ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings: Mar 30 – San Diego [details]

Emotional Support Group Meetings – Los Angeles:  Mar 23, Apr 27  [details]

Registration Laws for all 50 States

Save the Date: ACSOL Conference June 14/15 in Los Angeles

National

PA: SORNA Registration Equal to Being “In Custody”

For a federal court to consider a habeas petition, the petitioner must be “in custody” at the time the petition is filed. Past cases have found custody to include parole restrictions, own-recognizance release pending appeal, and community service obligations.

Today, the Third Circuit held that the requirements that come with registration under Pennsylvania’s Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act satisfy the habeas custody requirement because SORNA restricts registrants’ physical liberty in various ways, including banning computer internet access and requiring them to appear frequently at a state police barracks, in person. The court distinguished rulings from other Circuits involving other, less-restrictive sex-offender-registry statutes. Full Report

Opinion – US Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit

Opinion Summary: We are asked to decide whether a habeas corpus petitioner who was subject only to registration requirements under Pennsylvania’s Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (“SORNA”) when he filed his petition was “in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State Court,” as required for jurisdiction. We hold that the registration requirements were sufficiently restrictive to constitute custody and that they were imposed pursuant to the state court judgment of sentence. 

 

 

Join the discussion

  1. steve

    So isn’t having to inform the government of travel under IML like informing your probation officer you are leaving the county.?

    • Buster S.

      A little bit, but so much better….

      If, while on probation. you leave the county, state, country without getting permission / informing (there may be a difference) your probation officer (formally or informally), you will be charged with a probation violation.

      If, while not on probation, you leave the country without giving notice to the local Police Department with a hard deadline, you will be charged with a brand new felony, with up to 10 years in prison. Even if your qualifying offense was a misdemeanor.

    • TS

      @Steve

      I’d say similar but worse. Did the PO call ahead of time to the destination to inform of your arrival? Who else does that?

    • Steveo

      I believe the IML is clearly a restriction Steve. The fact that our nation has given awards to other nations that have banned registered citizens based on notifications of travel associated with the International Megan’s Law shows not only that we’re being restricted, but even punished. People like me who have international businesses are being damaged economically by the IML. I had a guaranteed 40K to 200K deal down in Chile fall apart because of IML. The legislators and bureaucrats have way overstepped, and the courts are going to catch up, and it’s not going to be pretty for them. Not only do I believe stuff like the registries and IML will be overturned, but that there will be a lot of reparations suits that will happen and that will be won in the future based on all of this.

      • AJ

        @Steveo:
        “The fact that our nation has given awards to other nations that have banned registered citizens based on notifications of travel associated with the International Megan’s Law shows not only that we’re being restricted, but even punished.”
        —–
        As I’ve said before, the Feds are putting thumbs on the scales when it comes to IML travel. I wonder what a court would (will?) say about the Feds interfering with a citizen’s Freedom of Travel right. By awarding other countries in such a manner, the claim that other sovereigns are making their own decisions about entry starts to get watered down.

        P.S. Thanks, ACSOL tech, for restoring the 5-minute preview and editing capabilities! Woo hoo! 🙂 🙂

  2. B

    The commentary is nice, but reading the actual opinion provides some interesting insights regarding ex post facto.

    In terms of requiring someone presence, there by ristricting their liberty, under Snora, an example was made of the 3 day requirement to register temporary lodging or vehicle used. If one registered a temporary address, say across the country, only to arrive and find out it was full, one would have to travel back to the police barracks within 3 days to update their status.

    Same with a rental car, how would one know the vin and license plate without first traveling to the destination?

    • AJ

      @B:
      Continuing with your premise, what if I rent a vehicle after the office closes on a weekend? Suppose the office closes at 5, but I cannot get my rental vehicle until later that evening due to work, needing a ride, cheaper rates, etc. My plans are to be out of state for a time span greater than the reporting window (typically 3 days), say 6 days (to avoid triggering the common 7-day rule). Am I in violation? The way a number of State Statutes read, the answer is yes. How is this infringement on my Freedom of Travel justified? This rational-basis public-safety interest overrides my First Amdt. right? I’ll be out of state! How is public safety maintained or enhanced by this info and delaying my leaving the jurisdiction? If I’m such a risk, the State should be GLAD I’m away for a while. What better way to increase public safety regarding the threat I am?

  3. Facts should matter

    It’s custody, containment and confinement. Not to mention more harmful than intentionally being exposed to second-hand cigarette smoke on a daily basis.

    • steve

      That’s exactly what ALL of this is including IML. Containment and confinement. Excellent description of this unconstitutional scheme.

      • Facts should matter

        Even further, SORNA (and all subsequent restrictions, requirements and guidelines) is a form of “occupation” on human life and subjugation as we’re being regulated with a draconian imposition in perpetuity

        Our lives our ARE being occupied by local, state and federal entities to catapult a false narrative – illusory promotion of public safety.

  4. Timothy

    Well this case certainly gives good for thought concerning questions I intend to ask at this year’s FTR case I am purposely pursuing. SOR AGENT will be on the stand and I very much look forward to pinning the state regime down. Unfortunately my requirement to register came completely apart from the original 5 year judgment for child sex assault conviction. This fact is a barrier to habeas complaint in my situation. Still this case expressed the federal courts are coming around to realization concerning SORNAS real intent.

  5. Nicholas Maietta

    I see this as another nail in the coffin of registry laws.

  6. Will Bassler

    This is a case to keep track of to see if it is appealed into the Court of Appeals quite simply it is because the courts have just admitted that the registry is in fact punishment that is the only way that you can file a habeas corpus is if you are restricted in your liberty in some way and the only way you can be restricted in your liberty is via judicial decree coming from a judge a legislative body cannot inflict punishment. And when the legislatures attempt to punish a person by restricting their liberty they are violating both state and federal constitutions by creating special/local laws and/or by creating a bill of attainder.

    This is just another nail in the coffin when you consider that shaming is a form of punishment as described in court cases and that a person’s reputation and standing in the community is a protected liberty interest. Now we have the court saying that it is enough of a punishment to be on the registry that a person is entitled to a federal habeas corpus. We have a number of states courts admitting that there is an ex post facto violation pertaining to the registry which also indicates that it is punishment as well as the court saying that the Colorado registry violates the eighth amendment.

    Little by little we are getting the courts to admit that it is punishment and since that punishment is coming directly from a legislative body and not the judiciary no matter what the intent of the legislative body was if it is a form of punishment they have violated both state and federal constitutions. it is important to note that anybody that chooses to challenge the registry as a bill of attainder needs to do so with an extremely competent legal representation this is not something that should be handled pro se it could blow the whole thing up for all of us.

    • Illinois Contact

      Will Blasser: This is already a decision by a federal appeals court: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. The only next/final stop would be SCOTUS if the Bucks County District Attorney appeals.

      Sounds to me like this is it. SORNA declared punitive/punishment! Don’t the registry and all registration restrictions and regulations (presence, residency, IML) fall now. Theoretically this only applies in Third Circuit States — Pennsylvania, Delaware and New Jersey — but I would think it could be cited as precedent anywhere.

      “We hold that the registration requirements were sufficiently restrictive to constitute custody and that they were imposed pursuant to the state court judgment of sentence.”

      • TS

        The third circuit decision could be a persuasive precedent for other circuits but not binding.

        Be nice if someone got this to the 10th circuit in Denver to read.

        • AJ

          @TS:
          “Be nice if someone got this to the 10th circuit in Denver to read.”
          —–
          Oh I’m sure they are quite aware of it. If it’s out on the wires to average joes like us, it’s known within the Federal Appellate. Even if the judges themselves aren’t aware of it, sharp law clerks find these things. (Or perhaps a former 10th Circuit clerk who champions for us in NC could nudge one-time colleagues out that way… 😉 )

      • Wants off

        So a judged sentence me to 3 years in prison. If bring on the registry is equal to being in custody, then is that equal to being incarcerated without a trial?

  7. AO

    Just read through the full opinion. Seems like there are a fair amount of parallels between the Federal SORNA and CA’s current and upcoming SOR. Everyone has to register once a year, some four times (is one or four times relevant?). We all have a deadline to register when moving, and to register temporary floggings when traveling. We must notify when we’re leaving the state. CA requires us to provide information on our employers and vehicles (I’m unclear though if CA requires us to update this information as it happens or at the time of our annual/quarterly registration?) Most don’t need to report internet identifiers, but two years ago a new law was passed that some people going forward will have to report these. And, the upcoming SOR also removes many peoples current ability to end registration by removing the COR path and replacing with a scheme which takes many of the same charges from a good-to-go via COR to an absolute NO (similar to how in PA he and others were given 10 years but then were moved to a lifetime with SORNA. I’m not sure if the technicality of CA being “lifetime” now but with a path out via COR will work in a similar way PA imposed the 10 year timeline).

    It’s really frustrating when 100% layman would agree that ANY SOR scheme is very much punitive but have the courts brush it off as no big deal because you’re technically not “restricted”. It’s like, sure, that swimming pool is full of sharks and we just dumped a bucked of blood into it, but we’re not restricting you from swimming across it.

  8. Tired Old Man

    I think the robes will have to soon decide within 3-5 years as the AL. case will be appealed by both parties. then the Recently filed Fl. Case’s

  9. PA Felons Aid Alliance

    While this ruling is a huge leap forward in the development of a more intelligent registery it still leaves a lot of open doors, loopholes, and empty hope. The bottom line is that judges routinely deny Habeas Corpus Petitions on various grounds. Look at Progress CCC and the 2016/ 2017 petitions. 42 individuals there posted Habeas Corpus petitions because parole had placed them in the secure, prison style, lockdown without a gagnon hearing. One person filed in 3 different counties and two different courts. The end result? The bulk of petitions sat in a court office till the people were released rendering them resolved. The court secretary having told some callers that she had set up a special desk and pile for Progress CCC petitions. Some of the remainder were thrown out for lack of jurisdiction. The Remaining 4 ended in a showdown where 2 were released to other open halfway houses and the last 2 were ended in stalemate when the facility promised to fix the issues argued in the petitions and only corrected a few of them after maxing out the sentences of the last two petitioners completely eliminating the entire pile. The moral? Judges dont have to answer a Habeas Corpus in any sort of reasonable time frame or in a favorable way. Sure they have rules that hold them to it but as the Progress CCC petitioners found out the rule complaints can simply be ignored.

    This ruling is fruitful as it expands the potentials for people to get off the registry but any sort of productive ruling down the road needs to focus on removing bulk groups from the registry without the need for those removed ot have to file petitions. Rather then waiting on a judge to answer or not answer a Habeas Corpus.

    • AJ

      @PA Felons Aid Alliance:
      Thanks for posting this informative piece. It sickens me how abusive the “administrative branch” of government can be (read: IS) when it wishes to be. What occurred may not have been statutorily criminal (or perhaps so, IDK), but it was certainly a crime. Willful disregard and contempt for the judicial process and citzens’ rights? Disgusting…but, sadly, not surprising.

      I wholeheartedly agree that piecemeal removal isn’t the solution, but it’s one more straw on the registry-camel’s back, headed towards breaking it. It also indicates a willingness to consider facts in RC cases instead of rubber-stamping “Denied” while chanting and intoning “Smith v. Doe, Smith v. Doe” over and over. Hopefully the courage (sad that it’s viewed as such) of the 3rd to call it as it is, not as they would wish it to be, can have a snowball effect on sister courts…and maybe even the lone superior one.

  10. Steve

    Janice I remember you mentioned you are looking for a new venue to fight IML the third district is looking promising.

    • TS

      @David

      SCOTUS has accepted and heard oral arguments on this case when a decision was posted just two days ago by the 3rd?

      • TS

        This comment was supposed to be deleted when I hit the delete during the review cycle but it didn’t. Ignore this one and use the one below.

  11. AJ

    Having just finished reading the Opinion, I’m left with a question. What happens if someone receives the exact same sentence at the exact same time in a non-3rd-Circuit State (i.e. registration as part of judgment) and then moves to PA? Would the migrant be “in custody” too, or could PA impose the restrictions because the judgment was not in a PA court? What if the registration term has expired in the convicting State (thus no longer “in custody” no matter what)? Can PA impose the new requirements? Wouldn’t that be taking someone “in[to] custody”…without trial or due process?

    This case is a very interesting one indeed! My fear is that we may “lose” if it goes to SCOTUS…if they agree with the Decision or don’t see a burning issue, they will simply deny cert., leaving a whole bunch of RCs out in the cold. Then again, perhaps this could be a Circuit split SCOTUS decides it must resolve. After all, the jurists in this Opinion outright say they have ruled contrary to sister circuits–though different facts presented.

    This Opinion made…and makes..me smile. As someone else said, another nail in the coffin. And let’s not forget, losing parties in lawsuits typically have to pay the winner’s court costs and attorney fees. I wonder how many expensive cases States like PA and MI want to take on. Maybe they should start thinking things through. Here’s an idea…86 the whole BS thing. Or if not ready for that leap, make it LE-only info and not on DLs, IDs, websites, postings, mailings, newspaper ads, signs on public property, billboards, etc. Naw….86 it.

    • David

      @ AJ: I’m not sure what you’re talking about as far as SCOTUS denying cert.
      SCOTUS has already accepted the case and has already heard the oral arguments. A ruling by SCOTUS is expected the next few months.

      • TS

        @David

        SCOTUS has accepted and heard oral arguments on this case when a decision was posted just two days ago by the 3rd?

        • AJ

          @David:
          As @TS pointed out, the Opinion to which I referred was the just-issued decision out of the 3rd Circuit. I’m unclear to which case you’re referring since my post was an original posting, not a reply to anyone else’s thoughts or words. So I ask the same question @TS asked…

  12. mike r

    Guess that was not such a ridiculous argument after all. That is crazy, in Juvenile Male they were arguing the something, but the 9th did not buy it. Was not argued correctly really. Every time a case is not argued correctly just makes it harder for the next guy….

    • mike r

      Look how they are always comparing apples and oranges to uphold statutes that are not analogous to what they are addressing. We just learned in critical theory English class that this is the classic False Use of Authority.
      Notice where it states in limited circumstances? That is because Juvenile Male was dealing with aggravated tier III offender juveniles whom do not have even have the same situations or rights as adults just to begin with. And the main difference is SORNA is tierd, even f it is flawed it is tiered, CA SORA is not currently.
      Litmon v, Harris, 768 F.3d 1231, 1247 (9th Cir. 2014)
      “That the registration period in Juvenile Male may be
      reduced from life to 25 years in limited circumstances, see
      670 F.3d at 1005, is not a material distinction. Litmon cannot
      cite any authorities suggesting that the registration
      requirement implicates the fundamental right to be free from
      restraint and relies on inapposite cases in the habeas context.
      Even if we could analogize to habeas cases, we held in Henry
      v. Lungren, 164 F.3d 1240 (9th Cir. 1999), that
      “[r]egistration, even if it must be done in person at the police
      station, does not constitute the type of severe, immediate
      restraint on physical liberty necessary to render a petitioner
      ‘in custody’ for the purposes of federal habeas corpus relief.”
      Id. at 1242.”

    • Tired Old Man

      @Mike r

      It is amazing that I see you make statements that a case was nor argued properly time and time again.

      I never realized that you must be a highly regarded appellant attorney; care to share some of your past cases and the opinions from the courts?

      • @TiredOldMan

        @miker does not have to justify his opinions with you about cases. He is entitled to his opinion just as you’re entitled to yours. He is also willing to put legal thought with opinions out there for others to read and consider, which could be helpful for someone as well as add to the discussion. He may come across gruff at times, but his heart means well where he is willing to wade out into an ocean of hatred towards registrants. Maybe you have some case opinions you’d like to share?

        • mike r

          Or how about even anything you have done or attempted to do to help yourself or others with registration? I’ve spent hundreds of hours and probably a couple grand now fighting my own battle, not wishing and wanting someone else to do it for me.

      • Chris f (@tiredoldman USA)

        Where have you been?

        I must have missed the part where you logically responded to one of Mike r’s posts with an opinion backed up by basic research and your opinion of it instead of just the erronious assumption that only lawyers are capable of reading the US constitution, laws, and cases.

        Why not read the cases and give us your own non lawyer opinion as well? If we leave the replies to just lawyers, there will be nobody here. How often does even Janice respond with a legal opinion and breakdown of the faults in a case? Links please.

  13. mike r @ Will

    “it is important to note that anybody that chooses to challenge the registry as a bill of attainder needs to do so with an extremely competent legal representation this is not something that should be handled pro se it could blow the whole thing up for all of us.”

    That would be fine if someone would have the guts or the cash or the intelligence to do so, but guess what???? I have yet to see any real challenge at all to the registry. Even the stupid ex post facto arguments are stupid baby steps that have actually achieved nothing more than setting a stage for real suits. Look, even where they have won on the issues no one is getting relief, legislatures or judges are just ignoring the rulings or working around them and manipulating every one involved. Pro se have been successful in cases, and even though it is a uphill battle it is achievable. Will Bassler, you are a hell of a smart guy and you have written some excellent arguments which are incorporated into part of my suit. Have faith. I think the 9th circuit is going to see it differently than the lower court on the bill of attainder issue I argued. The reputation issue that was just recommended by the Magistrate recently to dismiss is still in the hands of the real judge so we will have to see what he thinks, and than it is off to the 9th we those claims as well. It would be nice to see some real effort by others when I do get to the 9th, but guess what, NO it will not happen. You know why??? I am just going to say it whether you or anyone else likes me or the truth. None of you give a rats ass. You all talk a good story about how this should be or that should happen, while you are sitting at home on your frigging comps. doing ????shit instead of researching and drafting or editing or suggesting or helping in any way. I have had the help of two people Mainly. AJ and Chris F. Sure, a couple of others have pitched in here and there, but no other warriors. No orgs. will touch it, no help researching as the AG has her entire team of attorneys and unlimited funding. I need people to go on Ross and put it in your favorites, and search every case that I need researched in order to get this done. Think it will happen, Hell no….. None of you give a rats ass. Even if I lose and set a bad precedent I am not even going to blame myself. I blame each and everyone of you…. I am doing my part………..Peace………..

    • Phil

      I agree. I continually post comments that for some reason people continue to argue the rules of the registration… NOT THE REGISTRATION ITSELF… they attack the rules of it as if the registration itself is even legal and ethical.

      I thought about getting together a campaign, if each person required to register would fork over $300 for legal fees to a law firm who specializes in Constitutional Law, they would have millions of dollars to fund their attack on the system. I have been compiling information / research publications from our very own government, pubished at the federal level and state levels also. They have had this information for decades… yet they continuall lie to the public. I plan to send everything I have to some constitutional law firms and see what kind of feed back i get on the concept of getting a class action law suite going and the idea of campaigning for $300 fee per person to get the ball rolling.

      It seems so obvious, but they keep arguing the rules of the registration, not the registration itself??

      • Steve

        I’m in for $300

      • AJ

        @Phil:
        Unless someone can come up with a way to convince SCOTUS that it’s decision in Smith was wrong, there’s no traction regarding the legality of registration itself. No court in the land can go contrary to Smith. Period. So unless/until a case can be brought which attacks Smith while at the same time being enough of a different question to allow a court to rule around (though not contrary to) Smith, there’s no path to SCOTUS.

        What comprises said registration (AKA the rules) *does* have traction, though with mixed results across the courts and States. Getting SCOTUS interested in *that* is perhaps how the scheme itself can get smacked down. Perhaps.

        Want “proof” a direct attack on Smith can’t get anywhere? I refer you to Boyd and Bethea, both denied cert. this Term.

    • norman

      There are 3,565 registered sex offenders in Sacramento County and, when I went to Janices’ latest meeting in West Sac..There were about 50 registered citizens in attendance..disappointing indeed…where were the other 3,515??

      • RegistrantNotAnOffender

        I use to wonder the same thing but when you go on reddit there are plenty of people who are scared to leave their home. And then you have probation officers who tell registrants they cannot go to those things or they have conditions that prohibit them from being around other registrants or felons

      • AJ

        @norman:
        Unaware of the meeting. Can’t risk time off work–feeling lucky to HAVE work. Can’t afford the trip on what meager resources they can muster. Have accepted their plight. PO won’t let them attend. Apathy.

        In short, there are many reasons for not attending.

  14. mike r

    Here is the link for Ross just an case any of you want to man or woman up when I need you…
    https://app.rossintelligence.com/?&_ga=2.224866012.774452204.1551515146-1876229496.1546029975#/answers/case-law

    We could have a legal team here that would put the AG’s to shame if we all wanted to and tried. Many of us on here are much smarter, and have skin in the game, than their team.
    Very easy, all you do is copy and paste whatever case I post and read that particular case and report back to me. Simple as hell. That is all the frigging help I ask of anyone. Some of you people on here are smart ass hell. Every case that I research that is cited by any of these lame ass judges or the AG or whomever I look at the case and they are lying about what the case actually states. I do not think that is to much to ask for fighting for all of us. Will it happen??????????? Doubt it. Look at my latest brief, everyone on e of the 9th cases I have researched that the Magistrate and AG have cited have been debunked and shown their irrelevance or false use of authority or straight lies on what was stated. I cannot look at them all. I am in college doing major science degrees and fighting this and being a father, grandfather, husband, brother, uncle, and friend all at the same time, including spending bank. What are you people doing????

  15. more

    You guys are pretty awesome there at ACSOL I have to admit. Thank you, and for what it is worth, tell Janice personally thank you.

    • mike r

      ‘More,’ how the hell did I put my moniker as ‘more???’ :)……….That was in relation to the platform and posting what I just state, and for everything they have done, because they really have done more than anyone else in this arena……

  16. mike r

    So, I just realized the AG did not even care to respond to my objections. Either she is so confident that she felt she need not respond as she did to the last objections, or shamed by what I stated about how she should admire, let me state exactly what I stated,
    “Plaintiff wishes to include key statements by Attorney General Dana Nessel from the State of Michigan challenging Michigan’s Sex Offender Registry. With all due respect, Defendant should admire Attorney General Nessel’s courage, and the courage of Solicitor General Fadwa A. Hammoud’s, and Assistant Solicitor General Ann M. Sherman’s, to admit the truth, and to attempt to do something about it.”
    or she could not defend against what I wrote and the debunking of every case she or the Magistrate brought.. We will see……

  17. mike r@Tired Old Man

    Please post this ACSOL as Tired Old Man is asking for explanation apparently.
    How about the case I just cited there? I spelled it out before but ACSOL did not post it. Let me try a scaled down model so you can see specifically what I am talking about since you obviously do not comprehend off of what I already just showed you. And whomever write the @Tired Old Man defending my right to an opinion. 🙂
    Now,
    Litmon is citing Juvenile Male as analogous, which in turn cites Henry as analogous for restrained liberties. These are apples and oranges and a false use of authority because Henry is NOT analogous to either of those cases. Let me prove this point, and hopefully they will post this, I am going to scale this down to just the relevant statements and hopefully you can follow along.

    In Henry,
    “The laws are very similar in their essentials, each requiring a convicted sex offender to provide address and other background information, fingerprints, and a photograph to the local law enforcement authority. >>>>California law is more restrictive in requiring annual registration (i.e once a year)<<>>Washington requires a one-time registration upon release from custody, coupled with an annual address verification procedure. (procedure, not even in-person)<<<>>>>>>>>>Both states require an individual to reregister upon change of address. (change of address only)<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>The >>>minimal differences<<<>>do not justify<<< a different result for Henry.<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>does not constitute the type of severe, immediate restraint on physical liberty necessary to render a petitioner “in custody” <<>>>>>Both states require an individual to reregister upon change of address.<<<<<<<<<>>>2 obligations at most.<<<>> as is, and as in juvenile Male<<< about in-person reporting requirements (much more requirements by order of magnitude) as explained by the Opinion – US Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit- which is actually not materially different and is analogous to CA's SORA, and in federal SORNA that was at issue in Juvenile Male. Not to mention tiered system and were dealing with juveniles (adults have very different situations and fundamental rights that matybe abridged than juveniles whom cant even be married, have children, homes, jobs, a plethora of other differences, were tier III offenders, and proportional limited duration requirements).
    But let me keep just this to be as brief as possible.
    "• Change his name;
    • Change his residence or become transient;
    • Begin a new job or lose previous
    employment;
    • Matriculate or end enrollment as a student; (this alone requires me to report in-person LE 3 more times a year)
    • Add or change a phone number;
    • Add, change, or terminate ownership or
    operatorship of a car or other motor vehicle,
    and, as part of that visit, provide his license
    plate number, VIN number, and location
    where the vehicle will be stored;
    • Commence or change “temporary lodging;”
    • Add, change, or terminate any email address
    or other online designation; or
    • Add, change, or terminate any information
    related to an occupational or professional
    license.
    If Piasecki were to become homeless, he was required to
    “appear in person monthly and to be photographed.” Prior to
    any international travel, Piasecki had to “appear in person at an
    approved registration site no less than 21 days” before his
    anticipated departure."

    Now if you cannot see a material distinction from the statute in Henry and CA statute than I do not know what to tell you other than I feel for ya.

    This does not even encompass every time I must register in-person. I counted 32 different obligations as compared to the law in Henry that required 2.

    This is exactly what I mean by lying i.e false use of authority.
    This is exactly why the 3rd circuit here found that the statute does reach the threshold of in-costudy as the 9th circuit should have found in Litmon (which we absolutely have a fundamental right to jury trial and all the protections of the constitution before having in-custody obligations placed upon us) except that it used the false use of authority to uphold a significantly different statute by order of magnitude (I like those words because they are fitting).
    Hope that clears it up for you…. If you want to see this spelled out in more detail and see the multiple times (that I have had a chance to discover because I get very little to no help except from the ones mentioned, and do not have a team of attorneys) the 9th has done this look at my latest brief if you have not.
    https://ufile.io/2u462

    • mike r

      Supposed to be quotation marks in there, sorry a little confusing without them.

      Both states require an individual to reregister upon change of address.<<<<<<<<>>>2 obligations at most.

  18. mike r

    And if I had the time to really research and locate my re-sentencing where I got my 85% time reduced to 50% I could show you that, or my accompanying 602 appeal that was approved by the Warden at prison adjusting my good time credits and release date. If I had time to dig up my demur that I beat a DUI with I could show you that, that included at DMV as well during arbitration. Or how about the time I sued a business for 5 grand because of a sidewalk in front of their business that was out of whack by about 5 inches and won, I could show you that. I could go on but whatever, like stated I do not have to justify my opinions especially when addressed like you did @TiredOldMan… What is up with the attitudes on here all the time. Is TiredOldMan really USA again???? LMAO….

  19. mike r

    Oh and my apology for being so harsh and rude must have got deleted some how. I was just hell of mad but I should not be rude to others. I am trying my best to be civil. Even my wife has to remind me sometimes when I get angry not to act uncivilized. Lmao. I just grew up where if you had something to say or a problem you dealt with it in any manner necessary. Many times it was with violence back in the day. At least is it just words I use now. 🙂 Shit everyone I grew up with including all my older brothers friends and just everyone was violent back then.
    Anyways I apologize, but the facts remain the same…

    • mike r

      That was uncivilized with other men, gov officials, or just ignorant people sometimes, not her. Lol…

  20. Two States East

    This 3rd Circuit decision is covered in detail on Registry Matters podcast #66 which comes out tomorrow. It is covered in the last 20 minutes of the podcast. Some of the points brought out: The decision only covers Federal habeous corpus proceedings; not individual States. The decision only applies to Pennsylvania. It only allows him to proceed with habeous. Will it get to SCOTUS ? Anyway, the twenty minute discussion is well worth listening to.

  21. HOOKSCAR

    So my question would be this. Now that it is becoming more clear the the registry itself is punitive, when are all the other state activists going to challenge CLASS ACTION? It is ridiculous that after 20+ years of studies and empirical evidence and facts that only residency restrictions or education restrictions are addressed.
    I’m not getting any younger. My son is getting older. 20 years on this hit list is long enough. I WILL BE THE FIRST TO PUT MY NAME ON A CLASS ACTION CHALLENGE TO THE REGISTRY USING HABEAS CORPUS AS THE ARGUMENT.
    Using the judgement of the 3rd circuit will give a precedent ruling. No excuses anymore for this not to happen. Anyone else?

  22. mike r@Another case AG LIED

    Man they are just screwing us every which way because no one questions their citations. Absolutely insane. They just pick a case that states sex offender in it and make up any BS they want.
    The AG cites Doe v. Harris,640 F.3d 972 (9th Cir. 2011) as somehow authority. This case is a plea agreement contract argument and has absolutely nothing to do with Hatton, or any other issue outside of a plea bargain agreement issue.
    Here is what the question was,
    “The question of law to be answered is:
    Whether, under California law, the default rule of contract interpretation is (a) that the law in effect at the time of a plea agreement binds the parties, or (b) that the terms of a plea agreement may be affected by changes in law.”

    This is why Ross is so important. I cannot find this actual case except on Ross, the AG surely knows this and does not figure I am smart enough or have the resources to access exact cases that are not readily available through Google.

    Here is what the AG cited in one of her responses to the first Objection to the MFR when i was arguing against Hatton, you see there is no 9th circuit CA case upholding CA’s internet publication and this B*^%^*% is using this as authority.
    “Because the Supreme Court has already upheld an identical requirement, there is no reason to believe that the Ninth Circuit would have decided Hatton differently if, at that time, Megan’s Law imposed an Internet publication requirement. In addition, the Ninth Circuit did not deviate from Hatton in Doe v. Harris, 640 F.3d 972 (9th Cir. 2011), a 2011 decision post-dating the amendment to Megan’s Law in 2004. Harris, 640 F. 3d 972,975 n.3;Cal. Pen. Code $290.46; Assemb. B. 488, 2003 2004 Reg. Sess. (Cal. 2004).”

    Hatton explains in half the opinion how CA’s 290 was not on the internet,
    “By contrast, § 290 does not allow dissemination of registration information on the Internet, nor does it allow dissemination of information about registrants’ employers.3  See Cal.Penal Code §§ 290(m)(4), 290.4.  The California statute also regulates public inquiries to the registry.   See id. § 290.4. Unlike other states that post their entire registries on Internet websites, California allows public inquires to the registry in only two ways:  through toll calls to a telephone number or in person at a local police station.   See id. § 290.4(a)(3)-(4).  The California statute requires members of the public to satisfy certain conditions in order to obtain access, and it restricts what information will be released to members of the public.” https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1370148.html

    Even if the case was analogous and included an internet notification requirement (which it did not) it indeed deviated from Hatton BIG time. Just a little different than today’s CA SORA I would say…

    This is just another example of this false use of authority over and over and over and over again……..BS man……… They are creating case law with legal manipulations and straight up lies………… Oh I am going to slam the 9th hard for what it is worth. This shit needs to brought to the attention of legal scholars and constitutionalist orgs. and the the State Bar. Something has to be done about this. And @Tiredoldman (or USA, LMAO) says lawyers are god. Shit, they are scandalous as hell and are blatantly violating the canons and foundations of jurisprudence and constitutional law.

    • TS

      @miker

      Phenomenal finds you are getting! Keeping bringing them forth for us to read!

      I talked to one of many attys long ago who admitted they are recognized as bottom feeders mostly by the public but there are a few who are doing their best to stay above that level, which I have seen in person. We need more Perry Mason type attys for the masses.

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 *

Michael Dickson Womens Jersey