General Comments October 2018

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

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).

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.

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

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…

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.