General Comments June 2019

Question… isn’t the Registry a form of Doxing?
With all the talk about how harmful Doxing is, it begs the question is the States intent to cause harm to its citizens? Wikipedia defines it as a tool for Law Enforcement but then goes on to say it’s used for Vigilantism, Online Shaming, Extortion, Coercion, Harassment, and Inflicting Harm….I’d say we as a group can check every single one of those boxes. But is there a way to fight this? Seems to me the Bad outweighs the Good.

I have a question about, if I was found to be a low risk sex reoffender in a psychosocial evaluation in Florida after I pled guilty to unauthorized sex with a 16-17 year old minor and travelling to meet a 16-17 year old minor for unauthorized sex, and completed two years of sex offender therapy and six years of felony sex offender probation with GPS ankle monitor for entire probation served, and 3 years of incarceration, why do I have to register four times per year in the state of Nebraska where I moved to? Is there any way to get the lifetime registration requirement amended. I only had to register two times per year in Florida, so why do I have to register 4 times per year here in Nebraska? Does anyone here know of any attorneys that would work for and with me to get my registration requirement amended? Why, if my charges would only require me to register for 15 years in Nebraska, but because Florida has only a lifetime registrant for sex offenses, the state of Nebraska recognizes the state of Florida’s requirement and makes me register for life here in their state and makes me register twice as often as I did when I was on probation for the charge I pled guilty to in Florida.

Well if this don’t take the cake. Mark me speechless. FL Action Committee just posted a letter the mayor of Houston wrote welcoming delegates to NARSOL’s conference. I recognize they operate in the same space as ACSOL, but this may be worth linking to. His attitude and language are commendable and worth highlighting.

https://floridaactioncommittee.org/thank-you-houston-and-mayor-turner/#comment-45157

FYI update on Millard. The State’s replies to the two supplemental filings were posted on June 28. They shoot them both down, no surprise. For the AK case, they say it has no bearing because it’s wholly AK-based and centric, that AK has different and greater privacy protections than the federal constitution, etc. For the CO case, they say it has no bearing because that was to do with a juvenile subject to lifetime registration, not adults and not a (former) juvenile who has an unpursued appeal process. They also point out there’s another juvenile case from the CO CoA that is exactly opposite the one cited (and mentioned here on ACSOL).

While that all may be factual and true, it’s unsurprising they didn’t delve into the reasoning the judges used, which is where the meat and value lie. That all said, I don’t foresee the 10th giving much, if any, consideration to the AK case (it IS very AK-focused and specific), and may discount the CO case due to conflicting rulings and further litigation pending on it (remanded to the district court).

A SCOTUS ruling from way back (Chastleton v. Sinclair) that I’ve mentioned on here before has been swirling in my head again lately. In doing a little more digging (thank you ROSS), this case is not only still valid, it has been cited almost 200 times in cases over the years. The pertinent statement from the Chastleton holding is: “A law depending upon the existence of an emergency or other certain state of facts to uphold it may cease to operate if the emergency ceases or the facts change.”

Another SCOTUS case in which it was mentioned was Leary v. US. Of particular interest from that case is Footnote 68: “A statute based upon a legislative declaration of facts is subject to constitutional attack on the ground that the facts no longer exist; in ruling upon such a challenge, a court must, of course, be free to reexamine the factual declaration. See Block v. Hirsh, 256 U.S. 135, 154-155 (1921); Communist Party v. SACB, 367 U.S. 1, 110-114 (1961).”

What that all seems to mean is that when facts change, not only do (IIRC, the 9th CCoA said “must”) courts consider the new facts, but they are also “free to reexamine the factual declaration.” Think about this in our situation. The courts could go back and look at the facts behind any statute based on “frightening and high.” As we all know, those facts are bunkum. Also part of this footnote is that the *new* facts must be considered. Those facts would be the many governmental and academic studies to our benefit.

I hate to get to spooled up about this, but it sure seems this angle could have some traction to dispel “f & h” and perhaps even undermine Smith through destruction of this hoax of a phrase.

Just got off the phone with Richard Gladden. For those of you who don’t know, he is an attorney here in Texas that has won some registry restriction cases for the side of registered citizens here in Texas, and other things. Richard explained to me about the Hearn case pending in August, and how he expects to win it. You can look that case up here: http://texasvoices.org/court-cases-hearn-v-castilleja/ If won, it will send it to the 5th circuit which will take about another year. If it’s won there about 3500-3700 defendants (myself included) will be relieved of their duty to register. At that point Texas will either relieve those people or should be prepared to be sued about 3500 times for relief.

From my understanding there was a registry started in Texas about 1993, however if the terms of your probation state that your registration ends after your probation is up then those are the people who are in this list of 3500 who will be relieved.

For those naysayers on here who said J3ffrey Epst3in would never be brought to justice and will live his life out on his private island, I suggest you do a search for his name. He was arrested on sex trafficking charges Saturday night. Given the rumors and names that swirled both when he was originally charged and with the re-opening of the case in NY, there are sure to be some anxious rich men out there right now.

With this arrest, I’m guessing more victims will step forward and things will only get worse for this man.

And, I wonder if he files (with whom?) a 21-day notice of travel out of the country every time he hops over to Paris on his private jet from private Teterboro airport where he no doubt breezes through CBP. Does he just walk the underage girls right through CBP along with him? How does he get them visas, etc. There had to be an enormous legal/administrative apparatus supporting his deviant behavior.

Only good news is the obvious fact that his being on at least four state registries for 10+ years certainly didn’t slow down his outrageous ongoing sex offending. He’s the poster boy for the ineffectiveness of sex offender registries.

PS: Did you see the description of the trove of CP tapes/discs the Feds discovered in a safe in the NY house, with labels like “nude young girls?” Just shows that these rich guys think they can get away with anything.

Has anyone noticed the amendment to the New Hampshire constitution that was passed last year? Maybe we need to focus our efforts in that state to take down the registry altogether. This is the text of the amendment that was passed by New Hampshire voters:

“[Art.] 2-b. [Right of Privacy.] An individual’s right to live free from governmental intrusion in private or personal information is natural, essential, and inherent.”