Comments that are not specific to a certain post should go here, for the month of November 2018. Contributions should relate to the cause and goals of this organization and please, keep it courteous and civil.
Related posts
-
TX: HB 1401 would require any educator convicted of such offenses to register as a sex offender
Source: tylerpaper.com 12/22/24 An East Texas state representative is working toward holding educators more accountable. Recently,... -
-
Vigilantism and the Sex Offender Registry
Source: merionwest.com 12/20/24 “Social media and online articles about these incidents boast ten or even 20...
Another case SCOTUS has taken that every single citizen should care about is Gamble v. US (http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/gamble-v-united-states/). The case is about whether SCOTUS should overturn its Dual Sovereignty (DS) ruling. DS is what allows someone to be charged at both the State and Federal levels for what the average person (though not SCOTUS) sees as the same offense.
The usual suspects line up on each side as amici, but there’s one that’s a refreshing change: Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), who filed in support of Gamble (i.e. for overturning DS). He makes some really good points.
Argument is set for December 5. I cannot wait to see how the new kids on the bench handle this case, as it could point to how strong their Originalism and Federalism is. I’m sure good old hang-em-high Alito will vote to uphold DS.
So I moved last week and had an appointment for the day before the move to go in and update the registration with the local PD. I was renting and bought a house in the same city here in California.
It was the first time doing an address update. I went in and asked for the person I was told to ask for. He came out a few minutes later and asked for my ID and address proof. I gave that to him. He went back inside and came out a few minutes later with paperwork. It was the same paperwork I had to fill out for the annual. Asked about employment, VIN numbers, license plates of any vehicles owned or driven by me. I left that blank and explained to them I didn’t know I was going to need this and of course I don’t have it memorized. They were fine with that and took the paperwork back inside.
Then I waited… and waited and waited. I couldn’t go anywhere or do anything. They had my drivers license and I was stuck there. Finally 2 hours later the guy came out and said ok let’s go.
We went into a little room right off the lobby. I’ve been in this room before for the annual. He took my picture and took a full suite of fingerprints, palm prints and side hand prints. Don’t remember this many fingerprinting from last year.
Then the kicker… he asked for a cheek swab for dna. That definitely hasn’t happened for the annual. I said “why? That’s not required for the registration.” He said “the detective wants it. ” Then it seemed he changed and said “it’s a new thing the state needs”.
I said “what if I refuse?” And he said it would make his life more difficult. I then asked if it would make my life more difficult but before he could answer I just said “fine, I don’t want any trouble, I’ll do it but it is definitely BS.”
Did I mention that this little room is right off the lobby of the PD station? And people are walking by, watching me get fingerprinted, photographed, and cheek swabbed? It’s like being booked all over again.
Was all this necessary? What if I had refused the cheek swab? At the same time I realize we have no power. I have a family and kids, I can’t afford to pick a fight with the local PD or tempt the legal system.
Demoralizing, dehumanizing, degrading, and just plain wrong. I am not on probation, parole, or anything. I (and the rest of us) should all be the same as the general public.
I want off this train.
Gavin Newsom will be the next governor of CA. I hope he continues on in the tradition of Brown. Brown sure helped people on the registry with the tiered system and vetoing numerous new laws attacking people on the registry. Unfortunately it looks like Gonzales-Fletcher is getting re-elected to the state assembly. It is strange that she is a democrat and advocate for minorities except for people on the registry. She continues to attack them and try to draft blanket abusive laws to further make their life more difficult. Maybe since her past attempts have failed and the mid-terms are over she will stop. It may have all been politically motivated and she will see it didn’t work. If she does win it will have been very close. There are over 100,000 people on the registry in CA, most are not violent and terrible people, they are humans, they vote, and they deserve rights since their debts have been paid. I think most people are seeing the registry as excessive and not effective. She needs to let up on her hatred and discrimination or it will come back to bite her.
So….. now that the US Attorney General is “out” (Fired) by Trump.
I wonder how this may affect the Federal SORNA; ……and the whole ordeal being fought in Court, over the Attorney General enacting Registration for everyone Pre-Sorna ?
MAYBE, it could be a “good thing” ……and the replacement has a different “perspective”.
Hmmm???
What just happened? I think people in Ca should really wake up! We just had a new Governor elected to office (probably the most liberal Governor Ca has seen/open to new bills in our favor!). Furthermore, the District Attorney (dishonest/win at all cost/investigations) of OC is no more! Todd Spitzer is far more honest and fair! He has promised to even work closer with the ACLU! So, I believe people will now be treated more fair! He isn’t perfect, but far better than Tony!!
Anyone hear of any movement on a challenge to IML? Or has that ship sailed?
Followup question: Has anyone traveled abroad yet with the new passport? If so, where to and were there any issues?
I’d like the chance to one day move to the EU, anyone make that move while registered here?
Any help would be awesome!
-Mike
Has anyone ever heard of Title 15 for Paroles? What is that about? It is supposed to have something do with monies received once released on Parole? I found the PDF, but it is HUGE and I am not sure where to start looking. A lot of you guys on this site are far more knowledgeable in this area than I will ever be.
⭐⭐⭐ This Registry-related case has been distributed to the SCOTUS Justices for consideration at the November 30, 2018 conference:
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/boyd-v-washington/
Boyd v. Washington argues
that registration is punishment when applied retroactively. (Of course, we know that registration is ALWAYS punishment!) Let’s hope SCOTUS decides to “grant it certiorari” (accept it for hearing). 🤞
What prize will the government give to the 1,000,000th registrant?
Great comments OCguy! If you continue to think this way, why don’t we close this site! Nobody gets anywhere being so negative!
Ohhhhh, I see! You guys must be neighbors? You know him personally? Did he prosecute you? Or, did you (don’t tell me) read something about him via the media???????? So, if it’s online or media written, it must be true? Remember who he ran against? Great attitude guys! You can fail to see what I base my optimism on all day, but if you haven’t forgotten, this is a public forum? I really don’t think I care what your views are! You don’t matter. The world doesn’t revolve around you or your views. See, we live in a free world/unlike China and you seem to put a great deal of importance on what you or your views are? You don’t matter! If we (we) continue to have negative or narcistic views, we would still be banned from parks and have to hope! I suggest (I) people stay focused and optimistic! Yet, that’s just my opinion and everyone can do as they like. Please don’t forget people change and working with the ACLU (he agreed to this) is a huge step forward? Someone stated he made a citizens arrest! Very true. Big mistake! Should we continue to hold this against him forever (sound familiar/bite your lip yet), or forgive him and let him live his life? I might recommend withholding judgement and not (sound familiar) believing the media all the time. You (you guys can’t help yourself/spend 10 hours thinking of a good comeback/it’s ok/if it makes you feel comfortable), but I won’t respond!
For those whom took plea deals. So I was looking at what the AG cited in her brief and immediately this jumped out at me….
“Were we to conclude that AB 579 does impair plea bargain contracts, which we do not, we would nevertheless conclude that the impairment is permitted under the Constitution. We would do so for the same reasons previously articulated and because of the importance of this law to the protection of the general welfare of people in Nevada against sexually motivated crimes. Nevada’s police power to promote public safety is entitled to respect. A State’s law in this context is entitled to a presumption of constitutionality. Smith, 528 U.S. at 110 (Thomas, J., concurring).”
The following was en banc in 2006. That means that all the judges of the appellant court (not just a panel of three) considered this and ruled in this way. Unless SCOTUS has reversed this somewhere this states anyone’s plea deal that specifically stated certain dates for expiration of, or anything with respect to the length or application of registration, can be fully enforced.
Although the three panel judges state only an outright exemption, this seems to totally contradict what the en banc panel stated. where anything that was promised was enforceable. Those types of word manipulation is exactly how bad precedent starts and just continues as somehow authoritative when they are in fact not. The en banc court never stated with respect to exemptions. Any promise in a plea agreement is enforceable according to the en banc decision.
“However, we do note that in individual cases where the state has made an explicit promise to a defendant that the defendant would be exempt from registration as a condition of his guilty plea, that promise—whether memorialized in the terms of the written plea agreement or otherwise proven—is entitled to be enforced against the State. Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 262, 92 S.Ct. 495, 30 L.Ed.2d 427 (1971) (“[W]hen a plea rests in any significant degree on a promise or agreement of the prosecutor, so that it can be said to be part of the inducement or consideration, such promise must be fulfilled.”); see also Buckley v. Terhune, 441 F.3d 688, 694 (9th Cir.2006) (en banc).”
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1594069.html
Just thought I would throw this out there. Just a quick snippet of my beginning argument for substantive due process.
The Defendant cites Doe v. Tandeske,361 F.3d 594, 596-597 (9thCir. 2004) as somehow authoritative for a substantive due process claim that is controlling on this court that states,
“Under Glucksberg, we are forced to conclude that persons who have been convicted of serious sex offenses do not have a fundamental right to be free from the registration and notification requirements set forth in the Alaska statute.
While fundamental liberty interests require that any state infringement of these rights be “narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest,” state actions that implicate anything less than a fundamental right require only that the government demonstrate “a reasonable relation to a legitimate state interest to justify the action.” Glucksberg, 521 U.S. at 722, 117 S.Ct. 2258 (emphasis added). As the Court has already determined in Smith, the statute’s provisions serve “a legitimate nonpunitive purpose of `public safety, which is advanced by alerting the public to the risk of sex offenders in their community.'” Smith, 538 U.S. at 102-03, 123 S.Ct. 1140. Moreover, the Court held, the “broad categories” of offenses differentiated in the Act and the “corresponding length of the reporting requirement, are reasonably related to the danger of recidivism, and this is consistent with the regulatory objective.” Id. at 102, 123 S.Ct. 1140. Thus, although the Does possess liberty interests that are indeed important, Smith precludes our granting them relief.”
https://openjurist.org/361/f3d/594/doe-i
This case is not a challenge to whether the Plaintiff has such a fundamental liberty interest to be free from registration obligation but is in fact a challenge that sex offender registration is not only a violation to Plaintiff’s reputational liberty interest, which may or may not be a fundamental right, but as outlined in Plaintiff’s complaint, these registration statutes are violating Plaintiff’s fundamental rights as outlined below.
Which I start with bodily integrity (free from harm caused by government actions, which has been determined by SCOTUS, and the 9th, as a fundamental right ), privacy (to my current home address, which has been determined by SCOTUS, and the 9th, as a fundamental right ), and occupational (which has also been determined by SCOTUS, and the 9th, as a fundamental right). And I will cite each case…
“Cities and counties need to be able to defend our families from sex predators when California law fails to properly protect local communities.” said Orange County Supervisor Todd Spitzer. “When I was in the Assembly, I authored the laws putting Megan’s Law on the internet and creating the Sex Offender Management Board. Now that I am a County Supervisor, I see firsthand that law enforcement and local government need every possible weapon to restrict people who prey on our children.”
There is already a sex offender island as well. https://www.insideedition.com/headlines/455-sex-offender-island
The Millard v Rankin Case (Appeal from Matsch’s court in CO) has oral arguments THIS Thursday. See page 12 at https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/calendar/events/November_2018_Final.pdf.
And just to relive the glory of Matsch’s opinion, here it is for reference. https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20170901c12
Fingers crossed and praying. Anyone have any insight on the panel of judges? Hartz, Seymour, and Eid
Regarding 10th circuit panel for Millard appeal:
Judge Harris Hartz. George W appointee. Longtime prosecutor.
Senior Judge Stephanie Seymour. Jimmy Carter appointee. No wiki available.
Judge Allison Eid. Trump appointee to replace Gorsuch. Not finding her history but she’s married to the US attorney for CO. Ugh
The last few days I’ve seen a story about a cable-news host who was doxed and harassed. The media (rightly) pointed out how wrong this is and how it put both him and his family at risk. While I find such behavior abhorrent, I also think, “hmmm…what’s the big deal?”
Isn’t doxing merely, “the dissemination of accurate information…most of which is already public”? (Smith v Doe, at 86.) (I always bristle that SCOTUS is okay with some private, non-crime-related data being released.) I mean it’s not like they, “held the person up before his fellow citizens for face-to-face shaming or expelled him from the community.” (Id., at 98.) So again, what’s the big deal?
Too bad any contrast and comparison between him and us would fall on deaf ears. Funny how doxing by the State is public safety, but by individuals its a offensive, and perhaps an offense–even though the media host is statistically more likely to offend a first time than I am a second time.
WARNING PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT:
Yesterday I was called by a SUPPOSED SHERIFF telling Me I was out of compliance and a warrent was issued and I needed to post bond via telephone..I Reported it to the SO Registration and they told Me they have had several reports of this active SCAM to target RSO’s Financially….REPORT AND RECORD ALL ACTIVITY OF THIS NATURE TO THE SEX CRIMES DIV> in Your area…I REPEAT THIS IS A SCAM DO NOT COOPERATE. The authorities will Never call You and ask You to Bond over the Phone For Anything.. They Just Show UP! Be Aware Be Safe.
Respectfully, Bruce F.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/animalia/wp/2018/07/19/endangered-species-act-stripped-of-key-provisions-in-trump-administration-proposal/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.b2ce61c3fa74
the proposed rule says. “The act requires the secretary to make determinations based ‘solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data.’ ”
How can we force the Judge to make decision based ‘solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data.’ ”
We need to challenge that “common knowledge ” that all sex offender will re offend again.
I ll post this in all4consolaws.com
look at this, I was just reading carefully the start of my brief and noticed something i never noticed before about the Paul court. Read what I wrote carefully because I did not notice it until just now. This type of specificity is incredibly important.
In holding that the dissemination of this information did not violate the offender’s right to privacy, the Paul Court stated:
Respondent’s claim is far afield from this line of decisions. He claims constitutional protections against the disclosure of his arrest on a shoplifting charge. His claim is based, not upon any challenge to the State’s ability to restrict his freedom of action in a sphere contended to be “private,” but instead on a claim that the State may not publicize a record of an official act such as an arrest. None of our substantive privacy decisions hold this or anything like this, and we decline to enlarge them in this manner.
In Paul the Court specifically addressed not whether the accused had some privacy interest in the information but whether the government could publicize that information, “His claim is based, not upon any challenge to the State’s ability to restrict his freedom of action in a sphere contended to be “private,” but instead on a claim that the State may not publicize a record of an official act such as an arrest.” Plaintiff is directly challenging the “State’s ability to restrict his freedom of action in a sphere contended to be private.””
Interesting… Of course you cannot restrict the state’s ability to publicize an official act. Every state and government entity are in fact required by statute to publicize an official act. That is unchallengable. The challenged claim must be asserted properly and precisely..
Mike, geez! Nobody wants to read these books you post! It’s nuts. Unless your an Attorney, you can’t present your case! You did your act, plead to a charge and that’s it! The only thing (if you did it before the laws changed) you should have done was get your plea reduced to a misdemeanor and expunged! OC guy, your an idiot as well. Nobody cares what you think! You can complain/make negative comments all day long, but that will get you no where other than living on the river bed and gray hair! You guys need to start thinking out of the box! Stop already!
Personal character attacks again, blow it out your ass USA, what you stated earlier really applies in you, YOU DO NOT MATTER. Still waiting to hear of one thing USA has done to help anyone but himself and not just cry about his expungment this or reduction that, how does this or that apply to him. Then try to tell people on here what others here want hear or do not want to hear. Worthless garbage. That’s it, say you personal attacks and insults some more. That’s what you do best, and whine about your expun this or reduced that, always worthless comments attacking people. Get a life dide. Stop trolling people on here and get back under your bridge. SAD….
Why do you even come on here USA? Serious question. Why do you post at all? No one matters, nothing anyone says matters, no matter who you are or what happened in a court you tell everyone to suck it up and take it up the as%& and like it, you tell them there is nothing anyone can do about anything or their situation that they should not have done pre-conviction, everyone is burnt unless they do what you supposedly did by getting a sexual battery reduced or expunged (ridiculous as sexual battery is way worse than what many on here have done who just by technicality cannot get their crap reduced or expunged), and acting like you know everything and are almighty overseer of the website and know what others on here want to hear. Seriously, why do you come on here and post at all?
Whatever happened to…”Nobody gets anywhere being so negative!” That is what you said, isn’t it? Yet here you are calling people names right after you say, “You can complain/make negative comments all day long, but that will get you no where (sic) …” Perhaps you should start taking your own advice.
It’s hard for me to believe that random people on here get so personally offended by any perceived slight by any other random person on here who might have a different thought a different idea about what is significant, or ought to be prioritized or not. Weak people can’t control themselves and ignore or overlook people or things they don’t like.