General Comments November 2018

Yeah are you guys missing the mark here. Obviously this was someone on the list or with a close family member on it. This is great if you ask me. I am sorry for whomever this effected but you know what? they are lucky more people are not going off the deep end about the registries and there effects. Wait until they start getting someone crazy enough to start shooting people up over this BS. I do not encourage this kind of vandalism or attacks on anyone but we have suffered the same so lets see how they like it…

I wish there was some type of sex offender community type of wiki web site listing each potential federal constitutional challenge to the registry and linking valid past cases to quote from. It would have to have a seperate section for each district. That way you would know which cases were dicta from your district but could still use cases from other districts as influential.

There is no way I could take that on as I can only get internet on my phone right now. Just brainstorming.

A site like that would not only make it easier for pro se and lawyers, but also for judges to find excuses to rule on our behalf without too much work.

Here we go. It is pretty interesting…
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/hi-supreme-court/1025030.html

This is undeniable,
Furthermore, the state and Defendant are acting with “deliberate indifference” and “reckless disregard” in the publication of Plaintiff’s information on the Megan’s Law website knowing that there is a real and present potential for vigilantism that can result in serious bodily injury or even death.

The Ninth Circuit found that the government could be held liable if it could be shown that its officers’ conduct was deliberately indifferent, that it was reckless. Lewis v. Sacramento County, 98 F.3d 434, 441 (9th Cir. 1996). The Supreme Court reversed, holding that in “an emergency situation,” like a high-speed chase, the government can be held liable only if its officers’ behavior “shocks the conscience.” (emphasis added).
In the non-emergency context, the lower courts have consistently held that deliberate indifference or recklessness is sufficient to show liability if there is a state-created danger.
Similar to the Ninth Circuit, the Sixth, Seventh, and Eleventh Circuits adopted the “deliberate indifference” or “reckless disregard” standards. See Foy v. City of Berea, 58 F.3d 227 (6th Cir. 1995); Magdziak v. Byrd, 96 F.3d 1045 (7th Cir. 1996); McKinney v. Pate, 20 F.3d 1550 (11th Cir. 1994).”

Cañon City CO. Council mulls new sex offender residency restrictions

https://www.tribstar.com/news/indiana_news/sex-offender-questions-meaning-of-obscene/article_511ae78c-836c-572f-8e33-5ef8a6696304.html

Cañon City 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 has an article, “The power of the written word” (https://narsol.org/2018/11/the-power-of-the-written-word/), written up on this where it discusses their efforts with the city to not institute residential restrictions. Through their article, one can find a way to contact the newspaper article author and members of the city staff who have sway on this to help them understand what they may not be aware of when thinking of this issue.

Since this forum gets wide reading, maybe others could help them to understand the issue.

Thank you for the response New Person, but this is a specific question,
“Question???? Does the AG have Eleventh Amendment immunity or can the AG can be held liable for the effects of federal law such as IML or local ordinances (residency and presence restrictions) since the AG is the party responsible for the Megan’s law website and CSAR data base so there is a direct connection as those laws would not be giving effect but for the Megan’s Law website and the CSAR data base that is operated and maintained by the AG?”

I am trying to make the CA AG the party responsible for federal law and local ordinance application to me. Residency or presences restrictions are not in CA statutes and neither is IML, or HUD or EEOC for that matter. There is a direct connection to those federal laws and statutes and local ordinances thru the Megan’s Law website. If I can not convince the court that they have subject matter jurisdiction because the AG has eleventh amendment immunity from those then it really lessens the effects from the AG’s actions. Here is my latest readings on how I may link them. IDK yet as I am looking for anything that may be viable. IDK about this though as I already have standing so i do not know man, I have been researching this for days now trying to find something on it. Any help would be great. It is a very specific question though…

“To establish standing, a plaintiff must demonstrate a sufficient personal stake in the outcome to justify invocation of the judicial process. Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 204, 82 S.Ct. 691, 703, 7 L.Ed.2d 663 (1962). The “case or controversy” requirement of Article III precludes the exercise of jurisdiction by a federal court unless the plaintiff has suffered some actual injury or faces a threatened injury fairly traceable to the action challenged and likely to be redressed by a favorable decision. Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, 454 U.S. 464, 472, 102 S.Ct. 752, 758, 70 L.Ed.2d 700 (1982). At the summary judgment stage, the plaintiff must set forth specific facts, rather than mere allegations, that if true would suffice to establish standing. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, — U.S. —-, —-, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 2137, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992).