ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings: May 18 – Sacramento, July 20 – Berkeley [details]
April 20 Meeting Audio [Listen / Download]

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

ACSOL Conference June 14/15 in Los Angeles

National

NY: Gov. Cuomo Supports Banning Sex Offenders From Subway

You see all kinds of things on the subways, but if one New York City lawmaker has his way, repeat sex offenders won’t be among them.

City Councilman Chaim Deutsch’s proposed ban is designed to prevent certain sex offenders from taking public transportation, CBS2’s Jessica Moore reported Wednesday. Full Article

UPDATE 4/2: NEW YORK LAWMAKERS WANT TO BAN SEX OFFENDERS FROM THE SUBWAY. THAT WON’T SOLVE ANYTHING. (Commentary)

Join the discussion

  1. Harry

    CBS2 allows anyone to vote on the question “Do you support banning repeat sex offenders from the subway?” I voted NO. Their results is contrary to what the TV station is reporting, which is about 2/3 against the ban.

    • AJ

      @Harry:
      It also appears one can vote repeatedly..or so it appears from the 8-10 votes I cast and the resulting percentage changes. 😀

      • TS

        @AJ

        I need you to step aside please for casting for more than one ballot in this unscientific poll and sign your name, residence, vehicles, emails, pets, phone, favorite activities, and place of employment on this piece of paper saying you are a “voting more than one time offender” every 3 days with the $87.50 fee payable each time in cash or charge only (no, no green stamps, box tops, coupons or discounts will be accepted). NEXT!! 🙂

        • Mp

          lol…..Some times you just got to have a sense of humor (shhhh – I voted two)

        • AJ

          @TS:
          Just to poke you in the eye, I voted enough to move the needle over one percentage point. Hah! Catch me if you can.

          Aw shucks, I’ve committed multiple Opinion Poll offenses, I guess I’m banned from any more Opinion polls.

        • TS

          I’ll plead the fifth on whether I pulled more than one hanging electronic chad here. 😉

  2. Ron s

    Will they ban known pick pockets? How about drunks and junkies that harass people daily? How about drug dealers? Those are all people who have rates of recividism astromomically higher than registered citizens. This is just another feel good policy that makes power hungry do nothing politicians seem like they are making the world safe when in fact it makes it more dangerous. The empirical evidence provides data that is the complete opposite of what these people are legislating for. It’s incredibly disheartening that the folks we put in office prefer to legislate based on fear and not facts.

  3. mike r

    This is absolutely insanely out of control. Also, researching a little here. Where in any constitution does it give congress the power to register an individual for a criminal offense? Where in any state constitution does it give a legislative branch the authority to register an individual because of a criminal conviction? Probation and parole are self proclaimed by the legislatures as different as they are part of the punishment.
    The federal government is way out of its authority for a fact (National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 (2012)), but I do not believe the states have the power under their respective constitutions either.

    “Each of those mandates—to report for jury duty, to register for the draft, to purchase firearms in anticipation of militia service, to exchange gold currency for paper currency, and to file a tax return—are based on constitutional provisions other than the Commerce Clause. See Art. I, § 8, cl. 9 (to “constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court”); id., cl. 12 (to “raise and support Armies”); id., cl. 16 (to “provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia”); id., cl. 5 (to “coin Money”); id., cl. 1 (to “lay and collect Taxes”).”

    Digest this part,
    “If the power to “regulate” something included the power to create it, many of the provisions in the Constitution would be superfluous.”

    • mike r

      Man why do I keep coming back to this case? It has been in and out of my sphere for years now and just seems consequential. These types of statements seem extremely relevant but I just cannot comprehend how yet.

      “Congress already enjoys vast power to regulate much of what we do. Accepting the Government’s theory would give Congress the same license to regulate what we do not do, fundamentally changing the relation between the citizen and the Federal Government.”

      This part right here is really grabbing my attention,

      “Our precedents recognize Congress’s power to regulate “class [es] of activities,” Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 17, 125 S.Ct. 2195, 162 L.Ed.2d 1 (2005) (emphasis added), not classes of individuals, apart from any activity in which they are engaged, see, e.g., Perez, 402 U.S., at 153, 91 S.Ct. 1357 (“Petitioner is clearly a member of the class which engages in ‘extortionate credit transactions’ …” (emphasis deleted)).”

      IDK, maybe I am just grasping again…

    • mike r

      It is as though the states are creating us as a class in order to regulate us. But we are not an activity. Where is your power to regulate us then?
      Think about this for a minute, they regulate driving, hunting, fishing, boating, flying, hell walking down a street, and a plethora of criminal activity. “Activities” Hmmmmmm. Price club membership=activity…..

      • Concerned Registrant (the original)

        @MikeR
        Here is the activity: Regulate living.

        • mike r

          No that isn’t going to fly. That would once again give big gov unlimited power making the constution superfluous.

    • AJ

      @mike r:
      Ok, I’ve done a little digging and thinking, each and both being hazardous events at times. Before addressing your points, recall that in Smith SCOTUS declared registration to be a “regulatory scheme that [is] civil and nonpunitive.” That means it is some form of regulation, and the Federal and State powers to regulate derive from different places. Now, to your points:
      *****
      “Where in any constitution does it give congress the power to register an individual for a criminal offense?”
      —–
      It’s not explicitly stated in the Constitution, but over the years SCOTUS has been “kind enough” to expand Congress’ enumerated powers. As such, the Commerce Clause is allowed to be used to regulate all sorts of existing activities. I say “existing activities” as that was a pinch point in Sebelius. Under the Commerce Clause, Congress cannot compel or create activity, only regulate that which already occurs. That Congress determined the regulated class to be a subset of criminal offenders probably is not something that would trouble any court.
      =====

      “Where in any state constitution does it give a legislative branch the authority to register an individual because of a criminal conviction?”
      —–
      It may or may not exist in any State constitutions, but it doesn’t need to. The 10th Amendment gives States all powers that aren’t enumerated and delegated to the Federal government elsewhere in the Constitution. This is commonly referred to as “police power,” and that power is quite broad. As SCOTUS touched on in Sebelius, “[a]ny police power to regulate individuals as such, as opposed to their activities, remains vested in the States.” 567 U.S. 519 at 557. That SCOTUS so freely tossed it out there tells me it’s accepted without question that States can regulate individuals, criminal or otherwise.
      =====

      (From your post below) “This undoubtedly, or at least strongly suggest the feds do not have th[e] power [to regulate individuals], but what about the states? Do they have the constitutional authority to regulate ‘classes of individuals, apart from any activity in which they are engaged.'”
      —–
      Correct, and yes. The Feds can regulate activity via the Commerce Clause; States can regulate individuals via police power derived from the 10th Amendment. There’s a very fine line differentiating the two, and indeed they pretty much operate synonymously.
      =====

      The only razor-thin finger hold* I can even conceive of would be in trying to make an argument that the States have overstepped regulation of individuals through presence, occupation, residency, and other restrictions, and are now impacting interstate commerce (i.e. a Commerce Clause issue). I don’t see this as a tenable argument, though. I think a court would reject this line of thinking by deciding that Congress’s failure to act on said interference into interstate commerce means Congress is okay with it as it stands.
      *****

      That sums up my thoughts about what you’ve supplied across a few posts.

      Some thoughts about something else sprang up when I (again) stumbled across SCOTUS’ infamous Footnote Four (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/304/144/#T4 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Carolene_Products_Co.). Footnote Four says, “prejudice against discrete and insular minorities may be a special condition, which tends seriously to curtail the operation of those political processes ordinarily to be relied upon to protect minorities, and which may call for a correspondingly more searching judicial inquiry.” In other words, in some cases where a definable, smaller class of citizenry (“discrete and insular minorities”) cannot achieve change through the political process, the Court should apply heightened (read: intermediate) scrutiny to the legislation. Ironically, Footnote Four was attached to phrasing regarding Rational Basis scrutiny! If RCs don’t fit this definition, then I’m unsure who presently does.

      Possibly hampering usage of this avenue is the view by some that, “[Chief Justice] John G. Roberts Jr. has adopted a ‘post Carolene Products’ jurisprudence that no longer protects individual rights as much as it did during the Warren Court era” (https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/5/carolene-products-footnote-four). I may have to do some digging into contemporary use of Footnote Four.

      I suppose there’s only one way to find out how SCOTUS feels about it, right? 🙂 Were I in a position to take up the baton, I absolutely would. By the time those stars align I may well have gone well down another path that far better suits my situation.

      *Speaking of razor-thin finger holds, I highly recommend watching “Free Solo.” It moves pretty slowly for the most part, but the ending when the dude free-climbs El Capitan is pretty riveting.

  4. mike r

    Like I stated, maybe I am grasping, but this sure as hell seems incredibly relevant. Does anyone else see anything here.
    “not [regulate] classes of individuals, apart from any activity in which they are engaged”

    This undoubtedly, or at least strongly suggest the feds do not have that power, but what about the states? Do they have the constitutional authority to regulate “classes of individuals, apart from any activity in which they are engaged”

    • AJ

      @mike r:
      You certainly have me thinking….whether that’s good or bad, remains to be seen. As for the States being allowed to do it, I doubt it. State constitutions are constrained by the Federal Constitution, so it would seem (stressing: seem) that “freedom from regulation”, as I’m calling it, at the Federal level means likewise at the State level. States can add more restrictions than the Feds, or States can add more liberties than the Feds; they cannot to the converse of either.

      • mike r

        Yeah, sounds pretty ambiguous there that the gov cannot regulate individuals, but only action. That is still my take. They may claim recidivism is the action, but that is a created action as it is not eminent. Just as how the petitioners in the Obamacare case were not actively engaged in healthcare even though that is eminent. Recidivism is not even eminent and we are actively engaged in recidivism. Seems kind of analogous to me. AJ, put that thinking cap on, kind of interesting idea, huh? It seems SCOTUS straight stated you cannot regulate an individual absent some action.

    • Notorious D.I.K. / Kennerly

      Mike, the states can not deny liberties which the federal government acknowledges.

  5. Worried in Wisconsin

    At one time in history, the laws a person followed were dependent on that person’s status – male v. female, slave v. master, royal v. peasant, landowner v. serf, etc. It made no difference what city you were from, what country you were from – what mattered was your status in most things you did.

    Fast forward to the US – we were established as a country using a new concept. All citizens were to be provided the same rights and obligations regardless of status and only dependent on where you lived. All citizens of one state were to be treated equally in the eyes of the law, landowner and renter alike. It has not been a perfect system, but up till recently at least it was the system.

    Now, it’s clear that we’ve reverted to a system where ones status is the key to determining which laws apply, which regulations are in place, and how restrictive the government is permitted to make ones life. We’ve been assigned the status of ‘registered sex offender’ and with that came a whole new set of laws/rules/etc.

    My question is this: Under what authority did the US Federal government and the various state governments begin regulating us by status? Now that the cat’s out of the bag, we’re already seeing the creation of other undesirable types of status. I believe we’re witnessing the beginning of a change much larger than we imagine – one that will eventually go far beyond us.

    • Notorious D.I.K. / Kennerly

      Worried: There are still, indeed, “status offenses” although that term usually gets applied to minors, their “status” being that they are not adults. Still, clearly, it applies to us, too. There’s no way that the regulations of “sex offenders” are not “status offenses.” There are more status offenses than ever before but somehow the term is not being used to describe these criminal penalties imposed upon “sex offenders.” The systematic degradation of classes of individuals is completely predicated on the existence of status. All of the “civil” regulations to which we are subjected are, when violated, status offenses.

    • TS

      @Worried in WI

      Well stated with full my agreement in what you wrote. I will add to what @NDIK wrote that many of the low hanging fruit common sense laws have been thought of WRT people and to remain elected, one must think of screwing the electorate one paper cut at a time until their time in office is no more. At the rate things are going, I believe, there could be critical mass of enough screwed people one way or another that the Warriors (movie reference) will collectively come out to play which won’t be pretty for many.

      BTW, hope you and yours are safe in the WI area given the rapid melting of the snow from last week’s snowstorm.

  6. Jr.

    Here’s a chance for NYC registrants to get money from these people via lawsuits. It’s an argument agains them same as Connecticut’s, recently. Lawsuit for defamation, perpetuating myths, banishment…..

  7. Two States East

    Tightly compacted together in standing room only, I committed a subway-specific sex offense: I’m born and bred N.Y.C. and took the subway each weekday to work. It was too tight if you ever dropped your paper while reading it (You had to fold the paper tightly to read it). But then it happened: I dropped the paper ! But it never made it to the ground, and wedged itself between two ladies posteriors. What to do ? So I went for it, and sure enough both ladies felt someone grazing around their rumps ! I tried several quick apologies, and after a while things calmed down. But the offense was a done deal.

    • AJ

      @Two States East:
      “Tightly compacted together in standing room only, I committed a subway-specific sex offense[.]”
      —–
      Better be careful, or it will be, “No subway for you!” (Tip of the hat to “Seinfeld.”)

  8. অতিথি

    “Well, California did this a number of years ago and they have different criteria depending on the number of incidents. So it could be for 90 days. It could be 180 days. It could be a year,” said counsel to the governor Alphonso David.

    Pray tell — Can anybody fact check this statement?

    • Amanda

      I am a public defender in California and I have practiced in multiple counties across the state. The councilman’s statement regarding California is not correct. California has lifetime sex offender registration for ALL sex offenses, no matter how minor or how serious, but there are no bans from public transportation UNLESS (1) the offense occurred on public transportation AND (2) the person is placed on probation and is ordered to stay away from a specific place on the public transportation system. It is RARE to have a particular person be banned from the entire public transportation system (like…”you can’t use the BART light rail system while on probation”). Either way, such a ban would never be 90 days or 180 days. It would be for the duration of probation (which can range between 3 and 5 years). The only way it can be less than 3 years is by a specific agreement on a particular case between the DA, defense, and court, that someone can have their probation terminated earlier than that. Additionally, if someone is on parole or post-release community supervision after a state prison sentence, they can have a similar restriction, but – again – it does not apply to the entire public transportation system and ends when their supervision ends. All of this is on a case-by-case basis depending on the facts and circumstances of the alleged crime, and the person’s criminal history. It is not a blanket ban that applies to all registered sex offenders who commit more than one sex offense.

      • steve

        Thank you Amanda for your insight.

      • TS

        @Amanda

        That would be great to see in the comment section of the article in addition to correspondence sent to the Gov, Mayor, MTA Chief, Chief of Detectives, City Council, WLNY Editor, et al who should be aware of this misunderstanding with your ability to give credence to the correct data.

      • E

        “While under supervision” seems to be a key point here. Its not based upon their status as an RC, continuing even after supervision. This insidious growth continues. It’s like the creep of the blob and will keep overtaking us. Ugh.

      • mike r@Amanda

        @Amanda, hi how are you. lol…. Public Defender huh? Have you happened to have seen my case going through the district court? If interested you can check out the filings at https://mllkeys20112011.wixsite.com/mysite.
        I have an appointment with the University of the Pacific McGeorge and UC Davis School of law at the federal courthouse on April 12, but I could sure use some help from a qualified attorney. Be nice to have someone jump in with me. If not its cool, I get that a lot anyway. I really think that last filing titled Objections to the MFR #2 is very powerful myself. Matter of fact here is a link just to make it easier for whomever wants to read it.
        https://ufile.io/tw1v7

  9. Bo

    What about pick pockets? and trespassers? And people drink in public?

    And how will they enforce this, without impinging on the rights of others?

    More swiss cheese legislation

  10. Dreamin

    This must be one of those victories that will help bring down the registry.
    Those that support giving felons a second chance and support post incarceration rehabilitation don’t consider us felons. To them we are scum. As for rehab, we both don’t deserve it and can’t be rehabilitated. Banning us from public services is just a easy way to get around the defeat of residency restrictions.
    Sure, you can now live in a specific location, but if you try to commute to your job, doctor, or probation officer, we will arrest you for illegally using public transportation.

  11. Dreamin

    This must be one of those victories that will help bring down the registry.
    Those that support giving felons a second chance and support post incarceration rehabilitation don’t consider us felons. To them we are scum. As for rehab, we both don’t deserve it and can’t be rehabilitated. Banning us from public services is just a easy way to get around the defeat of residency restrictions.
    Sure, you can now live in a specific location, but if you try to commute to your job, doctor, or probation officer, we will arrest you for illegally using public transportation.
    Also, how can laws apply to a specific group while at the same time the registry criteria groups us all as one type (for the most part) that to me is hypocrisy. L.E. won’t differentiate, they will shhot first and ask questions later

  12. AJ

    “According to the NYPD, 2018 brought 866 reported subway sex crimes and 373 subsequent arrests. Cuomo said driving those numbers down will require legislative action.”
    —–
    According to the NY Times (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/01/nyregion/subway-ridership-nyc-metro.html), 2017 subway ridership was 1.73 Billion (yes, with a B) trips. So 866 reports equals 0.000051% of riders have *reported* a sex crime on the system, and 373 *arrests* equals an arrest rate of 0.000022%. Convictions would obviously be no more than 373 (probably less). That means about 1 arrest for every 4.6 Million rides.

    Yeah, this is definitely a problem.

    • Concerned Registrant (the Original)

      AJ, what are the statistics for a sexual abuse accusation based upon contact with a police officer?
      Might prove an interesting comparison.

    • TS

      They better have a pretty solid definition of what a subway SA is and prove the mens & actus rea because in one car alone when it is rush hour and packed, there could be many instances of it when someone is just brushing up against another person to move through the car or otherwise. Having ridden the WDC Metro for many years, it will only take one grumpy rider to lay a claim on a bad day to create a problem that is not existent.

      • TS

        It is related to “groping, grinding, and other lewd acts”. If the perceived act of groping, grinding, or lewd act is between two consenting people (not minors of course because they cannot consent to squat until 18) who may be dancing, in love, being amorous, or otherwise, can someone take offense to that, report it, and create an issue? What if there is pole dancing going on that can be construed as lewd, but it is actually artistic (seen that on the train in downtown NYC once)? Is adjusting one’s junk lewd? What about adjusting one’s breasts being possibly lewd? What if you have a wedgie and don’t want it anymore, would that be lewd? What if one has to scratch one’s own ass because it is itches or the ass of someone who wants you to scratch it for them? Is ventilating one’s shirt on a hot and humid NYC day where the full chest can be seen a lewd act that someone can take offense to?

        On a nuts to butts full train (to quote another writer here), it will only take one late train on a hot and humid NYC day to piss someone off with an innocent gesture before all hell breaks loose (night court anyone?). I’d be more worried about the intoxicated people on the train and the short fuses between people or the those who are not mentally fully there for whatever reason than the small percentage of what the good Gov is concerned about. Of course, the Gov doesn’t take the train anyway, he has a security limo to use or a heliport.

        Yes, one moving of one’s junk and adjusting one’s breasts, maybe on the same person even, could be two offenses and thus should be banned from public transportation where their tax dollars are at work to pay for it, schwetty balls and all… Out of control, definitely out of control.

        Yes, I am here to contest these charges, your honor, to adjusting myself twice on the same train ride for two offenses where I needed to but others took lewd offense, schwetty balls and all.

    • E

      Thanks @AJ. We made similar calculations when last year the FBI was saying lots of sex assaults are happening on air planes. And it ended up being a similar percentage to what you just figured out, with similarly billions of people flying each year (many people flying many times each). These people are CRAZY!

  13. American Detained in America

    More proof that voting for Democrats isn’t necessarily the answer.

  14. Eric

    Cuomo is a pathetic PC political puppet. He is a career politician who will say and do anything to manipulate or appease the masses. He will support a sanctuary city for people entering the country illegally, will deny MS 13 gang activities in his state, will push for soft on crime, and wants teachers to eliminate school suspensions, but alas, hard on sex offenders. Just amazing. He sells his sole for a vote.

    • NYLevel1

      Hi Eric,

      Correct spelling is ‘Soul’ however if your’e from Staten Island or the part of Brooklyn Deutsch represents you could use the word ‘Sole’ as ‘Dirt on my sole’.

      • ERic

        Yeah, it is commonly referred to as a typo among people who type quite a bit.

      • AJ

        @NYLevel1:
        Correct spelling is “you’re.” That karma swung around fast, didn’t it?

  15. Nicholas Maietta

    Wow, so how would people register if they cannot afford a cab or uber, and live far from the registration office (likely city PD)?

  16. USA

    Repeat! I just read the article. Repeat offenders who committed their crime on a subway? How would they even identify the repeat offender? I personally agree. If you commit 2 sex offenses on the subway, your banned! No brainer

    • Eric

      USA Thanks for pointing that out. I should know better then to assume based on the click bait headlines. Yes, someone doing multiple offenses on the subway has no business riding it.

  17. TS

    I wonder how this Subway ban could infringe on one person’s right to travel, considering travel has no minimum distance required. You could take the subway two stops and you will have traveled by your right for example.

    The subway is a public transportation system which is paid for by your tax dollars, much like parks are paid for out of your tax dollars. Can you make the direct comparison between a park and a Subway since both are paid for by tax dollars but you can be banned from a park? You don’t travel in a park where as you travel by Subway and have a right to travel. Are there alternate ways of public transportation? Yes, a bus system, but sometimes that ties into the subway specifically and does not overlap the same routes.

    Thoughts on this thinking?

    • mike r

      It is amazing how some people think it is okay for one individual to lose their constitutional rights forever as compared to others. The subway is a public domain just as TS states. If you are not on paper then you should have all the same rights as anyone else. That is the point of equal protection under the law. Although our country has strayed from that concept, mainly starting with blanket firearm bans for felons. This shit of banning anyone not under state or fed supervision from a public domains or taking rights guaranteed under our constitution and bill of rights is BS. I really could care less how many times you shoot someone or assault someone or even rape someone, IF you are released and NOT on paper you should have FULL rights restored upon discharge. How about those assholes take the registration money and spend it on subway surveillance and more security and shit. How about they stop robbing the country with their earmarks to all the friends and family members for contracts for shit like building a $30,000 in material bridge but claiming it cost 30 million. You know by not restoring our rights upon discharge the state is straight stating it failed rehabilitation. How else can it be viewed? Either their system works and we are rehabilitated so throw more money and effort into it to keep it working, or it doesn’t so we better scrap it and try a different approach. You know the dictionary definition for insane. Why is it that Big Nanny Gov can be insane and get away with it? Because people think it is okay for one group of free persons to be subservient to another and undeserving of the same equal protection of the laws even though they are free persons and take a shit and pull their own pants up just like the rest of them. Anytime you see someone that thinks they are better than others all you have to do is picture them coming out of the bathroom, they seem pretty equal at that point.

  18. NYLevel1

    Another Democrat Chaim Deutsch like Anthony Wiener whoring himself for publicity and the pathetic vote.
    I’ve lived in NYC for 35years, never seen anything sexual but sure have seen plenty of thieves, muggers, pan-handlers causing serious danger, fare jumpers and pick-pockets.
    Cuomo will back anything to do with ‘sex’. He never called out Dean Skelos (Republican) who changed the registry laws on behalf of Laura Ahearne. Preet Bahara locked up Dean Skelos. Cuomo never denounced Anthony Wiener (Democrat). The subways are disgusting. Deutsch should concentrate on other things but he doesn’t have the intellect for that. Feel free to leave a message for him. 1-800- Phoney

    • Notorious D.I.K. / Kennerly

      Well, as they say: “Stand clear of the closing doors, please!”

  19. mike r

    Like the PD up there stated, unless you are on paper you have ALL rights as anyone else. Bottom line…….. Anyone that states one free person should not be allowed because of this or that while another free person can is feeding the beast of the big nanny gov. Either our system of rehabilitation works and we are rehabilitated, or we are insane because we keep using it any way.

  20. Matthew

    There is no way this passes without higher courts getting involved. They are wasting time with this bill.

  21. The vampire

    When I seen this news.I thought it was subway shops.where Jared Fogle was spokesman for the sub shop lol. I was worried that I could not get my turkey sub anymore lol. Then it hit me like a subway train. This is about a subway train. Not a subway meal.Thank god

    • Jun

      😂 That is so funny.

      At same time, it is troubling how justified it is for a group (that is habitually and purposefully stigmatized) to fear being banned anywhere, anytime, and any day in a so-called “Land of the Free”.

      On positive note, when one looks back st comments two years ago and beyond, times have been getting better and better and many impactful wins.

    • Jun

      Sorry, let me make that clearer: On positive note, when one looks back at comments two years ago and beyond and compare it to the latter half of 2018 to now, times have been getting better and better and many impactful wins. Many holes have been torn all over SORNA. The suspense now is: How long will it stand on its own?

  22. Notorious D.I.K. / Kennerly

    This is from our friend, Judith Levine in the New York Daily News:

    “Let sex offenders ride the trains: Our society is already too cruel in its ostracism”

    https://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/ny-oped-let-sex-offenders-ride-the-trains-20190323-dcopedi6rjdp7cwdraulhfx6ri-story.html

  23. troy

    all this b/s registry this…banning that all sounds like Nazi Germany………next thing is gov will tell us what to think,eat,go to sleep and how we live our lives errrrrrr well they do that anyway

  24. mike r

    Why was there a public defender even on here? Hopefully she was on here to learn how to fight this crap.
    The civil rights orgs and the entire judicial system is a joke now. Money your good, no money you’re burnt. No wonder we have people going postal on everyone now. When the gov creates chaos and people live in chaos shit happens. Without equal protection and a constitution that means something we live in chaos. hence more chaos from the people. My damn son makes $2300 a month and his F%$#$%# rent is $1450, electricity another $200, food because he makes to much to get foodstamps for him his GF and his two kids cost at least another $3-400, man I am just so fed up with everything man….

  25. USA

    Great points! Although, read the article. It’s states an individual will be banned from the Subway if they commit 2 separate offenses on the subway. I concur! I don’t think they registry shouldn’t exist, but committing 2 separate offenses on the subway makes me believe the person is out of control!

    • Will Allen

      F that. Simply the fact that they said “$EX” makes it 100% invalid.

      Now, if they want to say, “If you are convicted of any 2 crimes within a 10 year period” or something like that, maybe it would be acceptable to ban such a person for a while (after prison!!), but I doubt it. No way is it acceptable if they say “$EX”.

      Doesn’t matter anyway until they grow big government enough to scan every single person riding the subway via a very accurate biometric system. That day is coming soon enough and once it does, we can ban a lot of people and all pretend the subways are then safer and better.

    • AJ

      @USA:
      Are you okay with this concept only on subways, or in any location or situation where someone has committed two separate offenses? Does it matter to you how rapidly in succession (i.e. how time-separated) the two offenses occurred? Do you limit your concurrence to commission of sex offenses or would you also concur if used in association with other offenses?

      It’s a very slippery slope, my friend. I look forward to your responses to my questions.

  26. USA

    I totally disagree! I can understand making one mistake, but making 2 in the (subway) same location conveys the person has issues and is unable to control these issues. Not acceptable. I’ve ridden the subway in NY and I commit to supporting this measure. I don’t agree with registration, but serious? Not acceptable. You don’t agree with the word sex? I don’t agree with victimizing innocent bystanders GLNG to work, school or wherever. Get with the program.

    • Will Allen

      Are you replying to someone or something?

      You have no idea if a person is “unable to control these issues” or not. Many people simply don’t care and will do what they want, even if they know the risks and consequences involved. Has nothing to do with “control”. They make a conscious decision to do it. Doesn’t excuse it of course, but don’t be confused.

      I “agree” just fine with the word “$EX”. The problem is not the word. Good Lord. It is the fact that $EX crimes are treated uniquely. There is no legitimate reason to ban a person who has committed $EX crimes and not a person who has committed any other type of significant crime there. Right? Or do you think a person exposing him/herself is more dangerous than a person robbing people at gunpoint? Really?

      I don’t have a problem at all with the word $EX. But obviously the vast majority of people living in the U.S. do. They are obsessed and freaked out by it. So much so that they treat it like the idiots that they are.

      I won’t be getting onboard any $EX hysteria program.

    • guest

      Then why limit this to sex offenses? Surely there must be other crimes committed on the NYC subway. Surely there must be crimes worse than grinding against a fellow rider.

      And why limit this to the subway? Why not ban any repeat offender from the “scene of the crime”? The repeat drunk driver from behind the wheel of an automobile? The twice convicted shop lifter from all retail establishments? Etc. Are any of those (repeat) crimes acceptable?

      I am trying to get with your program but have trouble understanding it. Do you approve of victimizing innocent bystanders as long as it does not involve sex (okay, let’s call rubbing fully clothed against a fully clothed person in public “sex”) or mass transit?

    • NY won’t let go

      Not sure if you have ridden the 4 or 5 train during rush hour but it is literally nuts to butts in there. You can easily commit an offense just standing there minding your own business when one of the hypersensitive people rubs their butt on you and screams rape.

      There is like 0 space when everyone is trying to get somewhere at the same time.

      I have been groped on the train in those situations as well though. Most of the time it’s impossible to see who had done it, but the few times I had caught the hand it was usually an older woman.

      The times it had been men they were actually trying to steal my wallet or phone.

      The biggest issue in the subway is the homeless. They build houses in the cars and stink up the place with shit and piss. The homeless that live on the subways seem to not act humane anymore. Sometimes it’s impossible to even enter a car without vomiting due to the smell. Fun fact, if there is an empty car there is a reason it’s empty.

  27. USA

    Great job! We aren’t talking (I don’t recall the article discussing anything about sex offenses) about other crimes. You guys seem to have answers for everything. Ie: what about other crimes? What if they can’t control themselves? The conclusion (what does everyone is obsessed with sex? Have you done statistics?) is that if someone commits and is convicted of 2 offenses on a subway, they shouldn’t be allowed back on. You guys seem to want to rationalize and have an answer for everything. Very disturbing. I guess if someone commits 2 offenses and they are unable to control themselves, we should let them back on? Really? Your thought process doesn’t address the points. I’m disturbed by this.

    • AJ

      @USA:
      “You guys seem to want to rationalize and have an answer for everything. Very disturbing.”
      —–
      Yes, how disturbing that people wish to have a rationality to things. Thanks for correcting us back to the path of irrationality. Whew, that was a close one. Or, using your syntax: Whew, that was a close one?

  28. USA

    AJ, your response tells me a lot about who you are. I guess if the Subway riders need more to protect themselves, this wouldn’t happen? Or,, maybe if the woman wore something more appropriate or hadn’t given you the look, you wouldn’t have touched her? How terrible.

    • AJ

      @USA:
      And yet, you won’t answer my simple questions from above (https://all4consolaws.org/2019/03/ny-gov-cuomo-supports-banning-sex-offenders-from-subway/comment-page-1/#comment-224242). Instead you contrive some statement about how a woman dresses.

      Please explain what “appropriate” means as it pertains to women’s clothing. I didn’t realize there’s a dress code for women on public transportation. Please, USA, what clothing is appropriate for a woman to wear? Kind of sounds like you’re in the “she was asking for it because she dressed in X manner,” camp. Right back at you: “[USA], your response tells me a lot about who you are.” and “How terrible.”

      If this will make subways safer, then let’s not stop at subways. Let’s add in the LIRR, Amtrak, airports, train stations, bus stations. Let’s also add in lecherous looks and leering, and wolf whistling. Then perhaps we can also add in “hate crimes” of not giving up a seat to an elderly person (anyone over 40!), a woman, a Jew, an Iranian, someone with a physical disability (which includes pregnancy…regardless how far along), etc. Tell me, USA, what’s wrong with any of these proposals? Why is it only a sex offense that should have such constraints?

      Seems to me putting the person behind bars for a good while is a much easier, and broadly accepted, method to “ban” someone from riding the subway. Putting someone in jail is an enforceable “ban”, unlike this proposal.

      • Will Allen

        I think we need to cut USA a little bit of slack. I’m being serious and I mean no disrespect but it is clear that USA is not that bright and has serious trouble with coherent thought. Again, I mean no disrespect. That is just how it is. And people generally can’t help it. So we need to be understanding for fellow warriors.

        I think his comment about how women dress was intended to imply that you, and everyone else who disagrees with him, think it is okay to assault women if they dress “wrong” and/or “are asking for it”. Obviously a ridiculous, old, standard statement that has no relevancy. I think he’s been brainwashed by that nonsense “therapy”.

        He will not or cannot answer direct questions. It’s a little maddening but I’m not going to worry about it much.

        Today, I’m going to make sure the Registries harm society.

        • AJ

          @Will Allen:
          Fair point, and well taken.

        • mike r

          Once again, ROFLMAO……
          Hear, hear, Will. I will remember to recall what you state about the handicap (p.c. mentally challenged). But the indoctrinated through therapy I cannot ignore those people as they have become, well, indoctrinated domestic terrorist when they buy into that crap… And yes, bring hell on any and everyone that supports any type of registration of people and be the thorn in everyone of their asses and disrupt or destroy everything around them in their sphere……..

  29. Chris f

    My opinion on this is the same as every opinion I have ever posted about laws targetting anyone based on past criminal conduct, sex offense or not. It is in line with what Amanda stated above about how California addresses the issue.

    Protecting the public from those convicted of a crime is the job of the judiciary on a case by case basis during sentencing. It doesnt matter if someone groped 2 or 20 people. Any restrictions and the duration need to be determined by the fair court process one time at trial. Not every time the legislature changes its mind and differing based on every town that person visits.

    This is how “ordered liberty” works. Period. If the right case could get to SCOTUS and they have gotten beyond being the gutless turds they were in 2002 and 2003, then perhaps things will finally change and a proper precident will be set to eliminate creating fake classes with their own laws.

    Also, I haven’t had much time to keep up here, but I think Mike R could be on to something with those cases demonstrating the government cant create laws against classes.

    • mike r

      Yeah Chris, it looks pretty unambiguously stated there.

      “If the power to “regulate” something included the power to create it, many of the provisions in the Constitution would be superfluous.”

      “Congress already enjoys vast power to regulate much of what we do. Accepting the Government’s theory would give Congress the same license to regulate what we do not do, fundamentally changing the relation between the citizen and the Federal Government.”

      The relationship has been fundamentally changed between us and the gov. because of registering and regulating people, there is no doubt about that.

      It states it in plain language that the “fed” cannot do this,

      “power to regulate “class [es] of activities,” Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 17, 125 S.Ct. 2195, 162 L.Ed.2d 1 (2005) (emphasis added), NOT CLASSES OF INDIVIDUALS, apart from any activity in which they are engaged”

      Notice also that it is not a protected class of citizens either, which is substantial…

      The question, and I agree with AJ when he states they cannot, is whether the states can do this…

      “Our precedents recognize Congress’s power to regulate “class [es] of activities,” Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 17, 125 S.Ct. 2195, 162 L.Ed.2d 1 (2005) (emphasis added), not classes of individuals, apart from any activity in which they are engaged, see, e.g., Perez, 402 U.S., at 153, 91 S.Ct. 1357 (“Petitioner is clearly a member of the class which engages in ‘extortionate credit transactions’ …” (emphasis deleted)).”
      National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 (2012)

  30. mike r

    I have to go here….
    “You have no idea if a person is “unable to control these issues” or not. ”
    USA knows that he cannot control his behavior as he has admitted that the registry is what keeps him from re-offending.
    This tells us what kind of person he is !!!!!!!!!!!!!
    USA
    “AJ, your response tells me a lot about who you are. I guess if the Subway riders need more to protect themselves, this wouldn’t happen? Or,, maybe if the woman wore something more appropriate or hadn’t given you the look, you wouldn’t have touched her?”

    I really like how someone that has worked the system to get a sexually violent assault reduced through loopholes projects his own ideas of justifications for treating others that have done their time unconstitutionally, and as second class citizens because he projects his own lack of impulse control on others.
    “This also tells us what kind of person USA is !!!!

    This mindset must have been (and must still be) the issue with USA since by his own admission he cannot control his behavior with out a registry!!!
    “Or,, maybe if the woman wore something more appropriate or hadn’t given you the look, you wouldn’t have touched her?””

    And not only that, use some class USA, you say you have all these degrees (4 to be exact), but yet you cannot debate respectfully when you disagree with some one or have a difference of opinion without going to personal attacks on people’s characters. I do not know how the hell you would have got through college to get those degrees with the attitude you project to others.
    You are just like the people pushing these laws, you have to try character assassination since your premises on which you rest your arguments are completely fallible and indefensible on rationality every time you speak.

  31. mike r

    Let me put this in even more context.

    “An individual who bought a car two years ago and may buy another in the future is not ” active in the car market” in any pertinent sense. The phrase ” active in the market” cannot obscure the fact that most of those regulated by the individual mandate are not currently engaged in any commercial activity involving health care, and that fact is fatal to the Government’s effort to ” regulate the uninsured as a class.” Id., at 42. Our precedents recognize Congress’s power to regulate ” class[es] of activities,” Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 17, 125 S.Ct. 2195, 162 L.Ed.2d 1 (2005) (emphasis added), not classes of individuals, apart from any activity in which they are engaged, see, e.g., Perez, 402 U.S., at 153, 91 S.Ct. 1357, 28 L.Ed.2d 686 (” Petitioner is clearly a member of the class which engages in ‘extortionate credit transactions’ . . .” (emphasis deleted)).”

    The significant part is the following,

    “An individual who bought a car two years ago and may buy another in the future is not ” active in the car market” in any pertinent sense. The phrase ” active in the market” cannot obscure the fact that most of those regulated by the individual mandate are not currently engaged in any commercial activity involving health care, and that fact is fatal to the Government’s effort to ” regulate the uninsured as a class.”

    An individual who engaged in an unlawful sexual act 10-20-30 years ago is not an “active recidivist,” nor are they “currently engaged” in committing sexual offenses……….

  32. mike r

    That would be like stating that an individual that had a traffic citation, or DUI is an even better example, 10-20-30 years ago must get and maintain a driver’s license. In the name of public safety is irrelevant, previously convicted DUI drivers are much more dangerous as a class than previously convicted sexual offenders.

  33. mike r

    BTW, I have been stating for awhile now that the gov cannot just take your gun rights with the law being narrowly tailored and finally someone has address the issue and won.
    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-guns-felons/u-s-top-court-deals-setback-to-gun-control-advocates-on-felon-ban-idUSKBN19H1KZ

    • TS

      @miker, et al

      I find it is interesting that a crime punishable by one year or more is the boundary. Not if you did serve one year or more but if punishable by one year or more. That’s very broad. So if you did less than one year, but you could’ve been sentenced to one or more… Uh huh

      Also, a case by case assessment that the court’s not suited for would be required. Really? Another area where an assessment is needed just as should be done for those who are impacted by the registry and those who may be impacted by the red flag laws. You mean individuals as opposed to groups? Courts don’t do it, it is delegated to others to do and report back, just like so much other assessing is done at court direction.

      Worse than hopscotch on a hot sidewalk with so much jumping of lines.

      • mike r

        Yeah I know what a joke of a statement.
        “Also, a case by case assessment that the court’s not suited for would be required.”
        Yes that is what is called an as-applied challenge, just as the individuals in that case in that article did that I have been following closely.

        “The administration said in court papers the appeals court ruling would force judges to make case-by-case assessments of the risks possession by convicted felons, a job for which they are ill-suited.”

        The second amendment is a fundamental right, it cannot be taking away without an individual separate from your conviction hearing…… Fundamental rights cannot be abridged unless narrowly tailored, bottom line…. Just stating anyone ever convicted of a felony cannot own a firearm is blanket enforcement and cannot stand. I would think this is why the administration lost….

        “The Philadelphia-based 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in an 8-7 decision, held that people may challenge the ban depending on their particular criminal conviction, and found that it was unconstitutional as applied to the two men.”

        Surprised it was an 8-7 opinion, but whatever… It is a win nonetheless and it is about damn time someone did this…..

        • mike r

          Once again USA I was right and stated this years ago that I was going to do this myself. And I am just as soon as I get off this damn registry. Or even if I do not get off it ever, whatever I will fight anything and everything these terrorist throw at me….

          Also learn how to spell and your definitions,

          narcissistic: having an excessive or erotic interest in oneself and one’s physical appearance.

          Are you kidding me???? I hit the two marks but the erotic interest in oneself, nah I do not think so….

        • mike r

          If being narcissistic means introspection of oneself and being confident, and looking out for one’s own interest, then that’s me… And I am a little obsessed with my appearance. Nothing wrong with that, more people should be in my opinion…

          Once again narcissistic, 4 degrees…wow.

      • TS

        @Miker

        As applied to the individual people. Say that again so folks know a class action suit won’t work for those impacted by the registry but has to be per person harm but can be filed together if the harm is under same class. Millard and Marshall did it too.

        • mike r

          AS-APPLIED not CLASS ACTION. lol… Although Cris F has brought the only issue for class action that should be tried and that is on the basis of separation of powers in that it is a judge’s authority and responsibility to sentence you and decide what actions should be taking (if any) to protect the public, not the legislative branch’s authority or job. Any other suits=======AS-APPLIED people………..

        • mike r

          Sorry, that was “Chris F.” But you all know who I was talking about….

  34. USA

    Interesting Mike R. If anyone disagrees with your views, you attack (narcistic) them, manipulate the facts, try to convey they are a bad person and it’s also not uncommon to accuse them of traits you might or do have! You just wrote a book in response to others comments and it’s factually clear it’s your way or no way! I suggest looking into the mirror, before it’d too late. I bet 1000000000/1 your a repeat offender. Your persona conveys this.

  35. mike r

    Man what keeps happening to my post???

    What the hell are you even talking about USA???? Name one thing I stated that projects that it is my way or no way or where I attacked someone for their traits or characteristics , besides you!!!!!!! If you are talking about the PD or the gov then I concur. You attack people on here that are in the same boat as the rest of us. I do attack and will continue to attack these domestic terrorist or any cog in the system that does not help us and supports registries such as yourself and the PDs, DAs, civil rights orgs that do nothing for us or the constitution (ACSOL not included anymore as Janice et el has done more than any other), politicians, cops, etc…. And you are 100% wrong as usual when it comes to me being a repeat offender, you could not be more wrong a matter of fact. Have you never read any of my filings??? No I am lying to the courts, wow… 4 degrees, LMFAO…. You are the one that self admitted the registry is what keeps you from re-offending, I am just stating facts out of your own mouth.

    “If anyone disagrees with your views, you attack (narcistic) them, manipulate the facts, try to convey they are a bad person and it’s also not uncommon to accuse them of traits you might or do have!”

    Put your money where your mouth is USA and bring on some quotes from me that fits your descriptions that are not aimed at the system or those part of it. If you cannot, which you cannot, then once again you lose your arguments pal.

    • Josh

      @Aj & @Mike r

      Fellas, don’t stoop down to USA’s level and don’t waste your time responding to him….there’s no room for trolls on here…You guys have been a great source of information and support to many of us. Whether it’s the research that Aj does or Mike helping talk down somebody dealing with the very real despair that we all deal with, it sucks that there’s people on here spouting ignorance like USA…and you’re wrong USA! The registry does not keep me from reoffending…I DO THAT! You want to accuse Mike r of being a narcissist? Why? Because he has confidence in himself and he refuses to let himself be defined by his status as a registered citizen….I also, have had to learn to overcome the stigma & fear of that label. I’m fighting everyday with the help of my family & friends to never let my past issue(also not a repeat offender) determine my worth…I only put that in parentheses because apparently that matters to you USA! If you can’t support everybody then get off this site!

      • Aj

        @Josh:
        Thank you for the support and kind words.

        And I was going to get help for narcissism, but I just couldn’t do that to such a wonderful person. 😂🤣😂

  36. mike r

    Also, in case you did not notice, response was not even about me. It was your attack on AJ’s personal character that made me comment on you. Kind of goes against your narcissistic theory there pal…
    But I still want you to attempt to put your money where your mouth is USA and bring on some quotes from me that fits your descriptions that are not aimed at the system or those part of it.

  37. USA

    Oh boy. You guys continue to make yourselves look worst all the time. Somebody posts their sincere opinion and you attack them like a predator? Then, you manipulate their thoughts, attack them, call them names and attempt to create some form of shame for them giving a differing opinion? As noted, Mike R is clearly a repeat offender and I bet 1000000000000/1 AJ has a child related offense! You guys take no acceptance for your actions and it’s everyone else’s fault? I’m a bad man for differing in opinion and disagreeing with your book long responses that include ramblings, book quotes and make no sense at all. You guys should read a self help book, get counseling and realize you are now officially out of control! You can respond (spend hours) all you like, but you don’t matter. Don’t re offend!

    • NPS

      USA doth protest too much, methinks.

      • Josh

        @NPS

        No, USA doesn’t protest too much….He spouts a lot of politically correct bullshit that sounds a lot like what proponents of sex offender registries would spout….And quite frankly, it goes counter intuitive to everything we’re all fighting against….I know I asked Aj & Mike r not to stoop down to USA’s level but I do enjoy watching Mike r do his thing😂….plus, he seems to be enjoying himself. I’ll repeat what I said earlier, as long as we’re supporting each other and not passing judgement on past mistakes as society already does enough of that….

        • Noemi

          @Josh,

          I guess you never read Hamlet. Protest as in protestation. USA’s making far too much of a protestation.

          The significance being that anything he says can’t be taken seriously as he’s lost all credibility.

    • AJ

      @USA:
      “You guys continue to make yourselves look worst all the time.”
      —–
      Coming from you, I’m fine with it. And for the record, it’s “worse” (comparative) not “worst” (superlative).
      =====

      Somebody posts their sincere opinion and you attack them like a predator?
      —–
      I’m unclear to whom this question is directed, but if at me, I would appreciate support of your claim.
      =====

      Then, you manipulate their thoughts, attack them, call them names and attempt to create some form of shame for them giving a differing opinion?
      —–
      Again, I’m unclear to whom this is directed, but if at me, I would appreciate support of your claim.
      =====

      You guys take no acceptance for your actions and it’s everyone else’s fault?
      —–
      This is based off what facts you have before you? To my recollection, there is not a single person on here who you have ever said *has* taken acceptance and/or responsibility. If you have, I missed it…and would appreciate your enlightening me.
      =====

      I’m a bad man for differing in opinion and disagreeing with your book long responses that include ramblings, book quotes and make no sense at all.
      —–
      I have not called you a bad man. Your words, not mine. I am fine with your differing opinion and disagreement, yet you don’t seem to afford that courtesy to others without casting some sort of aspersion on them.
      =====

      You guys should read a self help book, get counseling and realize you are now officially out of control!
      —–
      My mental health is quite fine, thank you very much. I do appreciate the concern–have any recommends from your shelves? Thank you, too, for making it “official” that I am out of control. That sounds like a rare honor. Is everyone else on here only unofficially so?
      =====

      You can respond (spend hours) all you like, but you don’t matter.
      —–
      Gee, thanks for giving me approval.
      =====

      Now, back to my questions you are neglecting to answer. To help you out, here’s a referring URL: https://all4consolaws.org/2019/03/ny-gov-cuomo-supports-banning-sex-offenders-from-subway/comment-page-1/#comment-224242.

      Also, I let you slide a bit on your whole “appropriate attired woman” spiel. Why is it only women who need to dress appropriately? Why is it only women who you feel are facing this subway menace? Can it not be male-male? Female-male? Female-female?

      I’ll gladly engage in discussion with you as long as the name calling, projection, therapy suggestions and whatever other tangential topics are left out. Please, start by answering my questions from the above URL, and we can go from there. I enjoy hearing and learning differing opinions. For the time being, mine is opposite of yours, as I don’t see an offense rate of 0.000021% (or thereabouts) as warranting this sort of legislative response. If this paltry offense rate is the standard, we have a whole mess of overdue laws to enact. I would like to understand the basis of yours to see if mine needs modification.

      I’ll keep an eye out for replies to my simple questions. Absent those, I don’t currently see myself reaping any benefit from continued engagement.

      *****
      @NPS:
      Indeed.

  38. mike r

    “But I still want you to attempt to put your money where your mouth is USA and bring on some quotes from me that fits your descriptions that are not aimed at the system or those part of it.”

    As usual, no credible response. All vitriol and character attacks because you have no rationality to any of your arguments. And it is worse not worst with your 4 degrees.

    And USA I do not know if you realize it , but you did not just post an opinion. IDK why I even bother with you, and I know AJ can handle himself, but I like bashing you for what you are.

    USA
    “AJ, your response tells me a lot about who you are. I guess if the Subway riders need more to protect themselves, this wouldn’t happen? Or,, maybe if the woman wore something more appropriate or hadn’t given you the look, you wouldn’t have touched her? How terrible.”

    This is not an opinion, but is an attack on AJ’s personal character. 4 degrees you ought to be smart enough to understand the difference between opinion and personal attacks. Then you go on to state all this BS about re-offender and child offenders to try and take away from the fact that you could not quote one sentence that I have made character assassinations like you claim I do. All I do is state facts while you just spew hate and suppositions based on absolutely nothing but your failure to respond with rational thought and legitimate arguments.

    USA
    “As noted, Mike R is clearly a repeat offender and I bet 1000000000000/1 AJ has a child related offense! You guys take no acceptance for your actions and it’s everyone else’s fault?”

    What a joke you really are. AJ did not even say anything to you hardly, but you you continue to attack him an the bases that I put you in your place. You are not even worth debating because you failed your debate classes or have lost your mind since you were in college.
    Like I stated idiot, look at my briefs in my case and you will see my convictions and it is not any repeat offense, that is a verifiable fact if you were smart enough to research before opening you hole in your face.
    And in case you were not coherent enough to see the nexus I am fighting my own case so by definition I am taking responsibility and acceptance that I got myself into this so I will get my self out.
    You are funny USA and I love bashing you, you make it so easy I almost feel bad for doing it…LMFAO. It is like fighting a coward (which I will not do) that will not fight back or someone that has never fought before and has no idea how to even throw a punch let alone put up a real fight.
    Anyways,
    “But I still want you to attempt to put your money where your mouth is USA and bring on some quotes from me that fits your descriptions that are not aimed at the system or those part of it.”

    • someone who cares

      I know we are all on edge, frustrated, and pretty much fed up with the registry and everything that comes along with it. But, PLEASE, can we get back on track? We all are entitled to our opinions, but this forum has become a silly chat room with nothing but bashing others. I don’t think this is what Janice intended with this forum. It is supposed to educate, share experiences and find a common solution to take down the registry. I don’t even want to read through the comments anymore since they are no longer educational or helpful in any way. We are all adult here, so let’s get this back on track.

  39. mike r

    And BTW, AJ could not be any more reserved and rational and respectful in his responses to you or anyone else on here and yet you continue to attack him. How pathetic………. AJ has more class than anybody on this site and is a completely respectable individual, and shame on you for getting him in the middle of our back and forth. Once again just showing your true colors….

    I have asked this question many times over the past few years and NEVER not once have you responded with any example or coherent and rational thought.“But I still want you to attempt to put your money where your mouth is USA and bring on some quotes from me that fits your descriptions that are not aimed at the system or those part of it.”

    • AJ

      @mike r:
      Thank you for your kind words and support. Remember, never wrestle with pigs. All that happens is they enjoy it, and you get dirty. I try to avoid wrestling with pigs, but sometimes slip into it anyway.

      • mike r

        As usual great class and rationality. I should not like getting in the mud, but I just find it as like practice or something. We have not had any real heated debates in a while (like respectable individuals do, like we have done, and we know who we are, everyone except USA, lol) so it helps keep my mind sharp. I guess that is my rational for it, but I just plain like doing it too…. It is like I am getting a chance to bash on someone from the other side with that domestic terrorist mindset that we are all against. Just wish he was an intellect and that he could produce rational and factually supported arguments.

        • Will Allen

          Then how about posting less here and a lot more where the general public shows up and argues? You’ll find every type of confrontation that you want there.

          I’ve been confronting rubes on the Facebook page of the Cleveland NC Sheriff’s Office for a couple of months now. You could join that.

  40. NPS

    I used to commute with BART, but due to their horrible service, I now take the ferry as my daily commute. There is nary a case of sexual assault on BART by anyone on the registry (or anyone at all). What is mostly documented? Hate speech/acts against people of color or Muslims, juveniles who swarm a BART car and physically assault and rob train riders, assault and battery, murder (remember Nia Wilson), petty theft, homeless riders rolling a joint. The only time I heard of sexual misconduct was a couple having sex in the back of a BART car train (and it was caught on video). Authorities never found them.

    Point is, the people on the registry are the least of commuter problems, and sex crimes are but a tiny percentage if they happen at all.

  41. USA

    Well stated NPS. True. Then, as long as your not a repeat offender like Mike R/Josh/AJ, you have nothing to worry about. This entire blog is a fiasco. Best wishes

    • AJ, oooc*

      @USA:
      Then, as long as your not a repeat offender like Mike R/Josh/AJ, you have nothing to worry about.
      —–
      This “knowledge” is based on….?
      =====

      “This entire blog is a fiasco.”
      —–
      Then why continue to subject yourself to it? Maybe some self-help books and/or counseling could help you with that.

      *officially out of control.

  42. mike r

    Comical for sure. The people on this site would definitely not miss you. You bring nothing but hate, vitriol, and you have the mindset of the domestic terrorist we are all fighting against. And you possess the lack of rationality and reason (as in lack of common sense just in case USA does not know what the words mean) just like them as well.

    “put your money where your mouth is USA and bring on some quotes from me that fits your descriptions that are not aimed at the system or those part of it, or YOU.”

    “He spouts a lot of politically correct bullshit that sounds a lot like what proponents of sex offender registries would spout….And quite frankly, it goes counter intuitive to everything we’re all fighting against”

    Amen Josh, glad I am not the only one that sees this. It is almost like he is a politician or something man.
    And you are right about me enjoying trashing USA. LMFAO… I just wish he was a little more challenging though…. He takes everything so personally and gets hell a mad and shit and spews all kinds of lame crap, I think it is funny as hell. The only time I get mad is when he starts trashing others, especially when the others have the class not to stoop to his level. Well I have no shame in my game and I will get in the mud with the loser just to smack him down and make him look like a real fool. I might look like a fool doing it, but unlike USA, I do not give a shit as nothing negative anyone states will ever effect me personally, other than the positive shit. I thrive on compliments. 🙂 I am a >>>Narcistic<< and am >worst<< 4 degrees. Wow. LOL….

    • mike r

      And just to be clear, it is productive criticism based on facts that I take seriously if it comes from serious people. I welcome any debate that brings facts and I welcome anyone that can prove me wrong in my thought processes or theories and conclusions. That is how you better yourself by learning from others and collaboration. College 101…. I think that statement alone kicks me out of the “extreme” narcissistic category. So USA, as AJ states so eloquently, bring some facts, quotes, and evidence to your statements and someone may take you seriously, and you may even be able to build a little credibility back if you ever had any…

  43. mike r

    Nice trying to pull NPS over to your side like you have an ally here. I actually do not believe she was agreeing with you though, maybe wrong though. Also USA, don’t leave the site. You are too comical and make the site a little more fun bashing you. The site gets kind of boring sometimes. Lol. Just the same old crap and every once in a while some good or bad news. Like I stated I just wish you were a little sharper so you could challenge me on facts or at least at the same level of mentality. What is really comical is I do not even have a degree yet. LMAO… End of this semester though I will have two ASs, one in general science and one in mathematics. What are your degrees in USA? Oh man I did not mean to ask two questions at once, you will lose your train of thought as you do not even seem capable of addressing one at a time….

    Just in case you forgot already from scrolling down,
    “put your money where your mouth is USA and bring on some quotes from me that fits your descriptions that are not aimed at the system or those part of it, or YOU.”
    :0

    • NPS

      @MikeR

      Nope, not in agreement with him at all. I’m just making a general comment about the subway system in the Bay Area…OH! and this just in…

      “A 16-year-old man was arrested Friday on suspicion of fatally shooting a 17-year-old woman Thursday night in the parking lot of the West Oakland BART station, according to BART officials.” Exact quote from sfgate.com

      I bet the 16-year old would still be able to ride the subway after he’s released from parole or the Y.A.

      • Will Allen

        Of course, because shooting people is not dangerous. Especially as dangerous as seeing a real, live penis!

        We won’t bother to Register shooters either for that exact reason. They should be living next door to schools. They should be in schools.

    • Josh

      @Aj & @Mike r

      What’s this guy’s hang up with repeat offenders? I have only ONE conviction from 26 years ago…I took responsibility THEN and have taken responsibility every day since….Is he calling us repeat offenders because we are repeatedly offending him? As much as I disagree with virtually EVERY take that USA posts on this sight I do have to agree that we need to keep him around because he seems to help unite us…..

      • AJ

        @Josh:
        I have no idea what the issue is. I disagreed with his opinion and asked some questions to see how far and wide that opinion stretches. What I received was from left field. I rebutted and got a little snarky here and there, to be sure. I’m still curious his answers to my questions, but getting them seems unlikely. That’s fine, I’ll move on and survive somehow.

        Now back to our regularly scheduled programming…

  44. mike r

    Back to a serious note. So AJ, I had you thinking you stated, so any conclusions?

    “Our precedents recognize Congress’s power to regulate “class [es] of activities,” Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 17, 125 S.Ct. 2195, 162 L.Ed.2d 1 (2005) (emphasis added), not classes of individuals, apart from any activity in which they are engaged, see, e.g., Perez, 402 U.S., at 153, 91 S.Ct. 1357

    This is an interesting statement for sure…

    • AJ

      @mike r:
      Yeah, I’ve mulled it over a little bit here and there, though I have not read the cases. My first thought is that it’s activity that’s being regulated: travel, movement in public, occupations, etc. I recall SCOTUS saying something to the effect that at some point, *all* regulation involves a class of people or else there would be no way to craft any legislation.

      I’ll have to mull it over, and actually crack open a case (legal, not carbonated product) or two. I suspect it’s a dubious position and argument, but what the hey, the reading will do me good.

  45. Wow

    Wow. I agree with US. Mike, you just posted 28 comments. Every time anyone posts their opinion, you write this huge rebuttal. Not everyone thinks alike. Your way over the top and this isn’t normal.

  46. mike r @Will Allen

    @ Will Allen, I created a FaceCrook page to post on the site you suggested, but I do not see any postings by you. I have never used FaceCrook before so I guess I can just posting and they will start bashing me…. Post a link to make sure I am on the same page and lets both bash them…

    Yeah AJ, it is a far stretch but an interesting statement by SCOTUS though.

  47. mike r

    Thank you for your observations there “Wow” (USA).
    This statement really got me thinking and Will is right. I will try and refrain from my responses. No matter his point on view he is on the list. Hopefully, someday he may even be open minded to what others say and think .
    “I think we need to cut USA a little bit of slack. I’m being serious and I mean no disrespect but it is clear that USA is not that bright and has serious trouble with coherent thought. Again, I mean no disrespect. That is just how it is. And people generally can’t help it. So we need to be understanding for fellow warriors.”

    I will just post the Judicial Notice statistical facts and studies on that site an see what they come back with.

  48. mike r

    I like it Will Allen. Good advice and call. If we all did this we could probably make a difference in public opinion for what it is worth. I guess like they say, “if it changes one mind.” I like the statements about how that one guy is not dangerous and how they have known him and his mother for years. They are defending the guy, that is a great start to what I see on that site.

  49. mike r @AJ

    @AJ, this is why collaboration is so desperately needed. I did not even catch the part,

    “As SCOTUS touched on in Sebelius, “[a]ny police power to regulate individuals as such, as opposed to their activities, remains vested in the States.” 567 U.S. 519 at 557.”

    That pretty much sinks that entire avenue.

    Now the part that you noticed in footnote four is truly interesting,
    “Footnote Four says, “prejudice against discrete and insular minorities may be a special condition, which tends seriously to curtail the operation of those political processes ordinarily to be relied upon to protect minorities, and which may call for a correspondingly more searching judicial inquiry.”

    The statement, “Carolene Products is best known for its fourth footnote, considered to be “the most famous footnote in constitutional law.”” is also very interesting. “The most famous footnote in constitutional law” seems like a pretty powerful statement that this precedent seems somewhat solid.

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 *

.