Source: ACSOL
Update as of Aug 17, 2022: The hearing date has again changed.
The new hearing date is now set for Sept 12, 2022 at 9:00 am Pacific Time.
Click below to read the document filed with court requesting that the judge change the hearing date from Aug. 29 to another date to be determined. The reason given is that the assistant U.S. attorney has a scheduling conflict.
Stip to Continue date for hearing on PI motion – Aug 2022
A hearing is 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.
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)]
Plaintiffs’ Complaint
Plaintiffs’ Motion For Preliminary Injunction
Defendants’ Memorandum In Opposition
To Plaintiffs’ Motion For Preliminary Injunction
STIPULATION TO CONTINUE AUGUST 29, 2022 HEARING
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 precedent—McKune 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:
And in light of recent events:
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.
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.🔸
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
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
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!
This might interest some:
The Supreme Court’s next target is the executive branch
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.)