ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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


Monthly Meetings | Recordings (4/17 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings
ACSOL’s Online EPIC Conference: Empowered People Inspiring Change Sept 17-18, 2021

National

SCOTUS: Petition Maryland v. Rogers

Maryland v. Rogers addresses whether sex offender registration is “punishment” within the meaning of the Sixth and 14th Amendments. Jimmie Rogers pleaded guilty to a Maryland criminal law that provides that a person may not knowingly “take or cause another to be taken to any place for prostitution.” Because the victim’s age was not an element of the offense, the prosecution did not present evidence of her age. However, the Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services determined that the victim was a minor. After Rogers’ release from prison, the department classified him as a Tier II sex offender, which requires registration for 25 years for human-trafficking offenses against minors. In contrast, a Tier I sex offender must register for only 15 years and may petition for removal after 10 years. The Maryland Court of Appeals, the state’s highest court, determined that sex offender registration constitutes punishment for which the state must prove all elements beyond a reasonable doubt. The Maryland attorney general’s petition asks the justices to review that decision, arguing that it conflicts with two Supreme Court decisions and other lower-court and state-court decisions. Case Files

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 will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  • 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 do not solicit funds
  • 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.  
 
83 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Here’s hoping the case will be viewed objectively and rightfully determined that all things registering post sentence is punishment, and not end up being overturned through some legal mumbo-jumbo technicalities. All too often the rulings come off as “well, the bully (government) was using your own hand to ‘punch yourself’, thus its perfectly fine for the bully to continue doing so as they technically not hitting you directly”. This is really what I see it as most of the time, especially when the government collects emails, sends them to social media sites, who then banish RCs. Its a sweety technicality… Read more »

Regarding international travel, don’t forget the state department gives awards to embassies that refuses entry to registrants. Collaterally, of course.

The best angle from which to attack International Megan’s Law is to challenge the 21-day advanced notice requirement. Sometimes emergencies, like death in the family, serious illness, etc. come up unanticipated and therefore do not allow for the 3-week advanced notice.

@WC_TN

That’s why there are exceptions to 21 days in the 2011 Fed Register text of the guidelines. These things you mention are exceptions. Look them up.

TS: I think it must be an exception if a person simple decides one day that he/she wants to travel sooner than 21 days from that day. So if I woke up tomorrow morning and decided that I wanted to leave the country, then I certainly think that should be allowed. I expect that I could decide and contact my local criminal regime to inform them as I was packing to leave. I have read the federal regulations, examples, etc. and have not seen any discussion of that. If anyone knows one way or another, would you please say? It’s… Read more »

@Will Allen, I think that would be very unlikely that the Supreme Court would rule against you if you chose to make last minute travel plans as long as you attempted to give the notice somehow before you left. You might have to go thru the trouble of defending yourself first though. Another scenario is this. I know people who work for the airlines that have Buddy Passed me for international trips prior to IML. Sometimes you might even travel this way not caring where you actually end up just that you end up somewhere you would like to go.… Read more »

M C: Yep, you are right. In addition to those “Buddy Passes”, hundreds of thousands of airline employees can simply go into any airport, walk up and down the flight concourses where the flights are departing, pick one they like, walk up to the gate, and board the flight (if there are enough seats). I’ve known lots and lots of people who do exactly that. I have a good friend who, with his now-wife, used to make sort of a game of that. They would walk down a concourse until they saw a destination they liked and then just go.… Read more »

Pushing sex offenders off a thousand foot cliff over a rocky ravine wouldn’t be an assault or punishment. Sure, gravity may accelerate them downward. And the rocks below might suddenly and tragically stop them. But this was never the intent of pushing someone off a cliff. So while it may seem like an assault or punishment, it really isn’t.

65 years ago my grandfather age 16 had sex with my grandmother age 13. Under current law he would be required to register as a sex offender for life. Sex offenders for the most part have been very ashamed for their mental illness, and ask for forgiveness for an affliction they could not control. I will not be ashamed. I am an American citizen, and the only way my opposing party could win is by accusing me of grabbing her 12 year old nieces rear end. That carried a charge of CSC 2, and up to life in prison, WHAT!!!!!!!.… Read more »

They are requesting the SCOTUS to take up the case? And if they do not the ruling stands?

I hope someone can or would please interpret this.

Correct. The state is requesting a SCOTUS review as the state SCOTUS overturned the original ruling. If SCOTUS declines. The ruling stands and sets legal precedent for the circuit (Fourth). Other circuits could then site it but it wouldn’t be binding like a SCOTUS ruling would for the entire country.

SR, I think the decision would apply only in the state of Maryland if cert is denied. The contested case was decided by the Maryland Court of Appeals not by a federal appeals court.

@Ed C

Correct, applicable to MD only.

So, I know this is a little off the topic, but since Does v Snyder was found to be unconstitutional and punishment by the 6th Circuit and then SCOTUS, refused to hear it, wouldn’t Does v Snyder still stand?, no matter what AG. Barr says or Does?. That should also be the same for Maryland correct? Whether SCOTUS takes or passes on the case.

I think you’re correct, but who the hell knows? In the 6th it’s punishment and the state can’t do anything that would go against this. But, that stupid BS ruling recently in the 10th says state and federal are independent. So while the state can’t require this, the fed apparently can. However, it’s the state that does everything so I think they won’t be able to enforce the fed, thus making it kind null? It’s a huge legal mess that will probably see some people become arrested and start a new chain of events and court hearings that I think… Read more »

Correct, binding precedence in Maryland only; but, persuasive everywhere else. The decision here is based on the US Constitution and not the state constitution. Thus, if it stands it could be used by other courts to strike down the laws. Right now the DOJ and states are trying to preserve stare decisis from 20 years ago. They are trying to use Smith v. Doe as a blank check to do as they please. But, it doesn’t always work for them, unless in the 10th Circuit. /s. Snyder is only binding precedence in the Sixth for lower federal courts only. State… Read more »

Incorrect federal law supersedes all state laws. But you as the individual need to enforce you ur right .
DOE v SNYDER is the precedence and until there is a overruling it stands.

MP: This is a request by the plaintiff (Mr. Rogers) to the U.S. Sup. Ct. to have the case considered. It is referred to as a “Petition for a Writ of Certiorari”. If you’re interested, it is actually a request for the Supreme Court to order the lower court (in this case, the Maryland Court of Appeals) to produce the record of the case so that the Supreme Court may inspect and review the record to determine if there are any “irregularities”. This may include, possibly, the merits of the argument itself (is registration punishment or not?). The Supreme Court… Read more »

SG, SR, Ed….Thank you.

if SCOTUS refuses and this MD case stands the case

1). will still be influantial in other states (not binding of course)

2). MD will have 500,000 + new residents

Which brings up another question. If the ruling is good as it stands, would we want it to be heard?

MP, the first clue that we don’t want SCOTUS to grant cert is that the request comes from the state and not the registrant. The Supreme Court could decide to overturn the decision. Not a good thing. Best for Maryland registrants if SCOTUS lets sleeping dogs lie.

That doesn’t mean anything. The state lost which is why they’re asking. They have no choice unless they’re fine with the current ruling screwing up their registry. If Roger’s lost, they’d probably file as well.

@SG
A minor correction. The petition is from the State of Maryland not Rogers.

Ginsburg would’ve definitely ruled it punishment. She did I do believe back in smith vs doe. Sadly her replacement, was part of the 10th circuit that ruled it no punishment but civil in August. 🙁 aka don’t count on it guys. We lost one of our main advocates on the court, and her replacement is a very pro registry “Christian” woman. Honestly, I’m sad this didn’t go through earlier this year when Ginsburg was alive 🙁 I feel defeated a lot lately by the registry.

There is no RBG replacement on the court, yet. The potential replacement was only nominated yesterday and from the 7th CCoA, not the 10th.

TS,
IS it just me or do you find it awfully odd that when it comes to nominating ” conservative justices” it’s a Catholic and when it’s a ” liberal justice” it’s another denomination. I reference that because the press immediately announced Barrett as a Notre Dame grad right off the jump. Naturally I’m wondering where the Harvard Connection is.

@Tim in WI

No, I don’t find it odd. It’s based upon ideology, ideology that’s categorized for justices. That’s what this country does.

@ Tim in WI: FWIW, Harvard Divinity School is primarily liberal and produces a lot of Unitarian Universalist ministers. As for Catholicism, I attended a Jesuit (Catholic) university. Sadly, most of my fellow students were dyed-in-the-wool Catholics who tended to be narrow-minded conservatives who rarely thought outside the confines of what they were told to believe. 😞
(I sincerely wish that were not the case, but it was. The priests I had for some of my classes were far more liberal than the students to whom they provided instruction.)

Incorrect federal law supersedes all state laws. But you as the individual need to enforce you ur right .
DOE v SNYDER is the precedence and until there is a overruling it stands.

@Anklebiter – Actually Ginsburg’s replacement has shown remarkable independence of thought. Recently she sided with a registrant charged with FTR! And created biding precedent.

I think Barrett might help us!

Read all about it – http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2019/D07-23/C:18-3529:J:Barrett:aut:T:fnOp:N:2373206:S:0

Anklebiter,
I appreciate the link. A good read but not really different than the South Carolina case whereby out of staters were not given opportunity to contest the NC states assignment of duty to register based which was entirely on states agents comparison of law similarities between different states. Colorado is NOT in the 2nd circuits reach but the citizen was charged because he’d moved into the new state within its (2nd) reach.

I retract my statement and admit it as possibly incorrect. Thanks for the correction y’all. Sorry about that. I had a long night of looking up judges to figure out who my wife and I should vote for and reviewing cases. I might have mixed her up in the process. Digging through a lot of negativity to find the good ones. Took a toll on me

@Anklebiter, David the Jesuit, I empathize, reading those lengthy opines are grooling!!!! Imagine the time necessary generating them from scratch like Chance and Janice do. Laws were intended for general population comprehension but liberal interpretation really makes it harder to analyze ” plain text.” Claiming the plain human indenture SOR maintenance is as not punitive(by any scrutiny) IS pure ignorance and even the liberals on the Rehnquist court deemed it “undoubtedly punitive” but the Catholics (5) ALL went otherwise? Why? Pedophile priests epidemic being played out in the HYPER LAME STREAM media and ambulance chasing victimites! They were blackmailed! and… Read more »

Actually, Judge Barret is on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, not the 10th Circuit. So, she was not involved in Millard v. Camper. But, that does not mean she is on “our” side. She may be on the originalist side, and could be a pivotal vote if we even get another Gundy case before the Court (separation of powers).

Since people here are certainly interested in her stances, contact members of the Senate Judiciary Committee or your elected state officials and propose generic enough questions to ask her without jeopardizing any case which may come to the high court. For example, does she feel the social ostracizing and rejection of certain people with the help of government data publication after they’ve finished their sentences is acceptable? Does she feel people ahould be lumped together when it comes to crime classification and tiering or should individual assessments be administered to determine proper classification? Does the use of false and debunked… Read more »

“This Issue Is of Exceptional Importance Because of the Continued Danger Posed by Sex Offenders in the Community and Because the Decision Below Calls into Question the Convictions of Numerous Maryland Sex Offenders .” Hopefully evidence will be produced to refute these claims. That could be why the state appealed to SCOTUS and bypassed the circuit court of appeals, where evidence would more likely be evaluated for SCOTUS. Otherwise, these quoted claims — “Continued Danger” and “Numerous” — will be taken as true. Sneaky. Or maybe I could refute myself by reading the Court of Appeals of Maryland opinion, where… Read more »

If you read the decision by Maryland, they reference other past cases in their jurisdiction where they stated that the amended registry (2009 and 2011) are punishment, verses an earlier version that was upheld (10-years prior). See, Doe v. Dep’t of Pub. Safety and Corr. Servs., 430 Md. 535, 537, 62 A.3d 123, 124 (2013). That decision also cited that the recent empirical evidence does not support the registry. “As to recidivism, Judge Harrell stated that research since 2002 demonstrated that, “[a]pplying such a broad-reaching statute like Maryland’s to any qualifying sex offender without particularized determinations of recidivism may undermine… Read more »

@JohnDoeUtah, you must have posted while I was reading the opinion. Thanks for the update on the data.

MDSC ruled on this case. The only step left is appealing to SCOTUS, as we’ve seen previously from PA after Muniz. No other legal steps are available, e.g. federal circuit courts.

@ Ditto: I suspect the SCOTUS Justices get just as fed up with hyperbole as the rest of us (possibly more so because after read the crap day in and day out!), so they probably slough off phrases such as “Continued Danger Posed”.

@Tim in WI I believe that was because SCOTUS approved of the registry in part because the registry didn’t make any claims of the degree of danger. It stood on the conviction alone and left it to the public to determine.

Here, there is a blanket accusation of danger. A reply argument could be that many could rightfully claim not being a danger at all.

@David, agreed. Before SCOTUS can officially consider it hyperbole it has to be presented to them and proven well enough to tame the backlash.

Ditto,
DANGEROUSNESS is not the issue, and that was made clear in Alaska V Doe.

Well if Judge Barrett does get the nomination to SCOTUS- the “Dangerous” aspect for RSO’s may finally come to the forefront. As an Appellant Judge, Judge Barrett was the champion regarding a 2nd Amendment Case whereby the challenge involved preventing ALL Felons to own firearms. In her ruling- Judge Barrett went into specific details about the fact that there are differences in a convicted person’s “Dangerousness” and that ALL Felons should not be treated the same, because not ALL Felons are equally dangerous. From what I heard today about this, this new SCOTUS Judge seems like she might help bring… Read more »

May I butt in for a munute to maybe shed some light on ankle’s and some others view’s of this good news of this Marryland case of old. Yes government should honor Ms. ginsburgs last wishes. Government wants to jump the gun in all in many ways and I’m sure Trump has his own agenta and yes these races can be a smear and very messy and bit much, even with this passage of Ginsburg. And yes Maryland is a small area compared to California and other jurisdictions. Wow now I’m crazy like David said. What is the difference in… Read more »

I grew up in a Christian home with their values. Anything that is not of the lord is of the devil. Our country is filled with freedom of religion, but the only religion in America that counts is Christianity. And this country has been founded on a fanatical cult, their history is gynecide and racism. Jews and Gentiles. The rights of the many will always out way the rights of the few. Fear is the motivator not common sense, as always

This is probably old news to many, but unless I’m misreading it, Maryland had already found registration to be punitive (and a lot of evidence had to have been presented in that case). So it looks like this case is just an extension of that because if it is punitive it must follow sentencing punishment law, and that relies on “elements” of the statutory reading. It is an interesting opinion but very long, too long from me to read in one sitting.

https://law.justia.com/cases/maryland/court-of-appeals/2020/32-19.html

It may seem odd, but if she’s going to be confirmed anyway, I hope Barrett will be seated in time to hear this case. Say what you will, the Catholics have had 2,000 years worth of scholarly considerations of fairness, justice, ethics and compassion. I expect Barrett to be thoroughly steeped in it.

Off the top of my head: Kennedy, Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Roberts, Sotomayor, Kavanaugh… those are (or were) recent or current Catholic Justices. The only one who might be good for us is Sotomajor. Most of them have been particularly terrible for registrants.

@David Being taught and steeped in it is one thing, maybe at home, but in the workplace where considerations are different (but should mirror home more closely and maybe do at times), it is easy to go another way and say “I will ask for forgiveness on it because I can when I go to confession”. Catholics also can determine whether a marriage is still valid or invalid in the eyes of God. Right… SO, there is an extent to which it will reach before it won’t work. LDS are compassionate too, but not so much that it takes a… Read more »

My thought is that the more ‘conservative’ justices there are on the court might be better in some ways for registry cases. Justices that insist on an originalist’s reading of the Constitution, as written, would agree that the powers being used to enforce SORNA are not legitimate and are an over reach. My hope is that they decide the Feds have no jurisdiction in what should be a State matter, not Federal.

@Worried, might I remind you that the originalist Scalia coined the phrase “frightening and high” and that Amy Barret’s judicial philosophy is nearly identical. She was a clerk for Scalia also.

Unfortunately, that hasn’t been how it has worked out. Their so-called “originalism” has been inconsistently applied – including by Scalia, and conservatives can never be tough enough on sex offenders, in particular or criminals, in general. Additionally, they are extraordinarly deferential to state laws and extraordinarily indifferent to the rights of those ensnared in them. I’m a libertarian and don’t define myself along the left-right spectrum so I don’t like any of them very much but it is clear that if we, as registrants, are going to have some liberty in the future, we are only going to see those… Read more »

Notorious,
Precisely! Liberal interpretation of plain words.
No law includes civil law.
Not all civil laws are intended as punishment but effect IS!
Indentured servitude human To database.
Repackaged as civil as in the time of the founding.
All in contrary to the lessons learned by the acknowledgement for the NECESSARY ratification of the 13th. A reset of the relation importance of man in favor of machine and it’s upkeep.

David you made a statement or something on here about is my crazy jabbering better than yours and I win. If it was all about winning I’m sure I would of said something to my guilt plea in court. Yes I’m sure they would of gave me liberty to stand up in my own defense. At times its best to be silent and listen or one can be hard headed and go with proses and con’s such as its all about database, someone’s view’s of catholic’s or other religons or maybe pink and purple hairdoo’s in the courtroom are the… Read more »

I thought Kennedy used frightening and high in the majority’s opinion. Where is the author of the original article and why hasn’t he been drug into court to clear up The mess he made? Now that would be poetic justice!!

@Brandon

He’s debunked it, IIRC, on the record. Someone once posted here, I think, this fact. That’s usable in court.

The author of that original article as well as the woman who wrote up the info for SCOTUS in that case have been against everything almost from the get-go. The author in particular never supported any of this and has been saying how horrible it’s been that his work nearly 20 years earlier had been used that way.

@Brandon, I stand corrected on that but still Scalia joined the majority opinion.

Brandon, That is what I thought too. That it was Kennedy. Maybe someone else will chime in on this.

Real talk. Let’s say it goes through and the Supreme Court rules it punishment. We cheer and party and such. But what does it mean in the long run? Does it mean the registry goes away? Are we all in double jeopardy and can petition off? Or is it just a recognition and things stay the same?

Who knows? The case seems to do with the fact that they layered extra beyond his initial plea. SCOTUS ruling against this may mean people who were retroactively affected by this may be allowed to petition off. Those convicted post the change may now. I’m thinking similar to the PA ruling a few years ago (which has yet to be rectified because lawmakers are dragging their feet and the courts keep giving it to them). The ruling we’d actually want beyond just all of the registry being void post completion of sentence, is placement on tiers requiring direct individual evaluation… Read more »

The following needs serious challenge, this demands friends of the court briefs to debunk these lies….. “Since this Court decided Smith in 2003, Maryland and other States have continued their efforts to maintain effective registration systems to curb the risk to public safety posed by sex offenders. That risk remains “frightening and high.” Smith, 538 U.S. at 103. A 2017 report by the Department of Justice’s Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking (“SMART”) shows that the 15-year sexual recidivism rate for offenders who already had a prior conviction for a sexual offense was 37 percent, and… Read more »

Yeah, nothing like a self serving study by SMART. We need to dig into this.

Also, as I stated to the Commission here in Utah, the studies looking at under-reporting are not objectively defensible. They are based on untested allegations of sexual abuse. Without a trier of fact in an unbiased court of law, it flys in the face of due process – innocent until proven guilty.

If we allow them to go unchallenged here, we will end up with “frightening and high” 2.0.

They will always lie. Always. And misrepresent. They can never be trusted. I don’t think we should worry about recidivism or under-reporting. If you have a potential mechanism/scheme named “X” and it needs to improve those, but does not, would you use it? Of course not. How about if X wasted piles and piles of time, money, effort, and other limited resources? Would you use it then? How about if it also put everyone in America in more danger? And caused widespread, deep damage? What if it harmed the very fabric of civilized society? Would you use X? Would you… Read more »

I found the “report” they reference, the link in the Court documents is dead. In the conclusions section, and much of the document, SMART state, “Official records underestimate recidivism. Studies of sexual assault victims and studies of sex offenders in treatment demonstrate that actual offending rates are poorly reflected by official records.” SMART acknowledges that the officially recorded recidivism of sexual offenders is low; but, asks us to ignore those facts in place of hearsay statements that were never tested in a court of law. Somehow the facts and actual re-convictions deserve less evidentiary weight than untested hearsay. One way… Read more »

One wonders who cry’s rape when the word mean’s so many different things. Or who drives their car off a bridge, or who goes to court without a charge. Sure I have gotten out of many of you all on here and also Janices team than in the past hearing NARSOLs view’s or W.A.R.s view’s, even nots from Once fallen and others. Nothing wrong with working together. Dad had to do that many times to prepare to go to court. Yes Janices is right about this one jot of tittle, We can also use that in a biblical way. Sure… Read more »

@S.R. I like your measure of thought and JohnDoe’s. My sister went with me in my ordeal and yes their were a lot of papers to sign. She said go ahead and sign them after the PO explained them to us the best of his ability. When it came to sign another paper. I had the forethought to bring another person in to wittness what I was signing as the PO is always on the side of the law. That paper of the got ya paper that said you were talking to a teenage girl. I can remember the lady… Read more »

imo sorna, sor, IML, etc… is to big, lots of $$$ behind it/being made off of it, etc… for SCOTUS to do away with it. yes there is politics/money involved even at SCOTUS level. i really hate saying and thinking this but I’m sorry it’s just to big now to go away. ps. on a side not after being on the hit list more then 20 years with no re-offence i think it will be another 15 – 20 years before some of it starts to get relaxed as more and more people get on the hit list and when… Read more »

Government of the corrupt, for profit, by the sheeple whom allow it. There’s an innocent concept of government one can believe in!! Feed me, sheeple. Feed me!!

I find it interesting that in most cases challenging registration, prosecutors imply that SCOTUS found registration to not be punishment per se. Because they know it is not true, they will never make that claim directly. What the Court found in Smith v. Doe and subsequent cases was that the specific registration implementations it considered did not constitute punishment. The Court has never answered the question of when particular statutory restrictions cross the line to becoming punishment. Generally courts don’t issue findings that go beyond the specifics of a case or are broader than necessary to answer the questions asked.… Read more »

Regarding legislative intent, do we not have instances on the record where legislators have voiced the desire to drive sex offenders out of communities with these laws or that these laws are hoped to serve as a deterrent? Would these be sufficient evidence to show that the legislative intent was to enact a criminal sanction rather than a civil regulation?

@James Yes, there are examples of those statements. Would/Could they be helpful in court to prove the legislative intent? Possibly. Has anyone tried it? I have not heard of such, but it is a worthy endeavor to do so. It would involve introducing those statements into the record and then possibly getting the author of them to expound upon their meaning of them under oath. Maybe the statement on its face could be enough because it is not hearsay, but factual in ink. Enough of them introduced collectively as one exhibit could possibly show the true intent, but the tie… Read more »

I do think a good examination on the stand could corner the legislator into defining their statement and intent one way or another WRT punishment or not and why they said it the way they did. Maybe they’d take the fifth??

Public safety is ideally accomplished by a public police officer, someone sworn in and regulated by a mandate. This whole push for “community policing” is really just a nice way of saying “vigilantism”. Neighborhood snitches and cowards. Obviously this is supported by everyone but the registrant and an easy political issue to score votes. It’s like the administrators of this system can always figure out how to score reelection and preserve the mess they built. They string along registrants, artificially creating “reoffenses” through their sting operations and strict rules. Most offenders are nonviolent and/or one time offenders. A one-time offender… Read more »

One would think so. But the way our laws are interpreted is anything but straight forward.

That is a hard one. For instance, I have public record from new reporters quoting several legislators in this state that it is punishment, even some stating that it needs to be scaled back because it punishes to many people. However, to prove legislative intent, there likely must be more. You could try to subpoena e-mails and other materials of the legislature to dig for proof; but, many times that type of information is confidential and private records (especially if it is between the legislators and their internal counsel, even if ways to wordsmith a law into being non-punitive on… Read more »

the following statement is so true. If it goes unchallenged and is accepted in this case as facts it will be literally impossible to get the real facts in front of SCOTUS ever again. “Also, as I stated to the Commission here in Utah, the studies looking at under-reporting are not objectively defensible. They are based on untested allegations of sexual abuse. Without a trier of fact in an unbiased court of law, it flys in the face of due process – innocent until proven guilty. If we allow them to go unchallenged here, we will end up with “frightening… Read more »

While legislative intent is part of the package in deciding whether or not something is punishment, it’s by no means the whole package. Extreme example…If a law was passed requiring hands to be chopped off of previously convicted thieve, even with pages of explanations about how this is merely an administrative action designed to protect the public from future theft, it would still be deemed punishment. Even if the recidivism rates of thieves was frighteningly high this would still be deemed punishment. The initial case before SCOTUS centered around a requirement to mail a postcard once a year. We’re now… Read more »

Being placed on the sexofender registry is literally a death sentence once probation or parole ends you feel relieved to no longer have to deal with Probation or parole you feel free to get on with your life not knowing the heartache and pain of never-ending punishment to come. I think it’s after about 5 years you start to realize that you were never taken off probation /parole you still have to report to Law Enforcement you still must submit to compliance checks /home visits LE don’t need GPS tracking devices they just run your social security number through government… Read more »

The 21 day notice is complete BS and unconstitutional. Unless you are rich, a lot of people wait for the cheaper tickets that are often offered very close to the departure date since they need to fill flights and drop the prices. Everybody should have the option to book a short notice flight due to finances.

As I said in a different comment here, I think PFRs do have that option. Everything I have seen applies to “plan/intend”. If you plan to buy cheap tickets for a trip on say 11/25, then tell the criminal regimes at least 21 days prior. If you plan to buy tickets for a trip this Saturday, tell the criminal regimes today.

If anyone thinks differently, please state why.

In the meantime, de-fund the police. De-fund big government. Work against them every day. They are harassers.

83
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x
.