Have you noticed? The winds are shifting for the registrant community. One solid example of that is the recent federal court decision in Georgia that determined that the three registrant plaintiffs have paid their debt to society and are both rehabilitated and leading productive lives.
In that decision, the court went on to assist registrants by shifting the burden of proof to the government to show that the registrants pose a current danger to society. And then the court found that the government failed to meet that burden. In fact, the court noted that the government did not provide “any specific information or data indicating that the Plaintiffs pose (any type of) a risk”.
Without a doubt, this is great reasoning and language which supports our cause and should be used by attorneys in future lawsuits. For this is the time to shift from defense to offense.
What do I mean by that? I mean that it is time that we need to move the line of scrimmage toward our goal line. Specifically, we need to challenge laws that are based upon emotion, not facts.
For example, the California state legislature recently passed a bill, signed by the Governor, that would allow individuals convicted of a felony to serve on a jury. Just before the bill was passed, however, the legislature created an exception that prohibits anyone convicted of a felony sex offense from serving as a juror.
What were they thinking? Or perhaps they were not thinking at all. For this is absolutely no background information about this amendment in the bill’s legislative history. Which means that the amendment was a political compromise and not based on fact. Therefore, the new law is ripe for a legal challenge and that is what is about to happen in Los Angeles Superior Court….the same court where the County Registrar’s decision to exclude all registrants from serving as poll workers is already being challenged.
There are many more examples in many different states where attorneys are challenging the status quo. For example, attorney Miriam Auckerman continues her battle to overturn registration laws in Michigan. And attorney Paul Dubbeling continues to challenge GPS requirements in North Carolina. Further, attorney Adele Nicholas continues to challenge residency restrictions in Illinois. And finally, attorney Mark Yurachek is preparing a challenge to Georgia laws that limit where registrants can visit, work and live.
The breadth and depth of our attorney bench is growing and that is cause to celebrate! For together, we can move the line of scrimmage away from the punishment of the past toward our goal line where the registry in every state is significantly reduced to only those who pose a current danger and no registry is available online.
I love coming on this board and reading something like this that just gives me so much hope to go forward with confidence. The one name in that article that s missing is Janice’s. Thank you for all you do.
I sure hope the mark can be taken off our passports and shut down Angel watch notices. I would like to visit my daughter in the Philippines, who is now a medical doctor there.
How do they figure that Mrs Aukerman, is changing registry laws in Michigan? That’s funny to me, because in the last 3 years since we won, absolutely nothing had changed so far. The Legislature has not done a damn thing to revise the registry like they were ordered to do, I am still waiting to be removed from the registry. They just keep kicking he can back in forth to one another. Superman rights a brief, the state just recently responded, and we have to wait again, for another response from the ACLU. Convicted in 1992 before a registry was even thought of in Michigan, we win, and 3 years later still waiting to be removed.changes being made in Michigan’s registry my ass.
God bless those attorneys and staff for being able to see that people are people and deserved to be treated as such, even when it means standing up to bullies like that Sheriff in GA.
God Bless you Janice, and all of your staff and attorneys (Chance!) who take your time and effort and turn it into love for a community of people who so many have turned away from.
I am still not sure why the better fight at this point is not to leave some rediculous laws in place and go after the lack of due process for putting someone on the list to begin with.
After all, connecticut v Doe 2003 had its due process challenge lost by a unanimous vote only because the list had no inference of dangerousness and invoked no consequences on liberty other than making it easier to obtain already public information. Now, in 2019, it is clear and part of laws that being on that list gets your passport marked, makes federal housing assistance unavailable, keeps you out of shelters, and keeps your criminal history able to be used against you beyond the 7 years of any other crime in many states. There is nothing about that case that holds up now.
In Smith V Doe 2003, the entire case hinged on registration not meeting the 7 Mendoza -Martinez factors of punishment. In 2019 it clearly meets that.
The predisesor of those cases was McKune v Liles 2002, which was based on the complete lie from someone selling psych services to a prison that said 80 percent of sex offenders re-offend.
Why is it not yet time to get these bad rulings overturned when they were not only bad and mis informed back then, but are totally not comparable to the current restrictions on liberty going on today?
Agree with Chris F and add the following:
1. Why wouldn’t the federal court in Georgia’s reasoning not apply to the registry en totem? Doesn’t it say the same thing as those stupid signs from the Sheriff’s office? Why is it necessary to have an individualized assessment in order to (forcibly) put a sign on someone’s yard at Halloween to trumpet the government’s claim that a resident at this place is dangerous, but not on the internet or a book/wall in the Sheriff’s office during the rest of the year? Wouldn’t being forced to update all info and photos 2, 3, 4, or 6 times a year also be considered compelled speech, knowing that it’ll end up on the Sheriff’s website for public consumption? If so, why not fight the registry as a whole on compelled speech grounds?
2. With much love and all due respect to Janice and her colleagues, a reduced or tiered registry, publicly available or not, is still a registry. Seems to me that fighting for a reduced or tiered registry acknowledges that it is necessary and a vital ingredient to public safety, which it is clearly and demonstrably not, and accordingly dilutes any argument against the status quo.
3. LE doesn’t need a specific registry for them only – they all have access to the National Crime Information Center and can pull the criminal record of any person at any time, and always do in the normal course of criminal investigation anyway. The registry has never played even the smallest role in any criminal investigation. The only reason LE wants one is to beg for more grant funds to (mis)allocate.
4. I personally think ALL inmates who have been locked up for 15 years or more should be psych-evaluated, but such examinations should be more focused on one’s ability to adapt to a society that has changed dramatically in the time since they were imprisoned than their original offense(s). For example, a man that did 20 for dealing dope and was probably dealing dope while he was in prison is pretty certain to keep dealing dope if released. Contrast the average registrant, who was probably among the best behaved inmates and already statistically least likely to commit another crime (possibly a status offense, if anything).
5. Why is civil commitment seemingly (strictly?) limited to those who have committed sex crimes? Is there no severe mental illness that would warrant incarceration beyond sentence among the other criminal classes or society as a whole? If I’m right that the entire civil commitment population have sex offenses in their criminal record, wouldn’t they be more accurately called “Sex Offender Prisons?”
Thank you for your work on our behalf
Thanks for all your work. I feel a twinge of optimism reading your report, but the optimism is short lived. It seems like we are playing a losing game of wack-a-mole. States and localities are popping out new laws and regulations faster than they can ever be modified by court actions. And I can’t for the life of me understand how, even where registry laws are found to be unconstitutional, e.g., Michigan and Pennsylvania, they remain in force anyway. The noose continues to tighten around each of us despite the rodents you have hammered.
I have been wanting to go on the offensive for years . I just don,t like jail .
Best let Janice and Chance do the ass kicking !
I’m sorry I just don’t see any of those laws as offensive, merely fighting ridiculous laws because the list exists. Fighting the overall scheme would be going on the offensive. IMHO
Ladies and gentlemen, boys & girls of the registry scheme. The stars have yet to align. There are great, great people like Janice all over the country trying to nudge it all into place, and when that happens, even after some almosts and upsetting defeats, the registry will be abolished. It will. Peace and love to everybody.
Confront thy adversary.
The best offense in FTR IN EX POST cases is showing the jury as evidence the Notice of conviction from the original sex conviction. That form is the paper vehicle which makes commitments to DOC ( If doc administrate SOR in your state) “lawful” & ” inforcable. ” This fact is found in STATUTE. Life terms as strict liabilities owed to DOC (DPS) are normally expressed in terms of sentence structure whole determined by the judicial branch as a FUNCTION contained within the form.. Without that particular DOC\DPS form it is impossible for a jury to conclude a man’s inclusion was done ” lawfully. ” THERE IN to reason to doubt in concrete evidentiary form OR forums papyrus. My love to liberty and her two sisters.
The non delegation doctrine prohibits Admin ( AG) from behaving in very specific terms in its lone interpretation of new sections regarding CONFLICTS OF LAW.
*WIS DOC FORM 20
**https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/archive/law
Think like this! The registration is the Berlin wall. It divide people for years before it got taken down. Well folks we are on one side of that wall. And Janice and her fighters. Have a huge job to take down that wall of lies hate and fear.And like the Berlin wall it is not a over night fix. Till the people on the other side of this wall (aka the hit list) can see the harm it is doing to the country. We will still have people.Who think this wall will keep the children safe! Just like that sheiff wanted to put up signs as a wall to divide the people with fear and hate! But he got his butts slapped by the federal judge! You watch! Now the shieff will say i was molested my butts hurt! You all take care Vampire is out sleep will haha
Had Jury Duty last month. My jury panel ended up being excused before ever reaching the court room. This was at a superior court in southern California. I have a federal felony conviction for possession of cp. Even while on federal supervised release the superior court system sent me multiple jury notices over the five years and I had to keep writing that I had a federal felony conviction for which my rights in California were not yet restored.
Thank you Janice for all your work! Great to hear about this update, especially this part:
“For example, attorney Miriam Auckerman continues her battle to overturn registration laws in Michigan. And attorney Paul Dubbeling continues to challenge GPS requirements in North Carolina. Further, attorney Adele Nicholas continues to challenge residency restrictions in Illinois. And finally, attorney Mark Yurachek is preparing a challenge to Georgia laws that limit where registrants can visit, work and live. ”
What SHOULD be a federal law is that the government (state or federal) must reimburse citizens for ALL legal fees involved in suing and successfully beating laws that were unjustly put into place.
HOW on Earth is it OK that Groups of people have to scrape together $15,000-25,000 each time to challenge a law that some idiot Lawmaker just decided to make on a whim? It is absolute insanity and plain WRONG!
How quickly would these imbecile Lawmakers change their tune if they were responsible for costing taxpayers substantial money?
THIS would change the country overnight and is the RIGHT thing to do.
Janice wrote: “For example, the California state legislature recently passed a bill, signed by the Governor, that would allow individuals convicted of a felony to serve on a jury. Just before the bill was passed, however, the legislature created an exception that prohibits anyone convicted of a felony sex offense from serving as a juror.
What were they thinking? Or perhaps they were not thinking at all. For this is absolutely no background information about this amendment in the bill’s legislative history. Which means that the amendment was a political compromise and not based on fact. Therefore, the new law is ripe for a legal challenge and that is what is about to happen in Los Angeles Superior Court….the same court where the County Registrar’s decision to exclude all registrants from serving as poll workers is already being challenged.”
If this is solely for political reasoning, seeing that banning a subset of felonies from the privilege of serving the jury, then would that be violating the law as denoted by Section 7(b) of Article 1 of the California constitution: “A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens. Privileges or immunities granted by the Legislature may be altered or
revoked.”
The registry was upheld so that registrants can be made available to the law enforcement at whatever time. Not applying this privilege of serving on the jury system when all felon class is not shared upon the same terms on behalf of the registry goes beyond the statutory purpose.
I want to bring up another “good offense” civil lawsuit that is based upon the same principles of “not based upon fact” and “class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens.”
SB 530, chap 721 was passed in October of 2013. Existing law already provided that when an offender obtained an expungement via section 1203.4, they were “released from all penalties and disabilities resulting from the offense of which he or she has been convicted” with some exceptions. The new statutes clarifies that the relief extends to the employment process as well. But that amendment to that law also excluded registrants from that now protected disability.
Link to SB 530: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/13-14/bill/sen/sb_0501-0550/sb_530_bill_20131010_chaptered.htm
This new amendment of SB 530 actually states it is a protected disability for employers, both public and private, to use information in the employment process who earned the 1203.4. Well, except that isn’t extended to registrants. So immunities are not given upon the same terms to the same class, a clear violation of the California Constitution.
Not only is it unconstitutional, but it reveals that the registry is going well beyond it’s statutory purposes as now the registry supports a legal disability to not be extended to the registrant who belong to the 1203.4 class that received the SB 530 protections to the employment process. The intent of SB 530 was to improved the chances of 1203.4 recipients to gainful employment. What does improving gainful employment have to do with being “made available to law enforcement”? It doesn’t. Thus revealing the registry has gone beyond it’s statutory purpose as SB 530 proves it imposes a direct disability to registrants.
If you wish to pursue this avenue, then I have a letter from an employer who used the registry to negate my employment. Being on the registry was the only reason why I was denied employment despite earning my 1203.4.
Again, if you’re going to use registrants being denied to serve on the registry when a new law allowed it to all classes of felons save registrant, then why not use the same tact against SB 530? SB 530 denotes disability and a disability is a punitive act.
Always pay your taxes, do good deeds and be twice the citizen compared to others so if society looks at your life they only see compassion and honor looking back at them….but bare this in mind: the requirement to register is a declaration of war against you and your family. As in any other regards a contract signed under duress is not binding. We have to sign and be registered under the real threat of arrest and incarceration. That threat makes such a contract unlawful. So while in such a state of war placed against us we are expected to pay taxes. Should we fund our oppressors by paying taxes? Reason would say “NO” but I say YES pay the taxes BUT shine the light of truth on the flawed reasoning in doing so!
I saw the new article “Registrants Challenge Jury Pool Exclusion” and it’s based upon violating the equal protection clause of the California Constitution. Can that same thought and reasoning be used for excluding registrants from improving chances of employment in SB 530? There is no rational basis for excluding registrants from improving chances of employment.
The reasoning could apply similarly with, “[Improving chances of employment] facilitates changes in convicted felons’ self-concepts, promoting prosocial identity transformation, tempering the stigma of a felony conviction and prompting the discovery of self worth.”
SB 530 improved the immunities for the 1203.4 class of citizens, but excluded the 1203.4 registrant class of citizens. Isn’t that a violation of equal rights as per Article 1, Sec 7(b) : A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens.
If this avenue isn’t “good offense”, then could I get an answer why it isn’t similar to the Juror suit? Thanks for reading me, your time, and answer in advance.
If not, you can always look it up at your local law library.
SB 530 pertaining to 1203.4, which was passed in 2013. Here is the analysis link: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/13-14/bill/sen/sb_0501-0550/sb_530_cfa_20130422_094757_sen_comm.html
It addressed 3 items:
1) It adds records expunged to the protections under Labor Code 432.7.
2) It eliminates the five year state residency for those convicted outside of California, but moved into the state for a Certificate of Rehabilitation (“COR”).
3) It allows the court to waive the 5 year time period to grant a COR in the “interests of justice”.
Only point 2) applies to registrants. Points 1) and 3) excludes registrants.
Here is an excerpt from the Analysis on point 1) :
***
The author argues that while the a person is supposed to be relieved from the disabilities of their offense, the fact that people can get records on line and understand what a dismissal under Penal Code Section 1203.4 means, even an offense dismissed under Penal Code Section 1203.4 is interfering with the ability of many to fully rehabilitate by gaining employment.
This bill would amend the Labor Code to provide that in addition to not being able to ask or use information on an applicant about arrests that did not result in conviction or participation in diversion that an employer cannot ask about or use information that a conviction was dismissed pursuant to Penal Code Section 1203.4 unless the conviction fall under one of the specified exceptions because the law otherwise requires the conviction to be considered.
***
The author of this bill specifically states it extended disability to include the employment process into the Labor code. That means an employer cannot ask or use information that did not result in conviction or participation in diversion (1203.4). PC 290 is enacted once convicted, which is the dissemination of information. The exception seems very odd as the purpose of SB 530 was to, and I’ll use the author of the bill’s words in the analysis,
” California’s existing expungement law, Penal Code
1203.4, is ineffective. Even after receiving an
expungement, rehabilitated former offenders suffer
lifelong discrimination in employment, housing and
travel. Not only is this unjust, it inevitably costs
California millions of dollars in dealing with
recidivism, unemployment, and under employment. ”
If you’re a 1203.4 registrant, then you’re excluded from these protections of unjustness. SB 530 identifies a new disability, but that disability isn’t extended to registrants who also earned the 1203.4. That violates equal protection as 1203.4 “shall thereafter be released from all penalties and disabilities resulting from the offense of which he or she has been convicted.”
SB 530, as provided with the links above, codified into law a new disability. Yet, that disability is not afforded to registrants who also qualify for 1203.4.
===
Also, why are registrants not allowed to participate in the court to waive the 5 year time period to grant a COR in the “interests of justice”? That appears to be unjust and continues discriminate against registrants as second class citizens who are not given equal opportunities.
.
There, I provided two “best defense is a good offense” instances for a case all from the passing of SB 530, Wright. Criminal Offenders: Rehabilitation. If “Jury Duty” should be equal for all convicts, then the same concept should apply to the immunities and privileges to all 1203.4 recipients as provided with SB 530, Wright?
As always, I thank you for all your efforts.