ACSOL’s Conference Calls

Conference Call Recordings Online
Dial-in number: 1-712-770-8055, Conference Code: 983459

Monthly Meetings 2019 [details]
Emotional Support Group: (Los Angeles) 12/22 [details]

Registration Laws for all 50 States

General News

General Comments December 2018

Comments that are not specific to a certain post should go here, for the month of December 2018. Contributions should relate to the cause and goals of this organization and please, keep it courteous and civil.

Join the discussion

  1. Lovecraft

    Does anyone have any links to studies on child porn?

    Im mainly interested in ones showing link/no link between viewing child porn and hands on crimes. I am doing this to help my therapist help someone else under his care who has not yet gone to court for possession charges. All the ones i remember reading all showed no link, but i cant mange to find any of the articles/studies. This is for a good cause so any help would be greatly appreciated.

  2. mot

    Has anyone seen or heard any updates on the CA tiered system ? Any news on how they are going to classify NON contact crimes? If no contact is that going to get to be 1st Tier? What about attempts when there again was no actual contact?
    Thanks

    • Eric

      Attend the ACSOL meeting this Saturday in San Diego.

      • Notorious D.I.K. / Kennerly

        Eric, is it possible that they would know more? I shouldn’t think so as we still have years to go before it is implemented. I seriously doubt that anyone, even the state, has much of an idea of how this will be structured. The last time I heard Janice speak about it several weeks ago I believe that she saw any further indications of its instantiation extending well into the future. I’m not even clear that there will be any opportunity to shape it before it is implemented. I would counsel against holding one’s breath. For myself, I have no hope of it coming to my aid.

        • Eric

          I think listening to the people that are actually filing the law suits to help implement the change could be informative, yes.

  3. TFM

    Any other way to get an update? I can’t attend in San Diego.

    • Frustrated

      I was told by ACSOL that they will be addressing this topic after the 2019 assembly seats in Sacramento. New faces, different views, and no re election pressure. 🙏🙏

  4. ReadyToFight

    @Janice and company.
    Do we know once the CA tiered registry goes live if we will be forced to petition (which is bs, should be automatic) in front of the original county of conviction?
    I’m in Riverside County and there’s been many calls of corruption here with something ridiculous like a 98% conviction rate I believe. Question is Will we be able to fight for our freedom from tyranny against a DA That isn’t already bias?

  5. KM

    Question regarding new law:

    2 years ago I plead no contest to a misdemeanor charge of 647.6(a). Received summary probation and no jail time. Was explicitly told, in writing, I had to register only for duration of probation( I still have the probation order). My wife and our 5 kids moved out of state immediately after sentencing, mainly due to us no longer trusting the system. I registered once and at the same time told them I was moving out of state. We got to NY and the NY sex offender board sent me a letter stating I did NOT have to register here. My family and I have moved on from this ordeal and I have a really well paying job and a good reputation.

    I’ve recently been told that in a few years my name will be made public as a sex offender by California? Is this true? It has never been public because I was excluded from the website from the beginning. How can California claim to have jurisdiction over me still. I never, ever, ever, plan on going back to California. How can they say this will make the public safer?

    I’m afraid for my family, my career….can someone shed some light. Please!

  6. David Kennerly

    Mike St. Martin, whom you know as a spokesperson for Coalinga State Hospital Detainees, alerted me to a story in the Fresno Bee recently about Detainees’ right to vote and the ensuing hand-wringing on the part of the City of Coalinga and other “concerned citizens” who contemplate the possibility that “sexual predators” might swing elections or, worse run for office themselves. I suspect that we haven’t heard the last of these overly wrought panic attacks. “Can a sexually violent predator in state custody run for office in California?” https://www.fresnobee.com/news/local/crime/article222032290.html

    • AJ

      @David Kennerly:
      “the possibility that “sexual predators” might swing elections or, worse run for office themselves.”
      —–
      Perhaps a letter to the editor letting them know that such people already ARE swinging elections and running for office. They’re called teachers, coaches, neighbors, etc. 🙂

      (Okay choir, the sermon is over.)

  7. TS

    We’ve discussed these here before from SCOTUS but they are being discussed again elsewhere:

    Debate over term limits for Supreme Court gains new life

    https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/419960-debate-over-term-limits-for-supreme-court-gains-new-life

    Justices seem reluctant to make changes to double jeopardy clause

    https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/420059-justices-seem-reluctant-to-make-changes-to-double-jeopardy-clause

    • TS

      Folks here may recognize the Double Jeopardy case as Gamble v US which is being watched by some here.

      • AJ

        “Some of the justices said they are bound by what’s known as stare decisis, a legal principle which requires justices to adhere to previous rulings.”
        —–
        Bound? Requires? In that case I guess we need to void SCOTUS’ holdings in Loving, Brown, Skinner, and Lawrence, among others, and bring back Korematsu while we’re at it. Heck, we can even combine some of them for efficiency: separate-but-equal forced-sterilization internment camps.

    • AJ

      @TS:
      Thanks for posting those URLs. I’ve been awaiting Gamble to see how it goes. It sounds like as I expected.
      It’s tough to overcome the dual sovereignty concept here without destroying it everywhere else in our system of government.

      I did my head in disgust at this snippet:
      *****
      “We have a real problem with a Supreme Court that has become increasingly political,” [Sen. Elizabeth Warren] said.
      *****
      Explain to me, Senator, how subjecting SCOTUS to term limits change the politics one bit? Unless a bunch of qualified candidates are tossed into a hat and one is randomly pulled out, politics will *always* be part of the process because partisans (read: humans) nominate and confirm them!

      Her statement and “widsom” ranks right up there with the latest out of Fmr. Rep. John Dingell (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/john-dingell-abolish-the-senate_us_5c06a02be4b0cd916fb06ea4). In his attempt to justify why abolishing the Senate is a good idea, Mr. Dingell manages to explain the exact reason it was designed as it was! It was protection of the smaller States (the minority) the Founding Fathers had in mind when they drafted this compromise. Maybe we should just combine the House representation of the smaller States, too, so the larger ones “deserving” more voice get it. “Hey MT, ND, SD, and WY, here’s your one Representative-at-large. VT and DE, you’re going to have to find a way to ‘bunk up.’ AK, do you even need one? You’re kind of your own country, culturally, anyway aren’t you?”

      The Founders made compromise an integral element of our legislative process for a reason. Let’s keep it. On a separate but related rant: I don’t recall anyone complaining about the popular vote/Electoral College “problem” when Bill Clinton garnered only 43% of the popular vote in 1992 and 49.2% in 1996, but took the College. I realize in both cases he drew the plurality of votes, but just like most recently, the majority of the country wanted someone else. Or is it only “bad” when it’s Bush or Trump?*

      *I lean libertarian (small L), so I’m not defending either side and find both D and R to be anathemata, depending on the topic. There’s a saying that goes, “Democrats wish to control the boardroom; Republicans wish to control the bedroom.” I say get the h3ll out of both and leave me alone!

    • TS

      A little different take on this and Gorsuch rings through again on the reach of the USG:

      Supreme Court’s double-jeopardy case holds Mueller probe implications; Kavanaugh vote key

      https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-courts-double-jeopardy-case-holds-mueller-probe-implications-kavanaugh-vote-key

      • AJ

        “[DOJ attorney] Feigin told the high court the federal prosecutions of those charged in mass shootings at a Pittsburgh synagogue in October and at a Charleston, S.C., church attended by African-Americans in 2015 were properly labeled hate crimes and violations of civil rights that had different legal elements from the state murder charges the defendants would face.”
        —–
        How is this a 5th Amdt violation? They are coincidental, yet completely different, offenses. Fed charges for hate crime(s), State charges for murder. Two distinct crimes, and what would seem to be a poor example by the Gov’t.

        • TS

          @AJ

          What you say right there is exactly why double jeopardy needs a serious review, IMO – charge shopping, e.g. who can do more as a state or the feds (or UCMJ). In this example, does the state not have a hate crime statute that could apply? Who gets the first try to prosecute?

        • AJ

          @TS:
          I agree there’s a problem with “charge shopping,” however I have no technical problem with someone receiving federal hate-crime charges and State murder charges. Many offenses have overlapping or common criteria, but as long as the offenses are not materially the same I am okay with it. I absolutely have problems with a federal murder charge and a State murder charge. Murder charges are materially the same regardless whether federal or State.

          I get the idea that both the Federal and State sovereigns have the right to ensure their laws are enforced. But isn’t the sovereign acting on behalf of the citizenry? If so, I see federal enforcement of a hate crime much more beneficial to the national citizenry than a federal murder charge. To me, a hate crime casts much farther than the crime itself, whereas a murder typically doesn’t. In cases where murder does, then I say it’s harm to the national citizenry AND the State citizenry, and federal charges suffice. (I’m not sure I make too much sense there, but I hope so.)

      • TS

        @AJ

        You’re welcome. Don’t forget this latest add I provided here.

        Stare decisis only works when things don’t change and do remain the same but things do change so it’s not the best excuse to use to avoid making a decision, even a decision you don’t like with what could happen, e.g. not prosecuting a terrorist who kills Americans overseas who has already been prosecuted.

        18 year SCOTUS terms?! That’s darn near a full military career for retirement eligibility. What judge will want to go back to a lower court when you have the speaking and teaching circuits?

        As for the EC and popular vote, pull the EC and Civil War 2 starts with succession movements. Just sayin’…

        • AJ

          @TS:
          Agreed on your points. I completely understand SCOTUS’ desire to honor stare decisis, especially given how it (wisely) prefers incremental changes and narrow rulings. However at some point it seems to me it becomes more about honoring the process and precedent than trying to solve the problem. SCOTUS is painfully “shy” when it comes to solving problems….resulting in decades before Brown, Loving, Skinner, Lawrence, etc. come along. The good thing about the justice system is it moves slowly; the bad thing about the justice system is it moves slowly.

      • TS

        Secession, not succession

        Damn phone autocorrect

  8. troy

    went to register today in Nevada,i was told by the person who took my information that the new ab579 wasn’t working so well (I don’t say not to register) the employee told me a lot of people haven’t registered or have moved including myself shortly

  9. Matthew

    Sierah’s Law, targeting violent offenders, advances in Ohio on 85-0 House vote

    Registry for violent offenders??

    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/sierahs-law-database-of-violent-offenders-unanimously-passes-ohio-house-
    85-0?fbclid=IwAR3xNh1Plnrkm6ikIX4qYTEZTqrXwfvXQRh0k6-7Z3EFqRAIET8l5XNiNHQ

    • TS

      @Matthew

      Your link didn’t work but here’s the corrected link to the article:

      https://www.foxnews.com/politics/sierahs-law-database-of-violent-offenders-unanimously-passes-ohio-house-85-0

      This is good. Ohio with a DUI registry (requires 5 to register) now will have another registry. More to the party. I’m seeing an emperor in a hood from a famous space movie cackling here as the dark side of politics rears its head. The Ohio Gov will get one last great hurrah in before he leaves office and focuses on the 2020 presidential election.

      • Matthew

        Thanks for the assist. Not sure what happened there.

      • Will Allen

        5 DUIs to Register?!! Wow. Why not 1? I guess DUIs are not very dangerous. Unlike looking at pictures in the privacy of one’s home.

        Ohio is doing great. Now, all of this has to be pushed to a national requirement and start adding laws on top of it. Obviously, we cannot have people who are violent Registered felons living near schools. Or violent DUI felons.

        Let’s grow the Nanny State and hate. Big government can never be too big.

  10. Richard

    Will be able to travel soon, just seeing if anyone has had any trouble going to Europe? Thanks.

    • RegisteredNotAnOffender

      Going to Europe is easy, the challenge is the crap you get when you come back and they look at your passport

      • C

        Yep, same experience for me but it has been a long time since traveling overseas. Coming into LAX from China was flagged and told to wait off to the side for a bit, then tbey let me go. A year later, returning from a cruise to Mexico I was dreading the same BS, but nothing happened. The douche just looked at my passport and waved me through. I’ve heard it’s gotten worse though and today I spotted this article on Drudge
        https://www.apnews.com/54497b1d5f5541efb96dc25d11ee66a3

        Just be prepared for awkwardness and don’t travel with friends who don’t know your circumstances or anything that could be taken out of context and used against you.

  11. Frustrated

    So I’m walking my dog in Half Moon Bay today (NorCal) and I pass a group of youngsters with teachers at some benches. I walk a little farther and a middle aged man sitting on a bench in onion shorts (nylon running shorts)with his hand over his groin makes a comment about the children to me, or at least out loud. Why, I have no idea. It is obvious he is covering an erection with his hand. I make a quick observation of his appearance and location, then continue on. My phone is in my car, so I have no way of immediately notifying L.E.
    He then makes some comment to a couple with a young child on a tricycle passing him as I walk on.
    Now I get to my car , call L.E. to report what I witnessed, and the dispatcher doesn’t even let me give a description! She puts me on hold twice, then says thx and hangs up!
    WTF! Is it too much work to actually do their jobs. Are they too busy doing compliancy checks and harassing those of us that aren’t any threat to actually investigate an actual potential pervert (or at least a possible mentally disturbed person).

    • Will Allen

      Not sure why you called LE. Pretty sure I would never do that.

      Are you not Registered? If you are, none of those people want your help. Don’t you know that you were the danger there?

      • Frustrated

        I am currently on registry. Does that mean I shouldn’t report possible issues? Does that mean I stop being a citizen?
        I would have reported this before this happened to me. I will report it again if I witness it.
        I will not ignore or protect possible contact child abusers. I made a mistake, but the law is the law. I do not consider myself part of a group, but an individual that has values and integrity.

        • Will Allen

          Each to his own.

          I would say that you have stopped being a real citizen, yes.

          People don’t want you around. They don’t think you should be allowed to see your own children at a school. They don’t think you should be allowed to travel without reporting to big government. Some of them would burn your home down. The list is endless.

          Why would you worry about helping them?

          The Registries have gravely harmed society. They should not be allowed to exist without real consequences in actual reality.

        • wonderin

          “I would say that you have stopped being a real citizen, yes.”
          @Will Allen
          ha ha correct, there is definitely a difference and expecting to be treated with disrespect from law enforcement seems like a given.
          Better to have let the teacher or the parents to report and live up to their responsibilities if they saw a threat to the children.

        • BA

          As a registered citizen I would not use my phone to contact law enforcement nor would I report anything to them, out of site and out of mind. What if the guy you report has no record and well you do? My nephew is a cop and they are told to detain us in hopes of finding something wrong, if your asked questions play stupid always and make them waste there time.

        • Will Allen

          BA, I do not think you should “play stupid” with LE because you can’t lie to them and they will misrepresent anything that you say. So best to simply not talk to them at all. Don’t allow them to ask you questions.

    • NPS

      I love HMB. I was looking to buy a house there but way too expensive. That said, I’ve hung out at different points in HMB like Poplar, Miramar and the state beach. I have NEVER encountered a situation like that. I have seen some possible derelicts but they keep to themselves.

      I think you blew something way out of proportion. As an RC, the last thing I want to do is have any contact with the police. They could have reasonably suspected that you were the one with the sexual interest and engaging that individual since that’s the conclusion that YOU came up with.

      @Will Allen, we don’t have presence restrictions in the Bay Area (where HMB is located).

      • Will Allen

        I wasn’t saying it is illegal for him to be there. I was saying exactly what you said.

        People will say that HE is the danger, anywhere and always. It wouldn’t shock me at all if he called LE and then he was arrested. I won’t be messing with LE, most of them are criminals or borderline.

  12. Josh

    @Aj
    I’d like your opinion on the Boyd vs Washington case that is supposed to be included in the scotus conference today. We all know that they passed on Snyder/Does for whatever reason but if they take on Boyd and rule against us wouldn’t that conflict with some of what was accomplished by them not granting Cert in the Snyder case. It appears to me that many of the same issues are being appealed here as well….post facto, punitive in-person reporting etc….I was wondering whether you think they’ll punt again as they did with Snyder and Muniz or there is enough of a dispute to hear the case…look forward to your thoughts

    • AJ

      @Josh:
      Thank you for respecting my thoughts and opinions enough to ask me. I truly appreciate that. I’ll gladly give my take, and I hope others such as @Chris F, @TS, @CR, et alia, will chime in too.

      My short answer is Snyder (denied cert 10/02/17), coming on the heels of Packingham (06/17/17), was SCOTUS silently affirming what it said in the Packingham parenthetical. Assuming SCOTUS’ position as such, I expect both Boyd and Bethea (http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/bethea-v-north-carolina) will be accepted.

      Now for the long answer…

      My take on why SCOTUS passed on Snyder is twofold: 1) the USSG did a bit of a Jedi mind trick on SCOTUS in saying how evil MI-SORA is but AWA is not–even though the former is a spawn of the latter and the latter *also* requires in-person reporting (i.e. already a step above what was presented in Smith). I think USSG was more interested in avoiding attention on AWA than saving MI-SORA. 2) SCOTUS either found nothing wrong with the 6th’s reasoning or didn’t find flaws sufficient to merit review. Either way, though, I see it as a “not-thumbs-down” from SCOTUS to the 6th.

      Taking my “thumbs” supposition (and ignoring the membership change at SCOTUS), I lean towards SCOTUS taking both Boyd and Bethea. I think SCOTUS is kicking Boyd down the road until Bethea reaches the same state of preparedness and it can look at them in tandem. Mind you, this may result in their being carried over to the next Term, possibly meaning Opinion(s) in June/July 2020.

      If SCOTUS truly is ready to stand behind the Packingham parenthetical, and is truly ready to acknowledge registries have become much more than akin to a Price Club membership, I believe it will accept and schedule these two cases either in rapid-succession argument (as happened with Smith and CT DPS) or will merge the two. I lean towards a merge, as both cases deal with registry laws and Ex Post Facto. I feel these two cases are our first real opportunities to see how, where, or if SCOTUS will rein in Smith (and the States and Feds) and its progeny. If the Packingham parenthetical means ANYthing, this is SCOTUS’ time to shine.

      I think it’s important to remember that even though Packingham was an 8-0 vote (no Gorsuch involvement), only 5 (Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan) signed Kennedy’s Opinion that included the parenthetical. The rest (Alito, Roberts, Thomas) signed Alito’s Opinion concurring only in judgment. Assuming Gorsuch aligns with how Kennedy would act, that still gives us 5 votes. Though I think that’s not impossible given what seems to be Gorsuch’s solid mistrust and dislike of Federal intrusion into citizens’ lives, I’m not so sure he’s ready to align with the “liberal” side of the bench. I’d love to be wrong. Where Kavanaugh falls who knows, but my gut is that he’s more like Roberts than he is like Gorsuch or Kennedy. Possibly playing to our favor is Roberts’ being on record as saying he wants to clean up errors the Court has made. Well, Mr. Chief Justice, here’s one for you in which you were an active participant to create it!

      If SCOTUS accepts either or both of these cases, I think it bodes well for us but fear they’ll be nail-biters. If it rejects both, I desperately hope it’s due to its wanting to develop more of a split among the courts. Regardless, that will be dreadful.

      • Josh

        @Aj
        Thanks for the explanation & the opinion. That’s what I was trying to get at in my post…just how bad it would be on precedent if they were to accept one or both and rule against us…it seems to me like that could set us back a decade at least…on the positive side there has been a lot trending positive. My concern is for everybody on a sex offense registry but more specifically worried what a defeat could mean for the “wins” in packingham, Snyder, and Muniz if any…thanks again for everybody on here who has the legal experience to help explain things that don’t always make sense to the average joe

        • AJ

          @Josh:
          You’re quite welcome, and I’m glad I helped.

          I firmly believe SCOTUS will either pass on Boyd AND Bethea or will take them both and find towards our favor. I say “towards” and not “in” because I foresee any decision being surgically narrow, which will leave 51 legislatures thinking they can swing at the RC piñata from another angle. I just don’t see SCOTUS going contrary to its dicta in Packingham and its letting Snyder stand. (Due to the State-level decision incorporated into the Opinion, Muniz stands unless/until the PASC rules otherwise. SCOTUS cannot touch it.)

          Though things are far from sunny and bright, I do still sense things are slowly shifting our way. The grey area in between Smith and Snyder is what needs to be remedied. For now, that’s where too many courts to land (I’m lookin’ at you, 9th Circuit) and I fear will continue to do so without clearer guidance, or at least tighter boundaries, from SCOTUS.

          Unfortunately, I believe the only way registries will ever cease being public is through legislation, as there’s little to grab onto in Smith that would make SCOTUS reassess. Getting legislation changed is a very steep hill to climb, and not one I foresee our cresting anytime soon. We’re making progress with the increasing and repeated articles, studies and papers from government and academia. Now it just needs to seep into the public’s consciousness, and thereafter into the legislators’.

        • AJ

          Yesterday I read NC’s reply in Bethea (http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/bethea-v-north-carolina/), and it seems to do a pretty good job at poking holes in Bethea’s claim. However, I have not read any of the underlying actions or decision, so I don’t have a firm opinion on it. If Bethea did indeed add claims between lower-court adjudication and this petition, SCOTUS will deny it purely on procedure. What I found almost humorous is NC claims a Gundy decision in our favor will solve Bethea’s claim, meanwhile Bethea claims a Gundy decision will have no bearing on his claim. I lean towards Bethea being right and NC being liars. I admit to being a little biased, but NC has been caught “overstating the truth” in cases before (Packingham, Doe v Cooper).

          As I said above, “I firmly believe SCOTUS will either pass on Boyd AND Bethea or will take them both[.]” Given they passed on Boyd, I can only hope they prove me mistaken. I’ll gladly take that error!

      • TS

        Thank you @AJ for the invite. I agree with all that @AJ stated above with his merits, e.g. merging, etc, and defer to his Packingham analysis.

        Maybe I am more simplistic, but SCOTUS should take Bethea and hear it. (BTW, State of NC has filed their opposition as of Dec 5 acc to SCOTUSblog.) IMO, anytime you force someone to be retroactively punished for something that is already done and settled, I think it opens the barn door for a lot more trouble down the road and doing the same action with other punishments. (That line of thinking also falls into the double jeopardy case (Gamble v US) and how the UCMJ is used in such a manner against military members, even after they have retired. Read the DoD Appellate amici brief in that case and you will see that real case noted.) If you use the retroactivity lesson with children, employees, etc, and their punishments, then you are going to really be putting fear into them for future punishment when they think it is done. When will the line of determination stop?

        As for Boyd, WA State is a state I know very well from a long period of my life being spent there; therefore, I hope it is gets it in the craw by SCOTUS, but that is the emotional response. For a balanced reply, I proffer this: it’s retroactivity is wrong (as I said above for Bethea) and maybe they will merge the two to address this merit alone, but I have to wonder about the in-person reporting portion. Where is the determination line of punishment with that part of the registration action, e.g. weekly/monthly (if transient), quarterly, semi-annually, or annually? I have read Boyd’s brief and agree it should be resolved or cleared up.

        I also throw in here the other registries where registration is required, e.g. see Ohio DUI and their now violent offender registries recent example. What are the in-person registry requirements for them or others in other states? (I have not researched other’s in detail.) Are they just as bad as a RC registration action or simple, e.g. calling in? If so, then should those registrants not be part of this since they have the same action to complete? It is just as hideous. Will they be subject to compliance checks too? (Manpower gets thin then if you have to dedicate forces to do many of them of various natures.) I think the in-person registration portion of Boyd’s holds huge implications possibly for registration actions across the board for those off paper.

        (Getting the other registrants who want to associate themselves with RC registrants in a large suit where the action of in-person registration is questioned (If this part of Boyd is denied) could be more difficult but once one is found out to be on a registry, well, it is out there.)

        If SCOTUS denies, then they have their reasons and hopefully another floats to the top that will be considered by the highest court in the land. I, too, would like a huge national home run to help everyone; but sometimes, I realize regional hits one way or another could be helpful too.

  13. Mot

    Do we, RSO, have any new friends in the CA legislature this next year? Who can we start to contact about how the final Tiered Registration will look?

  14. mike r

    @ AJ, so what do you think happens with substantive due process if the court accepts and sides by Smith still. I really doubt if SCOTUS will go out its way to rule on substantive due process unless specifically asked. But they very well may as they mentioned it in Conn v Dept. I imagine SCOTUS can and does whatever they want but do you think this will effect substantive in any negative way either way the court goes? I really cannot see them inserting any claim like that if it is not specifically asserted and without the proper record before the court on that issue.

    • AJ

      @mike r:
      “I really doubt if SCOTUS will go out its way to rule on substantive due process [SDP] unless specifically asked.”
      —–
      Not many things in life are guaranteed, but what you wrote comes rather close to it. I have read time and again how SCOTUS does not “reach out” for cases or issues, so it almost assuredly will not address anything more than is explicitly before it. As well, SCOTUS likes to move slowly and rule as narrowly as possible to avoid creating problems (they prefer to leave that to the Legislature 😉 ). In fact, CT DPS proves these concepts, as that was *the* time for SCOTUS to have gone out of its way. Yet here we are 15 years later with that “begging” (tip o’ the hat to @Chris F) from SCOTUS still sitting unused on the shelf. Maybe and hopefully it is preserved on appeal after the 10th decides Rankin.

  15. mike r

    Here is another great quote and report by Hanson, I am not sure if I have ever contacted Hanson but I am doing so now see if he will agree to testify in my case. I want to subpoena him if we will not voluntarily testify, but I think that could present all kinds of problems since he is in Canada.
    Conclusion
    The vast majority of individuals with a history of sexual crime desist from further sexual crime. Although sexual crime has serious consequences, and invokes considerable public concern, there is no evidence that individuals who have committed such offenses inevitably present a lifelong enduring risk of sexual recidivism. Critics may argue that the near zero recidivism rates observed in the current study should not be trusted because most sexual crimes remain undetected. This type of argument, however, distances policy decisions from evidence. If the goal is increased public protection (not retribution or punishment), then efficient policies would be proportional to the risk presented. Risk in most individuals with a history of sexual crime will eventually decline to levels that are difficult to distinguish from the risk presented by the general population. Instead of depleting resources on such low risk individuals, sexual victimization would be better addressed by increased focus on truly high risk individuals, primary prevention, and victim services. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law © The Crown in Right of Canada (Public Safety), 2017

    2018, Vol. 24, No. 1, 48–63 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/law0000135

    • AJ

      @mike r:
      You won’t be able to subpoena him from Canada.* Your better bet would be to try to find a government document that has relied upon and/or cited this work of his. Ideally CASOMB or some other bureaucracy within the 9th, but if elsewhere, so be it.

      *How does a Canadian tell someone how to spell his homeland? “C-eh?-N-eh?-D-eh?”

  16. Mike r @ AJ

    @ AJ> “Yet here we are 15 years later with that “begging” (tip o’ the hat to @Chris F) from SCOTUS still sitting unused on the shelf. Maybe and hopefully it is preserved on appeal after the 10th decides Rankin.”
    Did I miss something that Chris stated like a citation to this “begging” in the tenth or somewhere.

    • AJ

      @Mike r:
      Did I miss something that Chris stated like a citation to this “begging” in the tenth or somewhere.
      —–
      No, you didn’t miss anything. It’s a reference to something he posted many moons ago when there was a discussion about CT DPS, Procedural Due Process, Substantive Due Process, etc. He had made mention of how SCOTUS was practically begging someone to take up the SDP torch.

      I don’t know that he’s made any reference or connection between SDP and the Rankin case at the 10th. I was trying to point out that hopefully the Rankin team will preserve the (anemic) SDP entry into the record it made when arguing before the 10th .

  17. mike R @AJ

    @ AJ, here we go, straight out of CASOMB report. LOL. I do not like the recommended tiering at the end. I know I seen somewhere in one of these reports tonight that stated that the legislature made changes not recommended by the board but cannot find it after hours of going back over all the recent reports. If anyone can find where it states that in one of the reports it would be cool.
    http://www.casomb.org/docs/Tiering%20Background%20Paper%20FINAL%20FINAL%204-2-14.pdf

  18. mike r

    Here we go, found it, it was in the 2017 report to which is good. I can use this to show that the legislature are still not using any empirical evidence at all and neither was the tiered bill at all. CASOMB implies that the bill uses risk assessment for all when in fact it is only for those that score as high risk offenders and not lower level offenders at all. These are based solely on offense, which is a problem when you classify people with out a individual assessment and then project that dangerousness on to the public. How can you use the tool to classify high risk offenders but not use it for all offenders. That I am sure is another problem… The board goes out of its way to describe risk based as the only reasonable solution but recommends this screwed up tier system and then the legislature just makes it ever worse with their amendments. I think I can successfully make these arguments while connecting Hanson to the CASOMB directly.

    After about eight to nine years offense‐free in the community, people who have committed sexual offenses and are assessed as average or above‐average risk to reoffend pose no greater risk of committing a new sex offense than any other type of offender.3 For this reason, they were intended to be in tier one (10‐ year registration) or tier two (20‐year registration). During the bill process, however,
    amendments to the original draft of the bill moved some of these offenders to the lifetime tier. CASOMB will re‐evaluate this as well as other amendments made to the original bill and make future recommendations for modification.
    The original bill provided that only tier three offenders would have their home addresses
    displayed online. Public safety is best served when offenders are employed and have
    stable housing (i.e., are not homeless).4 This is not always achievable when offenders are
    posted online. Landlords may be afraid to rent to people with this history. Employers
    may worry about loss of business or retribution if it becomes known they are employing
    someone who has sexually offended in the past.
    http://casomb.org/pdf/2017_CASOMB_Annual_Report_uploaded_7_16.pdf

  19. mike r

    These reports have some great citations in them as well. Kind of hard to argue against your own reports.

    • LS

      No one here from what I can tell is arguing against Hanson’s latest research as shown on the risk assessment section chart on the California DoJ website. May this be our common ground.

  20. Notorious D.I.K. / Kennerly

    I received the following “Dobb’s Wire” from Bill Dobbs today: Enlightenment and a trigger warning in Connecticut: A day-long event in Connecticut featuring a series of presentations about the sex offense registry proved enlightening and remarkable! [Note: Video of this conference is linked at the end] One highlight was the first speaker who gave an overview, taking some trouble to explain the important and little-discussed concept of “moral panic” and the big impact that phenomenon has had, and continues to have, on sex offense laws. Drawn from research and professional experience, the remarks were even more resonant because the speaker is a jurist, Judge Mary Huffman of Ohio. Complementing Huffman’s talk was the next presentation, by Eric Janus, a Minnesota law professor and director of the Sex Offense Litigation and Policy Resource Center, who vigorously urged a rethinking and reboot of current measures—because the overarching goal of preventing sexual harm has been forgotten amidst a push for emotion-driven laws. Other personal, professional and political perspectives rounded out the day.

    In the audience of 150+ that filled a large room were a range of stakeholders— probation officers, public defenders, victims and victim advocates, judges, legislators, scholars, prosecutors, registered individuals, advocates for registrants. Lead organizer of the Dec. 7th gathering was the Connecticut Sentencing Commission, an “independent state criminal justice agency,” with the support and help of the Connecticut Association for the Treatment of Sexual Offenders (CATSO), National Institute of Corrections, Institute for Municipal and Regional Policy, and the University of Connecticut School of Law, which hosted the event. Kudos to Sentencing Commission Chair Judge Robert Devlin and Executive Director Alex Tsarkov, Eileen Redden of CATSO and all those who made the event possible.

    Below is a link to the archived video of the proceedings, along with the program, speakers list, and time marks for the presentations – have a look! In his welcoming remarks Dean Timothy Fisher allowed that the law school’s hosting of the event was a “difficult decision” out of concern the session might “trigger further harm and fears” – an unexpected reminder of the prevailing high anxiety and moral panic that surrounds registration laws – even a discussion of this topic at a public law school.

    Related: Responding to an official request from the Connecticut legislature, in late 2017 the Sentencing Commission issued a report on the state’s sex offense registry with recommendations and continues to press for legislative changes. –Bill Dobbs, The Dobbs Wire info@thedobbswire.com

    http://www.ctn.state.ct.us/ctnplayer.asp?odID=15814

    • AJ

      @Notorious D.I.K. / Kennerly:
      Thanks for posting this Dobbs info. It sounds like it was a very powerful and helpful (for us) event. I absolutely look forward to watching the video soon. For now, it’s bookmarked in my “stack” of URLs.

  21. mike r

    Excellent LS, I did not know that they used Hanson on the actual Megan’s Law site. Kind of hard to connect him anymore than that. It is crazy how CASOMB touts about risk assessments as the only way a registry works and tries to push the tiered bill as risk related when it is offense based. They are trying to intermingle the two trying to conceal the fact that it is offense based only and nothing to do with empirical evidence or actual risk. How can you tell everyone everywhere that only risk based is viable and that registries do nothing but make recidivism worse and then turn around a push a bill that is not based on empirical evidence or actual risk and that does nothing anyways except for exacerbate risk factors. The following is exactly why everyone pushes these laws, I knew that it was expensive but damn, it is really going to piss some serious people off if I win my case, or when anyone wins a case against the registries for that matter.

    “When quantifiable costs are summed, they are estimated to range from $10 billion to $40 billion nationally per year. These costs could be reduced if the registry did not try to track everyone for life.”
    http://casomb.org/pdf/CASOMB_Education_Pamphlet.pdf

    Holly crap batman-this surpasses the entire DOJ budget by far, wonder what a jury will think about this,

    The DOJ FY 2019 Budget totals $28.0 billion in
    discretionary budget authority. The FY 2019 DOJ Budget
    delineated by category is: law enforcement (50%); prisons
    and detention (31%); litigation (12%); grants (6%); and
    immigration/administration/technology/other (2%). DOJ is
    estimating $6.0 billion in mandatory budget authority in
    FY 2019.
    https://www.justice.gov/jmd/page/file/1033086/download

    So the funds spent on registration in one year could fund the entire DOJ for two years. Prisons and all..
    WOW….

  22. mike r

    Twice the budget of the entire Department of Justice on something that “ALL” the empirical evidence and professional experts say does not work but is actually counter-productive. This is a incredibly huge argument in and of itself……………….. Want to talk about something nefarious going on, then this is proof beyond a doubt. This is insane and I will push the hell out of this……

  23. AJ

    While researching something else, I stumbled across some Federal Appeals cases that may be helpful to someone still under supervision in the 2nd, 3rd, or 8th Circuits’ territories. Each case ruled that blanket rules/prohibition on internet usage is excessive:

    2nd: US v Sofsky, 287 F.3d 122 (2nd Cir. 2002)
    3rd: US v Freeman, 316 F.3d 386 (3rd Cir. 2003)
    8th: US v Crume, 422 F.3d 728 (8th Cir. 2005)

    Though Sofsky and Freeman have both been criticized four times (in the same cases), all three still appear to be valid case law.

  24. Notorious D.I.K. / Kennerly

    “The Forensic Experiential Trauma Interview, or FETI.” This was new to me and mentioned in the following piece on the “Simple Justice” blog, “Abby Honold Act: Another Name, Another Bad Law.” An excerpt: “The creator of FETI, Russell Strand, isn’t a scientist, and yet expounds upon the “neurobiology of trauma.” The problem is that it’s without basis.

    Perhaps unsurprisingly, FETI appears to have never been subject to empirical testing according to its website. [D.I.K.: I’m SHOCKED!] In a 2015 report to the United States Armed Services Committee, the United States Air Force declined to adopt FETI as its interview technique, citing the reports of several psychiatrists who evaluated FETI and found multiple problems with it.” https://blog.simplejustice.us/2018/12/10/abby-honold-act-another-name-another-bad-law/

    • TS

      @Notorious D.I.K./Kennerly-

      Thank you for this article posting! The Guy Hamilton-Smith reference of the USAF turning it down is most informative on this Monday.

      I find it interesting the service committees asked for this process to be considered since the US Army is using it as a response to the whole brewhaha from the turn of the decade when this topic was riding the services hard in their handling of it. There is no better way to get a service to kowtow to a service committee than to say how they said it in the posting (referenced in the article): the importance of the method in addition to help the services do a better job (wink) at investigating these cases. We have the purse strings for your budget requests so here, see about using this method. For those who are interested in the USAF reply, it is an interesting read. It does make me wonder who is using such a method, e.g the USN/USMC and USCG, in addition to civilian entities.

  25. Dram

    If someone who’s address isn’t posted and only has to report once a year is moved to third tier, is there an actionable cause here, and what would it be called?

  26. CR

    The petition for certiorari in 18-39 BOYD, JASON L. V. WASHINGTON was denied today. The Supreme Court declined to weigh in on “Whether the requirement of frequent, in-person reporting renders an offender-registration law punitive, such that applying the law retroactively violates the ex post facto clause.”

    Bummer.

    • TS

      @CR

      That is because it is just like renewing your annual Price Club membership in person with everyone else in line…oh, wait…you can do that online if you like (if you have the ability to do so without being restricted from being online while on paper) or via the telephone.

      For a case of this topic to go forth, IMO, it will need to be shown on its face how it is an issue, e.g. Millard did this. Also, as I opined last week, if one could gather the same data from others who have to register for registries like this and other registries, then one could make a case possibly to challenge the in-person requirement instead of online or via telephone. However, the problem is, IMO, if you have to get a new DL annually in person, as an example, then this can be seen as no different. The more frequent requirement, e.g. semi-annually, quarterly, etc, could have a better chance of succeeding, but it is hard to say.

      • A Wife

        I recently renewed my Costco membership online in 11 seconds. For putting it on autopay I was mailed a $20 Gift Card. I buy almost all my food, clothes and other stuff there. I eat like a king, find my “look” very stylish and have more toys than I ever dreamed, for less cost than I though humanly possible. Just yesterday the cash register lady informed me my hair do was gorgeous…

        Yeah…. just like the sex offender registry.

    • AJ

      @CR:
      Bummer indeed, and it shoots a hole in my thought process to @Josh just the other day. I wish I could get into the minds of the 9-headed monster in black. Was it too “minor” of an issue? Has SCOTUS’ outlook stiffened? It’s not the end of the world, but possibly a troubling setback.

      • Josh

        @Aj
        In the Snyder case it was supposed that the unanimous ruling of the 6th and the incredibly well written opinion from judge Batchelder was the reason that scotus declined to grant cert. At least that was the conjecture. I’m not as well informed as to the facts of this case but I thought many of the same elements that were in the Snyder case were in play yet again. I agreed with your comments at me last week…..I would also love to know what is going on in the collective minds of scotus because this doesn’t make any sense…

        • Bill

          Hasn’t stop anyone from being on the list, back to court next month

        • AJ

          @Josh:
          I believe the amicus (aka CVSG) from the US Solicitor General (https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/briefs/2017/07/07/16-768_snyder_ac_pet.pdf) cemented Snyder’s denial. As the only non-SCOTUS entity with a permanent office in the SC building, USSG is often referred to as the “10th Justice.” The USSG does carry a lot of weight, and more often than not SCOTUS follows USSG recommendations. IMO, he threw MI under the bus to protect and preserve AWA, despite AWA having similar provisions.

          I kind of wonder if Boyd was denied due to there not being much “meat” to it. The question presented to SCOTUS essentially boiled down to, “if we add in-person reporting, does Smith become punitive?” Though a denial technically doesn’t say anything one way or the other, with this denial I must admit to a certain amount of concern. To me it made, and still makes, sense to hang onto Boyd and roll it into Bethea to solve the larger issue. Obviously @AJ is not the “11th Justice.” With SCOTUS having scotched my idea, I worry that it’s not quite ready or willing to take on the “Next Gen” RC laws. That may mean more fights in State and Federal Courts, more appeals to Circuits and SCOTUS, and more years of delay. I do hold out some hope for Bethea, as it’s a much more detailed and robust question than what Boyd offered, but I fear denial. (Cato’s amicus puts the question more directly and succinctly. http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-308/66581/20181011144544728_Bethea%20cert-stage%20Final.pdf)

          In other news, SCOTUS has accepted yet another case (http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/kisor-v-wilkie/) that (hopefully) may chip away at Chevron Deference and the semi-autonomous power of the Administrative State. There’s seemingly a new direction to the Court, as the exact question SCOTUS accepted was denied cert just this past March (http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/garco-construction-inc-v-secretary-army/).

  27. AJ

    While reading a judge’s opinion, I found reference to a case that seems to be quite useful if/when one challenges Internet/email reporting requirements, either at the State or Federal (34 US Code §20917) level.

    I have yet to read the full case, but here’s the snippet:
    *****
    See Am. Booksellers v. Webb, 919 F.2d 1493, 1499–500 (11th Cir. 1990) (First Amendment protects against both “direct and indirect burdens on speech”).
    *****
    I’ve long held that the Internet ID and email collection was unconstitutional, but feared the government would do finger pointing and say they aren’t the one doing anything. Well this case says that doesn’t matter! Any level of involvement is a burden…and since it involves the First Amendment, it automatically merits heightened scrutiny (i.e burden is on Government to justify things). The only weakness is it isn’t a SCOTUS ruling, just the 11th.

  28. Steveo

    I’m in Texas and my trial was in 1994. I got differed adjudication that I was told would only require 10 year of probation. Of course we all know how that worked out. I have to register for life now. I was thinking of trying to file some sort of suit. I have seen people on here recommend just copying and filing something myself. Is that still a recommended thing, or should I get a lawyer? Any recommendations of a line of attack?

    • Chris f

      Speak with attorney Richard Gladden in Texas. He may offer some advise or get you into some existing lawsuit.

      If that doesn’t work, I would say file pro se in federal court and get whatever Mike R on here has to use as a template but adjust for Texas specific issues. If you go the state court route instead then those elected judges will surely dismiss it and not even read your arguments.

      It would be great to get a good challenge started in Texas.

      One thing I would add to a Texas fight is that we are one of only 9 states that bans not only ex post facto, but also retroactive civil laws. I think you have to go the state route to fight that though. It definaltey sounds like they violated a contract with you by imposing a lifetime registration. Back then I believe the wording of deferred adjudication contained something about there being no restrictions put on you at all based on your charges after the deferred time is complete.

  29. Chris f

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/ex-frat-president-at-baylor-gets-no-jail-time-in-rape-case-as-judge-accepts-plea-deal/ar-BBQMln8?li=BBnb7Kz

    Perhaps if the consequences of being a registered sex offender for life weren’t mandatory then someone that commits a sex crime wouldn’t have to fight so hard to blame the victim and would take a more appropriate deal.

    • Will Allen

      I don’t know why anyone would be blaming a victim but I think you are correct.

      What I found beyond any doubt, and what I believe to be true probably almost ALWAYS, is that the government has no intention of being moral. They have every intention of lying, if they can get away with it. They have every intention of misrepresenting. Getting a conviction is much more important than establishing the truth and appropriately punishing someone. So I think you can count on the fact that they are not going to be moral or judge anyone appropriately. Which is why I won’t be going to them for justice for anything. If I tell the government anything about anyone, it will only be to hurt them. I will use it as a weapon in this war.

      For me personally, if government were moral and focused on the truth, I would’ve told them the truth. But they were, and are, far from moral and I know today that they don’t deserve the truth or respect.

      Way back when I took a plea bargain, the Registries were nothing. People had hardly even heard of them. Given what I know today, I never would’ve taken the plea bargain that I did. I pleaded guilty to something that I did not do and something significantly more serious than what I did do. I would not have been able to avoid the Registries probably but I certainly would not have taken that plea. They offered it to me with no jail time at all, just probation. They knew I didn’t do what they said and they couldn’t prove it. But they knew I did something and they threatened that if I did not take the plea bargain then I would really pay for it. It seemed the smart way to go, but again, I had no idea that they were not going to keep their side of the agreement.

      Their crimes started the day I was arrested and haven’t stopped yet. They started by immediately and directly stealing about $1,000 worth of property from me. It just disappeared and no one heard of it again. Americans can’t respect people who aren’t moral. Registry Harassers are in no position to be judging anyone.

  30. TS

    This is a great ruling for all Americans and especially registrants!
    Judge rules Americans can secretly record public officials in victory for Project Veritas
    https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/dec/10/project-veritas-case-judge-patti-b-staris-rules-am/

    Registrants have a lot of interfacing with LE and public officials and this is legal precedent to record them in action, e.g. compliance checks, traffic stops, walking about your home, council meetings, etc where they are in their official capacities. I wonder who will be the first one to record their registration action with them in the office. There are cellphone apps that will secretly record any action without their knowledge and allow you to protect yourself.

    • AJ

      @TS:
      I saw this article, and was a little surprised that it was “news.” It’s long been the case that public officials have no reasonable expectation of privacy when performing their official acts. Since there’s no expectation of privacy, there can be no invasion thereof! Still, it’s good to see it reiterated.

      As @mike r touches on, this applies only to public officials in the execution of their duties. Anything else is a riskier proposition unless up on the State’s party-consent laws. But there’s also no reasonable expectation of privacy when out in plain view, even if on private property. So recording in that instance, as long as there’s no trespassing involved, is also *probably* okay. My State is single-party so I can record pretty much anyone, at any time, anywhere..and typically do when interacting with public officials (i.e. government funded liars).

  31. steveo

    Thanks Chris f. I actually did speak with Richard Gladden on the phone in 2016. He didn’t seem very interested in the conversation and told me I should move to a better state if I wanted to stand a chance of getting out of registration. Not sure if his opinion has changed since then. Part of my issue is that this is keeping me from growing my business abroad. There is a good chance that I will not be able to get a Visa where I need to be to establish an office. There are so many ways that these new laws imposed ex-post-facto on me has damaged me, my family and my livelihood I feel like giving up sometimes. I’m getting older now, and I really need to push my family business across the goal line so it can provide for my children families too, but the USA changing deals on me like they did the Native Americans really ought to be something we could go after them for. I would love to file a suit for about 150K for every year they have screwed me over. That would be justice.

  32. mike r

    TS, do not try that in CA, CA is a two party consent state, so you have to have the other person permission. At least for things like telephone, IDK about in person, I mean we have people every day recording people in public places so I am sure that could be a strong argument.

    • R M

      In public, there is no expectation of privacy. In private, that’s another story, especially in Ca.

    • TS

      So, @mike r, if a LE or other official is doing their capacity while on the phone with you, does two party rule go in effect if you’re talking with them? What about a speaker phone? No expectation of privacy when doing their job. The splitting of hairs…

      • AJ

        @TS:
        Recording a telephone conversation, i.e. wiretapping, seems to merit different rules. Think of it this way, would all those companies that tell you they “may be recording for training purposes” if they didn’t have to? Obviously they’re covering their butts over two-party State and/or Federal laws.

        I’ve always been tempted to tell them that I, too, am recording for training and other purposes. 🙂

  33. Notorious D.I.K. / Kennerly

    “California lawmaker [Joaquin Arambula] arrested on child cruelty suspicion”
    “The arrest came after officials at an elementary school discovered an injury on a child and the child told them who caused it.” Oh, this is too good! One of our enemies in the California Statehouse is a genuine child-abuser. He will not, however, ever be put on a Registry since there is no Registry for simply beating your children. The disparity in how physical and emotional abuse and neglect are treated in contrast to how sexual abuse is treated is breathtaking. “Officers were “confident that a crime had occurred” and arrested Arambula on suspicion of willful cruelty to a child, Dyer said. He was taken in a patrol car to police headquarter, finger-printed, photographed and then released because his crime is a misdemeanor. The injury did not rise to the level of a felony.” Let that sink in. You can beat your child and not have it be treated as a felony. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/california-lawmaker-arrested-child-cruelty-suspicion-n946916

    • ThoughtAsWeak

      Further details have come out that the “abuse” was his daughter being spanked (something the member rarely does) and his oldest daughter got mad and told the school the next day.

      We all know that the full truth isn’t reported, and the truth is sttreatched in order to receive a conviction.

      Not every member in the Capital is our enemy.

  34. so4life

    The 6th circuit just released a bad opinion (Doe vs. DeWine) reversing the lower court ruling regarding procedure due process claim on so registration. Citing scotus’ connecticut dps (2002) case, the 6th shot down the registration challenge. I dont know what the hell is going on with that attorney still claiming the “procedure” challenge! A lost cause for sure…😡 http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/18a0265p-06.pdf

    • Chris f

      It appears the earlier court case also challenged substantive. I dont know what happened to that without finding the lower court cases. I would guess when they found the procedural claim valid they decided not to bother ruling on substantive. If so, and the plaintiff didnt waive the substantive part voluntarily, then I would think the lower court would have to now take it up.

      I think its judicial laziness at all levels, especially scotus, to seperate procedural and substantive due process. They should be inseparable components of overall due process because you have to look at the combinatuon to determine if a law has proper procedure in place for the amount of liberty affected. This is evident in connecticut dps v doe when they say a state does not have to provide due process to a 16 year old that wants to drive and isnt old enough. Well…duhh…but this is comparing witholding a priviledge temporarily to ruining someones reputation, Job prospects, housing prospects, and affects relationships possibly for the rest of their life.

  35. TS

    SCOTUS just accepted Kisor v Wilkie where the court may overturn two of their own decisions. Very interesting…

    @AJ – I wonder how Justice Kagan will feel about that possibility? 🤔 Stare Decisis anyone? 🤣

    • AJ

      @TS:
      Yeah I saw that case, too (https://all4consolaws.org/2018/12/general-comments-december-2018/comment-page-1/#comment-218300, towards the end). I wonder what’s so significantly changed since March when they denied the exact same question? Oh yeah, Kennedy out, Kavanaugh in. Could be interesting.

      I have yet to read the lower court brief or any amici, and honestly don’t know that I will. Though of passing interest due to its possible impact on Chevron, it’s nowhere near my wheelhouse of case interests.

      But yeah, why take a case when it’s going to challenge or destroy the almighty stare decisis? Or perhaps Kagan is okay if it’s only 21 (Auer) or 63 (Bowles) years old, but heaven forbid if it’s 130.

      • TS

        @AJ

        Gundy effect maybe? Just a thought

        • AJ

          @TS:
          I don’t know that Gundy per se influenced this case, but I do perceive an ideological thread between them. Hopefully the Roberts Court is expanding beyond being First-Amendment centric (awesome to be sure!) to being also a Separation of Powers Court.

        • TS

          @AJ

          An ideological thread makes sense considering the basic root issue of government power as @mike r highlighted yesterday when he posted the National Review article on it.

  36. mike r

    Wel,l it looks as though we might have a judiciary again. It is called Kisor v Wilkie and SCOTUS accepted the case. This will significantly roll back executive branch power and force courts to do their own job and stop deferring to the legislature for everything under the sun. Although this is a case about interpretation of a statute, I can see it having far reaching repercussions and reign in big nanny gov. on many levels. IDK, AJ you are the wizard at interpretation of many of these cases, what is your take on this? I think it could be used in many ways in our favor as it is not just about interpretation but it is about limiting deferment to the legislative branch in the court so rules. The question is whether the court should over rule Auer v Robbins, Bowles v Seminole Rock and Sand Co. and the Chevron deference.
    https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/12/the-boring-supreme-court-case-that-could-help-make-america-great-again/

  37. Dram

    For anyone concerned about The Farm Bill and Snap

    (37) Disqualification of certain convicted felons
    The House bill amends section 6 of the FNA to disqualify certain convicted felons
    from participating in SNAP. (Section 4039)
    The Senate amendment contains no comparable provision.
    The Conference substitute deletes the House provision.

    https://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20181210/CRPT-115hrpt1072.pdf

    • Facts should matter

      It only mentions “Drug Related” felons are now ineligible from benefits.

  38. Chris f

    For anyone in Texas or the 8 other states where the states constitution forbids any retroactive legislation, there are tons of good arguments and quotes to get from this Texas case:

    https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16340650084678413911&q=Robinson+v.+Crown+Cork+%26+Seal+Co.,+Inc.,+335+S.W.3d+12&hl=en&as_sdt=6,44&as_vis=1

    It appears all of the retroactive parts of the Texas Chapter 62 sex offender regulations as well as the retroactive addition to the registry or increase of time on the registry have a good case to challenge it.

    The judges on that case made it clear that you cant just stick retroactive stuff, particularly on a hated and poltically powerless group, without proven legislative fact finding to support its need and an overwelming need to do it to protect the public. It cant just be based on good intentions.

    • Will Allen

      Good stuff. I’m all for stopping these criminal regimes from adding more and more retroactive punishments. Really, I’m all for anything that stops them from doing anything that they want.

      But we shouldn’t lose sight that Registries, etc. are not okay for even people who will be convicted after today. America is devolving is so many ways. Can we help prevent that? Can we reverse it? America never has been a great country. Can we make it be? Can we make it a moral leader in the world? Hard to see how.

      Right now, America is a world leader is idiocy.

      I read a very interesting article a couple of days ago that was discussing how Americans confuse government doing good, public things for all of its citizens (e.g. education, healthcare) with “big government” out of control and fascism. It discussed how that is actually the opposite of fascism (in that it creates a more fair life for everyone). It also went on to say how America was actually fascist when it had slavery and how Nazi Germany studied how America had functioned and sought to emulate “the best parts of that” for its own fascism. It pointed out that America had rampant fascism before Germany.

      I’m no historian but I know that America has never truly been great. The Registries today are right in line with our history. Can we be better?

    • Steveo

      Thanks Chris f. I’ll check that out

  39. Chris f

    One thing I am curious about is other peoples opinions on how our judiciary, and particularly Scotus, divides our constitution into each little part and doesn’t take it as a whole or at least combine related portions. The founding fathers certainly didnt intend on breaking it up when the made broad statements about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

    For example, even in cases challenging due process, if you don’t specify and argue on both procedural and substantive, then they refuse to consider them. I believe they are linked and always relevant to greater degrees depending on the issue. Another is bill of attainder and separation of powers. Many arguments to other constitutional infractions contain an element of those.

    Just once I would like to see a judge rule on something being unconstitional not because of a black and white violation of one particular sentence of the Constitution and instead weigh multiple parts of the Constitution and the constitution as a whole in how a person’s liberties are unfairly trampled on.

  40. Notorious D.I.K. / Kennerly

    “Judge resigns after removal from sex offender cases” Love it! “But twice in the last month the state Superior Court removed McDaniel from sex offenders’ sentencing proceedings for allegedly showing bias against the defendants and their attorneys.” This has to be some kind of first. A modest celebration is in order. I would say to curb your enthusiasm except that I think that this isn’t a one-off but part of an emerging trend. https://wjactv.com/news/local/judge-resigns-after-removal-from-sex-offender-cases

    • AJ

      @Notorious D.I.K. / Kennerly:
      Good news indeed! She must’ve felt some heat coming down and wanted to get out with “honor.” Resigning prior to any action from whatever judiciary panel/board was probably a prudent move. I find it odd that a former PD seems to have had it out for PDs. Oh well, good riddance lady.

  41. Notorious D.I.K. / Kennerly

    “ACLU condemns Nevada school policy for background checks” This is some great pushback against Reno schools that is taking the criminal background check to a new and more abusive level and makes a big point about parental rights to participate in their child’s education and life. “Civil rights leaders in Nevada are condemning a new school district policy requiring background checks for parents visiting their children’s Reno-area schools, warning the practice could have a chilling effect on immigrant families.

    The Washoe County School Board approved the policy in November requiring all school visitors to present a driver’s license or other government-issued photo identification card. School officials said in announcing the policy last month that the ID card will be used to conduct an immediate background report to check for sex offenders, warrants and people on the FBI terrorist list.”

    “The American Civil Liberties Union and a half dozen other groups objected Monday in a letter to the school district.

    Parents should feel comfortable participating in their children’s education “without fear of being caught up in a law enforcement dragnet,” said Tod Story, executive director of the ACLU of Nevada.

    All Nevadans, “even parents who are undocumented or have been involved in the criminal justice system,” have a right to raise their children in public schools, he wrote. “Such a policy can only alienate vulnerable families and lead to distrust of the public school system.”

    • BA

      My question is if you have a misdemeanor charge from 2004 that has been expunged and your not on meagens law website how does a new employer see your charged with a sex crime? other websites?
      public record?

  42. Jack

    A federal judge in Texas has ruled the Affordable Care Act unconstitutional, finding that the law cannot stand now that Congress has rolled back the mandate that everyone carry health insurance or pay a fine.

    So can this hold water on RSO legislation in the future?

  43. mike r

    Man this is about the most powerful statement from CASOMB I have found, from 2016 even
    “Research recently conducted in California by one of the most highly respected researchers in the world has found that the recidivism rates for sex offenders who have been identified by SARATSO risk assessment instruments (cf. http://www.SARATSO.org ) as “Low to Medium risk” fall in the range of 1 to 2 percent.” [p. 2].

  44. B.Wat.

    I don’t have any idea what SORNA cost the Government to implement, I don’t think anyone really knows, but if Trump is looking for money for his border wall, end this unconstitutional hit list and use all that money towards funding it!

Leave a Reply

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  • Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  • Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  • Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  • We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
  • Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  • Please do not post in all Caps.
  • If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links.
  • We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  • We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  • Please choose a user name that does not contain links to other web sites
  • Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  
 

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Please answer this question to prove that you are not a robot *