ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings | Recordings (05/21 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings



General News

SCOTUS: Court poised to rule for challenger in dispute over constitutionality of sex-offender law

This morning the Supreme Court heard oral argument in a dispute over the constitutionality of a federal law that requires convicted sex offenders to return to prison for at least five years – and possibly for the rest of their lives – if a judge finds that they have committed certain crimes. The defendant in the case, an Oklahoma man who served time for possessing child pornography and was then sent back to prison after he violated the terms of his supervised release, argues that the law violates his right to have his sentence determined by a jury, rather than a judge, beyond a reasonable doubt. Today the justices seemed overwhelmingly likely to agree with him, even if it was not entirely clear how they will remedy the constitutional violation. Full Analysis

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t
  4. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  5. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  6. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  7. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  8. 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.
  9. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  10. Please do not post in all Caps.
  11. 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.
  12. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  13. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  14. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people
  15. Please do not solicit funds
  16. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), or any others, the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  17. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  18. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email 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.  
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

“Lunn resisted, telling Ginsburg that bringing a jury trial into the supervised-release system would create problems, but that response drew criticism from some justices.”

My guess is this “problem” would pure resources of both money and finding juror’s. This exact issue is why pretty much everyone on prosecution is usually looking to cut a deal instead of going to trial (I think the figure is something like 93% of cases never go to trail). However, this problem is irrelevant when it comes to justice as it’s “blind” to the burdens of the people may have imposing justice.

Which really brings us back to the registry and the fact that pretty much all registries skirt any real evaluations of each person’s case, and instead take a shortcut to arbitrarily lock people in purely based on the penal code they were prosecuted on (which in itself can be applied to a huge degree of actions all falling under the same penal code). I’m curious if this should fall in our favor (and judging by the article seems like it will), if this can then be used to attack the registry itself based on the fact that not even the judge, but a politician, having a say of how long individuals may have to spend on the registry?

It would certainly be refreshing to have SCOTUS rule in favor of the defendant (offender). I hope the briefs and any supporting amicus briefs help enlighten the Justices about the unreasonable (and unconstitutional) requirements, regulations & restrictions continuously being heaped upon those convicted of sexual offenses.

Wow, what a read.

It’s an interesting tact to the justices counter arguments. The politics in play, the history.

The law in question as I understood it is when there is a preponderance of evidence of a particular parole/probation violation, all parole/probation is revoked and an additional 5 years is added to the original sentence. Even the revocation judge should have known that wouldn’t fly long.

Like I have been stating for years as well. They cannot make you do more parole or sentence you to more time past your maximum allowed by the statute that you were convicted under. Cannot happen, unconstitutional, absolutely blatant disregard for due process!!!!!!!!!!!!! They had to kick me off parole 6 months early because of this exact reason. Anyone on parole past their max sentence is being violated. Why Janice or other attorneys are not fighting this is beyond me. Then to get sentenced for a violation of parole to more time than your max sentence for not committing a new crime absolutely triggers a jury.

Even the mandatory max is unconstitutional as it is the judge just as Chris has stated that has to sentence you, those max and min are just guidelines so there is no such thing as max and minimum sentences. Whatever that judge sentences you to, that is your sentence, no if and or ambiguities whatsoever. I always said, “what the hell is wrong with people on parole or serving sentences past their max. Each and everyone of you or them MUST file their 602 appeal demanding release at their max sentence date and sue the hell out of CDCR if they do not end parole after your max r release you from prison at your max. I would have even maybe fell for it except that I went back to re-sentencing and demanded during that sentencing to have the judge tell CDCR what my max release date was on the record because my original PD was allowing them to add on six months to my sentence and then CDCR was trying to add on another extra six months of parole at the standard 3 years back then. No I got out 6 months earlier than my estimated early release date and off parole at my max date. Does not take a lawyer to know this or to file for monetary damages that are already in the statutes for those spending time in custody against the law. Not only that it is a major felony for false imprisonment…….
Until people stand up and fight they are getting what they deserve, burnt because everyone has to fight for freedom, it is not nor has it ever been free. I be go to hell if I would trust CDCR to calculate my time and add more time on me than my max sentence by a judge. Crazy talk…. I would have even did 85% if I just lay down and took what CDCR was giving me. I should have and turned around and sued the shit out of them, but I wanted out to be with my son and other family members.

This is the case with registration violations. They cannot just state you violated registration requirements and throw you in prison, they MUST give each and everyone a jury trial on each and every count which has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that you violated the registration statutes. Frigging people stand up man…………….. Or take what you get for not standing up for freedom when your country is under attack by these domestic terrorist, CDCR, Parole, DAs, AGs, these are the terrorist. Even most of the cops are just doing their jobs, it is the ones that I pointed out that are the culprits and you people just lie down and complain, but yet take it in the A^&^$&^$& with out any lube……. Get pissed at me, yell and scream. But this is the truth… Handle it or do something about it………

Sorry man, I am just so pissed off watching people get screwed and them doing nothing about it. Toss in the court treating me as some lame and not taking me serious because I am pro se and none of these orgs will help me. Top that off with the fact that no RCs file file file and I am inflamed…. If you had thousands of people standing up for their rights the court would have to take notice and do something about it. It is in the statutes that if a law creates so much chaos and litigation that it swamps the court’s ability to function the law must be clarified and justified to where the court can just say nope denied. When you have one guy filing the court thinks it can just dismiss him because he is pro se and no one else is complaining so who cares. SCOTUS and the 9th are going to care I bet, but until then who knows, The judge is going to have a hard time not taking my last filing seriously I can tell you that. Unless hundreds of people file file file then a pro se must be exact and precise. Well that last filing is both.

Look this is just the first case that came up on the subject,

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled Wednesday that it is unconstitutional for sex offenders who have completed their sentences to be subject to lifetime supervision by the state’s Parole Board, declaring that only judges have the authority to order additional jail time for criminal violations.

The 6-1 decision ordered an end to the state Parole Board’s oversight of an estimated 300 sex offenders — oversight that allowed the board to impose jail sentences for parole violations — in a ruling that many lawyers declared a victory for due process. But victims’ rights advocates and a state prosecutor said they fear the decision removes a critical safeguard.

6-1 my friends… Parole is a part of your sentence. It is a, I hate this saying but it is apropos here, a no brainer…….. CDCR needs to be sue out of existence over this by tens of thousands of people. Where the hell are the pro bonos on this. It is a slam dunk monetary suit….. Janice??????????????

On a separate note, did anyone read Timbs v Indiana.
The 8th amendment now applies to states. If you read the opinions of Thomas and Gorsuch they speak directly to cruel and unusual punishment.
I cannot think of a group more amerced than RSO.

Yeah see, the justices are saying what I have been trying to tell people on here for years,

Now, if that’s the case, I look at the
statute here. What does the statute say? I
think it says 10 years. Right? So, if, in
fact, it’s 10 years, then because of tradition,
cases, E, he served five, he has supervised
release of five, and so you can send him back
to jail because of fact X as long as you don’t
go beyond 10.
But, if you go beyond 10, just as you
needed to find the fact by a jury in basic
Apprendi, so you should have to find the fact
by the jury here, because there’s no real

Now do people believe me? How about any civil rights orgs that want to do pro bono, for monetary damages in a sure slam dunk case. They would be, well to be polite, something wrong with any attorney that wants money not to do. Anyone that is doing time or parole probation beyond the statutory maximum sentence has a monetary claim and CDCR is committing a felony false imprisonment…

This oral argument is classic. See these justices take their job and the constitutional rights seriously, we just have to get the right case in front of them like this. They are going slam the states so hard it will be comical watching them, squirm like this guy is doing.

Repeatably stating it,

JUSTICE KAGAN: Mr. Feigin, you keep
talking about the parole cases, but the parole
cases are cases that are very different from
Justice Breyer’s hypothetical because, by
definition in parole, you cannot serve longer
than your original sentence.

Anyone on parole past their max sentence need to copy this oral argument and sue CDCR immediately for discharge from parole and cash payment for every day you were kept past your max sentence. Plain and simple. Wii anyone??? NO!!!! Why??? frigging beyond me, scared of CDCR? not even a smigging of competency? do not believe every SCOTUS justice? cannot read or write? I have to say it-how about just plain stupid? Does not get any plainer than the oral argument.

According to the oral, registration is a criminal statute attached to your original sentence because the registration statute imposes criminal penalties by definition because a violation triggers a jury trial. This is exactly the same situation that the court is addressing. This is HUGE!!!!!!!!!!!
Because registration is triggered by a conviction it is attached to that conviction, and because it creates new penalties for an element that has to be proven by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt makes the statute a criminal penalty statute attached to your original sentence. The key word is PENALTY!!!! Punishment, beyond the original sentence.
Put in other words, what at is to stop the legislature from stating in the registration statute that a violation is the death penalty?? Let that sink in.
So they would be allowing a death sentence for an infraction of a statute that is attached to you because of a previous conviction of a crime that you have already served your maximum sentence for. This would be permissible if a jury found you guilty of the offense for which you violated the statute, but the would raise all kinds of 8th and 6th amendment issues, but that is not what I am stating and pointing out. The justices are calling this type of attachment beyond your sentence a penalty and that a jury has to find beyond a reasonable doubt you committed the element of the offense. Penalty=punishment…….
This seems hard to wrap your brain around, but it is in fact very basic logic. It is the something being addressed, adding parole to your sentence beyond the max.
Like I stated, a HUGE PRECEDENT is going to be set here. And it is not a sex offender so the justices are really free to do as they please in this arena without any backlash from the mobs.

I’m so confused. I had a felony 311.11(a) was sentenced to max 1 year at the time but had 3 years probation after.

Yep from what I am understanding the only way this can be used for us, and it is huge, is that registration is punishment because it is mandatory attached to a conviction “and” it has criminal penalties for violations that require a jury finding of fact. It is in fact a constitutional statute, in this sense, because it requires a jury trial to prove violations, but according to the justices anything that is attached to the original conviction, whether it be extra parole with violation penalties or registration with violation penalties, is punishment beyond the maximum allowed by statute. IDK know I am still trying to digest this. I understand that they are calling it punishment if you do not have a jury trial, but are they stating a jury trial remedies the constitutional issues. It appears the justices and the petitioners were struggling to understand or make clear this exact question…….. This seems to be the real argument happening, what is the remedy? Do they strike the statute completely or does the parole agency get to initiate a criminal proceeding with a jury trial? I want to know what the remedy is…. That is the meat. If a jury trial is the remedy that triggers the conversion from a penalty into a completely separate proceeding is that no longer considered a penalty arising from the original conviction? therefore permissible? Wow, interesting. I understand it now completely. And the justices did not really give away what the answer will be………….

Thank you everyone for your responses.

Only Justice Samuel Alito seemed to be squarely on the government’s side, warning that a ruling for Haymond could potentially “bring down the entire supervised release system.” As a result, much of the second half of the oral argument focused less on whether the law was unconstitutional and more on what should happen next.
What?!?!? Alito rubber-stamp siding with the Government and against the citizen? Nooo…. (*shocked face*)

All precisely because US Congress embraced and utilized “Was in prison for a sex crime.”
Congress itself embraced the language when they knew better. The constitution itself forbids the use of that language. I plan to hold politicians accountable for their decision to embrace manifest evil.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x