how Smith gets struck (mounting Circuit splits is also a possibility). Unfortunately (for those outside PA), Muniz was correctly ruled and SCOTUS declined it. It’s going to take an anti-Muniz ruling from a State Court of Last Resort for anything to shift. But I look for the day that there’s a case helping RCs added to the list of Loving v. VA, Lawrence v. TX, and Skinner v. OK.

      • TS

        @AJ

        I brought this up to see what others thought of any possible way to use it, if there’s one. I thought there’s something here, but was not sure, so I posted it for others to read and speak up. If a state case as you say may be the road to travel, then let the case come from the shadows sooner rather than later. Thank you for your time and consideration on the article.

  25. AnotherAnon

    Some interesting Nazi law and camp Price Club revelations.

    “Specifically, Hitler feared that Roehm was attempting to turn the SA (at this time, over 2 million strong) into a militia and was planning a military challenge to Hitler. While there is no evidence that such a plan existed, Hitler ordered a purge. On June 30, 1934, Roehm, many of his supporters, and over 1,000 of Hitler’s political and personal enemies, were murdered in the famous “Night of the Long Knives.” While the purge was politically motivated, the justification given for it was the homosexuality of Roehm and several of his associates in the SS command.”

    “In the wake of the Roehm execution, Hitler ordered the registration of homosexuals and the Gestapo was charged with the responsibility of creating dossiers on homosexuals and other “asocials” in the Third Reich.”

    “Precise figures on the number of homosexuals exterminated in Nazi Death camps have never been established. Estimates range from 10,000 to 15,000. It does not appear that the Nazis ever set it as their goal to completely eradicate all homosexuals. Rather, it seems, the official policy was to either re-educate those homosexuals who were “behaviorally” and only occasionally homosexual and to block those who were “incurable” homosexuals through castration, extreme intimidation, or both.”

    “Those who wore the pink triangle were brutally treated by camp guards and other categories of inmates, particularly those who wore the green (criminals), red (political criminals) and black (asocials) triangles. The following testimony by survivor, Heinz Heger, provides a dramatic illustration:”

    “…While in 1934 766 males were convicted and imprisoned, in 1936 the figure exceeded 4,000, and in 1938 8,000. Moreover, from 1937 onwards many of those involved were sent to concentration camps after they had served their “regular” prison sentence…”

    ” After likening the homosexual who was killed and thrown into a peat bog to the weeding process in a garden, Himmler continued his tirade:

    ” …In the SS, today, we still have about one case of homosexuality a month. In a whole year, about eight to ten cases occur in the entire SS. I have now decided upon the following: in each case, these people will naturally be publicly degraded, expelled, and handed over to the courts. Following completion of the punishment imposed by the court, they will be sent, by my order, to a concentration camp, and they will be shot in the concentration camp, while attempting to escape. I will make that known by order to the unit to which the person so infected belonged. Thereby, I hope finally to have done with persons of this type in the SS, and the increasingly healthy blood which we are cultivating for Germany, will be kept pure.

    “Over the next two years, an intricate network of informants was developed. School children were encouraged to inform on teachers they suspected of homosexuality, employers on employees and vice versa. Homosexuals who were arrested were used to create lists of homosexuals or suspected homosexuals. The clear intention was to identify every homosexual in Germany and move them to concentration camps.”

    These are only snippets. There is much more.

    https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/background-and-overview-of-homosexuals-in-the-holocaust

    • David Kennerly

      The irony was that from a number of accounts (including former SS who experienced it) the SS was a hotbed of pederasty and gay sex well after the purge of Röhm and the SA. Go figure.

      • AnotherAnon

        Yes to that, the purge was the goal, and like today, anti-sex was only a justification to maintain power.

        Question:

        What is the Junior Anti-Sex League in ‘1984?’

        Control is the key to the government in George Orwell’s ‘1984.’ Their goal is to control everything in the lives of its citizens, right down to their thoughts. The government implements several agencies and groups to make sure compliance is in order. These many agencies could lead to paranoia among citizens. Some of the groups even defy logic.

        Answer and Explanation:

        In 1984 by George Orwell, the Junior Anti-Sex League is a group of virgins in Oceania who work to further the Party’s goal to vilify sex and push artificial insemination as the only means necessary for procreating. Members of the League firmly believe in abstinence for both genders and signify their virginity and beliefs by wearing red sashes. Julia is one of the members of this League, though her membership is a cover.

        https://study.com/academy/answer/what-is-the-junior-anti-sex-league-in-1984.html

  26. Rick909

    With new registration bill, would a PC288.4(b) be excluded from megans website? Wondering if it will pop up on a search still come 2021? Thanks.

  27. TS

    This’ll be interesting:

    Supreme Court agrees to hear a case that could determine whether Facebook, Twitter and other social media companies can censor their users

    https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/16/supreme-court-case-could-decide-fb-twitter-power-to-regulate-speech.html

    • CR

      I’m not sure how I feel about this, personally.

      On the one hand, I don’t like the idea of private companies being subject to 1st amendment liability like the government is. Companies like FB and Twitter have Terms of Service that might be rendered ineffective for controlling the proliferation of offensive or unwelcome speech on their platforms if they are deemed subject to 1st amendment suits by virtue of being the “modern public square”. The article mentions Packingham and quotes Kennedy from it.

      On the other hand, the platforms these private companies provide have, in fact, become the modern public square. And that status benefits them and the advertisers and marketers who support them. So perhaps it would be most equitable for the rules of the public square to apply.

    • AJ

      @TS:
      Thanks for giving me more legal papers to read. 😉 Given how 1st-Amdt-centric and protective the Roberts Court is, this could be quite interesting.

      I’m curious how SCOTUS will leverage or emasculate the “modern public square” statement they’ve only recently avowed.

    • TS

      @AJ

      You are welcome. I am sure you don’t get an empty reading queue naturally, but Christmas is almost here and I felt like giving to the masses with this important case. You are correct, this will be quite interesting.

      @CR

      Excellent points.

      My two cents:
      Given what the definition of Public Access TV (PATV) is (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public-access_television), IMO, the private operator could be found to be in the wrong by violating free speech in the prevention of the sharing of the view since PATV is supposed to be able to provide access to free speech.

      Social Media is a modern public square and hope SCOTUS continues to see it that way.

      • AJ

        @TS & @CR:
        This is definitely going to be a tricky case, IMO mostly due to Packingham’s elevation of cyberspace in general, and social media specifically, as being the most important places for exchange of views. I think the 2nd got it wrong, but I see their reasoning. I’m sure SCOTUS will figure out some sort of carve-out, while avoiding making a bright line decision.

        Suppose FB is a huge campus with hundreds of auditoria that anyone may use for free anytime of the day, any day of the week, subject to certain rules. Indeed, one isn’t even allowed on the FB campus to use its auditoria unless meeting these rules. (Anyone can, however, peek through a hole in the fence and listen to select discussions.) Once one is on campus, FB only minimally manages what auditoria one may visit. Should FB be mandated to open all of its campus to everyone, just because it’s the most popular place for people to exchange ideas? I say no. It’s private property, and FB is allowed to decide who it allows on its property. However, what if FB allows the Government to use an auditorium to communicate directly with the public? Here, I would say the auditorium becomes a public forum, FB becomes a state actor, and FB must let all enter its campus to listen *and speak* in the auditorium. (That FB volunteered its auditorium and/or offered it for free is of no consequence.) Being a state actor, FB must not interfere with citizens’ Free Speech rights.

        I have to think this sort of situation already happens all the time all over the country. Anytime the Government (typically a politician, though perhaps an agency) uses a private facility (such as a sports arena, or even perhaps a church) for a town-hall meeting, I have to think that’s a public forum. Though the property owner and the state actor can enforce a certain decorum, I suspect neither can outright ban a citizen from the event “just because.”

        In short, I think the online public forum is, for lack of a better term, content-based or situational. If and when the content and meeting involves Government speech or activity, a public forum is created and the content provider is a state actor. Any other time, it’s private property. The problem for FB in the example above is that many of its auditoria are *always* being used by Government, and are therefore public fora. As such, I don’t see how, absent ending Government use of its auditoria and campus, it can ever close off its campus to anyone. It can still enforce a certain, limited decorum, but it cannot prohibit citizens’ presence.

        Tying this back into the case at hand, I would say the PAC is private property and the MNN is free to restrict non-Government use.

      • AJ

        @TS & @CR:
        Suppose instead of being an online presence, FB is a huge campus with hundreds of auditoria. Further suppose it lets anyone use these auditoria, 24/7, subject to a few guidelines and rules. If every single auditorium is engaged in wholly private speech among citizens, I say FB can decide who is allowed onto its campus, and under what terms. However, I believe that whenever FB allows Government to use an auditorium, that auditorium becomes a public forum and FB becomes a state actor. As such, FB would not be allowed to abridge one’s First Amendment rights of speech and assembly. When the Government is done using the auditorium, the public forum disappears and FB ceases being a state actor.
        This all works well and good in a physical world. FB can lock its doors and set hours of operation if it so desires, and it has a limit on how many auditoria it has available. However in the cyberworld, FB has infinite auditoria and they’re all available, all the time. The Government’s auditoria are always open, thus public fora constantly exist, and FB is constantly a state actor. Note that FB only has one way in and out of its campus. As such, FB either must allow a citizen to roam through all the auditoria, or none. However none isn’t an option as long as the Government is using one of them. To overcome this, FB must either add another gate and/or wall off the privately-used auditoria from the Government ones, or it must cease hosting Government use.

        Regarding the case at hand, I think the 2nd got it wrong. I had reasons why (as well as a better scenario of the above), but for some reason that post didn’t make it. I sure miss the good old days when this site gave editorial feedback and review.

        • CR

          That’s an interesting analogy, AJ. The author of an opinion piece written at The Washington Post took a different view using a similar analogy. There aren’t many comments on the article, but a couple of the ones that are there are interesting.

          https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/all-opinions-are-local/wp/2017/08/04/why-social-media-is-not-a-public-forum/

          The author was discussing this case, DAVISON V LOUDOUN COUNTY BOARD OF
          SUPERVISORS, in which the judge decided that the government actor violated Davison’s 1st amendment rights. He referenced Packingham in his opinion.

          https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/virginia/vaedce/1:2016cv00932/348006/132/0.pdf

          The author of the Washington Post article claims that “… Packingham cannot stand for the proposition that social media is a public forum warranting First Amendment protection” because such a holding would mean that Facebook’s own terms of service and community standards would violate the 1st amendment. (Well, what if it does?)

          The gist of his argument is the plaintiff, Davison, and the defendent Randall in her official capacity, agreed to FB’s rules in their decision to use Facebook. But I believe he is wrong, because, of course, the plaintiff did not agree to any such thing. In order to access the public officials communication, he had no choice but to use FB, since that is the forum that the official decided to use.

          It will be interesting to see how SCOTUS eventually settles questions like these. For my part, I’d be satisfied if government were barred from using social media to interact with the public. But I’d also be OK with FB and other social media companies doing as you mentioned by adding “… another gate and/or wall off the privately-used auditoria from the Government ones …” What I would not like to see is a decision from the courts that effectively nationalizes social media companies to the extent that they cannot formulate and enforce their own private policies to govern membership, access, and/or behavior of visitors and members of their sites. Maybe it will take “another gate and/or wall” to achieve balance between private and public interests.

        • TS

          @AJ & @CR

          Interesting points…

          What is a public square? If you stand in Copley Square (Boston) and protest, then you can do so freely within the rules of society. Can you truly be in a social media public square of FB, IG, Twitter, et al where you have to be a member but abide by their TOS to be a member and share your view but do not have to be if you are in Copley Square?

          Throwing another factor into the equation here: access to these social media public squares. If you access from your home via a system that is either private (satellite, fiber optics, telephone, or cable company provided) or public (telephone, fiber optics, or cable) through city, county, township, et al provided access, then where is the fine line of who can say what in a social media public square? Does that muddy the water worse by throwing that in? What if you want to access from a public library? Does this even matter?

          I think they go back to the PATV entity who tried to stifle free speech and tell them no, you cannot do that given what PATV is supposed to be accessible for. I think the social media public square debate will continue through another case.

        • CR

          @TS, “What is a public square? If you stand in Copley Square (Boston) and protest, then you can do so freely within the rules of society. Can you truly be in a social media public square of FB, IG, Twitter, et al where you have to be a member but abide by their TOS to be a member and share your view but do not have to be if you are in Copley Square?”

          Good point. Participation in a physical public square does not require you to “sign in”. There is no roster to sign and no one to check your ID before you enter. While I wouldn’t say that you can be physically present in public and be anonymous, at least you can speak or listen without having to disclose your identity to anyone, so long as you abide by the laws.

          Neither should a social media site that is functioning as a public square require that you sign in and identify yourself with your real name, either. You should be able to use a temporary pseudonym, a handle. That doesn’t mean you’d be unidentifiable (or untrackable) if you started making trouble or breaking laws, any more than you would be when you’re physically present in a public place. It’s analogous to making up a name when asked, or simply refusing to answer.

          But as you pointed out, that isn’t how social media platforms operate.

          Ban government from using social media, or put up that wall that AJ spoke of, and don’t exclude anyone from participation.

        • AJ

          @CR:
          Without going into a lengthy post, I think the WaPo op-ed is misguided. (Does anyone else wonder if Thomas Wheatley is maybe a pseudonym for Samuel Alito? 🙂 ) I also think SCOTUS’s determination that social media are public squares is misguided. That opens up a can of worms the op-ed correctly points out. Yes, it well may subject FB and other media to a whole host of new rules they didn’t sign up for, right or wrong. It would also seem to turn them into common carriers of telecommunications. If so, they will have to allow all sorts of things and people, but will not be liable for it (no more than Ma Bell was liable for what went over its lines or who sent or received it).

          I wonder if it’s possible to turn this to our benefit. If social media are the modern-day public squares, and if holding up someone in the public square is shaming, wouldn’t social media sites such as N3xtd00r be shaming us when they regurgitate ML info? And going a bit further and leveraging Rankin, wouldn’t this be State-assisted, i.e. C&U punishment?

        • AJ

          @CR:
          Thanks for that Loudon Co. case. It sure seems to make things trickier and trickier for FB, et al, to avoid allowing everyone aboard. Even prior to Packingham, the writing was appearing on the wall regarding social media and its ilk:
          *****
          The Fourth Circuit has suggested that the government may open a forum for speech by creating a website that includes a “‘chat room’ or ‘bulletin board’ in which private viewers could express opinions or post information,” or that otherwise “invite[s] or allow[s] private persons to publish information or their positions.” Page v. Lexington Cnty. Sch. Dist. One, 531 F.3d 275, 284 (4th Cir. 2008).

          –and–
          The First Amendment applies to speech on social media with no less force than in other types of forums. See, e.g. , Bland v. Roberts, 730 F.3d 368, 386 n.14 (4th Cir. 2013), as amended (Sept. 23, 2013) .
          *****
          These rulings and Packingham seem to drive stakes into §§ 20916 and 20917 of AWA. The Government is engaging in viewpoint discrimination in a public square. Period. I wouldn’t be surprised to see a Summary Judgment upholding a facial challenge.

        • CR

          @AJ, with respect to §§ 20916 and 20917 of AWA, I agree. The AG does not provide a mechanism for social media companies to match internet identifiers of anyone other than those who are subject to registration for a sex offense. The AG doesn’t even collect internet identifiers of any other class of internet user. No disingenuous claim by the AG that they are only providing access to factual public information about criminal convictions can get around the fact that they only make this kind of information available to social media companies that register with them for the express purpose of identifying people who are listed on a sex offense registry.

          The government is not telling social media companies that they must exclude people identified by the id matching service. I suppose what makes this viewpoint discrimination is that the government has enacted a law to provide a service that enables the exclusion of a group of people based on their identity. Is there more to it?

          The first amendment is among the enumerated fundamental rights, and so requires more than just a rational basis in order for the government to enact a law to restrict it. Can the government prevail on a claim that the internet id matching service they offer to social media companies is not only rationally connected to the purpose of advancing public safety, but that it is narrowly tailored to this compelling purpose by virtue of its limitation to a particularly dangerous group of criminals with “frightening and high” recidivism?

        • AJ

          @CR:
          Let’s not forget that speech in the public square, anonymous speech, and online speech (and thus anonymous online speech in the public square that is social media) are protected First Amdt. activities. As such, strict scrutiny kicks in, meaning the State must prove the case, not the citizen, and the infringement must serve a compelling purpose, be narrowly tailored, AND be achieved through the least restrictive means. You cannot convince me that forcing me either to avoid online speech or decloaking my anonymity are the least restrictive means. Besides, don’t all the Internet stings the donut-munchers run prove they don’t need citizens’ info to find crime online? It may shortcut their investigative work by having my info at hand were I to try something, but that is hardly a valid reason.

          §§ 20916 and 20917 of AWA absolutely violate the First Amdt, as do any State laws that mandate reporting internet IDs and/or email addresses. There are plenty of judges and Opinions around the country that have held this to be so; it’d be nice to have a lawsuit take down the Federal version, making the State versions fish in barrels to be shot.

  28. mike r

    Man has anyone really looked at the exact language of the laws in CA? I wanted to post here just in case others were just turned off by all the bickering on personal levels on the other post, which I will not do again.
    This is extremely interesting to me and others may find it so as well.
    “(c) The following persons shall register:
    Any person who, since July 1, 1944, has been or is hereafter convicted in >>>”any court in this state”< or in any "federal or military court" <<Persons required to register in their state of residence>>if they are required to register in their state of residence (Pen. Code § 290.002.).<<<"
    Nowhere does it talk about people coming from out of the country who are not required to register.
    Nowhere does it state for convictions in other states, but specifically states, only if you are required to register in any other state.
    This is interesting because,
    “Absent a clearly expressed legislative intention to the contrary, that language must ordinarily be regarded as conclusive.:” Consumer Product Safety Commission et al. v. GTE Sylvania, Inc. et al.,447 U.S. 102 (1980). “[I]n interpreting a statute a court should always turn to one cardinal canon before all others. . . .[C]ourts must presume that a legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says there.” Connecticut Nat’l Bank v. Germain, 112 S. Ct. 1146, 1149 (1992). Indeed, “when the words of a statute are unambiguous, then, this first canon is also the last: ‘judicial inquiry is complete.'” 503 U.S. 249, 254.
    I do not see any “clearly expressed legislative intention to the contrary" and in fact, the legislative language seems to clearly state the legislative intentions, especially when the legislature has had multitudes of times to make any other intentions clear.
    Just throwing this out there see if anyone else sees what I am seeing…

  29. 290 air

    Is there a law against registrants homeschooling their kids? We are considering doing that since it would
    allow us to be involved in our kid’s schooling 100% and we can also protect them from any unnecessary exposure to my situation or indoctrination by the public school system.

    • NotEasilyOffended

      What state are you in? I’ve never come across this question online but I can see how tempting it would be. Keep in mind, many areas require home-schooled kids to still come onto a campus (weekly?) for socialization and checking in with teachers. This could still require you do be on a school campus (even driving into the parking lot would require principal’s permission.

      Also, make sure you’ve read Family Code 3030 and are in compliance. From what I read of that, every RC with kids (or dating/married someone with kids) must have a court order allowing custody, shared custody, etc.

      http://gamutonline.net/district/lacoe/DisplayPolicy/226528/1

  30. mike r

    Yes, thanks for the posting of this. This is going to be extremely important to our cause one way or the other. If they stay on the “modern public square” stated by Kennedy than they will have a hard time trying to say otherwise in our cases.

  31. TS

    Interesting read:

    Supreme Court: Conservative groups see opportunities to cut regulation, shore up property rights

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/10/19/conservative-legal-groups-hope-supreme-court-follow-their-lead/1670367002/

    Regarding the post on the SCOTUS making errors in the past, let’s hope they start to reverse the errors by deciding Gundy the right way: make Congress do their work and not delegate to the AG their work.

    • AJ

      @Steveo:
      Well said. I’m with you on all counts….though I would extend that time frame a smidgen so it covers SCOTUS’ Term ending in June. I’m especially hopeful for things if they take Bethea.

    • AJ

      I found this an interesting statement:
      *****
      In recent years, justices on both the right and left have declined to hear some cases because they were uncertain about Kennedy’s vote.
      *****
      I never thought of Kennedy’s swing status as having an effect on even hearing cases. I always figured–and now merely hope–they vote on the merits of the case itself, not whether they can get enough votes on the back end.

      Also from the article:
      *****
      A major priority of the conservative legal movement is to cut back on federal agencies’ powers as part of a return to a traditional separation of powers between the executive, legislative and judicial branches.
      *****
      Hear! Hear!

    • TS

      @AJ

      Hear hear indeed. Only time will tell.

      Even SCOTUS playing politics with what they will and won’t hear?! Say it isn’t so! Another error they need to correct.

  32. mike r

    @ NotEasilyOffended,
    Just to let people know that I have been told by multiple lawyers that family code section 3030 et seq only applies in divorce and family dispute cases (I do not trust any of their statements though) and I have actually challenged that family code as well. thank you for making that point though, and I will continue to challenge that statute as well no matter what the attorneys may say. I also have it on the record that the CA AG will not enforce the Jessica’s law residency requirements on anyone either “which is binding whenever an AG states that on the record in a court, not when they state it in writing (which is odd), but is binding when stated verbally on the record in any court hearings” just so everyone knows that. Not that I have heard of any cases brought under that statute, but I just wanted people to feel safe on that front….
    Plaintiff objects to a dispositive holding of Smith and reiterates here that he requested several times in his Complaint, and again in his Opposition, this Court review de novo whether: (1) SORA (Penal Code § 290, et seq.); (2) Megan’s Law Internet Website (Penal Code § 290.46); (3) California Family Code § 3030, et seq., are constitutionally flawed and the probative effects are also punitive in intent and/or effect under the Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez (372 U.S. 144, 168-69 (1963)) factors as well.

  33. Steveo

    So just from 2 years ago, there is a different feeling. Things are swinging in our direction. News is swinging more in our direction. Cases are being won, and there is this feeling of momentum. Those who pray , keep praying. Those who are activists, keep activating, those who bitch, shut the hell up. 😉 Those who donate, keep donating. Those who organize keep organizing. Those who write, keep writing. I’d say in the next 6 months, we’re going to see a very different and hopefully much better situation for all of us. It might not be all wins, or everything we want, but Rome wasn’t built in a day.

  34. AJ

    I stumbled over yet another case that could be used to fight marked IDs/DLs. Harris v. Quinn (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/573/11-681/) nicely sums up the other useful cases:
    *****
    As we explained in Knox, “[t]he government may not prohibit the dissemination of ideas that it disfavors, nor compel the endorsement of ideas that it approves.” 567 U. S., at ___ (slip op. at 8–9); see also, e.g., R.A.V. v. St. Paul, 505 U. S. 377, 382 (1992); Riley v. National Federation of Blind of N.C., 487 U. S. 781, 797 (1988) West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U. S. 624 (1943); Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U. S. 705, 713–715 (1977).
    *****

    Hmmm, “[t]he government may not…compel the endorsement of ideas that it approves.” Sure sounds like an ID/DL marker to me! Note that the Court’s statement doesn’t even address the citizen’s opinion of the compelled message nor her/his desire to speak or not speak it. (Obviously if I support the message, I wouldn’t raise a peep; however, it would still be compelled speech.)

    Let’s not forget the latest case, NIFLA v. Becerra (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/585/16-1140/), which, among many other juicy tidbits, said:
    *****
    Disclosures must remedy a harm that is “potentially real not purely hypothetical,” Ibanez v. Florida Dept. of Business and Professional Regulation, Bd. of Accountancy, 512 U. S. 136, 146, and can extend “no broader than reasonably necessary,” In re R. M. J., 455 U. S. 191, 203.
    *****

    The State will need to show that I am a harm that is “potentially real not purely hypothetical.” I am as much a potential as (actually, less than) the coach, pastor, aunt, sibling, neighbor. I’m sure the State would say they can only warn of harm on the known instances, but that falls flat if they don’t mark IDs/DLs of those acquitted, those who pleaded downward, or for whom charges were not filed. Those, too, are “potentially real” harms…perhaps even more so! The State also already has a disclosure system via ML website, so it would appear marking one’s ID/DL is “broader than reasonably necessary[.]”

    Then, let’s finally toss in good old Smith v. Doe:
    *****
    In the context of the regulatory scheme the State can dispense with individual predictions of future dangerousness and allow the public to assess the risk on the basis of accurate, nonprivate information about the registrants’ convictions without violating the prohibitions of the Ex Post Facto Clause.
    *****

    Clearly, a marked ID/DL does not provide data or info to, “allow the public to assess the risk,” of an individual. Nor does it carry a disclaimer regarding a State’s determination (or lack thereof) of dangerousness, something upon which SCOTUS leaned a bit in CT DPS v. Doe (though I wonder how helpful this item is).

    • CR

      For the sake of argument, how does stamping someone’s ID/passport with the words “REGISTERED SEX OFFENDER” differ from disclosing nonprivate information about the person’s convictions? These are facts, not ideas, like height, weight, and eye color. It doesn’t say “HIGH RISK SEX OFFENDER”, which seems more like an individual prediction of future dangerousness.

      • AJ

        @CR:
        The difference is the State is compelling me to speak its message for it. The State is entitled to speak all it wishes, but it cannot force a citizen to speak a message it supports (or refrain from speaking a message with which it disagrees). Riley established this to be true even if the State’s message is 100% factual, and NIFLA doubles down on that. Riding on the back of Woolley v. Maynard, I believe one could win a case against the State for *any* message on a DL/ID that is not pertinent to the function of the document. After all, if a license plate is associated with a citizen, how much more is a DL/ID that has the citizen’s name and photograph on it…with the citizen right there facing you?

        However, taking the angle from Doe v. Kerry (the first marked-passport suit), neither marked DLs/IDs nor marked passports would be compelled speech because, “[f]actual information regarding a criminal conviction is not equivalent to an ideological message on a license plate or a ballot.” The problem with this, IMO, is that Riley has already expanded compelled speech to factual Governmental statements. Had the case not been dismissed for ripeness, I suspect the judge would have been schooled a bit on that statement.

        Also, what of shaming? I don’t know how having someone hold up your marked ID/DL with “SEX OFFENDER” emblazoned on it as they look at it (and you) could be dismissed as merely dissemination of information. It sounds more like what SCOTUS touched on in Smith: “Even punishments…such as public shaming involved more than the dissemination of information. They either held the person up before his fellow citizens for face-to-face shaming or expelled him from the community.”

        • Chris f

          Wow AJ…well said and on point. A lawyer would be smart to read opinions on here and know that those with “skin in the game” may be more informed on these issues than those that just deal with it as part of their legal day job. The gems like Janice are rare.

        • David

          @ AJ: Your comment regarding pubic shaming is 100% right!! Someone please tell me why the Home Depot employee working their Tool Rental Counter needs to be informed of someone’s SO status when he makes a copy of your license?? Or the bank manager who is assisting you in opening a new checking account or a college savings account for your child – why does she need to know?? (Furthermore, she probably scans the License into the electronic bank record as a PDF where it can be viewed by most of the bank’s employees.) Or renting a Public Storage unit, opening a stock brokerage account, or picking up a rental car at the airport?
          Pray tell, how in the world is a marked Driver’s License intended to be anything other than public shaming?? 😡

        • AJ

          @Chris F:
          Thanks, brother. Re: skin in the game, the old saying, “nobody cares more about your stuff than you do,” comes to mind. I’m guessing almost any RC could run circles around most attorneys when it comes to this stuff.

          @David:
          Thank you. I agree with all your examples. Also, why does the liquor store I visit out of state need to know? And what of the c-store when I buy smokes while traveling?

          IMO, a marked ID/DL is not supported by Smith–and seems to fall under the Packingham Parenthetical. In Smith, SCOTUS relied on the citizen actively seeking info; here, the State is actively pushing info upon the citizen (including one who may not wish to know*). In Smith, SCOTUS upheld a citizen’s right to see public records about one’s conviction in order to make his/her own determination of dangerousness and a course of action; here, the State is not providing any sort of context or records, just a blanket statement.

          I also think there’s a problem here compared to CT DPS. Then, SCOTUS said it was all fine and dandy in part because the State posted a disclaimer explicitly disavowing any sort of determination of dangerousness; here, there is no such disclaimer or disavowal, possibly leaving a citizen unsure if only dangerous people have the markings.

          *Maybe if a snowflake gets triggered by seeing the marking, things might change.

  35. Rental Car?

    I would like to visit old college friends up north. My car isn’t in good shape, so my best option is to rent a car. Have any of you RSO’s had any problems renting a car with Avis, Budget, or Enterprise? I ask because although I have a perfect driving record (knock on wood), I am wondering if the rental car companies will also check my Driver’s License to see my RSO status? I would hate to make plans, car reservations, then only be rejected at the car rental counter (and potentially embarassed) because of my eight year old conviction. Thanks in advance.

    • TG

      I have rented cars many times and have never had a single problem.

    • C

      Never an issue here in CA or several other states. Not many vendors will turn down a chance to make a buck.

  36. David Kennerly

    Coalinga State Hospital Election 2018 Update:

    In the wake of their recent win in Fresno County Superior Court in which their right to vote in Fresno County was affirmed, Detainees at Coalinga State Hospital have organized to defeat Measure J which would authorize a ten year, 1% sales tax increase in the City of Coalinga that would primarily pay for additional police officers. This same measure was defeated last year because Coalinga Detainees decisively voted against it.

    Detainee Mike St. Martin and others have continued to organize voter registration and are urging fellow Detainees to defeat Measure J. Many have already mailed in their ballots.

    However, flyers which they had posted to Detainee bulletin boards urging them to vote against the measure have been removed by staff officers “because they represent a threat to public safety.” Officers claim that Detainee efforts to defeat the sales tax hike jeopardize public safety by preventing the City from hiring additional police.

    After last year’s sales tax defeat, the City of Coalinga sued Fresno County for allowing Detainees to vote and also attempted to change the law to prohibit Detainees from voting in the place of their residence, i.e. Coalinga in Fresno County.

    Janice Bellucci and The Alliance for Constitutional Sex Offense Laws (ACSOL) joined with Fresno County in successfully fighting that lawsuit which was recently dismissed with prejudice. The Judge ruled that the City of Coalinga had no standing in the case and that state and federal laws governing voting prevail.

    ACSOL also helped to defeat a law introduced by Fresno Assemblyman Joaquin Arambula that would have set the residence status of any “sexually violent predator” committed to an indeterminate term in a California state hospital to his or her last known address and not the address of the facility where they are currently locked up. Coalinga had annexed Coalinga State Hospital eleven years ago in order to expand its population and tax base and continues to collect sales taxes from Detainees and prisoners (there is also a large state prison in Coalinga), despite extending no benefits to them for their taxes.

    Clearly, the City of Coalinga wants it both ways: they want the sales tax revenue which CSH brings in but does not want Detainees to have political representation as voters.

    Detainees went on strike last January in response to retaliatory measures taken by the CSH administration in the wake of the sales tax defeat. Many items previously allowed to Detainees were taken away as punishment for swinging the vote against the tax.

    The State of California has implemented a thorough and ongoing review of any registered voters at Coalinga State Hospital to weed-out any whose parole is being “tolled” while they are being “civilly detained” (but not necessarily yet “committed”). State law was changed some years ago to prevent parole periods from running out so that Detainees would still have to leave CSH to parole. Previously, of those few who had successfully been released from CSH, they were overwhelmingly likely to have served the entirety of their parole periods while in CSH. Those locked up after this time are deemed by the California Registrar of Voters to be ineligible to vote because they allege those Detainees are currently “on parole.” Mike St. Martin counters that, because Detainees are clearly NOT currently on parole (as per the change in law), they should be able to vote. It remains to be seen if this glaring contradiction, which disenfranchises a number of those affected, will be rectified.

    Nevertheless, there are now more than 350 Detainees successfully registered to vote the overwhelming majority of which will vote against Measure J.

    Mike St. Martin has also pointed out that official statistics indicate that Detainees in CSH have the lowest rates for violence of any secure institution in the State of California despite their being labeled “sexually violent predators.” I will again add that the term “sexually violent predator” does not require someone to have committed “violence” in the commonly understood sense of the term but also includes those whose crimes involved anyone under the age of fourteen. Most of those in CSH are being held for such crimes.

    My thanks to Mike St. Martin for his efforts and for keeping us apprised of this situation. For additional information, he can be reached at 559-934-1471 or, to leave a message, at 541-292-5898.

    • Will Allen

      Have to say that it would be great if the City of Coalinga burned to the ground. Is that area not conducive enough for wildfires?

      We know that Registry Terrorists (RTs) lie, misrepresent, and spread propaganda in order to keep their “$EX offender” witch hunt alive and get their jollies. Many do it for their pathetic jobs as well, which is actually so sad that it makes me happy. I expect the employees at Coalinga State Hospital do exactly that. RTs are always going to inaccurately label and misrepresent their prisoners and harassment targets.

      But what should be so obvious to anyone with a brain is the fact that RTs only care about violence if it can be paired with $EX. Because if there is no $EX, no one cares. A person can be very violent with children all the time and never worry about being “dangerous”, needing “therapy”, being put in civil confinement/prison, or being called a violent predator. Violence is all good. Remember – most voters in California think it is great that people who have shot people with guns live near schools AND be in them.

    • R M

      Thanks for the update David. It’s awesome that the detainees are fighting.

    • AJ

      @David Kennerly:
      Thanks for the update on things there. I’m glad they’re organizing. It may be a tougher fight this time, both due to the notoriety of last time and also with it coinciding with other elections.

      =====
      [F}lyers which they had posted to Detainee bulletin boards urging them to vote against the measure have been removed by staff officers “because they represent a threat to public safety.” Officers claim that Detainee efforts to defeat the sales tax hike jeopardize public safety by preventing the City from hiring additional police.
      —–
      Gee, why not claim they’re also obstructing justice?!? What a load of BS. That’s a tenuous claim, at best, but it’s obvious every bit of the administration of CSH is crooked and a sham.

      • David Kennerly's Fright Night

        AJ, regarding “…it’s obvious every bit of the administration of CSH is crooked and a sham.” You wouldn’t believe just how bad they really are. The stories (verified) are just incredible! And to think that this can happen in California. One fairly humorous anecdote, and hardly the most egregious, is the “librarian” (wholly unqualified, of course) who would only buy fairy-tale children’s books for the library but none depicting minors. Specifically, I believe that they all involved Cinderella. Of course, she was also a private collector of such weighty tomes. Or the former acting director of the entire “hospital” who barely had a high school diploma. Or the “nurses” who refused to administer CPR to a dying Hosprisoner who did die, as a result. There was no consequence for those staff members. Or the prostitute on staff who sold favors to both Hosprisoners and staff. Everyone knows about the drugs and contraband being sold by officers in most prisons and this is true of CSH, too. There’s the food that is prepared by inmates in the neighboring prison who, knowing that it is destined for “sex offenders,” add their own special ingredients. The food is objectively much worse, and less ample, than in prison. Those of us who’ve been to prison find it hard to imagine anything worse than that food. Psychologists and other staff on N1-B visas from 3rd World countries who would do nothing to jeopardize their U.S. residency and so are totally compliant with the administration. Contractor psychologists who made over a million dollars a year each for “assessing” the future dangerousness of Detainees based on a cursory, sometimes non-existent, scrutiny of their subjects. They reliably evaluated them as unacceptably dangerous. Until Mike St. Martin blew the whistle on them and caused an enormous scandal. And there’s lots more…

        • AJ

          @David Kennerly:
          Little involving governmental abuse of power surprises me anymore. Disappoints, but doesn’t surprise.
          =====

          “they all involved Cinderella”
          —–
          Oh, so a story about shaming and abusing one’s step-sibling is okay? But hey, at least even she got let out for one enjoyable night!
          =====

          “There’s the food that is prepared by inmates in the neighboring prison who, knowing that it is destined for “sex offenders,” add their own special ingredients.”
          —–
          Always be wary of the chef who claims to put a little bit of himself into everything he makes…
          =====

          It’s really sad, and frightening, that such places (still) exist. Our culture is so unforgiving when it comes to whatever “them” is most unpopular right now. I weep and worry about the future of a nation of people who are willing to harm each other with such impunity.

          On a somewhat related note, here’s a quote from then-Congressman and future-President James A. Garfield, speaking in 1877:
          *****
          “Now more than ever before, the people are responsible for the character of their Congress. If that body be ignorant, reckless and corrupt, it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness and corruption. If it be intelligent, brave and pure, it is because the people demand these high qualities to represent them in the national legislature … If the next centennial does not find us a great nation…it will be because those who represent the enterprise, the culture, and the morality of the nation do not aid in controlling the political forces.”

  37. steve @ AJ

    “However, taking the angle from Doe v. Kerry (the first marked-passport suit), neither marked DLs/IDs nor marked passports would be compelled speech because, “[f]actual information regarding a criminal conviction is not equivalent to an ideological message on a license plate or a ballot.” The problem with this, IMO, is that Riley has already expanded compelled speech to factual Governmental statements. Had the case not been dismissed for ripeness, I suspect the judge would have been schooled a bit on that statement.”

    The US goes further than just criminal conviction with the Green Notices by saying we are a danger and a threat or else Interpol would not accept and issue the green notice.

    • TS

      @Steve

      Interesting point.

      Using your point, should other registered persons of other crimes, e.g. DV, animal abuse, etc, have marked DLs indicating their status as well? The states are obviously using sex register registrants info and marking DLs, so why not others? Should this be proposed to the states that have other registries? Maybe it should be so the net effect can be cast far and wide. Might grab some attention on the issue. Have to get worse before it gets better?

    • AJ

      @steve:
      I’m unclear what point you’re trying to make to me. I was saying the judge was wrong in Doe v. Kerry, as evidenced by Riley (and NIFLA). Yes, the unfounded allegation of a Green Notice (“…likely to repeat these crimes… “) is troubling, to say the least. It certainly makes a statement of dangerousness without giving the citizen due process to rebut doesn’t it?

      @TS:
      “Have to get worse before it gets better?”
      —–
      I sometimes think this is the only route. Unfortunately, the offenses which would have the most effect (DUI*, DV, theft, etc.) are ones politicians, their friends, and/or their family have probably committed. No chance they will toss themselves into that stinkpot. For now, I continue to pray for wisdom at SCOTUS.

      *How ridiculous would it be to have “DRUNK DRIVING OFFENDER” on a DL?

      • steve @AJ

        Sorry not as eloquent as some here when it comes to legal terminology or discussion but what I’m trying compare is this:

        In Connecticut vs Doe the supreme court said that publishing names on the internet was ok and didn’t violate due process because the web pages were just factual information and were not broadcasting to the public someone was dangerous or not.

        Interpol, according to their own protocol will only issue a green notice if someone is a threat. So the FEDS are making that decision about RC’s without due process.

        So am I right to think that SCOTUS might have a problem with this?

        • TS

          @Steve

          It could be a problem but for registrants, not SCOTUS, since the court isn’t impacted by this. Sounds like a possible Fed Court challenge?

        • AJ

          @steve:
          No worries, and no apologies needed. I didn’t understand you were referencing CT DPS.
          =====
          “Interpol, according to their own protocol will only issue a green notice if someone is a threat.”
          —–
          Could you please provide a URL to support this?
          =====
          Here are my thoughts on challenging the whole I’POL BS…

          Short answer:

          I think you’re exactly right that a court should find Substantive Due Process is being violated. I just don’t know how successful the fight would be, let alone its ease. I think the best chance of success would be a suit by someone who is on a ML but who does not have a sex offense conviction.

          Long answer:

          Though SCOTUS ruled out any sort of Procedural Due Process claim, it certainly seemed to raise–in its holding, not just in dicta–the possibility of a Substantive Due Process claim. Helping CT in that case was that it specifically disavowed any finding of dangerousness. A Green Notice obviously is something quite the opposite direction. Would it rise to stigma-plus? I have no idea. The only case I know of that would maybe be helpful is Humphries v. LA County (https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/05-56467/05-56467-2011-02-25.html). Setting aside the details of the Humphries’ case (they were innocent), their suit was about denial of Due Process to challenge inclusion on a child abuse registry. The 9th Circuit found that no process to challenge indefinite inclusion violated Due Process. The 9th noted that, ‘Paul [v. Davis] provides that stigma-plus applies when a right or status is “altered or extinguished.”’

          The Government would almost assuredly maintain its requests to issue Green Notices is simply a collateral consequence of conviction. That would probably be the fight to be had, and it could be tough, as any number of collateral consequences alter or extinguish rights and statuses. I think it would be one thing if the Green Notice said something along the line of the Scarlet Letter in passports, but when the Government starts making claims of dangerousness that alter or extinguish my rights, it’s something else. (I am in NO way saying the Scarlet Letter passes muster. I still think that is compelled speech. With a Green Notice compelled speech isn’t an issue, as the citizen isn’t involved.)

          A problem I see is good old Government finger-pointing. DOJ would likely say, “we’re not sending that message. We simply told I’POL you’ve offended. We can’t help it that I’POL has such a severe message.” US I’POL would probably point back to DOJ claiming, “we’re just issuing the Notice DOJ asked us to do.” It would be interesting to see what comes up if a RC FOIA’d DOJ regarding LEO and travel alerts. The question I have is, would DOJ ping I’POL *just* over my having offended? I suspect not. How silly would it be for them essentially to say to the world, “this dude did something bad, but we’re not worried about it.” Obviously DOJ is making a determination of my risk. I see them as in a bit of a pickle coming and going. If they claim not to made a determination of dangerousness (thus meeting CT DPS criteria), how could they determine I’m likely to reoffend? On the other hand, if they’ve made an individualized determination of dangerousness, I’ve not been afforded opportunity to rebut or challenge. What I think is actually going on is they truly are NOT making a determination of dangerousness, opting instead just to say all are dangerous. That’s again a problem as it doesn’t give me a chance to rebut or challenge.

          Addendum: Even if one were able to shoot down the Green Notices, there are still FBI, USMS, etc., overseas offices in embassies and consulates that get info and share it with in-country peers. That info stream would be much harder to chase down and end.

        • AO

          @AJ – “On the other hand, if they’ve made an individualized determination of dangerousness, I’ve not been afforded opportunity to rebut or challenge. What I think is actually going on is they truly are NOT making a determination of dangerousness, opting instead just to say all are dangerous. That’s again a problem as it doesn’t give me a chance to rebut or challenge.”

          They obviously don’t make an individualized determination since the law unilateral states if the person fits X criteria, they are “this”. The passport stamp clearly doesn’t care how dangerous someone is since it doesn’t cover someone who’s a serial adult rapist but will cover someone who was in possession of CP or, even more mundane, a 14-year-old having consensual relationship with their 13-year-old partner.

        • AJ

          @AO:
          Let’s be sure we’re talking about the same thing. There are significant differences between the IML marker (IML) and Green Notices (GN).

          Both are Government speech, which is all well and good and constitutional…and also where similarities end.

          1. IML is (IMO) compelled speech, violating my 1st Amdt. rights. GN are not.
          2. IML is a neutral, factual statement concerning a public record of PAST behavior (i.e. my offense). GN are neither neutral nor factual when issued due to the biased opinion regarding FUTURE behavior (“…likely to repeat…”).
          3. IML makes no statement or indication one way or the other regarding dangerousness. GN state I am a danger (“…likely to repeat…”), despite not having any sort of determination or risk assessment upon which to make such a statement–in fact quite possibly contrary to a risk assessment that may exist.

          I’ve been reading through the I’POL documents a bit. It’s some seriously dry, and somewhat confusing, reading. From what I gather, GN are issued as a public-safety warning to other countries. Somehow Uncle Sam is divining my dangerousness without having any information other than my conviction and my presence on a ML site (which technically isn’t even needed to generate GN).

          In an earlier post, I had mentioned that DOJ and I’POL would probably do the finger-pointing game to avoid any sort of accountability. After reading some of their docs, I no longer feel that. A country’s National Bureau is wholly responsible for the data it enters into the I’POL information systems. That makes things a lot easier were one to file suit. That also opens up the ability to FOIA yourself with DOJ. (I’POL has a request process through HQ in Lyon, France, too. It would be interesting to do both and see what sort of lies and redaction DOJ would pull. It’s pretty sad when I trust some international entity more than my own Gov’t.)

        • Chris F (@ AJ and all)

          @AJ

          ” IML makes no statement or indication one way or the other regarding dangerousness.”

          I know you are just stating this as a generally accepted fact (based on Con DPS V Doe) and not your belief, but I wanted to touch on it.

          Like Con DPS V Doe and the unanimous SCOTUS ruling that the registered s.o. list is ok since it doesn’t infer dangerousness, the IML falls under that same umbrella. But, I believe that SCOTUS decision was flawed. Both infer dangerousness just from existing when they don’t for other, and sometimes similar crimes as well as that people can be on them for different and arbitrary lengths of time. The legislature interfered with the judiciary’s role of deciding what was needed to punish, rehabilitate, and protect the public. The only exceptions where legislatures can do that is when the people are in imminent danger, and only then until the threat is addressed.

          Had there truly been an 80% recidivism rate of all sex offences without a way to narrow the offenders down, then the constitution could have been set aside and all of these laws implemented (including retroactively). But, even then, going forward they would need to create the tools for the judiciary to deal with this problem inside the exiting criminal trial framework and remove the legislature, and these “emergency” regulations from the equation.

          I am not sure why I never see this topic argued in any legal papers, courts, or opinion pieces.

          Just thought I would throw that out there…

        • CR

          @Chris F — “The legislature interfered with the judiciary’s role of deciding what was needed to punish, rehabilitate, and protect the public. The only exceptions where legislatures can do that is when the people are in imminent danger, and only then until the threat is addressed.”

          With respect to criminal laws and proceedings, at a high level, my understanding is that it is the legislature’s role to create the laws that define what is a crime and what the punishment (or range of punishments) is. The role of the executive (in this context) is to enforce laws. The role of the judiciary (in this context) is to preside over the court to ensure order and lawful proceedings, and to pronounce a sentence in a trial by jury, or to determine guilt and pronounce a sentence in a bench trial. Judges have a degree of discretion in sentencing, but it is not unlimited. It is constrained by what the legislature wrote in the law.

          Do I have this wrong? Or if not, can you expound a little on what you’re talking about?

        • Chris F (@CR)

          @cr

          Correct. But the laws set must pass constitutional muster and not be cruel, excessive beyond the goals, or target a hated and politically powerless group without extra scrutiny. They cant interfere with the judiciary passing a fair sentence. Some legislature attempts at demanding a min and max range that wasnt fair and took away judges reasonable discretion failed challenges and became only suggested guidelines.

          Also, the legislature cant contradict itself or the court has to decide what law takes control. It cant demand judges control punishment, rehab, and protecting the public where all that is demanded by law to be tailored to the individual and then have another law that over rides the judiciary and forces a punishment or denial of liberty based on no individual tayloring that wasnt part of the trial and sentence. That would make legislature the top power and not an equal checks and balances branch.

  38. mike r

    Yeah, the shaming issue is real when it comes to marked IDs of any kind. What more do you need to show that you carry a badge of shame, just because it is not attached to your body physically, or that you are not bond in shackles in the town square with a visible badge, does not eliminate the shaming every time you present that ID. Does it have to equal the barbaric examples in order to become shaming….

  39. David Kennerly's Failed Disappearing Act

    Well, it would seem that I now must give up on my lifelong dream of becoming a magician, too. “A sex offender performed as a magician at a Winston-Salem restaurant, authorities say. On his record: a rape conviction and crimes against children.” Off to jail, he goes! https://www.journalnow.com/news/crime/a-sex-offender-performed-as-a-magician-at-a-winston/article_2537b704-2181-5ada-af46-eaec8d0cf33f.html

  40. steve @ AJ

    I could see how our government would argue “we just send the notices Interpol makes the determination”

    From page 32 Green notices

    Article 89:
    (1) Green notices are published to warn about a person’s criminal activities.
    (2) Green notices may only be published under the following conditions:
    (a) The person is considered to be a possible threat to public safety;
    (b) This conclusion has been drawn from an assessment by a national law-enforcement authority or an international entity;
    (c) This assessment is based on the person’s previous criminal conviction(s) or other reasonable grounds;
    (d) Sufficient data concerning the threat are provided for the warning to be relevant

    • David

      @ Steve: “(d) Sufficient data concerning the threat are provided for the warning to be relevant.” It would seem to me that data showing that Registered individuals are frequently convicted for overseas child sex abuse or sex trafficking would be sufficient. But …. NO SUCH DATA EXISTS!! If a registered individual has been convicted such a crime has occurred in the past – and I don’t know if it has – it would be extremely rare and could not meet the standard of “sufficent data”.

      • steve @ David

        Great point! If IML is truly about stopping child sex trafficking (as advertised) where is the “sufficient data” that says my purpose for traveling is for sex trafficking? I really think the way to fight the green notices is taking on Interpol, not our government, and thier guidelines for issuing them. In our case, they are not being met at all imo.

  41. mike r

    Judge grants partial motion to dismiss claims 6-9,
    https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/caedce/2:2017cv01838/321782/34
    This was to be expected, was expecting a little explanation, but just a rubber stamp. This is okay though as now my case moves forward on the other issues that have never been presented to the courts. No more just citing Smith, although you know they will try to use Smith citations, it will be much harder. Still no ruling on my motion for judicial notice. The court must accept or deny and give me a hearing on the issues if it denies…
    I will not be discouraged and am looking forward to this fight that is about to take place on the other issues 1-5, and the fight that will take place in the 9th…
    They case is finally moving again….

    • E

      Staying positive but I don’t like that. I wish he would have actually wrestled with the claims himself. Even partial dismissal would have indicated him thinking about it. Rrrrr. All fingers crossed, Mike

    • Interested party

      Mike r
      Keep up the good work

    • New Person

      @ Mike R

      Partial dismissal… The ninth claim was involuntary servitude. I hope this wasn’t fully dismissed b/c of a few points directly from the Motion to Dismisss paperwork

      1) top of page 21: “In evaluating claims under the 13th Amendment, a court must take a ‘contextual approach,’ considering such factors as the nature and amount of work demanded, and the purpose for which it is required.

      2) Bottom of page 20: “However, the latter prohibition “does not prevent the State or Federal Governments from compelling their cititizens, by threat of criminal sanction, to perform certain civic duties.” Id. at 943-944. This includes compulsory jury service, military service, and roadwork.

      3) middle of page 21: The limited obligations imposed by SORA therefore do not constitute involuntary servitude, and the night claim should be dismissed.

      =====
      1) Context is that “this particular service” is only aimed at one sub-section of Californians. Please note that “work is demanded” upon a specific sub-set of the population that is free citizens. No other sub-sets has “work that is demanded” of them that are free citizens. Of all convicted and formerly convicted, only one sub-set is subjected to this particular service. Please note, the registry was originally created to track mobsters. Not even mobsters are allowed to be on the registry, but kept for sex offenders only.

      2) Compulsory jury service and military service are administered to all Californians. Road word is applied to those still under custody of the state. The administrative tax burdens are also administered to all Californians, to which the taxes are done on a Californian citizen’s own leisure and completed via mail; not in person at a police department.

      3) The length of time does not matter if one is to follow the letter of the law. Involuntary servitude is prohibited unless to punish a crime. The registry was enacted due to a conviction. Jury duty isn’t enacted due to a conviction. Military service isn’t enacted due to a conviction. Tax reporting isn’t enacted due to a conviction. Road work is enacted due to a conviction and part of punishment. Is a little bit of slavery okay for a day or more each year an acceptable limited obligation? Is losing one’s freedom of speech for a free person for a day or more each year an acceptable limited obligation? Is putting free citizens in interment camps for a day or months acceptable limited obligations such as the US interment camps for free Americans of Japanese descent?

      Again, no other sub-section of the California community is burdened this compelled registration service at a local police department. Make every California citizen register at least once a year, every year in person. A person no longer under custody is a free citizen. The law of involuntary servitude was not created to only be legal for sex offenders after conviction. As the AG stated all the forms of legal involuntary servitude, each form is required of all free Californians to abide as well as those under custody as it is a part of their punishment for their crime.

      ======

      I just hope it’s not too late for you to rebut this, or am I making any legal sense here.

      • CR

        @New Person, I think you make a lot of sense on the involuntary servitude issue. I think the court analyzed it incorrectly.

        Maybe mike r can appeal the dismissal. Otherwise I think it can’t be maintained for future appeals of the actual court decisions.

  42. mike r

    Yeah, unfortunately as far as this district court, and the 9th’s ruling in the 2012 Nevada case, these issues 6-9 really do not stand a chance unless accepted by SCOTUS. The law that was challenged in Nevada is strikingly similar (and more severe in some aspects) to mine and the 9th upheld it, so I do not see why the district court would rule any other way on just the punishment issues. Even in the 9th I think on the punishment issue the court will just cite Smith, Hatton, and point out the similarities in the Nevada statute. Unless the recidivism rates and the misinformation supplied to SCOTUS makes a difference. I do not know we will see. I refuted every reasoning by Smith one by one and have supplied the court with the adjudicative recidivism rates, the documentation on vigilante attacks against my family, myself, and to the many others that have lead to great bodily injury and death. I figured the district court would just rubber stamp the MTD, but I was surprised it took so long. Yeah, whatever, like I stated now we move on the remaining issues and claims that have never been presented to any court that I know of.

  43. TS

    Vasquez v. Foxx, the 7th Circuit, sex offender residency restrictions case which has been appealed to SCOTUS has some new activity, according to FAC.

    A brief, written by eighteen scholars, including THE TOP academics and authorities in the area, has been filed.

    You can read the document here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-386/67891/20181024143847779_18-386%20Amici%20Brief%20Scholars.pdf

    • TS

      I read the amicus brief and am impressed with it. I particularly like the first sentence of the conclusion which says “Humans are poor at perceiving where danger really lurks.57” [I am thinking of clowns in storm drains, but that probably because of the season we are in. 😉 ] There is a lot of good data here to reference in other arguments (including you, @mike r) as the fight continues. Being this comes out of IL, the Land of Lincoln, it will be interesting to see what Roberts, et al have to say on it, e.g. to hear it or not to begin with.

      • TS

        @AJ

        Should I apologize now or later for adding this to your fall reading list?

        • James

          The Brief is very, very well written…thanks for adding good stuff to my reading list.

          Best Wishes, James

        • AJ

          @TS:
          Ha, too funny! No, I will consider this a Halloween treat.

          It appears this is a similar group as has chimed in on Rankin. It seems we have a cabal of experts who have started fighting for us. This is awesome. I wonder if they will chime in on Bethea, too.

          Since it’s mostly, if not entirely, the same people who filed the Rankin amicus, I may only need to give it a quick scan. But I will definitely read it.

    • CR

      @TS, thank you for posting the link to the brief. Now I have something to look forward to reading over the weekend.

      I’ve read a little, and it looks really good so far.

    • Chris F

      Thanks for the link. I hope I have time to read it but may have to rely on other’s opinions as I am bogged down right now.

      The concept of residency restrixtions boggles my mind how it survives any court challenge.

      First, if registry is just a list of those that committed particular crimes with no reguard to dangerousness just to make it more publicly accessible, how can any law key off of it with a restriction?

      Next, its the judiciary’s job to protect the public from criminals tailored to the person.

      Third, its a form of banishment since it becomes nothing more than a race between cities to be the most restrictive to force registered citizens away.

      I look forward to someone posting the key points.

    • AJ

      *****
      Reasonably accurate ways to estimate an individual’s re-offense risk are available and in wide use. The best example is the Static-99R, a 10-item actuarial scale that assesses the sexual re-offense risk of adult males. A non-proprietary tool developed by Canadian government researchers, it is the most widely used sex-offense risk assessment instrument in the world.
      *****
      So much for the amicus being any good or useful, what with that bundle of lies on page 18 (PDF page 25). “accurate”? “best example”? “non-proprietary”? Had they consulted on here they would have learned the truth.
      .
      .
      .
      .
      Ooops, there I go being snarky once again.

      • TS

        Hanson’s sales pitch included. Hmmm, maybe the other seventeen should be asked why they believe that should be included? The providing atty too should be asked. Maybe Dr. Karen Fitzgerald should be asked to opine too?

        • AJ

          Not that I believed I hold a monopoly on snark (here’s lookin’ at you, DIK), but it’s good to have company nonetheless.

          For me, the best part of the whole amicus was the in-your-face statement to SCOTUS:
          *****
          “At the very least, [judicial decisions] should not propagate misunderstandings. Unfortunately, such misunderstandings are commonplace and often traceable to language in early opinions of this Court.”

          -and-

          “Yet the re-offense figure [Smith] relied upon came from casual opinion, not data, and has since been disavowed by the very sources the Court relied upon in making it. Peer-reviewed studies published since Smith have demonstrated its error.”
          *****
          Your move, SCOTUS: 1) Continue to bury head in sand or, 2) Admit error and end this abuse of power and nightmare that’s being replicated overseas.

        • TS

          @AJ

          Love the snark! I do love the in your face attitude of the brief.

          Didn’t CJ Roberts just say within the last few weeks that SCOTUS has made errors in the past they need to fix? I believe it was this video and a Yahoo article I read which someone posted here that addressed it.

          Chief Justice Roberts Remarks at University of Minnesota Law School

          https://www.c-span.org/video/?451977-1/chief-justice-roberts-stresses-supreme-courts-independence-contentious-kavanaugh-hearings

          @CR, James, mike r & Chris F – You’re welcome. Happy reading! (I know you’re done reading it, Mike & CR, and appreciate your feedback.)

          @Everyone else, enjoy it if you get the time to read it.

        • TS

          Yes, it was in fact this video I posted earlier today and his comments on such errors SCOTUS committed by yielding to political pressures start at 2:30 of the video for your viewing and listening leisure.

        • TS

          I should have also mentioned that at the 48:12 point, CJ Roberts discusses the Carpenter case SCOTUS had about phone records and law enforcement being able to get them. It has a long arm of reach given technology.

        • TS

          I would also recommend you hear what CJ Roberts says at 1:06:00 mark to address the SCOTUS errors made and what about not making further mistakes going forward.

        • AJ

          @TS:
          Thanks for that video link. I found it interesting, and the CJ comes across as a fairly warm, humorous guy. I wonder, though, if he made it about 5 miles east to Mitchell-Hamline School of Law to visit the Sex Offense Litigation and Policy Resource Center. Probably not.

        • TS

          @AJ

          You’re welcome. Interesting operations he has there in WDC. CJ Roberts probably didn’t make it to the other MN law school in question unfortunately while there. But, if he was invited, I bet he’d show and do something similar, IMO. Given the spate of registrant cases, it’d be interesting, I’d think.

          Interesting note, his teen children were more worried about their phones being searched than their rooms when he asked them.

      • CR

        The “17 Scholars” brief in Rankin referenced Static-99R and Hansen as well. This amicus brief for Vasquez is from a group of 18 scholars. I didn’t check, but I think they are largely the same people.

        In fact, Hansen is among the authors of both briefs. I didn’t make any special effort to point that out on the Rankin brief, considering the reception that Hansen gets on this forum and the ire he stirs. But despite all that, I’m glad to see him included in the group of amici for both briefs since it adds some force to the group’s use of his tests and its conclusions. Which they do, and very much to our advantage.

        • K. Hanson Propaganda

          So you think a non-transparent, conflict of interest, “test,” that lumps all types of crimes and offenders together, outrageously claims to predict human behavior with 10 questions, whose demonstrably corrupt creator (Karl Hanson) somehow managed to have otherwise reputable “scholars” sellout to very clear conflicts of interests in authorship (i.e. Karl Hanson citing Karl Hanson) and not question the corrupt “validation” process? How exactly is the Static-99R’s use “to our advantage” when it clearly is a slippery slope to pseudo junk “science?”

      • K. Hanson Propaganda

        Karl Hanson propoganda is spreading like wildfire. Once again, reputable scholars attach themselves to Karl Hanson’s “static” Kool Aid, turning a complete blind eye to the eggregous conflicts of interests and Static-99R’s non-transparency. Again, how can 10 questions predict something as complicated as human behavior? Especially when Karl Hanson’s 99R sample, and “validation,” lumps all types of sex crimes together — and makes no specification to the type of future crime that might or might not occur.

        • Simple enough

          “how can 10 questions predict something as complicated as human behavior?”

          The same way insurance companies can use a few questions to “predict” how often you’ll have a car accident, a house fire, or when you’re going to die. It’s called actuarial science. Would you like it if he used 15 questions? 20? 80?

        • Ricky Fitz

          It’s incredibly disingenuous to compare Karl Hanson’s STATIC 99R scam to home and auto insurance risk assessments. Like what other people mentioned, car insurance risk assessments are very specific to measuring your risk to car accidents, whereas the STATIC 99R is so vague in “predicting” the severity of crime in the future (with less accuracy than a flip of a coin).

          Also, you are making the ludicrous comparison that the STATIC 99R is “actuarial science,” yet remember for auto and home insurance, those questions are updated on an about annual basis. With the STATIC 99R, your questions are pretty much locked in for many years — even eternity (at least according to Tiered Bill). Then on top of it all, you have dumb STATIC 99R anti-logic nuances like not scoring current age, scoring those with male victims with high scores, and scoring non-contact and non-violent crimes with high scores. Oh yeah, and did anyone mention how the STATIC 99 exaggerated “risk” and the State of CA worked hard to suppress evidence that would have been an indictment of “dr” Karl Hanson’s work? Question should be why are people backing — and protecting — Karl Hanson and his junk pseudo science?

          Again the comparison between STATIC 99R and auto and home insurance is incredibly disingenuous and misleading. This type of STATIC 99 propaganda seems aimed to divide and conquer. VERY FISHY . . .

  44. mike r

    Yes, that is an excellent doc TS. I am going to touch on a few issues here.
    I love the entire brief, but right out of the gate I see the similarities to residency restrictions and the registry, as documented by the same exact types of reports. The CASOMB states,
    [T]here is no evidence that residence restrictions [sex offender registries]
    are related to preventing or deterring sex crimes
    against children. To the contrary, the evidence
    strongly suggests that residence restrictions [registries] are
    likely to have the unintended effect of increasing
    the likelihood of sexual re-offense.

    And the CA SC parroted that language,
    The court concluded that the law
    imposed harsh and severe restrictions and
    disabilities on the affected parolees’ [imagine free citizen’s] liberty and
    privacy rights, however limited [are rights are “not” limited], while producing
    conditions that hamper, rather than foster,
    [[efforts to monitor, supervise,]] and rehabilitate
    these persons. Accordingly, it bears no rational
    relationship to advancing the state’s legitimate
    goal of protecting children from sexual
    predators. . . .
    Id. at 879.
    The part in double brackets there is inapplicable, it is for parolees whom are under the direct supervision of the state, it is by definition, part of the “punishment” sentence. My point is, CA must strike the CA registry applying the same standards to every statute. It is the controlling precedent in CA courts. This is just for a challenge on federal constitutional issues in state superior court, state constitutional issues [which provides much more protection even] would have to be included as well….

    Next and furthermore,
    “In U.S this is one of the basic standards for review of appeals. Under the “arbitrary and capricious” standard, the finding of a lower court will not be disturbed unless it has no reasonable basis. When a judge makes a decision without reasonable grounds >>or adequate consideration of the circumstances,<>>>>>>>>>>>an action not based upon consideration of relevant factors<<<<<<<< and so is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with law or if it was taken without observance of procedure required by law. [Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. United States EPA, 966 F.2d 1292, 1297 (9th Cir. 1992)]"
    I am not looking the case up right now (I will though because this is a well articulated argument that I will keep and probably use), but the court cannot just not just leave it to precedent, it must consider a case on the merits of the case. It is the obligation of judges to use independent judgement when considering the facts of a case. So I will argue most importantly that when considering the "facts" of a case, especially in constitutional challenges, it must be stated and reflected in the record.
    Since the Mendoza-Martinez case was decided a half century ago, it has been well established that the following is the perimeter that a court must follow, at minimum.

    The majority opinion in Mendoza-Martinez lists “the tests traditionally applied to determine whether an Act of Congress is penal or regulatory in character”:

    Does the sanction stemming from that Act of Congress involve an affirmative disability or restraint?
    Has the sanction historically been regarded as a punishment?
    Does the sanction come into play only on a finding of scienter?
    Will the sanction’s operation promote the traditional aims of punishment—retribution and deterrence?
    Is the behavior to which the sanction applies already a crime?
    Can the sanction be assigned to an alternative purpose to which it may rationally be connected?
    Does the sanction appear excessive in relation to the alternative purpose assigned?

    The district judge made a procedural error by not considering a meaningful inquiry into the seven Mendoza-Martinez factors, and ignoring adjudicative facts, which must be reversed by the 9th in my case. Just citing case law will not cut it. The court has responsibilities and parameters that it must function within. By shrugging his duty as a judicial officer to consider the prevailing parameters as a matter of law, it's reversible. There is no doubt the court, both the magistrate and the district judge, omitted their factual evaluation of the case by just citing Smith and ignoring all other critical factors "without" stating it in the record. They ignored adjudicative facts, or just did not even consider them, as reflected in the record. There must be evidence in the record that the court considered relevant evidence, especially since a very large amount of that evidence is adjudicative facts that are unquestionable and the court must take judicial notice of, on the record. They cannot just state," I considered this or that [or WTF ever] while not on the bench or not on the record in my backroom chambers" or some crap…. At least that is my opinion and we will have to wait and see.
    So, yes great article. LOL…

    • mike r

      By the court ignoring critical circumstances and well settled principles of review (Mendoza-Martinez factors) the court did not produce a proper record for appeal, the court erred. Deprived me of my procedural due process rights at this point…

  45. mike r

    Top that off with what AJ stated a long time ago, I am pretty sure it was AJ, and it seems pretty clear to me….
    “I stumbled across a potential SCOTUS gem that may be useful to fight “frightening and high.” In Chastleton v. Sinclair (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/264/543/case.html), SCOTUS said, “a Court is not at liberty to shut its eyes to an obvious mistake when the validity of the law depends upon the truth of what is declared.” The 9th Circuit cited this very phrase in its 1985 decision in Burlington Northern RR Co. v. Dept. of Public Svc. Regulation (https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/763/1106/198551/). And just in case the State says this is dicta, let’s once again visit Chastleton:
    *****
    Held:
    (a) A law depending upon the existence of an emergency or other certain state of facts to uphold it may cease to operate if the emergency ceases or the facts change.
    *****
    Parsing that down a bit: “A law depending upon the existence of a[] . . . certain state of facts to uphold it may cease to operate if . . .facts change.” To me, this means that even if “frightening and high” is taken as truth and factual, one only needs to show the facts have changed in order to challenge the validity of the law. Gee, if only there were governmental data showing RC recidivism is neither “frightening and high” nor “upwards of 80%.”
    From my research in EVA, Chastleton has never been overruled, and has only been “questioned” by the CA SC in one case (Santa Monica Beach v. Superior Court of LA County).”

    • AJ

      @mike r:
      Yup, those are my somewhat snarky words. I’d like to see someone use it in a case someday and see how a court handles it.

  46. http404

    SCAM ALERT – BEWARE!!!

    Hi folks, just want to share with you what happened to me yesterday and advise you to be on your guard. Someone is calling registrants, telling you a warrant has been issued for you for failure to register. They’re using information obtained from the Meganslaw.gov website to target people, as this person had my home address and said notices to appear were sent to that address. He told me I need to surrender myself to the Sheriff’s office today, but if I don’t want to go to jail when I appear I can “post a bond.” He sounded very legit as a law enforcement professional would, gave me some bogus case numbers to write down that I would need to reference, blah blah. He then said I need to inform my employer that I would need to leave right now so I can go and post my bond at a nearby walmart. He said the line would remain open until I have done so and instructed me not to run as I would be arrested. Well I said he called me on a landline and I asked if he could call my cell number. I then gave him as my cell# the phone number for my local police department, which I happen to have memorized. I said I would stay on that line until he calls me and then asked if he is calling me, because it hasn’t rung yet. He said I’m calling you now, just a moment. Then {click} the line went dead, he got the hint I wasn’t buying it when the police answered.

    Just want you folks to all be aware this scam is going on. They contacted me. If you’re publicly listed online as a registrant, they might contact you too.

    • Bend Over - Florida Owns Your Ass For Life!

      I would advise that you elevate your level of security awareness. You might have been targeted by a psycho vigilante who might go from calling to showing up at your front door with a gun (thanks to the government posting your personal information online.)

      I am sure you thought about it but I would hate to read about yet another registered citizen killed by a non-registered nut job so be careful! Everyone out there!

    • C

      That’s awesome. I do love it when the scammers get a taste of their own medicine and I hope his ass puckered a bit when the real cops answered his call.

      This happened to several of us a few months ago and we posted our experiences to this board. In my case it was so easy to poke holes in the guy’s claims against me (he said he was from the police department of my city (we don’t have one) then said he was with the Sheriff’s office from my city (don’t have one of those either). He finally got flustered and hung up on me. I like your idea better and will give him LAPD’s number as my own and ask him to call me back.

  47. NY won't let go

    Has anyone been following the Daniel Holtzclaw story in Oklahoma? My wife has been watching it and neither of us can figure out how he got convicted of so much from just testimony, which in two of the cases described him as a short white man, and another as a black man. He is half Asian and 6’1 got sentenced to over 100 years based on the word of a bunch of different people without any evidence.

    • mike r

      Sounds about right in this day of #metoo…. I believe that it used to take eyewitness testimony “and” physical evidence to convict someone, but that has slowly been eroded and all it takes is an expert story teller (DA) and a witness and an inept or passive public pretender or so called attorney. Now it is the witness said so and your toast. Especially if it is anything to do with sex.

      • NY won't let go

        The only consistent thing in the entire investigation was him saying that he was innocent, all the other testimony changed after it was asked again.

        I just watched his sentencing again. They gave him 236 years….

    • NPS

      I followed that case. He was police officer who abused his position. He specifically targeted black prostitutes because he knew they wouldn’t report or wouldn’t be credible. His mistake was targeting an affluent white woman who immediately reported the assault and went through a rape kit. There was also DNA evidence.

      This guy is your textbook definition of a predator, and he got what he deserved.

      • mike r

        If those are all facts, no reason not to believe NPS, then yes they guy deserves it. Go get em boys is what I say in cases like that. That is exactly how a conviction is supposed to be. Physical evidence, any witnesses or statements are supposed to just corroborate the evidence, not take the place of physical evidence…. In all seriousness NPS, were you aware of the Nevada case in 2012? http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2012/02/10/08-17471.pdf
        Not that it matters, I am just wondering…

        • NPS

          No, I hadn’t followed that 2012 case. In fact, I was still on probation at that time and hadn’t yet heard of CA-RSOL (the old ACSOL name) until early 2013. My only research at that time was trying to get an early termination of probation, the reduction to misdemeanor, and expungement all of which were granted a year later after I filed in pro per.

        • mike r @NPS

          Man that is good shit NPS, our little differences aside you are a valuable player and I admire the hell out of what you did. I know it is hell trying to fight the administrative state and processes. If every t is not crossed and every i not dotted your burnt, so kudos to you. You are actually one of the first that I know of that has been strong enough and has the guts to take the fight to them no matter what anyone else says. I think USA did it and a couple of others, but I think they paid someone I believe. So you must have had the 664/288(a) then and because it was probation you were able to do all that correct? That is why you were so aware of the facts surrounding a 664/288(a). I fought it (I should I fought it until my pd and the DA and court intimidated me into not representing myself) and got prison time so I am ineligible.
          So tell me your story, is what I stated correct? We need to pull together because like I stated you are an asset to our cause, not to just me either because I am fighting for us all. The more [peop-le we can get researching and finding cases like that Nevada case the better we are. I cannot believe AJ, Chris, or myself did not find that after well over a thousand hours researching, corroborating, and drafting over at least two to three years now… Not knocking any of us we are all human so yeah…

        • NPS @MikeR

          Thanks. I appreciate the kind words. As to the charges listed, no that was not my charge. In fact, the charges for which I pled aren’t even registerable offenses. I was forced to register under 290.006 without the judge stating his reason why. He required it because he could. It was Orange County, so they like to make an example. When I transferred my probation to SF, they were shocked I had to register. One officer even stated, “had this happened in our jurisdiction, we would have gone after him.” Why? Because factually I was the victim but under the law at that time, I was the one legally accountable. Again, it’s OC injustice. I’ll just leave it at that. I don’t like to give specifics on my case as I suffer from PTSD.
          I only know about the PCs because I have a linguistics background and know how to read and interpret legal codes. I also work in the legal profession. Obviously I’m not a lawyer due to my status. But I will be filing my CoR in less than two years. I’ll decide then if I want to become lawyer. I was told it’s possible and one of the lawyers who volunteers with ACSOL has encouraged me to pursue being a lawyer. We’ll see.

      • NY won't let go

        That paints it in a completely different light than what the documentary has that said the only physical evidence was from a 17 year old girl on the zipper of his pants that was originally thought to be bodily fluids but then never tested for it until recently only to find out it wasn’t.

Leave a Reply

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 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.  
 

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Please answer this question to prove that you are not a robot *