ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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


Monthly Meetings | Recordings (07/23 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings

ACSOL Conference Oct 1, 2022 

 

ACSOLNational

****Fourth Update: SORNA Regulations Hearing Rescheduled for Aug 29, 9am. Zoom available.

Source: ACSOL

Update as of Aug 12, 2022:  The hearing date has again changed.  The new hearing date is now set for Aug 29, 2022 at 9:00am

Click here to see the Zoom hearing information, which is under the heading “Zoom Webinar Information”

 

REMINDER: if you want to receive occasional emails on SORNA news, sign up to be on the list by entering your email in the ” I want to be kept up to date on the CA Tiered Registry and SORNA regulations” form on the right side of every ACSOL page (or the bottom if you are on a phone)]  

A hearing has been scheduled for Aug 29 in a federal district court to discuss a motion for preliminary injunction in the case challenging the SORNA regulations that became effective earlier this year.  The hearing will begin at 9:00 a.m. in the U.S. District Court, which is located at 3470 12th Street, Riverside, in Department 1 before Judge Jesus Bernal.  The hearing is open to the public.  The hearing is  expected to be accessible via the courts Zoom Webinar link

Updated and additional information can be found at the web page Honorable Jesus G Bernal | Central District of California | United States District Court (uscourts.gov)

The motion for preliminary injunction was filed on behalf of ACSOL and an unnamed individual plaintiff on June 3.  The government filed its reply brief on Jun 24.

“The court’s decision regarding the motion for preliminary injunction is expected to be significant,” stated ACSOL Executive Director Janice Bellucci.  “If the motion is granted, it could stop enforcement of the challenged SORNA regulations nationwide“.

At least one attorney from the Pacific Legal Foundation, which filed the SORNA regulations challenge, will present an oral argument in this case during the Aug 29 hearing.  The judge may or may not rule on the motion during the hearing.  


Plaintiffs’ Complaint

Download the PDF file .


Plaintiffs’ Motion For Preliminary Injunction

Download the PDF file .


Defendants’ Memorandum In Opposition
To Plaintiffs’ Motion For Preliminary Injunction

Download the PDF file .


 

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t
  4. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  5. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  6. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  7. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  8. 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.
  9. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  10. Please do not post in all Caps.
  11. 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.
  12. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  13. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  14. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people
  15. Please do not solicit funds
  16. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), or any others, the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  17. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  18. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email 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.  
 
Subscribe
Notify of

217 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Reading the opposition’s brief, it seems like they feel we are misinterpreting a lot of stuff. If that’s the case, maybe they could be clearer and less vague in their regulations

As if the government doesn’t already have a credibility and civil rights problem (and perhaps a lot of other bigger problems), funny how the “Department of Justice,” in page two, uses a study examining prisoners released in 1983 (as if society hasn’t changed in the last 39 years).

When you actually examine the Department of Justice study, based on a 39 year old sample, the Department of Justice’s Memorandum in Opposition seems to conflate all “sex offenders” as rapists—as if rapists can’t reform (look at Mike Tyson, for example). But the fact is that most sex offenders are not rapists. And not all sex offenders have committed “violent” offenses.

And even for rapists, the actual recidivism rate from the 1983 sample is 2.1 percent. Hardly a “greater statistical likelihood of rearrest for sexual crimes,” as what prosecutors Jeremy S.B. Newman and Kathryn L. Wyer claim. You can literally look at the recidivism study yourself—particularly Table 7—to see recidivism rates of murder at 3.1 percent, robbery at 18.7 percent, assault at 6.4 percent, burglary at 25.8 percent, larceny/theft at 11.2 percent, motor vehicle theft at 2.6 percent, fraud at 5.5 percent, drug trafficking at 4.5 percent, weapons offenses at 2.2 percent, other public-order and other public-order offenses at 4.2 percent… all lower than rape’s 2.1 percent recidivism.

In fact, when you look at the categories of offense—”violent” offenses (34.6 percent), property offenses (48.3 percent), drug offenses (9.5 percent), and public-order offenses (6.4 percent)—they are ALL much lower than rape’s 2.1 percent recidivism. Even more troubling is that although this 1983-sampled government report cites that “[r]eleased rapists were 10.5 times more likely than nonrapists to be rearrested for rape,” that appears to be within the 2.1 percent of rapists that do recidivism—so the “10.5 times” figure exaggerates the actual percentage of recidivism. For the government to call this a ‘greater statistical likelihood of rearrest for sexual crimes’ is not true. And for the government’s 1997 study, based on a 1983 sample, to exaggerate a 2.1 percent re-offense figure, as ‘10.5 times,’ is complete intellectual dishonesty. Almost like used car salesman tactics (except used car salesmen don’t put people’s civil rights and liberty in jeopardy, nor did they swear an oath to the Constitution).

To add insult to injury, the Department of Justice relies on flawed precedentMcKune v. Lile (2002). For those of you not familiar, McKune is what the now Chief Justice Roberts—who ironically decided to take women’s rights away in Dobbs v. Jackson (2022)—and Anthony Kennedy used to claim that sex offenders have a “frightening and high” rate of recidivism—”as high as 80 percent”—in Smith v. Doe (2003). The same case that John Roberts equated sex offender registration to being just like a Price Club/Costco membership.

As Professor Ira Ellman mentioned in his paper, Smith relied on inaccurate “statistics” based on a 1986 Psychology Today magazine article. And if you’ve watched the Untouchable documentary, the documentary actually interviews the therapist that wrote the 1986 magazine article (Rob Longo), as well as the former 1988 Department of Justice psychologist (Dr. Barbara Schwartz) who wrote the government manual McKune cites. Both Longo and Dr. Schwartz are disgusted that the Supreme Court would use the “statistic” that they now concede as inaccurate and ‘made up.’

And then the government goes on to suggest that the polygraph is accurate? Adam Ruins Everything literally debunked the whole thing:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1-2K_pCWmI

I am so over this so-called “government” and its corruption. They claim sex offender registration is to “protect” the public, yet they also have no problem taking away civil rights from all women, as they did in Dobbs, with some of the same civil rights violators that argued/decided Smith (Thomas and Roberts), while continuing to rely on already debunked recidivism statistics, mischaracterizing/exaggerating very old statistics, as well as continuing to push junk science.

We’re all literally marching into 1984, with about one million American citizens labeled as “Registered Sex Offenders,” the highest incarceration rate in the world (even more than China/Russia), over 100 million Americans with a criminal record greater than traffic infractions, and women having their privacy rights taken away from the very same government that pretends to “care” about “public safety.” Not to mention that one of the prosecutors in this case is a Harvard Law grad (which you would think he would know better).

Considering the government’s response, as well as the Supreme Court’s recent failure to uphold civil rights, I am reminded of two quotes:

The oath that the prosecutors and judges took before they took their office:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

And in light of recent events:

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Martin Niemöller

God bless.

Also, did anyone else find the assertion that “sex offenders” “actually had an average of 110 victims and 318 offenses” a cheap attempt to fearmonger?

Absolutely disgusting. It reminds me of the book by Professor Harvey A. Silverglate, titled Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent, in which the author claims that the average American commits three felonies a day.

Our society has become over criminalized. And in light of recent events of the “high court” taking privacy and women’s rights away, I am extraordinarily fearful that darker days are to come.

I really feel we can do a lot better than the people we have in charge now. It’s almost like our “leadership” and “public servants” have failed.

Last edited 1 month ago by The Static-99R Is A Scam

Here we go with the “not ripe” again.

Reminds me of the probation condition, not to enter within a certain distance of where children congregate. The probation officer can’t give me an exhaustive list of what HE, his supervisor, the prosecutor, or the judge would consider such a place. Is a mall such a place? When I complained about the vagueness I was told to use my own judgement, problem is my judgment isn’t the one that’ll be prosecuting me.

🔹I will attend the hearing.
🔹I will be in the gallery.
🔹 Fellow registrants, please join me & attend if at all possible.
🔹Hopefully, the number of interested parties in the gallery will indicate to the judge that this is not a trivial matter, but a very important one that affects many people and that needs to be addressed with appropriate attention, seriousness and legal rigor.
🔸Let’s not see any more cases dismissed with careless disregard for those most impacted by these malicious, unconstitutional, ex post facto rules, regulations, and restrictions.🔸

Last edited 1 month ago by David ⚜️

THE “Burden” argument is manifest in these laws as well as in establishing an effective prohibition upon travel.

I find it strange that a list and of PFR’s and family members killed or harmed by people using the hit list , and not just here in Cali , across the country , that don’t sound much like going in to join Cosco to me ! like those freaks that went to a Lowes and bought murder weapons and went in the mans house murdered a PFR , and many more stories backed by LE , we most likely only hear about 2.5 % of those

Last edited 1 month ago by 72FLH

I know we’re only contesting the new SORNA laws, but in one of the 2003 Smith v Doe opinions, one of the justices said (I’m paraphrasing), “It’s not like they’re registering in person.” (I thought it was Chief Justice Roberts who said it.”

I bring this up b/c that sets a precedent that in-person reporting is a disability b/c 2003 Smith v Doe (or Alaska’s registry) only required mail reporting. It is implied specifically that in-person reporting was a disability during that decision. And since SORNA is a federal regime, then why can’t we use this as evidence that the current form of SORNA that requires in-person reporting is a disability. Thus, making the current form of the registry punishment.

You are compelled to physically show up to the law enforcement building against your time as a free citizen. You are not paid for your required time either as a free citizen. And if you do not comply, then you are subjected to penalty under law. There was a reason one of the SCOTUS justices said in the 2003 Smith v Doe opinion that a registrant didn’t have to do in-person reporting. Why is the government controlling a person’s body under penalty of law if they are considered to be a free citizen either via in-person reporting, travel notification, or any restrictions?

Registrant after being off-paper

  • In-person reporting (including taking pictures and fingerprints)
  • restrictions
  • travel notification
  • state compliance checks

How are all those items dissimilar to being on probation or parole? Because the state law enforcement forced me to sign the compliance check or they will not leave the premises without my signature, then that’s evidence of compliance checks. Compliance checks were created due of being on the registry, despite it not being part of the registry law.

National Institute of Justice recidivism definition:
Recidivism is measured by criminal acts that resulted in rearrest, reconviction or return to prison with or without a new sentence during a three-year period following the person’s release.”
As I understand it, for sex crimes this is most often a violation of release conditions, most commonly “failure to register” (a victimless felony).

I think it’s funny when the government uses the “not ripe” argument. Essentially, they’re saying you have to be arrested under the new law or rule – and suffer all its consequences and additional burdens that were specifically written into them – before you can challenge it. Then you have to do so as a criminal defendant rather than a civil plaintiff, a circumstance that clearly favors them since defenses to sex crimes ( and many registry offenses) are virtually non-existent.

I still don’t understand why the government is so interested in “internet identifications.” I doubt they’re monitoring specific individual email address and the like – ICAC has dedicated all their efforts to those bait-and-switch entrapment stings (and still no one can explain how one who goes to adult sites is somehow a child predator). The only thing I can figure is they want to email cp links so they can trap registrants for possession for simply opening a vague email.

Any idea what the impact of the upcoming West Virginia v. EPA SCOTUS decision may be on the SORNA regulations? Could this do what the Gundy case failed to do regarding non-delegation of powers from Congress to executive branch agencies?

The phrase “greater statistical likelihood of rearrest for sexual crimes” is a meaningless assertion and is only used in the context of winning support for their regulations.

I could assert that child victims of sexual crime have a greater statistical likelihood of committing sexual crimes than non-victims of sexual crime, and I would also be correct. According to a study of 614 incarcerated sexual offenders, childhood emotional abuse and neglect predicted sexual victimization and later sexual offending behavior (Jennings, Zgoba, Maschi & Reingle, 2014). In comparison to the general population, incarcerated sexual offenders were more than three times as likely to report sexual abuse during childhood.

Not one child safety advocate would ever suggest we place child sexual victims on a registry because of this correlation, yet the correlation is still true. Let’s stop with the distortions and deal productively with the issues and with people.

There is so much misrepresentation of the facts by the opposition. They want to lump us all together and claim we are all on the verge of committing additional sex offenses. How do they get away with asserting so many claims without real data? This non-sense is really spirit crushing. They just want to create more and more regulations that are nearly impossible to follow, so they can them put people away for actually longer that one they did for the original crime. This registration crap is so over the top! God help us all!

Seems like this is only focusing on the 9th circuit’s, or that’s the only circuit mentioned, nothing about other cases such as Munez, maybe they are avoiding cases such as this, or is it just federal cases that are focused on here?

The Feds missed, Soccer Mom Nancy V. Common Sence.
The USA and common sence , don’t belong together, in the same sentence

Just today, the Supreme Court issued its ruling in West Virginia et al., v. Environmental Protection Agency et al. While this may sound totally unrelated to registration issues, it may have some bearing on other federal regulatioy agencies. In dicta, there are extensive references to the limits of executive branch agencies to promulgate rules beyond their congressional mandate.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) is not exempt from limits to its authority, which is precisely the subject of this ACSOL motion. The DOJ’s actions are even more egregious than mere regulatory mandates, because they are defining new criminal law. In the next 18 days, it might be useful if many people scoured the decision for anything that might bear on the motion.

Gundy failed, in my opinion, because it would have changed government overreach as we know it.
That said; I was doing a little research and I came across a couple of videos on YouTube (if you are allowed to use the internet) that captured my attention.
I don’t know if we can post links here so I will type the 2 that stuck out the most and the word “Feasible” referenced not in the statute, but the courts decision.

The first one I saw was from 2 years ago searchable “Nondelegation after Gundy.” It has 13 parts and watch the part called “The Clean Air Act” – Which is what was nullified to a point with the EPA ruling today and overreach.
The second was “Kudlow, This is a massive, massive decision”, which when I heard him talking everything he said that was EPA in my eyes said SORNA. Sounds like everything the DoJ is overreaching.

These are only my opinions, and I am doing anything I can to get this injunction passed, as I am a registered person.
Thanks for listening,

Will someone please bring in Marbury V. Madison and bury SORNA once and for all!

If anyone wants to read the PLF’s complaint, it can be found here:

John Doe et al. v. U.S. Dept. Of Justice et al.

Is there a docket or some to look at on this and is there anywhere to monitor what the outcome is?

Okay, I won’t say “Be there! ‘Will be wild!” This won’t be January 6th. 😄 But I do hope that many fellow registrants will attend this hearing next Monday. A full gallery may convey to the judge the true importance of this SORNA case. 👍🏻

ACSOL should make a board with all the names of registrants and place it in front of the judge’s viewing so he might get an idea of the number of people being abused by SORNA. Visual aids are always good at re enforcement of a situation.

I am curious if the court informed the parties of the reason for the rescheduled hearing date??
I’m wondering if the DOJ/Feds did not have their “s**t” together and requested an extension? 🤔 🤷🏻‍♂️
(Just thinking out loud.)

What exactly is Sorna regulation

So I have a question regarding being removed from the registry. So if a person is no longer required to register per state and then moves on a military base in that state, are they going to be required to register? I ask this since the base is in the jurisdiction of that state but it is a Federal Reservation and will they follow the judgment of the court in that state or will they force you to follow SORNA while living on base?

We’ll turn around cxl flight car rental. Thx Fed Ct tabling to the 1st. Now I can Reg early

I’m just thinking aloud in my mind here.

Hmmm… So the Feds are overstepping their responsibilities. The old SORNA only applied to those states who took funding and recognized each state’s version of expungement (the conviction set aside/dismissed), a sign of rehabilitation. The new SORNA now no longer recognizes each state’s ability to grant expungement via bypassing the legislative process at the federal level.

When can the executive branch re-write laws without going through Congress? When can the executive branch dictate to a state what is no longer a conviction? Wait… the executive branch can override state laws and dictate its own laws upon said state(s)?

In essence, the federal government is usurping state’s power of legislation without going through it’s own legislation to create the new SORNA. This is a huge power grab against state’s right to legislate.

With this suit, it also identifies that the federal government is defaming all those who earned their case to be set aside, received a legal venue of recognized rehabilitation, or granted petition off the registry. It’s like if a person finishes their sentence in jail in CA and set free, but the fed gov’t doesn’t recognized the person being set free from prison. In CA, that person is free, but the moment that person steps onto a different state, then that person gets put back into jail. With the new SORNA, we’re 1/50th of a citizen because only CA recognizes those people who earn relief that differ from the new SORNA law that was not passed by Congress.

10th Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The overturning of Roe v Wade was because abortion is not a Constitutional right like the right to bear arms or freedom of speech. Roe v Wade isn’t a federal issue; it is a state’s issue. A state, Mississippi, protested (prohibiting) that delegation at the SCOTUS level that led to overturning Roe v Wade.

The registry also isn’t a Constitutional right. That means each state is in control of their own registry, which is why each state has different violations such as differing ages of consent as well as differing pathways off the registry like expungements or petitions. CA is protesting (wanting a prohibition) the delegation of power from the US.

@ED C shared this recent SCOTUS ruling too:

Just today, the Supreme Court issued its ruling in West Virginia et al., v. Environmental Protection Agency et al. While this may sound totally unrelated to registration issues, it may have some bearing on other federal regulatory agencies. In dicta, there are extensive references to the limits of executive branch agencies to promulgate rules beyond their congressional mandate.

Replace EPA with Fed AG with respect to SORNA.

It’s two-fold here against the federal gov’t.

Since SORNA info is populated by each state’s registry and recognized federally (see International Megan’s Law, or IML), then maybe we could get a court to recognize if one comes off the registry, then one is off the registry for all intents and purposes for all of the US. I don’t understand why someone who no longer has to register must be wary of being back on the registry in another state? It feels like double jeopardy, but 50+ times jeopardy over if one includes DC and US territories. Are we ever free from the registry in its current form even when you no longer have to register? No.

Janice is fearless, she truly is an inspiration for me it’s just a waiting game at this point and if I’m relieved of my duty to register this year Janice and ACSOL team Ima need a job.
Back in high school I use too past out fliers And promote Underground rave events through gorilla advertising I was really good at it, all of are events were packed we made all of are money back and then some and we were only 15/16 years old.
Also I have family in Denver Colorado And because ACSOL is a nationwide organization I could also organize out there too

stay focused 🤔

The federal SORNA notification has already started and is being made at one’s in-person registration for those in Texas, a non-SORNA compliant state.

The Texas Department of Public Safety which manages the registry, made a change to its promulgated form that local law enforcement is required to use for registrations and which registrants are required to fully complete and sign.

The notification…
“Criminal Penalties – Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 and the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act/SORNA: I understand that if I fail to comply with the sex offender registration requirements and travel across state lines or into another country, I may be prosecuted under federal law, 18 USC 2250, punishable by up to 10 years imprisonment. If I fail to comply with sex offender registration requirements, and if I am required to register based upon a federal, military, tribal, or US territorial conviction for a sex offense, I may be prosecuted under this law regardless of travel. I understand this is separate from any prosecution for violations of State laws for failure to comply with registration requirements.”

And each Texas registrant is required to initial next to this statement. And according to state law, it is crime if one refuses to provide all information required on the form (including initialing in multiple places to acknowledge notifications).

I listened to the 7/23 phone meeting, and I am not clear on the SORNA travel notification requirement. California is not fully SORNA compliant, and I do understand you have to give a 21 day notice if traveling internationally. Did Chance mention that traveling to just another State also requires notification?

The court has delayed the hearing date for a second time. The new hearing date is Monday, August 8, and the time remains 9 a.m. The judge and location are also the same.

Hmmm. 🤔 Postponed twice at DOJ requests. DOJ knows this won’t be an easy case!
(I wonder how the Judge will respond if, next week, DOJ requests yet another postponement. 🤔)

It seems that the court may have found a bulletproof ( or nearly bulletproof ) argument against the new SORNA regulations and they could be seeking some way to judge in the doj’s favor in order to keep from public outrage at what should be the obvious outcome and this could be the reason they keep changing the date-there is an elephant in the room!!

Sounds like someone is shaking in their boots and know it’s unconstitutional and is overreaching.

I have been off the registry since March of 2016. My conviction was back in 1992 and since that time I have not been in any kind if trouble at all. I now have a home, a high paying job and I dont bother anyone. I have complied with all requirements from New York State but it seems like government cannot honor their agreement. My conviction of having sex with an underage girl I met in a bar was a county charge. Not state or federal government. So what federal crime did I commit to be threatened to be put back on a now federal registry? If this Sorna goes through I will lose everything. I already lost my Philippine wife and my two girls in 2017 because our A hole Government wont let them in and to this day I have not heard from them or have any idea where they are. That’s the punishment that never quits that I live with in pain everyday . But to the corrupt DOJ the punishment is never enough. I really believe they are pushing registrants to commit the unforgiven

LOL 🤣 Really, a 3rd postponement? OMGollyGosh. 🙄

This is getting old…

It seems to me that are back door “stone walling” going on.

Would this only work for those who are not required to register in their states?

I checked Judge Bernal’s calendar for Monday, August 15, and the SORNA case is not listed on that calendar. I also checked the PACER website and there are no documents regarding another delay. Further, I checked with the PLF attorney and he said he has not received information yet about a delay. We will update this report as soon as we have additional information.

Why so many delays?

I was unaware of this suit until today. I am unclear why John Doe is suing? Within the text of SORNA are still the duration of registration requirements.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2021-12-08/pdf/2021-26420.pdf
See page 14, very bottom of center column.
“Section 72.5 sets out SORNA’s requirements regarding the duration of registration. SORNA classifies sex offenders into three ‘‘tiers,’’ based on the nature and seriousness of their sex offenses and their histories of recidivism. See 34 U.S.C. 20911(2)–(4); 73 FR at 38052–54. The tier in which a sex offender falls affects how long the offender must continue to register under SORNA. The required registration periods are generally 15 years for a tier I sex offender, 25 years for a tier II sex offender, and life for a tier III sex”

The time tolls from release of prison, or sentencing if there is not prison time.

Those are the minimum duration requirements for the states. The states may not set shorter durations. They can set longer durations to whatever their legislature needs to bloviate for their reelection, and many do.

Is there any reason at this point that Doe would not be a level 1 even if he had to register?.

The Complaint states his offense was 25 years ago.. Even if a level 2, it has been 25 years (unless he did a lot of prison time).

I admit I have not read every word of this new register, but those duration requirements have been in SORNA from the start. What have I missed?. Why is Doe now required to register under SORNA if he has fulfilled the duration of the registration requirement under SORNA?

I’ve seen fewer delays from Jet Blue Airlines. Good thing no one is putting their lives on hold to go and support this.

I’d venture to guess, since we aren’t popular that that’s why the Judge keeps pushing the hearing date forward over and over and over again.

Wondering if they are postponing to capture as many heads as they can before whatever happens happens and many are going to be stuck where they are or worse. But God willing it goes in out favor, there efforts will be useless. And we can pretty much guarantee they will delay letting anyone off the reg and they will come up with some sort of illegal fix like they did here in Pa. After the Muniz decision came down. I had to hire a lawyer to get them to remove me like they were ordered to do. I got scammed by the first lawyer and it’s a good thing I caught onto his game quick because that would have cost me big time, If anyone hires a lawyer that can afford one, make damn sure they have represented someone on the reg before and have a good rep.

217
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x
.