General Comments September 2019

Three years and a mandamus later the crux of the general issue is on full display. The people in the State of Michigan are blatantly ignoring judicial impetus but why? The unpopularity of acting constitutionally?

What farmer or rancher opts to advertise the worst of his crop or flock on a world wide scale?
Certainly not not the one who stays in business for long. That is plain logic. Yet that was the choice made in 1994 by American politicians AND approved of by Supreme Court Majority.

The unfettered and unconstitutional use of the database machine where humans are enslaved by law to maintain them even as they work anti- liberty against the whole of the people.

Maybe we should be pushing to all be declared “Disabled” since we can’t find decent jobs, housing, or peace and be covered under a protective class status.
The Registry is State to State “administrative”
Pretty sure as long as that word remains in there they don’t have to abide by the Federal Laws or the Constitution apparently.
And IML is Harassment, plain and simple.
Hopefully someday we’ll see Law Makers stick to the truth as well as calling a spade a spade.

Another interesting article on Gorsuch with RBG and their opposing views.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/09/10/politics/rbg-neil-gorsuch-welcome/index.html

I love his response to her examples. Really defeats any argument about justices thinking they can take it on themselves to re interpret the constition to the temporary or permanent whims of the people. If it is a permanent change in the thinking of the people then it will be added to the constitution and justices shouldnt take it on themselves to bend it…like in 2003 when retroactively punishing sex offenders seemed like a good idea.

A company wrote an article with suggestions on how to “drive out sex offenders in your neighborhood.” The first suggestion, by the way, is to “build a pocket park” in a neighborhood, ironically referencing the very same park in Harbor City (Los Angeles) that Janice successfully threatened to sue if registrants were kicked out.

But the other ideas have got to go.

“Weird Tricks to Drive Out Sex Offenders in Your Neighborhood”

https://www.truthfinder.com/infomania/crime/sex-offenders-neighborhood/

This is my opening arguments on the Registry Fee aspect. I think I contacted Janice a long time ago, but can’t find her e-mail address anymore. Janice, would you be willing to look this over when I am complete?

“Petitioner disputes the imposed liability of the Sex Offender Registry Fee as an illegal ex post facto fine. While the Petitioner does not currently have a duty under state law to register, the “fee” provisions of his previous requirement continues to cause injury; thus, Petitioner has standing to challenge the “fee” provision. It is also noted that the State of Utah could at any time amend its laws to recapture Petitioner in its registration scheme, through retroactive application, under the disputed purpose of “public safety” and he would again be subject to liability of a registry “fee.”

During the Administrative process the OSDC relied on Femedeer v. Haun, 227 F.3d 1244 (10th Cir. 2000) and Doe v. Shurtleff, 628 F.3d 1217 (10th Cir. 2010) as a blank endorsement that the Utah Sex and Kidnap Offender Registry does not constitute an ex post facto law. However, OSDC reliance on Femedeer is misplaced as much of the registry statue has changed in the last nearly 20-years since. The same can be said of Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84 (2003). Petitioner argues that the findings of Femedeer and Smith are not a blank check or a shield that the State of Utah can use to write ever restrictive amendments to the registry. Shurtleff is also distinct from the current case as it does not involve a registry “fee.” Additionally, if Shurtleff was successful at anything, it was stopping registrant’s requirement of providing the passwords associated with their internet identifiers and preventing public disclosure of those identifiers; thus, there are limits on how far the State can go with its registration scheme. This specific case is distinct from all the proceeding cases, especially due to the multitude of changes in the registry since 2000-2003 that make it resemble probation/parole in both intent and effect, including the enactment of a registry “fee.”

The Petitioner argues that the Utah Sex and Kidnap Offender Registry we know today is punitive, “while SORA is not identical to any traditional punishments, it meets the general definition of punishment, has much in common with banishment and public shaming, and has a number of similarities to parole/probation” (Doe v. Snyder, 834 F.3d 696 (6th Cir. 2016), cert. denied). (Sixth Circuit COA finding that Michigan’s 2006 and 2011 SORA amendments constitute punishment, and subsequently is an ex post facto law, where SCOTUS denied certiorari). Snyder represents the effect of going beyond the reporting requirements in Smith where “offenders subject to the Alaska statute are free to move where they wish and to live and work as other citizens, with no supervision” [emphasis added]. Snyder went further by finding that registries constitute an affirmative restraint, “…something is not “minor and indirect” just because no one is actually being lugged off in cold irons bound. Indeed, those irons are always in the background since failure to comply with these restrictions carries with it the threat of serious punishment, including imprisonment.” But perhaps the most notable decision of Snyder is that the registry fails to have a rational relation to its non-punitive purpose, “the record before us provides scant support for the proposition that SORA in fact accomplishes its professed goals. The record below gives a thorough accounting of the significant doubt cast by recent empirical studies on the pronouncement in Smith that “[t]he risk of recidivism posed by sex offenders is ‘frightening and high.’” 538 U.S. at 103 (quoting McKune v. Lile, 536 U.S. 24, 34 (2002)).” Alas, a court has seen through the lies and debunked assertions that sex offenders pose a “frightening and high” risk or recidivism. As Synder points out, many states have also found that the registry is punitive in effect (e.g., See, e.g., Doe v. State, 111 A.3d 1077, 1100 (N.H. 2015); State v. Letalien, 985 A.2d 4, 26 (Me. 2009); Starkey v. Oklahoma Dep’t of Corr., 305 P.3d 1004 (Okla. 2013); Commonwealth v. Baker, 295 S.W.3d 437 (Ky. 2009); Doe v. State, 189 P.3d 999, 1017 (Alaska 2008)). “As the founders rightly perceived, as dangerous as it may be not to punish someone, it is far more dangerous to permit the government under guise of civil regulation to punish people without prior notice. Such lawmaking has “been, in all ages, [a] favorite and most formidable instrument[] of tyranny.” The Federalist No. 84, supra at 444 (Alexander Hamilton)” quoting Snyder.