General Comments November 2018

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

202 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Lets see if we can actually get some productive intelligent collaboration here and maybe get some “different thought a different idea about what is significant.” instead of your an idiot or you are weak people or people do not want hear this or that….

The Defendant cites Doe v. Tandeske, Litmon v. Harris as somehow authoritative for a substantive due process claim and claims that those cases are controlling on this court. To be sure, it is evident that every case that Defendant has cited is inclusively dealing with either the claim of a right to procedural due process, a right to be free from registration, or a right to be free from reputational harm, as the prerequisite for the decisions rendered. Plaintiff has provided a “”careful description” of the asserted fundamental liberty interest” involved in this case herein, and throughout his complaint, that distinguish this case from any cited cases that Defendant has asserted and provided. Any assertion that Smith v. Doe somehow controls here, is also missing the mark, as explained already and herein the Smith court expressly left open such a substantive due process challenge, and an equal protection challenge as well was even hinted at.
This case is not a challenge to whether the Plaintiff has such a fundamental liberty interest to be free from registration obligation, or to Plaintiff’s reputational liberty interest alone (which may or may not be a fundamental right) but is in fact a challenge that sex offender registration is in violation of the multitude of fundamental rights as asserted herein and throughout Plaintiff’s complaint. Although not outlined specifically in our Constitution or Bill of Rights, nowhere in any record or history has it been established that the asserted rights herein are not considered to be exactly that, fundamental. Unlike in Glucksberg, the case that the Tendenske court cited, each and everyone one of the asserted rights herein are thoroughly “grounded in the Nation’s history and traditions” These fundamental rights, as asserted herein , and throughout Plaintiff’s complaint, are also thoroughly grounded in the traditions and case law of the courts as discussed throughout this brief.
Furthermore, the United States Supreme Court has stated, “Were due process merely a procedural safeguard it would fail to reach those situations where the deprivation of life, liberty or property was accomplished by legislation which by operating in the future could, given even the fairest possible procedure in application to individuals, nevertheless destroy the enjoyment of all three.”

Man look at this from a lower court in Nevada on the AB 579,
Logan contends that A.B. 579 denies him procedural due process because it deprives him of a protected privacy interest without procedural protections. We disagree. A.B. 579 imposes registration and community notification requirements on all juveniles age 14 and older who are adjudicated for certain crimes; no additional facts are relevant to the statutory scheme. Even assuming A.B. 579 infringes on a liberty interest, Logan is not entitled to procedural due process to prove a fact that is irrelevant under the statute. See Connecticut Dep’t of Pub. Safety v. Doe, 538 U.S. 1, 7, 123 S.Ct. 1160, 155 L.Ed.2d 98 (2003) (” [E]ven assuming, arguendo, that respondent has been deprived of a liberty interest, due process does not entitle him to a hearing to establish a fact that is not material under the … statute.” ).

This next part in the same para is the maet,

But see State v. Guidry, 105 Hawai‘i 222, 96 P.3d 242, 251-52 (2004) (concluding that due process clause of state constitution required a hearing to determine risk of future dangerousness because, although statute required imposition of registration on all sex offenders, future dangerousness was relevant to the statutory scheme because its purpose was to protect the public); In re W.Z., 194 Ohio App.3d 610, 957 N.E.2d 367, 377-80 (2011) (concluding that fundamental fairness requires a hearing to determine whether a juvenile sex offender has been rehabilitated before he may be subjected to registration and community notification where statute was based solely on the offense committed).

Just wanted to share with everyone that I finally got a job. It’s with a non profit. I’m working as a paralegal. It’s nice to finally have money in my bank account and benefits. It’s only a two month contract, but it’s a start. Maybe at the end of the two months they’ll extend my contract.

I was never asked for a background check. Also when I was signing paperwork it would always mention the organization is an equal opportunity employer. But in the back of my head I’m still waiting to be told I’m fired because of my conviction.

I’m just going to cross that bridge when I come to it. I’m going to enjoy this for how ever long I can.

@CR, I am assuming you meant that last quote? I wrote the argument there but that last quote is from Poe, 367 U.S., at 541, 81 S.Ct., at 1775.
If that is not what you meant let me know.
This is for someone who will know what I am talking so disregard this little part in parenthesis (looks as though lots of people like to hear what I have to say, for not being an attorney I can sure comprehend what judges are stating where others do not, LMAO)
Chris, yes that is exactly right, but you know what? that is saying a whole lot more if you digest the two quotes together. That is also stating that any facts within the statute that are materiel to the statute is fair game. Words matter and you to state specifically what you are trying to convey. You see nothing in the statute states that it had anything to do with dangerousness so therefore there was no material fact to challenge in that way. But, although the courts do not state specifically under substantive due process (so it may very well exist in procedural due process as well), as the lower courts there suggest, dangerousness is in the statute at minimum substantively because it is relevant to the statutory scheme. In other words, there is no mention in the statute of danagerousness, hence no material fact in the statute for a challenge, but dangerousness is a material fact concerning the statutory scheme, so therefore it is a material fact in that sense, I think they mean substantively. Make sense?
Guess what? so is recidivism rates and efficacy, just as I have stated…
Those two little statements say alot… This is what I am saying about “heightened pleadings standard.” (Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009)).
This is great as I have challenged the AG on exactly this issue in the exact same way as the lower courts are explaining there. Do not ask me how but I knew I was onto it. Common sense maybe…
It was that argument that the state cannot keep and publicize official records, which is insane since they are statutorily and constitutionally required to keep and publicize public records, that is why the court in Paul considered the argument absurd,
“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.”
And then the quote in Conn about how dangerousness is not a material fact in the statute.
IDK how I even found that lower court Nevada case on AB 579 where the court stated that but that is one of those 4 am searches. LMAO….I know it was something to do with the Hawaii v Bana case somehow…Which has never been overruled or reversed and has actually been cited like 45 times as good law according to EVA.

So, State v Guidry cited 27 times as good law, In re W.Z., 194 Ohio cited 7 times as good law….

Man these lines of cases are enlightening. So initial registration is not the culprit either. It is the continued registration that is the problem. It all makes perfect sense as well… This is what I mean again about the heightened pleadings standards.
“In Bani, this court held that “Bani has established that the public notification provisions of HRS chapter 846E implicate a liberty interest protected by the due process clause of the Hawaii Constitution.” 97 Hawai’i at 294, 36 P.3d at 1264. This court concluded that Bani demonstrated that the public notification provisions of HRS chapter 846E will likely cause harm to his reputation, and to “tangible interests” in his personal and professional life, employability, associations with neighbors, and choice of housing. Id. As these interests are not implicated by mere initial registration alone, we must analyze registration anew.”

@CR, that argument was entirely mine from what I am drafting. If you meant “”careful description” of the asserted fundamental liberty interest” That was cited from Washington v Glucksberg https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/521/702#writing-USSC_CR_0521_0702_ZO

I wonder how the tier system or even current system sees the charges if they were 1203.4 dismissal. While we still have to register, I wonder if it changes the status/exposure on Megan’s Law website

I haven’t been here in awhile. Anyone figure out how the end the registry yet?

Something has been swirling in my head for a few months and I cannot find the answer/source (again). For some reason, I vaguely recall reading some Gov’t document that talked about misdemeanor CP possession being an example of something that may not merit a Green Notice. I’ve long wondered if it was a dream I had, but it has stuck in my craw. Has anyone come across such a thing? Has anyone with a misdemeanor CP Poss. checked into their Interpol data or visited a country that would otherwise send back?

It’s on and off driving me batty that I cannot find this document or reference…which makes me wonder if it indeed was some dream stuff and not reality.

Totally off any topic, but kind of funny is a case pending before SCOTUS that may well set a new record for use of the F-word: http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/18-302-opinion-below.pdf. It’s a challenge regarding the Patent & Trademark Office’s denial of FUCT.

Interesting new case coming out of Tennessee court of appeal concerning expos facto challenge on $ex offender registration…
http://www.tsc.state.tn.us/sites/default/files/king.joe_.opn_.pdf

Cañon City (CO) Council mulls new sex offender residency restrictions

http://www.canoncitydailyrecord.com/news/canoncity-local-news/ci_32211256/canon-city-council-mulls-new-sex-offender-residency

The national office is working on this but others who want to share comments with the council, mayor, et al couldn’t hurt.

Janice has confirmed on the phone conference just now that ACSOL’s lawsuit against IML is dead and that there are no plans now for further challenges.

Yeah, why has this not been posted on here? It does not matter I am challenging it on equal protection anyways. Anytime someone has some right altered that others do not it is an equal protection issue. The courts have already stated that an equal protection issue arises even in state to state where one group in one state gets relief while others in other states with the exact same charges do not. That is exactly what is happening and I am going to hit it hard…. Same with EEOC and Federal housing. Like Chris F has pointed out, pleadings must state exactly what is being harmed and how it is being harmed. The courts are not going to spell it out for us….

Look at what I pulled up in just a quick search after reading the AGs cited case in that Millard brief,

“See Wood v. Ostrander, 879 F.2d 583, 588-90 (9th Cir.1989) (plaintiff could sue government when state officer affirmatively placed her in dangerous situation), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 938, 111 S.Ct. 341, 112 L.Ed.2d 305 (1990);  see also L.W. v. Grubbs, 974 F.2d 119, 121 (9th Cir.1992) (generally citizens may not sue state employees who fail to protect them from harm committed by private parties unless there is a special relationship between the plaintiff or the state places the plaintiff in danger), cert. denied, 508 U.S. 951, 113 S.Ct. 2442, 124 L.Ed.2d 660 (1993).”

There is both a special relationship with the state thru SORA as well as the state is putting me in dangerous situations by disseminating my address information along with the sex offender designation on the Megan’s Law website. Once again, the nexus is undeniable.
Thus, because California does little to protect offenders from vigilantism despite making their information readily available to the public, California’s laws likely violate Plaintiff’s substantive due process rights.

I like this as it puts the news articles on vigilantism into the judicial notice realm… Heliotrope Gen., Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 189 F.3d 971, 981 (9th Cir. 1999) (taking judicial notice of information contained in news articles).

I am going to just slam the court again with a request for judicial notice and just keep slamming it if I have to until the court responds. Even the AVVO attorneys tell me this is part of the discovery process and the court has to take judicial notice if it is formatted correctly and the court is supplied with the proper info, which I am printing out everything this time and attaching them to it. This is going to cost like two hundred bucks or more but whatever, has to be done…

Recent events at Paradise, Ca with the Camp Fire bring up a situation with facebook that can have legal hooks to change something. The Television stations are only making some information available on their Facebook page that goes as well with the Sheriffs Department and so many others the remove critical information from the public domain.
It seems a legal challenge to public officials using facebook for posting public information can be challenged. I wonder if Facebook would keep their position on sex offenders if they began losing government accounts.

Some good push-back against Volokh’s Paul Cassell amicus brief and earlier Reason piece. To its credit, Volokh posted David Post’s rebuttal: “Denying Bail” “The Arizona Supreme Court got it right: categorical denials of bail to persons charged with sexual assault violates the Constitution.” https://reason.com/volokh/2018/11/19/denying-bail#comment

Anyone know if the Farm Bill Conference Committee has gotten rid of the Holding Amendment on the House version of the SNAP part ? It’s the one that prohibits sex offenders from getting food stamps. And it is fully retroactive; doesn’t matter when you got convicted. There is some ACSOL archived data on the older version from last time in 2013; just put “Vitter” in to recall the CARSOL posting.

⚠️MILLARD⚠️ ⚠️JUDGE MATSCH⚠️
⚠️Colorado⚠️ 🇺🇸 UnConstitutional 🇺🇸

Hello friends,
Below is a link to the recent oral arguments in the Millard v. Colorado case in which Honorable Judge Matsch found Colorado’s Registry to be Unconstitutional by both Colorado’s State Constitution and the U.S. Constitution.

https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/clerk/oral-argument-recordings

(Unfortunately, the State Attorney presents her arguments in a very polished and practiced manner while Millard’s attorney is verbally awkward, lacking polish and, IMHO, convincing effectiveness.) ☹
*Fingers crossed nonetheless*

AJ: Thank you for answering me. Moreno was about an unrelated person in a household. But this Republican House Representative Mr. Holding is just out to save $millions in SNAP benefits by denying sex offenders from eligibility based on conviction. However, many sex offenders and their families are certainly going to be needy in many circumstances.

I’m just trying to build awareness that there is a problem. I just don’t understand why advocacy organizations aren’t all over this. On the other hand, the Farm Bill hopefully will go into next year so we’ll have more time. But if somehow the lame duck Congress gets it through this year it may already be too late.

Thank you AJ and David for addressing my concern over anyone who ever has certain sex offense convictions may be barred from being eligible for food stamps. That SCOTUS decision you refer to is a perfect example to confront those Congressmen with !

There is a huge push right now to get the Farm Bill passed before the end of the year. Unfortunately, a lot of the goings on are behind closed doors in the Conference Committee, so we don’t know if they will get rid of Holding (Or perhaps already have as a compromise, but I can’t see anyone fighting for us).

The only ray of light is Senator Grassley, who is pushing to extend the whole existing Farm allocation out one more year. The existing bill is from 2013 on a 5 year cycle and does not have a Holding type amendment in it other than the fleeing felon clause.