Comments that are not specific to a certain post should go here, for the month of April 2019. Contributions should relate to the cause and goals of this organization and please, keep it courteous and civil. This section is not intended for posting links to news articles without additional comment.
Related posts
-
TX: Texas Cops Fired for ‘Inappropriate’ Sexual Contact With Massage Workers
Source: reason.com 11/13/24 As a result of the internal affairs investigation, three Lewisville officers were fired,... -
LA: Louisiana Supreme Court reverses course; child sex abuse ‘lookback’ window ruled constitutional
Source: kadn.com 6/21/24 NEW ORLEANS (KADN) — On review, the Louisiana Supreme Court has determined a... -
CA: Bay Area Community Services (BACS) is hiring
Source: bayareacs.org The California-based Bay Area Community Services (BACS) is looking to expand our services in...
@AJ or whoever, do you know where I might get the Commonwealth v. Torsilieri case briefs challenging the PA law prospectively?
But wait I thought SCOTUS stated court records are easily accessible documents. My ass they are. Appellant cases maybe, not lower court cases. Guess we will have to wait to see the briefs then. Glad someone is stepping up and challenging the crap prospectively. This ought to be interesting since the elements of the statute have to be proving violated beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury since the statute is now been declared punishment. I doubt if the current cases are going to bring that challenge because ets face it, they really do not care and never look outside the box or at the obvious. Think about t, since recidivism is the element of the statute then a prosecutor is going to have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the individual is going to re-offend. I do not see them getting around centuries of law and case history when it comes to guilt and punishment tied to elements of a statute. They got away with it when the statute was not punishment, but that classification changes the entire game. If it is punishment it is no longer just a separate offense that gets a jury trial to prove you violated the actual elements of the statute such as failure to register and that crap, now it is part of a punitive sentence triggering all the normal protections and due processes afforded an individual before being able to apply. This is going to be interesting as I cannot really think of any other statute that the elements are based upon prescience.
Whoa, whoa, I did not even realize what was being stated in some of these rulings out of the 9th and probably in many many cases that was right in front of everyone’s eyes.
\
United States v. Juvenile Ma1e, 670 F.3d 999, 7072 (9th Cir, 2012),
“The requirement that juveniles register in a sex offender database for at least 25 years because they committed the equivalent of aggravated sexual abuse is not a disproportionate punishment.”
I am going to have to go back and re-read these cases, but is the court calling it punishment? Sure seems as though they are, “is not a disproportionate punishment.” This conjures the binary opposite of proportionate punishment, point being if it is not disproportionate then it must be proportionate PUNISHMENT…..
The Jeffery Epstein saga continues. There’s some splainin’ to do in NY, it would seem: https://nypost.com/2019/04/11/da-knew-jeffrey-epstein-was-a-dangerous-pedophile-when-arguing-for-leniency/
Contrary to some on here, this story is NOT going away. The stench is growing.
Hello Everyone,
I heard from Mrs Aukerman last night about what is going on with Does 2 Lawsuit and this is what she wrote back to me. There is now a draft bill. The legislators are working on it. The bill language is pretty good, but we don’t know what will ultimately pass. That’s her response, my question is would that effect people like myself Bill and Josh, and other’s of course who are in the same boat as us.
We should of been removed 3 years ago in my opinion, or will this bill if passed effect us (pre-sorna people) at all, I’m probably wrong , but it shouldn’t effect us at all just the post-sorna people in my opinion. I mean since we already won, anyone have any thoughts on what she stated . Thanks in advance.
“We should of been removed 3 years ago in my opinion”
If you are one of the ones that the PA SC or the district court for Michigan I would be go to hell if I would wait for anyone to be able to do a work around those decisions. If you are entitled to relief you better get it while the getting is good as they say.
Just my opinion, we all have one though so better go with your gut.
Man what is up with the courts stating if a statute is aimed at “preventing danger to the community” it satisfies rational basis review?
“The Supreme Court has also held that “there is no doubt that preventing danger to the community is a legitimate regulatory goal.” United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 747, 107 S.Ct. 2095, 95 L.Ed.2d 697 (1987). Thus, SORNA’s requirements satisfy rational basis review and do not violate the Equal Protection Clause.”
This was Juvenile Male. If this was the case than any law they passed would pass. Man the 9th is twisting SCOTUS language so far from the reality it is dumbfounding.
Reading United States v. Salerno is pretty interesting. Even the determination whether to detain those charged with a serious offense during a bail hearing requires clear and convincing evidence and the bail hearing before doing so. And the bail reform act was considered a regulatory statute as well.
Like I stated, it is real interesting to see how the courts are manipulating language and case law in ways that are not analogous to sex offender laws.
Really amazing how these justices think and do pull shit out of their asses and just cite any statement from cases that have any similarity at all and apply that statement to a fact that their is no cognizable nexus to the fact the are claiming it relates to. I really do not believe this was really happening before sex offender challenges (IDK because I have not really delved into that part) but it sure as hell is happening now.
Tat Salerno case is stating the state cannot do whet it is doing without a hearing and clear and convincing evidence. And it sure as hell is NOT stating that since public safety is a legitimate regulatory goal it satisfies rational basis review. Far from it.
Hello, everyone
Well I heard back from Ms Aukerman again, and explain things a little clearer I guess you might say, here isone thing she wrote back to me .The current bill shortens registration times a great deal. Anyone who has completed that time period would come off entirely. We don’t yet know how long those time periods will be, but they are likely to be much shorter than current law. Then she wrote this back to me this morning with this explanation. This concerns my situation and others who are in the same boat as me.
The MSP says 25 years starts when the registry started. But I am pretty confident that a minimum we will get folks like you back to 25 years, which would likely then end in 2020.
Now that is where I get confused because my registration start date is my conviction date which would make it 27 years in June, but if they went back to the original registration start date that would be 11-22-2020. Since when does the MSP call the shots, just because they run the stupid registry doesn’t give them the authority to determine when registration start dates begin.
I was always told and made to believe that your registration start date beginsat time of conviction, not when you get off parole, because would that technically extend your parole sentence? Anyone with any thoughts on thisand whatshe said about the legislation and the fact that MSP has control over registration start dates . Thanks in advance.
NC wants to usurp SCOTUS in their latest legislative efforts. This is crazy!
NC House Bill 596 Doesn’t Protect Children. It Injects Fear.
https://dsdaughtry.wordpress.com/2019/04/14/nc-house-bill-596-doesnt-protect-children-it-injects-fear/
“This is a blatant action by the state to reclaim its stinging loss in the United State Supreme Court case Packingham v. North Carolina. It is nothing more than creating a constructive action against registrants creating confusion and intimidation tactics.”
Hey SCOTUS, still think Third Party Doctrine is good case law? “Google faces surge in police requests for mobile location data” (https://www.engadget.com/2019/04/14/surge-in-police-requests-for-mobile-location-data/).
I have a question that perhaps someone could ask on the April 20th conf call. It would be even better if someone could answer here.
Why have the laws against those on the registry or against those with previous convictions for sex type crimes not been properly challenged against the combination of separation of powers, due process, and equal protection?
By “properly challenged”, I mean in reference to how no law should be written targeting someone due to a past offense unless it is narrowly tailored, unavoidable, and couldnt have reasonably been part of the sentence imposed by the judge during trial to protect the public?
An example of acceptable laws against past crimes would be the laws saying someone with past crimes against children cant be hired at a daycare, or someone that engaged in investment fraud cant be a stock broker.
Any other restrictions not reaching that difficult standard should have been decided by the judge during the fair sentencing phase of the trial. That is the only way “ordered liberty” can exist.
If such a court challenge were to fail, then that would set a catastrophic precident that shouldnt last long. It would mean that any city could do the same thing to those convicted of non sex crimes. Imagine if someone with a drunk driving conviction 30 years ago could be arrested for driving through a town that makes it illegal for him to use their roads or go to their bars? Everyone that was ever convicted of any crime would have to research the laws of any city they pass through, every time they do, or risk being in violation of some rediculous law.
What we need is a high court precident to have the balls to state that laws can’t single out a particular past crime or group of people unless it is absolutely unavoidable. The restrictions placed on someone for committing a crime and the duration of those restrictions must be determined by the judge and jury during trial and tailored to the individual. To do otherwise not only leads to the chaos I stated above, but also:
Judges and prosecutors pleading down crimes to avoid putting someone on a registry that shouldnt be (rare, but happens more than you would think in plea agreements).
Judges having to weigh legislature’s collateral consequences into their sentence, like the judge that only gave someone a short jail sentence knowing they would be on the registry for life.
Victims not coming forward due to the consequences to the family member or friend that assaulted them.
Defendants unwilling to accept a plea because of the registration, and then subjecting the victim to testifying.
The list goes on and on…so does anyone know why a proper legal challenge can’t be done?
Is it because most legal fights are done using old existing precident and this issue is too rare in our history to draw frim? Is any attorney willing to start from scratch only armed with the Constitution and common sense?
I cant attend the conference call but would appreciate if someone could raise this.
Chris, refine that argument into a good legal argument for when I go to file my appeal. Remember I have and am bringing that challenge. I am going to be very precise in my appeal to where they cannot get away without addressing the question. I know a attorney should have long ago, but we know how that goes.
Just out of the blue here, plea bargains should be unconstitutional. Plea bargains have helped ruin our equality in justice and our justice system in whole. The courts and the legislature have abdicated their duties to prosecutors being claimed justifiable because of the efficacy of the court system. The legislative branch writing criminal laws are useless as it is the prosecutor who determines that they can abdicate the system and apply the law as they see fit. How can this continue? This makes the innocent plead guilty in many cases and the guilty receive lesser charges than the legislature put forth and also gives the prosecutors the ability to skew the system towards the advantage of the wealthy.
I was just thinking about this with the university scams and the Smollett case.
They say that the courts could not function without the plea deal, but maybe the legislature should stop creating asinine laws that clog up the courts and put in policies where they have to actually come up with solutions to societal problems instead of just throwing punitive laws at every problem thinking that mass incarceration will solve everything. Scary idea huh ???? Might have to use a brain cell or something….
Since attending the meeting in Sacramento, I have spent time brewing over what took place; where we are presently, and where we could be in the future. The most important lesson learned is everyone one of us need to be involved. I am new to being involved and I haven’t written much before because I was one of those that were dead wrong, because I felt it didn’t matter. Sacramento changed my mind, because it does MATTER, and we are not ALONE.
I am probably not bringing up anything new, but I read thru this article (40 pages) https://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=2421&context=akronlawreview This article really goes into depth of where we have been, how we have gotten where we are and it left me wondering if we are utilizing this material to further our cause? If so, I would apprciate someone updating me, because if we are moving forward on this thinking, what are we doing and is there anything all of us can do to accelerate it.
It caused me to think, can we come up with a creative venue to appeal again? When words can be manipulated and myths that are turned into facts because law makers get it wrong, and they are not questioned on the validity of their statements, it does us a great injustice. As I read this article, it really attacked each one of these things.
It made me think about is my freedom worth letting others suffer because we (the past offenders) allow others to make rules for us, and even when they are wrong we don’t stand up for ourselves because we know some of the negative impact it has. I have seen this in my own life; however this can’t be about me and it can’t be about you. It has to be about us. It has to be about what is right.
As I read thru this article, thought about Sacramento, what Janice and the board of directors are doing to make sure we move forward, I wonered if this article is something we all ought to almost memorize and start using this article but more then this….I WANT TO DO SOMETHING PRO ACTIVE. It is time to forget fear, it is time forget about reprecussions, it is time to make enough noise that the appelate will listen to us. Get the facts straight and not allow “fancy dialogue and words” to dictate policy. The law, ex post facto law”, “Civil concerns”, etc are being trampled on because we haven’t done our job yet. ( I don’t believe just because we lose one or two battles we have the right to give up, but rather if something is not right you keep fighting until you win.
i am new here and I know many of you have sacrifieced your time, your money, all your energy, but somehow I feel when I attended Sacramento to stand up for our rights, there seemed to be a shift. Yes, some still disappointed, but there has to be something we can do to get this right. It is not right what we are gong thru and if we don’t fight, we deserve what we get.
I apologize for taking this long before getting involved. Please let me know how I can help. I know this has to change, and I want to be a part of that solution.
“It is not right what we are gong thru and if we don’t fight, we deserve what we get.”
I love this guy already… Lol… Freedom is not free…..
One way to fight is in the courts, https://mllkeys20112011.wixsite.com/mysite ; but anyway you fight is great.
@ dwayne d
Welcome!
It would be great to get another intelligent person on here that can research and comment.
Please let me know what you think about my above suggestions to challenge the registry from a violation of separation of powers perspective. It just makes no sense to me that it isnin the code that judges determine length of time and what is needed to punish, rehabilitate, and protect the public based on individual and circumstances and do it one time in a fair court proceeding…yet legislature decided it can also “protect the public” with no individualized consideration and change those laws daily and be different city by city. It also sticks registrants on a list that allows businesses and other countries to deny entry or services because they cant afford to look at the individual and it is easiest to just ban them all.
There has to be something unconstitional about that. Otherwise, we need to take over the voting majority in some little city and create every law we can think of against previous convictions until we can get a proper precident set.
Here is a link to some cited facts for anyone that wants to spread them and educate people.
https://ufile.io/9ke2xju0
“Registered sex offenders would be barred from ‘Beloved Community Village'” On the other hand, we’re perfectly welcome at the “Loathed and Despised gated community” of Greater Coalinga. So, we do have options.
https://denverite.com/2019/04/16/registered-sex-offenders-would-be-barred-from-beloved-community-village/
More smoke coming from the Jeffrey Epstein stuff…this time with good ol’ Dersh in the crosshairs as defendant: https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/article229277874.html. I think there’s little chance this will go away as it did before, though it may take a number of years (more).
You see, the thing about the registry is that its part of my “healing process.”
“The meeting went over the basics of the sex offender registry list and how sex offenders are monitored in the community. There are 476 registered sex offenders in Marathon County.
Jessica Lind, a representative from the Women’s Community in Wausau said that having access to the list is often part of the healing process for victims.
“It’s important that the victims know they can find out about what has happened with their case. When the offender is released from jail, how they’re going to be supervised. That’s really another important part of the healing journey for victims,” Lind said.”
https://waow.com/news/2019/04/16/sex-offender-101-presentation-in-wausau/
Check out this awful law they are trying to pass in FLA
https://floridaactioncommittee.org/call-to-action-oppose-hb-987-public-lodging-establishments/
On April 10th, The Florida House of Representatives amended House Bill 987: Public Lodging Establishments, to require Persons required to register as sex offenders report to the Sheriff’s office where they will be staying, 48 hours before an intended stay at a Public Lodging Establishment, regardless of how long they will stay at the location!
In addition, operators of a Public Lodging Establishment who have a Person required to register as a sex offender staying at or within 1000 feet of their establishment, must notify all guests staying there.
@dwayne d
That’s a really good point. I can see where (18 U.S.C. § 2261A (2015)) could be used in instances where the reasons for disclosure or trumpetting to the masses tge info on a sex offender could rise to violating. Just the existence of that law could be persuasive in other cases or added to an equal protection argument.
I look forward to hearing about any mock court scenarios and how they play out.
Here is a suggested mock scenario:
The 5 year old son of a prominent local business owner is killed by an out of town drunk driver. The town adopts ordinances making it illegal for anyone with a past alcohol related conviction like drunk driving or public intoxication to enter any business that sells alcohol. The next year they add a 500 foot proximity restriction. A neighboring town does the same but makes it 1000 feet. The original town raises it to 1500 feet in response because they dont want to make it any easier for alcoholics.
Now you have a few people that have many generations of family living in this town that dont want to leave, but due to a long past drunk driving conviction from their youth they are feeling pushed out of their own town.
The town knows this will pass rational basis review because it is to protect the public.
How do you fight that?
How do you get a ruling that will declare the legislature can’t add restrictions onto someone for past crimes?
There are plenty of court decisions stating a judge can’t put extra restrictions on someone convicted of a crime unless it is taylored to the individual and the crime and the duration is appropriate.
There are plenty of decisions stating restrictions or laws must be clearly understood and not vague, but somehow restrictions changed daily by any town are expected to be followed?
There are plenty of decisions regarding an expectation of finality to a legal issue, yet these restrictions can change and be added to indefinitely?
I just dont understand how judges can rule that other judges have to treat those convicted a certain way to be fair and constitional yet allow the legislature to do as they wish and severly complicate their judicial duty.