HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) — A convicted sex offender has made a “plausible” claim that providing his email address and other internet identifying information to Connecticut officials violates his free speech rights, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday in reinstating his lawsuit against the state.
The decision by a three-judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan mirrors other court rulings around the country that determined some states’ laws violated sex offenders’ rights.
James Cornelio, a former New York City lawyer, was convicted in New York in 2005 for sex offenses involving a minor. He later moved to New Preston, Connecticut, and was subject to Connecticut’s sex offender registration requirements.
He sued Connecticut and state police officials after he was arrested in 2015 for failing to provide an email address he was using, as required by the state’s law. The arrest came after Cornelio emailed the state police sex offender registry unit using an email account not registered with the state, police said.
Do not repay evil for evil. That may sound strange but who is doing the evil in many of these registry ordeals when both are just as guilty. While e-mail addresses seem to be an identifier who is identifying who today. One could call these registry ordeals a dead man’s tag game.
You talk on the telephone today they know the number of the caller and in many ways know the address of the person calling. Call it foresight or hindsight. While all people like privacy what is private today. Well thoughts and intents are private. Yes there are two sides to every coin. This internet issue is like a challenge to some or who sinned when we all sinners. Today who causes others to sin in these registry matters?
Yes offenses will come but woo to the person that causes these little ones to sin. Much of this registry is a challenge of causing these little ones to sin with the temptation. While the registry may be a means of controlling who is controlling who in these issues.
Every government that runs the Hit Lists is a criminal regime. An illegitimate, criminal business, fleecing money from taxpayers and other sources, in order to commit their crimes.
Anyone who fantasizes that public safety is improved or someone is somehow “protected” if a PFR gives a criminal regime their email addresses, is an abject moron.
Anyway, this part of the article is quite funny – “The arrest came after Cornelio emailed the state police sex offender registry unit using an email account not registered with the state, police said.”
I guess that wasn’t very smart.
But he probably also incriminated himself by telling the criminal regime that it actually was/is his email address. The rule of course is to NEVER, EVER speak to the criminal regimes or their law enforcement criminals. Not ever. If you are forced to give them some information, then only do it in writing and only at the date/times that is forced. Do not do ANYTHING extra. Even if they ask you if something that you’ve given them in writing is correct or not. I would’ve even reply.
So how does this criminal regime believe or know that this email address belongs to this guy? I wonder. If I write something and then give it to my sister for her to email to the criminal regime, then whatever email address that she happens to use is not mine. It doesn’t matter if the criminal regime believes it is or not. So how will this criminal regime PROVE that this email address is his? Did he talk to them? Do they have a confession? Never talk to them.
Years ago, the criminal regime where I live tried to force me to give them my “internet identifiers”. But the courts kept them in line so they are not able to today. So I have tons of unRegistered email addresses! That must be a very dangerous situation and I must be very dangerous!! Of course I retaliated for the criminal regimes attempting to commit crimes against me. But I need to retaliate more. I should use the unRegistered email addresses for that! But how should I retaliate? I’d like to keep it legal, but as harmful and destructive as possible. How?
Something to think about with the internet identifiers. After I was released from prison, I lived with my parents for a while. I moved out into my own home where I live today. But my dad put a claim on his homeowners insurance. So when I went to insure my house, it showed up as a claim on me. So I contacted the credit report agency. They had all of my dad’s information entangled with my information, same name just Jr. So all his email addresses showed up underneath my credit report. So if sorp ran a credit report on me, they would show a whole bunch of other email addresses that I don’t have registered because they are my father’s. So would they be able to come after me for unregistered email addresses? It’s on my credit report! And would sorp have to prove that they’re mine? So many problems with the system. Thanks!
Interestingly, the new owner of Twitter has said himself Twitter is part of the town square one must be able to speak in; so, even the business realm realizes the importance of the town square argument and allowing people to speak in it regardless.
I’m curious to know exactly how many sex crimes were committed that began with anonymous online contact, and of those how many by someone on the registry. Betting it’s nowhere near as prevalent as implied.
I’d also like to know how many arrests there were for unreported identifiers, and if any of those unreported IDs were used for the purpose they supposedly prevent. Seems to me that if anyone – registered or not – was “trolling for victims” on the internet, they certainly wouldn’t use an easily traceable one.
Like every other non-punitive, regulatory obligation or restriction for registrants, the objective is to keep registrants running in and out of jail/prison for nonsense.
Fact is provided email address ( or ID) is a target for search. If the address has be used it comes with collateral meta data by default. Hence more information than is factually required by law comes with the search report with extraneous information data by default. All transactions comes with time stamps and other data related to hosts of paths. Some of the surveillance saints have gone as far as to develop intelligent pixel applications to embed in known child porn files. As the file of the image is copied durning upload process the embedded ping transmits back home to the dedicated server for storage. At which point the down stream user download ping also reporting the protocol paths to the copied file back to the server as verified complete. It is possible of course that in the middle of a download a person could cancel the process having decided not to risk it. In that case no verification of download would occur. It is precisely because “download liability” the big legal porn outlets have gone to “tubes.” No need to download which also protects copyright infringement. That is cyber security in a nutshell… always chasing your own tail.
I posted an article about internet identifiers in the General Comments section that many might find interesting:
Reason: Law Requiring Sex Offenders to Report All New Online IDs to Government May Well Violate First Amendment
This may sound like a dumb question, but why not simply create 150 email addresses (very easy to do), put them all on a spreadsheet, turn that in, and let THEM figure it out ??
Talk about e-mail and lawsuit reinstatement. So what ever happened to name rank and serial #. Talk about confusion. Hey authorities will dig for gold in a lost Dutchmans mine if one gives them a chance or has anyone had a sex change operation lately, a change of fingerprints, facial reconstruction. I’m sure it happens at times but is very rare. Many lawsuits are a waste of time and money in many ways. Governments have been bad since the dawn of time and many fall under a stalemate judgement on their own merits.
One wonders if Judge Judy is still around to listen to some of these cases and I doubt if people thought of e-mails even back in the 70’s.
As a lifetime (58 years) resident of Connecticut, and one who was on the Reg for a decade, I am going to weigh in here.
The Reg is the Reg. There is no “screwing around” with things. Now, if one has an issue be “In Compliance” first, then argue the merits of things.
A few years ago, I had a mailbox issue regarding the arrival of my 90 day form. It arrived one day late. All was “good” on the Reg side, but a “Robo warrant” had been issued for out of compliance. *uck me if I was sitting there on a Friday night and the Detectives rolled up 2 years later with a warrant for my arrest. They were like “look we see you, we know you but it’s a State Warrant” so we cant do anything. Thats how serious this stuff is. I got it handled, but it was very upsetting and wasn’t anything I could do until in front of the Judge. It got dismissed.
What I am saying is this: Don’t Poke The Bear. Just do what’s needed and argue it as “compliant” in court.
Judge: “Is the Petitioner Compliant with all requirements”?
Answer: “Yes”.
Then one I think has a stronger and Better position. But that’s just me thinking out loud.
I get the Case at hand. I have read it and understand it. Additionally, Connecticut is not being a *ick about people coming of Reg on Level 1. Do the 10, your done automatically.
But try and “get slick” with them? And I am not saying He did (But he DID) and they are going to do what THEY feel is needed, albeit as the meritorious case at hand is going to be a great argument back in District Court as kicked back by 2nd Circuit and well it was.
Each one of our cases is different from the next. We can fight and DO fight our individual circumstances. I am on Lifetime Federal Supervised Release. Though off the Reg in Connecticut for a few years now, and in full compliance with all the “Stuff”, it is NOT the purview of the PO to abrogate and be anything other than in lockstep with the requirements of the SR mandates and direction of the Court. That’s not their job to question.
My Job is to be in “compliance” and to put forward “reasonable” 3553 issues as to why it no longer makes sense after nearly 17 years to have such in place. That analysis is being proffered currently.
Look, everything I have done online has been part of my agreement for the past 4 years to have my Internet monitored by Remote-Com. All that I do, banking, Charles Schwab accounts, ordering off Amazon is captured. Now, do I agree with it? NO!!!!!!!! But do I have to abide by it? YES!!!! Is it acceptable? NO. But I can choose to be a “ick about it to my PO and get sent back to Jail, or I can accept it and try and move it through Court.
I choose the latter and be smarter about things. Thats just my Opinion.
Cheers,