Comments that are not specific to a certain post should go here, for the month of January 2019. Contributions should relate to the cause and goals of this organization and please, keep it courteous and civil.
Related posts
-
MD: Wilson would consider limits to landmark law compensating child sex abuse victims
Source: marylandmatters.org 1/22/25 The lead sponsor of a 2023 law that vastly expanded the ability of... -
Pedophiles could see death penalty under new House GOP bill: ‘Taken off the streets permanently’
Source: foxnews.com 1/14/25 Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla., is unveiling a new set of bills that... -
ND: Lawmakers discuss adding computer-generated images to definition of child pornography
Source: northdakotamonitor.com 1/20/25 Possessing a computer-generated image of child pornography would be punishable as a felony...
I think some of you might find this federal case interesting:
People suing Google over facial geometry scans of photos must prove real harm, not just ‘feel aggrieved’
https://jnswire.s3.amazonaws.com/jns-media/28/6c/1063852/Rivera_v_Google_sumjudg.pdf
For those caring or paying attention, I was excused from Grand Jury duty. Apparently I’m guilty of an “infamous crime.” Given the duration of service and the caseload mentioned, I am quite happy to have been booted!
If anyone hears anything on Snyder V Doe from MI. Please post it on here, suppose to be back in Federal court Jan. 9 th Have a good day!
1994 – 2019
25 years of Megan’s Law and don’t think for a second that Mr. Smith and Mr. Kanka won’t let this go unnoticed. I predict local interviews with the “there’s still a lot to be done” nonsensical fear mongering. Don’t be surprised if they try to add even MORE quicksand to the moat. I swear, how in the hell do they even sleep at night, much less feel good about themselves?
DEEPFAKES this seems to be a way to put anyone’s face on anyone’s body and post it anywhere. What does this do for cases of CP once this technique is revealed. Seems that Hollywood types are having this done to them. When will / can this be used as a defense for CP?
I got advertisement from an attorney today in the mail claiming and promising to get off the megans list for a fee of $3,500 but here’s what’s upsetting, it has my picture, my charge, now what if that would of went to a neighbor (other address) I have no problems where I live *thank the lord* but what if.
It’s academically regulatory and allowed, but not shaming or punishment. Uh huh…. Neither is a marked passport, a registry, or a marked DL. Whatever… they read the Scarlet Letter in high school most likely and understand this!
ACLU accuses Arizona high school of making students wear ‘scarlet badge’ of shame
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/aclu-accuses-arizona-high-school-making-students-wear-scarlet-badge-n954876
Man sues Burger King after they rescind free meals for life settlement because he was locked in the bathroom for an hour and cut himself in the process of trying to get out.
https://thetakeout.com/man-sues-bathroom-mishap-burger-king-free-food-for-life-1831465565/amp
Later in the story it comes out he’s a registered offender… hmmm. I hope that’s not why they rescinded the agreement.
I am need of some fairly quick info about Georgia (specifically Liberty county if possible) registration system. My wife is about to graduate from her Army training and she has been assigned to Ft Stewart starting March 9th, I have been doing this here in California for 20 years so I know only here, and if it matters or helps to get the right info my charge involves a minor that I did state time for and I also have a misdemeanor 647.6. The basics I already seen on the lists here, I am trying to find out if they are one of the states that blast it on your ID cards am I going to have to go around to my neighbors to inform them or like arizona have to take out a full page ad in the newspaper? Don’t know if anyone on here is from or has lived in Georgia but any accurate info is greatly appreciated.
my email is smoggod99@yahoo.com
**yes moderator I know that giving my information is not recommended**
Has anyone heard anything recently about traveling to Guatemala or Spain successfully? I was happy spending my vacations in Colombia and Ecuador, but they are refusing me entry now. So, I am looking for a new inexpensive paradise. I have money saved and am ready to go. I just have some major anxiety now after what I have been through trying to travel recently and I want to find a country that will just let me in without hassle.
Thanks much. Best to you all.
“What is the Information Quality Act (aka Data Quality Act)?” I had not heard of this before. Is this something that should be in our quiver of legal arrows? “The Information Quality Act (“IQA” aka DQA) requires federal government agencies to employ sound science in making regulations and disseminating information. It also provides a mechanism for people and companies to challenge government information they believe to be inaccurate. Business, consumer, environmental and conservation groups have all used it to pursue changes in government policies.”
https://www.safeaccessnow.org/what_is_the_information_quality_act
Visited Spain last year with family. Flew into Barcelona, stayed a few days and then we drove to Malaga and Seville, just to name a few cities we visited in Spain. Also visited Portugal, Morocco, Gibraltar, Andorra and France on that trip. Going through customs was a breeze (Barcelona). When they do ask questions, it’s the typical questions most all folks get. Safe travels.
The SCOTUS has denied the Petition for Writ of Certiorai in all three cases for POTRs: Bethea, Vasquez and Prison Legal News according to FLA Action Committee.
We’ve discussed this here before:
Politicians cannot block social media foes: U.S. appeals court
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-virginia-facebook-decision-idUSKCN1P11SC
“Circuit Judge James Wynn rejected Randall’s argument that her Facebook page was a private website, saying the “interactive component” was a public forum and that she engaged in illegal viewpoint discrimination.”
Interactive component = Public forum…hmmm
Those websites that delete comments may have troubles now if I read this right. I didn’t read the decision but @AJ might before I can.
This good, at least it is another district court calling these platforms public forums. This says nothing about a private corp like Facebook denying access though. Kind of an oxymoron.
Interesting and informative CA case law Re: Warrentless Search and Expectation of Privacy
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-supreme-court/1390271.html
I wanted to know your thoughts about this excerpt, and if/how it would/could apply to GPS monitoring while on Parole.
On the other side of the balance are the substantial privacy interests of those affected by parole searches: “The United States Supreme Court has ․ recognized that ‘the liberty of a parolee ․ includes many of the core values of unqualified liberty,’ and that his ‘condition is very different from that of confinement in a prison.’ ” (Burgener, supra, 41 Cal.3d at p. 530, 224 Cal.Rptr. 112, 714 P.2d 1251, quoting Morrissey v. Brewer, supra, 408 U.S. at p. 482, 92 S.Ct. 2593.)
The Burgener court observed that a parolee’s expectation of privacy “is not diminished by the surveillance which is a concomitant of confinement in prison.” (Burgener, supra, at p. 530, 224 Cal.Rptr. 112, 714 P.2d 1251.)
I just read this story and it kinda turned my stomach https://edition-m.cnn.com/2019/01/07/us/tennessee-cyntoia-brown-granted-clemency/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fedition.cnn.com%2F
She murdered and robbed the guy who paid her to have sex. She claimed she was afraid of him and that’s why she did it. If she killed her pimp I could see that as a reason to gr clemency, but she killed the John who as far as we know just hired a hooker.
How can someone who in cold blood murders a guy by shooting him in the head while his sleeping be free to live her life but those of us on the registry must pay for the rest of ours? I will laugh if she goes to turning tricks and gets arrested for it as she has no work skills.
Well, this should present a fun new set of challenges.
https://www.nextgov.com/emerging-tech/2019/01/survey-americans-warming-use-facial-recognition-tech/153987/
I’m imagining herding my family through the turnstiles at Wally World only to have it lock on me and rotate in the opposite direction, ejecting me from the park as my kids cry out.
Alexa: Why do Americans so willingly accept these invasions of privacy?
Just thought I would throw this out there,
The state already has in place their own mechanisms for risk assessments and have been conducting them through the Department of Adult Parole Operations (DAPO). The State will not be burdened and will not incur any negative public safety or fiscal impacts by adopting the DAPO regulations that are already in place in determining the likelihood that any individual is susceptible or predisposed to the risk of a sexual re-offense.
PC Sections 290.03 and 290.04, require DAPO to use evidence-based risk assessments and supplemental risk assessments to determine the likelihood of sex offenders to commit a new sex crime, and specifically requires CDCR to use the Static-99 risk assessment tool for adult males; incorporated by reference into the CCR is the Static-99R and the supplemental tools LS/CMI to measure risk of future violence and the STABLE- 2007/ACUTE-2007 to measure dynamic risk factors.
😡😡😡 Unbelievabe and Frustrating!!!
SCOTUS has denied Writ of Certiorari and, therefore, will not hear “Bethea v. North Carolina” 😡😡😡 Damn cowards!!!
https://www.cato.org/publications/legal-briefs/bethea-v-north-carolina
https://www-scotusblog-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/bethea-v-north-carolina/amp/?amp_js_v=a2&_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQECAFYAQ%3D%3D#referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&_tf=From%20%251%24s&share=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2Fcase-files%2Fcases%2Fbethea-v-north-carolina%2F
I just watched Registry Matters 58 on NARSOL and this case interested me:
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4510788/united-states-v-joseph-canfield/
It’s about challenging conditions of supervision. This case was in the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Can the decision be used in other circuits?
I wonder what the AG has in mind with a five day trial. What is to try for five days????
“For any Federal (not State) court at or below the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, it’s binding and must be followed.”
What’s the exceptions? Are there any exceptions?
That jogged my memory on something, hey AJ do you recall the cases where you stated when the facts of a case change, or there is no longer an emergency, I think it was? the court has to notice or change or whatever.
Do you think I can get by Tandeske and Litmon respectively?
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1241553.html
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/12-15261/12-15261-2014-10-14.html
My kids and I started reading Divergent together and last night this passage stood out for me,
“What if they tell me that I’m not cut out for any faction? I would have to live on the streets, with the factionless. I can’t do that. To live factionless is not just to live in poverty and discomfort; it is to live divorced from society, separated from the most important thing in life: community.”
This part of that case is disturbing, claims the privacy act is only enforceable against federal agencies.
The Seventh Circuit’s reasoning applies squarely to the present case, and we are persuaded by it. Although the prohibitions of § 7(a)(1) apply to all governmental entities, including state and local governments, by limiting the scope of the Privacy Act’s civil remedy provision, 5 U.S.C. § 552a(g), Congress clearly intended to “foreclose private enforcement” against any entity other than federal agencies. Admittedly, this reasoning leaves individuals, such as Plaintiff, without a means of enforcing § 7(a)(1) against state and local officials. However, were we to hold that Plaintiff could pursue a Privacy Act claim under § 1983, we would circumvent the intent of Congress that the rights secured by the Privacy Act be enforceable only against federal agencies.
I think the following brings the issue out of just federal agencies and into the private areas, so I overcome this on different grounds in the following. This is also a later statute, so according to the court, this later section, if it conflicts with the older version, this section rules. And yes, this is a bar on any and all occupations at the discretion of the employers.
California statute unconstitutionally permits Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies (ICRA), and any employers, to use Registry information “to protect a person at risk” This is wholly subjective and leaves employers and ICRAs unfettered discretion to use the registry to deny Plaintiff employment solely because he is a “registered” sex offender.
California’s Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act (ICRAA) follows the Federal Consumer Reporting Act’s general seven-year rule as the limit for reporting most negative information on an employment background check.
I believe this is no longer true, correct anyone?????????
“Plaintiff also alleged that defendant Nielsen’s actions violated the Privacy Act. As discussed, “[t]he civil remedy provisions of the [Privacy Act] do not apply against private individuals, state agencies, private entities, or state and local officials.” Unt, 765 F.2d at 1447 (citations omitted) (emphasis added). Accordingly, the Privacy Act provides Plaintiff with no private cause of action against Nielsen in either her personal or her official capacity.”