Comments that are not specific to a certain post should go here, for the month of Sept 2022. Contributions should relate to the cause and goals of this organization and please, keep it courteous and civil. This section is not intended for posting links to news articles without additional relevant comment.
Related posts
-
TX: HB 1401 would require any educator convicted of such offenses to register as a sex offender
Source: tylerpaper.com 12/22/24 An East Texas state representative is working toward holding educators more accountable. Recently,... -
-
Vigilantism and the Sex Offender Registry
Source: merionwest.com 12/20/24 “Social media and online articles about these incidents boast ten or even 20...
LOL, I just now remembered that 5 days ago was Amerika’s national “‘If You See Something, Say Something®’ Awareness Day, also known as #SeeSayDay”! Did you all participate? I don’t think many Amerikans knew or cared. Too funny.
Amerika has apparently forgotten that they’ve caused tens of millions of Americans to not trust them or want to support them. I’m not ever going to be seeing or saying anything. I know the criminal regimes cannot be trusted. They don’t think I should be a citizen. So we’ll all just have to suffer.
The Registries are war. Offensive and defensive actions should be taken every day.
1203.4 and 17B, de-registration authority
Nowhere within 1203.4 does it state a registrant cannot de-register. 1203.4 does state certain sex crimes are not qualified for this legal pathway. On a tangent, 1203.4 states it does not help one restore gun right.
17B, a felony reduction, specifically states a judge has no authorization to relieve a registrant from the duty to register. 17B does help restore gun rights.
So why is this?
It’s because of Kelly v Municipal 1958. That decision allowed the judges the authority to de-register registrants who earn a 1203.4. The only reason the automatic de-registration process stopped was due to PC 290.007.
290.007 was made possible b/c 290 changed from a criminal agency to a regulatory agency. In-person reporting was quasi-criminal back in 1958 until the 2000’s, when it was deemed regulatory. No one could refute it because 290 was a regulatory scheme and those those who contested it kept using the punishment angle. No one that I know of has used right to privacy and Information Practices Act of 1977 to contest 290.007 violated several civil rights.
PC 290 cites:
This means the only way onto the registry is a conviction of a sex crime. 1203.4 removes that conviction. Therefore PC 290.007 violates the immunities stated within 1203.4 once earned. Why the regulatory scheme does not recognize a conviction that no longer exists, let alone use dismissed information that should never have been shared with a non-criminal agency, is scandalously unconstitutional.
It feels like that unconstitutional 3/5ths law, where black people were recognized and counted as 3/5ths a person. Registrants who earn 1203.4 are only extended 1 out of 3 immunities.
1203.4 immunities
Immunity is #3 recognized, but the registry is a regulatory agency and not a criminal agency. Immunity #3 does not affect the registry.
Immunities #1 and #2 are not extended to 1203.4 registrants. The registry does not recognize a registrant is no longer convicted of a sex crime and does not recognize the registrant’s accusation and information cannot be used by a non-criminal agency.
The registry’s purpose is to “inform” the public as a regulatory agency. Essentially, the registry just shares public information. Yet, 1203.4 specifically states the accusation or information against the defendant is dismissed. What does that mean? Here is what that means, as defined explicitly in 1203.425,
The registry is not a criminal agency, otherwise Kelly v Municipal would be good law as the registry is levying punishment and 1203.4 automatically relieves one the duty to register.
The registry is a regulatory agency. That means they cannot use the information of a sex crime any longer because the courts stated the registrant is no longer guilty of a crime. How is the registry able to continue to use that non-existent information that is not available to the registry? It cannot. It’s violating several civil rights provided California Constitution.
CA Const. Art 1, Sec 7(b): equal immunities and benefits
CA Const. Art 1, Sec 9: law impairing the obligations of contracts shall not be passed
CA Const. Art 1, Sec 1: right to pursue and obtain privacy
CA Civil Code 1798: right to privacy is personal and right of privacy to info pertaining to them
PC 1203.4: legal pathway to purse and obtain privacy as well as possess the authority to relieve the duty to register
Melvin v Reid 1931: right to reputation is protected (includes character and social standing)
IMO, Melvin is very important because of the parallels between a movie production and the registry. The movie production exposed the unsavory past of a rehabilitated person. Similarly, the registry is exposing the past of a person who is not guilty of a sex crime and whose history is not for use by law.
I heard this “turn of phrase” on NPR radio this morning and it certainly struck me regarding us registrants:
“The borders of identity are so heavily police and patrolled… ”
Alas, a very malicious and false identity created to be applied to us! 😡
I have not totally given up on the idea that the registry scheme is in fact a Bill of Pains and Penalties. This is a lesser version of the classic Bill of attainder. In US Constitutional law, a Bill of Pains and Penalties is equally outlawed by Article Section 9 & 10.
There are 3 tests that the court used to distinguish a BoA.
Historical: Does the Law contain provisions traditionally thought of as Punishment? Punishment does not have to be punitive, it can also be prohibitive or regulatory.
Functional: in short simple terms. What does this bill do? How does it do it? Are the burdens it places on the impacted necessary and minimally tailored to accomplish the goal, or are they excessive and unnecessary?
Motivational: What was the legislature’s motivation for creating this bill? Was it punishment?
I think there is a fair chance of making an argument on the Historical test. Much of the registry requirements are traditionally only used as part of probation and parole punishments. Few other ideas:
Residency Restrictions = banishment, a traditional punishment. If it isn’t banishment, what is it?
ML Web Site = Modern day Pillory. A punishment used to shame convicted by putting them on display.
Thoughts?
Working on a 40,000 foot view of a argument for Funtional Test. This is much harder. Motivational however is the real challenge. They can always say, “reduces recidivism”. That is the official motivation.
Still like the 13th Amendment argument against involuntarily servitude that is not part of punishment. Did raise a question about compulsory Jury duty…how can that be legal but registry isn’t?
Interested in all thoughts.
Reading headlines this AM where I learned in CA, specifically in LA and San Bernadino School Districts, a male and female athletic trainer, respectively, are being accused en mass of sex assaults against players. One is due to the new CA law of removing the statute of limitations on such allegations which we, here in the forum, knew would draw out cases such as this from days long ago. They are accused by members of the opposite gender. (LA Times was the online source)
While they are presumed innocent in the court of law, or are supposed to be at least, my lone question is: Where did the registry play into these situations by people in a position of trust?
The Onion has filed with SCOTUS what’s probably the funniest-ever amicus brief the Court has received.
You can read the brief here, and/or listen to a YT lawyer (I recently mentioned) discuss–and laugh about–it here. (I suggest changing the playback speed to 1.25 or 1.5. It’s still understandable but saves time.)
FYI, one of the items mentioned has to do with PFRs.