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
-
Senators call for audit of TSA’s facial recognition tech as use expands in airports | The Record from Recorded Future News
Source: therecord.media 11/22/24 A bipartisan group of 12 senators on Wednesday sent the Department of Homeland... -
-
SORNA Case Advances in Federal Court; PLF Files Motion for Summary Judgment
The Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) filed a motion for summary judgment on November 18 in its...
I just had a really cheeky idea. The website for the whitehouse and a section to email the president. Maybe we can start emailing and snail mailing him a solution to his financing problem and suggest that the government prove without a shadow of a doubt that the registry is worth keeping. Along with all the costing for the registry.
Can ANYONE tell me why a misdemeanor non contact internet offense cannot be expunged. It makes absolutely no sense! Drug dealers get it, gang members get it, yet a person with a college degree, no previous criminal history, and no probation issues can’t.
Wow, look at this, apparently it is the onerous of the court to formulate a substantive due process claim on the basis of the language of the complaint and the language of the statute at issue if the claim is not sufficiently formulated. At least that is what I am understanding with this case. Look at the paragraph immediately following that statement and it spells it out with no ambiguity, it is just to much to post here I think. The court has to formulate the claim for you if not narrowly and precisely stated, this could go either way I think. IDK still reading this. Interesting.
“The Supreme Court “require[s] in substantive-due-process
cases a ‘careful description’ of the asserted fundamental
liberty interest.” Id. at 721. Accordingly, we must formulate
the asserted right by carefully consulting both the scope of the
challenged regulation and the nature of Plaintiffs’ allegations.
See, e.g., id. at 723–24 (consulting the text of the challenged
state statute in reformulating the asserted right); Collins v.
City of Harker Heights, 503 U.S. 115, 125 (1992) (“It is
important, therefore, to focus on the allegations in the
complaint to determine how petitioner describes the
constitutional right at stake . . . .”).”
Here is just one following para,
“For example, in Flores, 507 U.S. at 297, a class of
juvenile detainees challenged a regulation that permitted their
release to a parent, close relative, or legal guardian generally
but permitted their release to others only in certain
circumstances. The Supreme Court rejected the plaintiffs’
characterization of the right to “freedom from physical
restraint” as too broad and concluded that “the right at issue
is the alleged right of a child who has no available parent,
close relative, or legal guardian, and for whom the
government is responsible, to be placed in the custody of a
willing-and-able private custodian rather than of a
government-operated or government-selected child-care
institution.” Id. at 302”
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Stormans-op.pdf
Yeah it is exactly how I stated. Maybe that is why the court was so frustrated in Conn v because they could not even formulate any claim under substantive process since the claimants denied specifically, for some lame reason, any substantive claim… That was an interesting case for sure…
Seems to me that Every Citizens Address should be “protected” not made public. Anyone else will tell you it puts them and their families in danger if their Address were to be made public.
I think it would be a significant blow to the Registry.
I also think that blanket law of Felons not allowed to own firearms is Horse Shit and Unconstitutional. I’d really like the opportunity to protect my kids and myself from psychopaths.
Need help or clarification
I am filing for reduction of a 311.1(a) in Santa Clara Co.
I rec’d form from clerk, and there are two sections that seem incorrect. Section 7 says even though If I am granted reduction, I can never own ,possess, operate firearm. I thought that was reserved for violent offenses.
The second is that it says anyone that is 290 can not receive a reduction.
I personally know of others that have received reduction with same conviction.
Is this an old form/wrong form?
I downloaded from county site.
@Readytofight, agreed, we will see if our addresses are a private interest. I am also going after my gun rights after this….
“In Paul, the Court did not address whether the accused’s home address was a privacy interest. An individual’s domicile holds, “special consideration in our Constitution, laws. and traditions.”” United States Department of Defense v. Federal Labor Relations Authority, 510 U.S. 487 (1994)
“If Plaintiff is found to have a protectable privacy interest with respect to his current address information and to the non-disclosure of scattered pieces of a public records and personal information, then Plaintiff likely can prevail that his interest in privacy is greater than the state’s interest in dissemination.” It is in the State’s interest to protect Plaintiff’s constitutional liberties, Melendres v. Arpaio, 695 F.3d 990, 1002 (9th Cir. 2012).
@AJ, Litmon is irrelevant sorry, I mean the AG thought it is relevant but it is not…
This is basically the only thing the Tandeske court stated, the decision was like two or three paragraphs.
“Because we do not believe that Glucksberg and Smith permit us to reach any other result in this case, we conclude that the Alaska law does not violate the Does’ rights to substantive due process.”
Weak decision to say the least. I think I have it handled pretty well.
You know Obergefell really turned the fundamental right principle upside down. It used to be it was a bottom up approach, in other words, starting with whether the narrow circumstance violated any fundamental rights according to the Glucksberg standard. This foreclosed anything that Glucksberg precluded. In the top down approach that Kennedy used in Obergefell, the starting point was the broadest meaning of a fundamental right, in other words, can the issue be considered even in the realm of a fundamental right, then if it is, the court then looks at the broadest meaning of that right in the constitution, and if the statute interferes or conflicts with that broader meaning then it is suspect, and all this determines the level of scrutiny and deference to the legislature.
It is kind of complex but not really. Kennedy’s methodology defined at a relatively higher level of generality what are fundamental rights, therefore expanding those rights considerably. He basically said that everyone has a right to marry regardless who it is or what the circumstances were. This put the onus on the state to prove that the law was needed and justified first off, and if it was, then that it was narrowly tailored. The court did not even need to reach the second question because the state could not even justify the law to begin with…. Interesting…
The original New Jersey case Doe v Poritz is a really good read, long but extremely good. Suggested reading for sure. I know I should have already read it, but I just scanned through it before. It really takes a careful reading to understand and appreciate the claims.
https://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/supreme-court/1995/a-170-94-opn.html
This CASOMB pamphlet states exactly practically verbatim what the Taylor court said was the most significant factor in determining the irrationality of the residency restrictions. And CASOMB represents “every” state and private authorities and agencies connected as compared to the limited CDCR task force and crap. This is the entity specifically and statutorily created for the sole purpose of recommendations to CA state legislature and any other state agency that may use the info. This on top of everything else.
Done deal. This is perfect for CA court anyone???? This pamphlet is going to be great to pass out to jurors if I get that far, along with a very detailed PowerPoint presentation. It s going to be interesting when I present just the following to the court just like laid out here the next chance I get.
CASOMB Pamphlet,
FACTS:
“a) Spending money on lifetime registration for low risk offenders takes away essential law enforcement resources that could keep communities safer from high risk offenders.
b) Data shows public notifications an extremely cost-ineffective way to reduce future sex offenses.
c) Resources that fail to enhance public safety take funding away from other rehabilitation and reintegration programs, as well as from victim services and prevention initiatives, that may better protect communities.”
and,
Creating barriers or preventing offenders from obtaining housing, employment and services actually increases the risk of reoffending. When reentering the community, sex offenders face many challenges that can cause their lives to be unstable, including:
a) inability to create prosocial peer networks
b) being ostracized
c) being the targets of violence
d) difficulties finding jobs or housing
Instability can put them at greater risk to reoffend.
These laws were intended to help protect our communities – but we now know these laws do not actually do what they were intended to do. Instead, registration and notification may have unintended consequences that actually reduce our safety.
http://casomb.org/pdf/CASOMB_Education_Pamphlet.pdf
Taylor,
The increased incidence of homelessness has in turn hampered the surveillance
and supervision of such parolees, thereby thwarting the legitimate governmental
objective behind the registration statute (§ 290) to which the residency restrictions attach;
that of protecting the public from sex offenders. (See Wright v. Superior Court (1997)
15 Cal.4th 521, 527.) The Task Force‟s final report concluded that the Jessica‟s Law‟s residency restrictions failed to improve public safety, and instead compromised the effective monitoring and supervision of sex offender parolees, placing the public at greater risk. A specific finding was made that “[h]omeless sex offenders put the public at risk. These offenders are unstable and more difficult to
supervise for a myriad of reasons.” (Task Force, Rep., supra, p. 17.) The report further
found that homelessness among sex offender parolees weakens GPS tracking, making it
more difficult to monitor such parolees and less effective overall. CDCR has conceded in
its briefs before this court that “[t]he evidence . . . demonstrated that the dramatic
increase in homelessness has a profound impact on public safety,” and that “there is no
dispute that the residency restriction[s] [have] significant and serious consequences that
were not foreseen when it was enacted.”
“Trump signs law to pump $430 million into anti-human trafficking efforts” “Frederick Douglass Trafficking Victims Prevention and Protection Reauthorization Act allows $430 million in federal funds for trafficking prevention and education, victim protection and stronger government prosecution of traffickers through 2022.” This was another law brought to us by Chris Smith, House Republican, New Jersey.
“Since the International Megan’s Law was passed, 3,442 people have been denied entry into the U.S. or other countries, according to Smith’s office.” https://www.ncronline.org/news/quick-reads/trump-signs-law-pump-430-million-anti-human-trafficking-efforts
We shouldn’t HAVE to prove in court “actual harm cause” by being listed on the registry. Just being listed ONLINE is an act of aggression and a threatening gesture. It’s a wanton act of malice because those whose names and addresses that are listed Online (all occupants of said domicile) is self-proving of actual harm by making ALL inhabitants sitting ducks and soft targets for random acts of violence. It’s an assault on human rights AND common sense. It’s a blatant disregard for human life.
Yes, it’s call “reckless disregard” and “deliberate indifference.” Look it up, it is a doctrine…
I heard on a public radio news program where the U.S. government has approved over 300 requests for visas to bring adolescents to the U.S. for purposes of marriage. A 49 yr old man was allowed to bring a 15 yr old girl to U.S.
How can this be? Where is the consistency. I ask this of Janice. Why can’t info like this be used to show the hypocrisy of the laws in place.
There is a disgusting video of an officer punching a registrants brother in florida thinking he was the registrant. Look it up on google city of stillwater. Thankfully the ring doorbell caught it and the family haa the grounds for a nice lawsuit
WTF,
“Fraidy Reiss, who campaigns against coerced marriage as head of a group called Unchained at Last, researched data from her home state of New Jersey. She determined that nearly 4,000 minors, mostly girls, were married in the state from 1995 to 2012, including 178 who were under 15.”
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/u-s-approved-thousands-of-child-bride-requests-and-its-legal/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+primary_source+%28CBS+News+-+Primary+Source%29
I have not read the following yet, but once again, WTF,
https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Child%20Marriage%20staff%20report%201%209%202019%20EMBARGOED.pdf
“Leader of global child porn ring killed in prison beating” [Michigan]
” At his sentencing, a female victim forecasted Maire’s demise, the Detroit News reported.
“He’s gonna get the hell beat out of him,” the now-20-year-old seethed.” “It’s a horrible tragedy and it seems something like this should have been able to be avoided,” Maire’s lawyer Mark Kriger told the Detroit News.” Yes, there is a way to avoid it. That’s precisely why it wasn’t taken.
https://nypost.com/2019/01/05/leader-of-global-child-porn-ring-killed-in-prison-beating/
And people call this a civilized country, yeah right. Barbaric prison industry still. You know they probably set this guy up in the first place. Just as they tried to do to me back in reception by putting a big ass 300 pound monster in my cell who that just beat the shit out of his last celly. Then they left me standing outside at 3 am at Wasco for three hours in the middle of the winter at 20 degrees or less in a paper jumpsuit while everyone else went inside. I had to start yelling and screaming and pounding on doors before i froze to death before they finally let me in and got me a cell. Barbaric I tell you.
My poor wife is doing her occasional panic about her colleagues, or kids, or our kid’s classmates finding out about my past. Ugh. I know it’s hard on her, but this stress is really killing me, too. Like anyone else, RC or not, she hates that it’s so easy to find out virtually anything about anyone. MyLife.com, White pages.com, etc. list all your family, past addresses and more for free. The more you pay, the more info you get. My wife and I don’t share the same name and she’s especially bothered by her name being listed with mine on these sites ( we are after all, married). So, she has me filling out the opt-out forms on all these sites that offer one.
Has anyone else taken steps to control the amount of personal info online? Have you had success?
Have you flooded your personal and professional socials with good info to suppress the bad?
This article outlines some helpful steps, but we’ll see if the web sites honor my requests to be forgotten.
https://m.wikihow.com/Remove-Your-Listing-on-WhitePages
Man, if it weren’t for our kids, I’d be gone and let her move on with her life, but we both know that I’m a good dad and our little ones are better off with me in their lives and that a divorce would do way more harm to their young psyches than any measurable amount if good.
I live in Orange County (CA). Trying to move to another apartment when my lease runs out and keep running into Realtors who are “listing agents” for rental apartments. They all seem to use the CAR’s Application to Rent/Screening forms. On the form is a question that says “Has applicant or any proposed occupant ever been convicted of or pleaded no contest to a felony?”. Is that even legal? I haven’t filled one out yet because I figure it’s a sure “no” and they charge $35 to even apply. And, I’ve been out for 8 years but I’m on lifetime supervision (for a CP charge). Currently trying to get off supervision but was just in court requesting early release and told to wait two more years. I know they can’t ask about felony’s on job applications but didn’t realize they could ask on housing applications?
Here in Seattle landlords cannot ask about your criminal history.
Sadly they can deny you if you are a sex offender but 65% of our registrants are level ones and non public so they wouldn’t know and would have some trouble to go through.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/a-new-seattle-housing-law-forbids-landlords-from-checking-into-tenants-criminal-history-but-does-it-go-too-far-2018-12-26
Hello,
I’m an RC in California, not on the public site…
I’m considering taking a vacation with the family (wife and 2 teenage kids) this summer and wanted to confirm any requirements at my destination. I want to spend about a week total in New York city with a side trip into New Jersey.
I took a look at the travel matrix and I think it’s saying that with my time frame I don’t need to worry about either of those 2 states. Don’t need to do anything and can just go there like normal. Is that correct?
I want to go show the family my old alma mater in Jersey and the sights in NYC. My oldest will graduate high school next year so this summer is the last chance.
Any insight is appreciated. Need to know what I’d be in for before I start making plans.
Thanks.
The 93% of someone who knows the child is still making its way around as read in the article below. I say tell that to a parent or someone else who is in the 93% during a town hall and watch them flip.
How to Teach ‘Stranger Danger’ With Facts Instead of Fear (https://www.fatherly.com/parenting/better-way-teach-stranger-danger-without-scaring-kid/)
I’m sorry for asking each month, but has anyone traveled to Germany or Austria recently? I am finishing probation and will be graduating from grad school in May of this year and would like to go on a vacation. I know that if i can get in, I can stay within the Schengen counties for 90 days. Has anyone stayed longer? Any issues with a visa? Any info would be much appreciated.
-Mike
Another win for privacy…
What say you @AJ?
Feds Can’t Force You To Unlock Your iPhone With Finger Or Face, Judge Rules
https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2019/01/14/feds-cant-force-you-to-unlock-your-iphone-with-finger-or-face-judge-rules/amp/