Comments that are not specific to a certain post should go here, for the month of October 2018. Contributions should relate to the cause and goals of this organization and please, keep it courteous and civil.
Related posts
-
MD: Wilson would consider limits to landmark law compensating child sex abuse victims
Source: marylandmatters.org 1/22/25 The lead sponsor of a 2023 law that vastly expanded the ability of... -
Ped*philes could see death penalty under new House GOP bill: ‘Taken off the streets permanently’
Source: foxnews.com 1/14/25 Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla., is unveiling a new set of bills that... -
ND: Lawmakers discuss adding computer-generated images to definition of child pornography
Source: northdakotamonitor.com 1/20/25 Possessing a computer-generated image of child pornography would be punishable as a felony...
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…
Florida filled an EX-Post Suit
https://floridaactioncommittee.org/ex-post-facto-lawsuit-filed/
@ 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….
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….
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.)
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.
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…
@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…
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.
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.”
@ 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. 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…
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
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…
Has anyone traveled to Europe recently with the new passport? Just trying to plan a trip.
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?
Surprise! He wasn’t a SO!
https://nypost.com/2018/10/12/homeless-man-accused-of-molesting-girl-at-hurricane-michael-shelter/
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
@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.
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.
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..
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
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’…
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?
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.”