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.
Related posts
-
Changes to be Made in Treatment for CA Registrants on Parole
Source: ACSOL The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) has agreed in writing to stop... -
RI: Cranston YMCA employee fired for letting sex offender on grounds
Source: wpri.com 5/16/24 The YMCA of Greater Providence (GPYMCA) fired an employee earlier this month after... -
TN: Tennessee will remove HIV-positive people convicted of sex work from violent sex offender list
Source: abcnews.go.com 7/19/24 NASHVILLE, Tenn. — HIV-positive people who were convicted in Tennessee of sex work...
Check it out, I will leave this up for a day people want to look at what I just filed. Like I stated, cherry pick anything you want you are not going to refute my docs or experts. I do not need them on the stand all I need is the reports. We will see soon what happens………:)
https://ufile.io/a7je8
and
https://ufile.io/cnqpu
I do not think the AG is going to like this.
Merry Christmas Feeling Sad. Hope you are not feeling so sad during the holidays especially. I have a feeling you are not though. :)…
Another year gone by. One less to deal with. Who knows how many more there will be. Was watching the surf yesterday and stood on the edge of the cliffs. Guy yelled at me “ Can’t you read the sign, it’s not safe to stand there!” So what! I fall into the surf and drown. I get blown off and break my neck. Maybe I just jump and finish it. But no, some how I muster enough energy to walk back to my car and drive back to my……well, nothingness. I’ve stood at that spot a lot the last 4 yrs. Keep hoping to muster up enough inside to give in and give up. What does the song say, “ Goin’ to the next life, ‘cause nothing left in this one.”
Watch out for the
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kapo_(concentration_camp)
Come on @ Another Year Gone, life cannot be that bad. You have a car, a cliff or beach or whatever you can look at the ocean, just those two things alone many would die to have. Are you being beat up every day, literally? are you starving for food and water? are you sleeping in the gutter freezing to death? are you in prison? do all your limbs works and eyes see? do you have cancer or other life threatening or debilitating diseases? are you in prison or jail? are your kids dying if you have any? what about your dog? do you have a dog? Lol. get one then. on and on man… Sorry do not mean to make lite of anyone’s situation but believe me I have been where you are and ten times worse if you have a car and a cliff to look at the ocean I can tell you that. Life is what you make it……
Ladies and gentlemen, I want to proudly annouced that I renewed my 30th year, crime free membership, yesterday.
Man little bitter Another. Damn, well I tell you what I for one do not live on no ones couch and I was going to say whatever works for you and your post was kind of poetic but damn dude, you attacking people like that just changed my veiw. Sounds like you need to do without for a while and stop sniveling like some little girl. I just do not get people that have roofs over their heads and money in their pocket being so depressed or pessimistic. Whatever, I was going to agree with AJ but man your reactions to what people have said makes you sound like whining privileged Kavanaugh (and is not white privilege either, it is just plain privileged like Obama was too) during his hearings. Do something, bring suit, file complaints or go visit your cliff. lol…whatever…And I hate to tell you but I lost my house and everything I owned, which was substantial, could not see my 11 year old son for nearly 6years, lost my great career, etc etc so it is not like you say buddy. I grew up poor as hell but u made a great living before and am doing pretty well now, I was at a point on parole, gps strapped to my leg and yes living in homeless shelters and tents because of fukin Jessica’s law and almost walked in the river a few times. Did not have anything to do with what I was used to. I was used to cars, four by fours, every off road vehicle I wanted, motorcycles, houses, kids and wife, and all those,are peices of success. Your right mkoney and material shit aint where it is,at, but unless you gi without that crap at some point you cannot,appreciate it obviously. I am not even going to say anymore because you are obviously ready to lash out at people. Goodluck is all I have to say.
I really hope it works out for you. I was pretty depressed for a long time and was down to like 135 lbs at 5’11 but every since I started taking dopamine and serotonin uptakes I gained bunch if weight, reconnected a lot better with my son grandchildren, got married and am about to get college degrees. You will probably lash out some more with people just trying to understand you or help you but whatever. Anyways hope it works out.
Damn NPS, little harsh there, STFU, lmao. That’s kind of funny though. Just straight, STFU….. again lmao. That’s a girl telling you that man…🤔 She is right really but damn, STFU… Little touchy and mincing no words there…
@New Person:
There was a case out of Mississippi a few years back that addressed what expungement does for an individual. It was a MS SC decision, thus well outside being binding on CA, but perhaps it will give you a direction to go. The case was Stallworth v. State (https://cases.justia.com/mississippi/supreme-court/2015-2013-ca-01643-sct.pdf?ts=1429210889). The key holding from the MS SC was, “expungement of a
conviction requires the courts to ‘restore one to the status occupied prior thereto.'” So at least in the eyes of the MS SC, expungement puts you back to the same legal status you held prior to conviction, i.e. free of penalties and disabilities. Perhaps you can find a similar case either in CA SC or 9th Cir. decisions.
For the purposes of 1203.4, are “dismissed” and “expunged” the same? PC 290.007 uses the word “dismissed” but you refer to “expunged.” If there’s a difference in definition, could you argue your case is not dismissed, and thus that portion of 290.007 doesn’t apply? Also, who is required to comply with 290? Only those convicted, or can dismissed charges place you on there, too? That may help in the legal wrangling.
Instead of tackling the somewhat complex and thorny issue of freedom to travel, wouldn’t it be easier to show you still suffer penalties and disabilities via being barred from certain occupations, etc.? Those could be tackled wholly within CA’s laws and justice system, making things a little easier to parse. With the interstate issue of freedom to travel, I can readily see CA and whatever other state pointing fingers at each other saying, “it’s them, not us.”
AIRBNB I had a reservation with an AIRBNB and just was notified that my reservation have been cancelled due to a background check. I am in CA but I am sure this is nationwide.
Just an update on ARIBNB and their prejudice
To Everyone, just try and have a good new years and be optimistic about the new year. Things are changing and it could always be worse, remember that. Justice will prevail sooner or later, it always does in America just takes time and all the wrong ways being done first. I like that “if I only have one shoe I should be happy as there are others that have no shoes” Kind of real there. Not saying you have to be happy with the one shoe, but when you have went without those shoes before then you do appreciate having two. lol…. Believe me I am hell of pissed off myself, but it is at myself mostly for letting myself get caught up in this crap. We got ourselves here do everything you can to get yourselves out. Nothing wrong with being down every once in a while, but all we can do is pick ourselves up, brush ourselves off, and keep moving. Peace everyone…
Good looking out NPS, I was just trying to be positive for the guy and he slammed me a long with C who made the first remark of STFU. That was a little rough, but sometimes tough love is where it is at. Reality is the guy cannot have it that bad off if he is sitting on a cliff overseeing the ocean, has a car, is not terminally ill, does not have kids dying, etc etc. I cannot say what he has or has not lost, but I can definitely relate “no matter” what it is, I can tell you that. It was rude lashing out but I get it. Hope you are in a better place tonight Another….
HAPPY NEW YEAR PEOPLE!!!
In international news Duerte is user fire again for admitting when he was 17 that he used to sneak into his maid’s room when she was sleeping and molest her.
I find this ironic since anyone on the registry is barred from entering the Philippines
https://law.justia.com/cases/texas/first-court-of-appeals/2018/01-18-00169-cr.html
A Texa Court of Appeals ruled requiring internet identifiers be reported to police was a constitutional requirement. Not sure where to post this. They said it does not restrict speech.
Yeah lake county, you doing ok? Been awhile. Lots of new people on ass well.
I know I have stated this before, but I really believe the Taylor decision completely changes the game on rational basis review. I do not know how it may effect federal courts but it definitely set a new precedent in CA courts. The following statement is telling,
“As will be explained, we agree that section 3003.5(b)‟s residency restrictions are unconstitutional as applied across the board to petitioners and similarly situated registered sex offenders on parole in San Diego County. Blanket enforcement of the residency restrictions against these parolees has severely restricted their ability to find housing in compliance with the statute, greatly increased the incidence of homelessness among them, and hindered their access to medical treatment, drug and alcohol dependency services, psychological counseling and other rehabilitative social services available to all parolees, while further hampering the efforts of parole authorities and law enforcement officials to monitor, supervise, and rehabilitate them in the interests of public safety. >>>It thus has infringed their liberty and privacy interests, however limited, while bearing no rational relationship to advancing the state‟s legitimate goal of protecting children from sexual predators, and has violated their basic constitutional right to be free of unreasonable, arbitrary, and oppressive official action.”<<>>>””NO””<<<< set of circumstances that the statute could rationally be applied. This is now a whole new set of circumstances and ball game by this ruling. Forget the residency issue and focus on the reasoning behind this decision and what precedent it sets. Jessica's Law could have been rational in many instances against certain offenders across the state, but yet the court created this subclass of parolees in San Diego county and based their decision on an overall aspect of the law as-applied to that subclass of parolees. This is huge and a extreme divergence from what has traditionally been the standard for rational basis review every since rational basis review has been established. This precedent gives teeth back to rational basis review and the state can no longer just state a law is rational because it can apply to one Joe blow rationally. Just think about it, this law could have very well been rational as-applied to many Joe blows who are repeat offenders and may have used schools or other places where children congregate to find their victims (if there ever was such an incident).
There is no doubt that the subclass of low risk offenders deserve no less protection than any set of parolees, especially since the most critical time for re-offense is during the parole stages. How can anyone rationally tell me that parolees retain the right to have regulations (Jessica's Law was a regulation just as the registry is a regulation, no difference statutorily) tailored to their individual circumstances but a free citizen does not. Good luck with that reasoning. they would have to straight state that if you are under state supervision then you have constitutionally protected liberty interest, but once you are off paper you no longer have those rights. I am sure a judge may be able to spin it some how, but it would be really hard to sell at SCOTUS no matter what.
I guess we will see what a federal court thinks about that decision and its rational… No matter what, any idiot that can file a brief could prevail in CA with the CASOMB reports as applied to statistically low risk offenders under Taylor's precedent. The board consist of every major player in the game and includes the world's leading expert 'Hanson' stating the laws are not rational when applied to statistically low risk offenders. Much more powerful set of players then what was presented in Taylor. It is a no brainier. I am about to file in state court myself just because I know it is a slam dunk and no one is doing it. I am just dumbfounded by this lack of action… But whatever……..
@ AJ or Chris, am I missing something or off mark?
https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/2015/s206143.htmlthe
I think people really need to read that case and digest exactly what it is stating. The court even rejected facial challenges to the law, so it demonstrates how exactly as-applied differs as well.
“In their traverse, petitioners alleged the new residency restrictions made entire cities off-limits to registered sex offenders on parole, and that the restrictions were “ „so unreasonably broad‟ as to leave those to whom [they apply] „with no option but prison or homelessness.‟ ” (E.J., supra, at p. 1281.)”
The registry leaves me no viable option but to become homeless to prevent vigilantism and vandalism from occurring to myself and my family members, or in the alternative, suffer the consequences. I am telling you, just that alone is huge.
Just let it be said now for the record, that is going to be one of my winning arguments. This is a huge equal protection violations to start with. Major. So people that are homeless with the exact same charges are not required to provide a permanent address nor is their permanent address on the public registry. Nope, cannot have it. I do not care if it is a statutorily created dilemma, that has no value on my substantive rights. Intent of the state has no merit when it is the effects of the statute that are on trial in a substantive due process violation. I am going to straight ask the magistrate at the next hearing what choice she would make, the safety of your family or your comfort to live in a permanent address, and see what she has to say. If it goes so far I could really up the stakes and actually tell the court, “look I am going homeless unless the court acts just to keep my family safe” and actually follow thru with it in the interim, if necessary, and really put the onerous on the court as how I should be treated. Big Big issue here that has no resolution besides taking me, or my address at least, offline. I just really want to avoid giving the court any out like just removing my address. They may just jump on it and say “okay there it is fixed.” We will see soon…
In regards to some things brought up by AJ and Mike R…
I agree that for many constitutional violations, they are much more likely to succeed with an as applied challenge with a good set of plaintiffs.
However, I think that substantive due process, equal protection, separation of powers, and bill of attainder could survive a facial challenge. Even if a hardship could be justified against the worst offender, he would still require an ability to be heard and the restriction and duration be taylored to him by a judge and not a lynch mob legislative broad brush.
Most challenges we here about regading individual restrictions on speech, where they live, where they work, etc could be reasonable against a particular bad person and fail a facial challenge if only the restriction is challenged. I would like to see the process behind the restriction challenged instead.
I think now is the perfect time. We are at the highest point of rediculous restrictions and starting to see some victories. Before we lose too many of the rediculous restrictions we need to challenge the lack of a fair Process to be on the list. If we knock too many restrictions off, we will just be back to Smith v doe level of stupid and probably still fail in a challenge to the process.
Here it comes again: “The terrorist next door: States consider sex-offender-style registries for released terror inmates.”
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/the-terrorist-next-door-states-consider-sex-offender-style-registries-for-released-terror-inmates
There are so many stupid thoughts and comments in this article, I can’t even begin to address them without spending an hour writing about them! I won’t bore you with my thoughts on them; you’ll see them yourselves quite clearly.
@someone who cares:
Here’s a quick follow-up regarding our earlier discussions about “No Soliciting.”
From SCOTUS in Turner Broadcasting v. FCC (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/512/622/):
*****
If the government wants to protect householders from unwanted solicitors, it may enforce “No Soliciting” signs that the householders put up, but it may not cut off access to homes whose residents are willing to hear what the solicitors have to say. Martin v. City of Struthers, 319 U. S. 141 (1943).
*****
That would seem to answer why government cannot ban solicitors and why the posted sign carries weight and force of law.
Damn I did not even see this quote, how appropriate in my case, man I almost want to amend my latest just to include this quote.
The Court closed with this passage: “Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.”
Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U. S. at 578-579
There are a lot of really good substantive due process arguments out there, especially from Harvard and some pretty prestigious scholars. I guess we are going to find out if the clause has any teeth.