General Comments Sept 2022

In last week’s Meet The Press Reports (link to episode on YouTube), a controversial pastor in a college town in Idaho was challenged on a number of issues, including having a member of his church who is a registered sex offender. The pastor unequivocally stood by him. It’s rare to see that in the media.

Right to reputation was actually built into the CA Constitution back in 1931, long before right to privacy, in Melvin v Reid, 1931.

If link doesn’t work, here’s the complete address: https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/casebrief/p/casebrief-melvin-v-reid

The summary version of Melvin v Reid, 1931

RULE:

The right to pursue and obtain happiness is guaranteed to all by the fundamental law of the state of California. This right by its very nature includes the right to live free from the unwarranted attack of others upon one’s liberty, property, and reputation. Any person living a life of rectitude has that right to happiness, which includes a freedom from unnecessary attacks on his character, social standing or reputation.

FACTS:

Appellant, whose maiden name was Gabrielle Darley, was a prostitute and was tried for murder, the trial resulting in her acquittal. After her acquittal, appellant abandoned her life of shame and became entirely rehabilitated. She then married Bernard Melvin and commenced the duties of caring for their home, and thereafter at all times lived an exemplary, virtuous, honorable and righteous life. She assumed a place in respectable society and made many friends who were not aware of the incidents of her earlier life. Years after, the defendant film makers, without appellant’s permission, knowledge or consent, produced a film about appellant’s life. The film used appellant’s maiden name, and advertised that the plot of the film was the true story of the unsavory incidents in the life of the appellant. Appellant filed a complaint against the defendants alleging that she had suffered physical and mental injury as the result of an invasion of her privacy. The superior court granted the defendant’s demurrers. Appellant challenged the decision.

CONCLUSION:

On appeal, the court reversed the superior court’s decision. The court held that the complaint did not state a cause of action for violation of a right of privacy in so far as it related to the use of incidents which appeared in the records of appellant’s trial for murder, such incidents, being a matter of public record, having ceased to be private. However, the publication by the film makers of the unsavory incidents in the past life of the appellant, after she had reformed, coupled with her true name, was a direct invasion of her inalienable right to pursue and obtain happiness. This right by its very nature included the right to live free from the unwarranted attack of others upon one’s liberty, property, and reputation. Accordingly, the court instructed the trial court to overrule defendants’ demurrers to the first cause of action of the complaint and permit them to answer.

Note: Right to privacy was not created until 1972 and the courts found a different avenue.

Case text link: https://casetext.com/case/melvin-v-reid

From the case text:

Melvin v. Reid, 112 Cal.App. 285, 291-92 (Cal. Ct. App. 1931) (“The right to pursue and obtain happiness is guaranteed to all by the fundamental law of our state. This right by its very nature includes the right to live free from the unwarranted attack of others upon one’s liberty, property, and reputation. Any person living a life of rectitude has that right to happiness which includes a freedom from unnecessary attacks on his character, social standing or reputation. 

The use of appellant’s true name in connection with the incidents of her former life in the plot and advertisements was unnecessary and indelicate and a wilful and wanton disregard of that charity which should actuate us in our social intercourse and which should keep us from unnecessarily holding another up to the scorn and contempt of upright members of society. 

Upon demurrer the allegations of the complaint must be taken as true. We must therefore conclude that eight years before the production of “The Red Kimono”, appellant had abandoned her life of shame, had rehabilitated herself and had taken her place as a respected and honored member of society. This change having occurred in her life, she should have been permitted to continue its course without having her reputation and social standing destroyed by the publication of the story of her former depravity with no other excuse than the expectation of private gain by the publishers.”)

The registry is an unnecessary attack on character.

I hope this helps Janice and ACSOL with a similar suit to PA’s “right to reputation”. But I do also hope CA’s “right to privacy” is also pertinent because there should be a legal pathway to pursue and obtain privacy, or the right to be left alone.

The Right to Privacy was amended into the CA Constitution in 1972. Here are some bullet points for registrants:

• Information Practices Act of 1977 – California Civil Code section 1798 and following. This law applies to state government. It expands upon the constitutional guarantee of privacy by providing limits on the collection, management and dissemination of personal information by state agencies.

•  1798.24:  An agency shall not disclose any personal information in a manner that would link the information disclosed to the individual to whom it pertains unless the information is disclosed, as follows:(o) To a law enforcement or regulatory agency when required for an investigation of unlawful activity or for licensing, certification, or regulatory purposes, unless the disclosure is otherwise prohibited by law.

•   1798.32: Each individual shall have the right to inquire and be notified as to whether the agency maintains a record about himself or herself. Agencies shall take reasonable steps to assist individuals in making their requests sufficiently specific. Any notice sent to an individual which in any way indicates that the agency maintains any record concerning that individual shall include the title and business address of the agency official responsible for maintaining the records, the procedures to be followed to gain access to the records, and the procedures to be followed for an individual to contest the contents of these records unless the individual has received this notice from the agency during the past year. In implementing the right conferred by this section, an agency may specify in its rules or regulations reasonable times, places, and requirements for identifying an individual who requests access to a record, and for disclosing the contents of a record

Info Practices Act of 1977 expands the privacy by providing limits on collection, mgmt, and sharing of personal info by state agencies. Except in case of 290 registration and Megan’s list. There are no limitations of trampling all over registrant privacy. Also, there is no legal venue for lifetime registrants who cannot pursue and obtain privacy once again.

1798.24 states personal info can be disclosed unless the disclosure is otherwise prohibited by law. If a registrant earns 1203.4, then the registrant has his/her accusation or information dismissed. Only the registrants and criminal agency has that information. 290 registration scheme is a regulator scheme only. Therefore, they no longer can “collect, maintain, nor disseminate” information that is dismissed.

1798.32 states an individual is permitted gainful access to records and able to contest the records. 290 registration prevents any registrant from looking at their own Megan’s List information to contest the correctness of the records.

.
================================

Melvin v Reid, 1931 and 1203.4

Part 1: Public record ============

Melvin’s conclusion said this:

The court held that the complaint did not state a cause of action for violation of a right of privacy in so far as it related to the use of incidents which appeared in the records of appellant’s trial for murder, such incidents, being a matter of public record, having ceased to be private.

1023.4 has two components with respect to public record no longer existing:

1. Court “shall” set aside the verdict of guilty
2. Court “shall” dismiss the accusation or info against the defendant

From here and with “right to privacy” laws being amended into the constitution, we can state the Registry Scheme 290 is in violation of “right to privacy” once 1203.4 has been granted to any registrant since the record is no longer public.

Nowhere within 1203.4 does it state it cannot remove one from the registry.

Part 2: Rehabilitation and Reputation =========

Melvin’s conclusion said this:

However, the publication by the film makers of the unsavory incidents in the past life of the appellant, after she had reformed, coupled with her true name, was a direct invasion of her inalienable right to pursue and obtain happiness. This right by its very nature included the right to live free from the unwarranted attack of others upon one’s liberty, property, and reputation.

Another word for reformed is rehabilitated.

PC 1203.4 is a test of rehabilitation through a probationary period. From Kelly v Municipal, 1958:

[3] Accordingly, we have a seeming conflict between these two statutes. Section 1203.4 releases “thereafter” all penalties and disabilities. Section 290 by imposing the continuing duty to reregister upon effecting a change of address does not expressly recognize any such release. Does section 290, as the later enactment, prevail? We think not.

A means of reconciling this conflict is furnished by the separate and distinct policies which these two statutes were respectively designed to effectuate. One deals with probation and is designed to foster rehabilitation by giving the probationer an opportunity to erase for the future the legal consequences which normally flow from a conviction. The other requires registration of a person convicted of any of the offenses enumerated, upon the theory it would seem that such offenders are apt to repeat and therefore should be kept under close police surveillance at all times. It is a fair inference that an offender found deserving of probation is not likely to be in need of further police surveillance if he responds to the confidence reposed in him as a probationer and faithfully fulfills the terms and conditions of his probation, designed to impress upon him a keen awareness of his obligations to society and induce him to exert every effort to develop and prove his ability to meet and discharge those obligations and remain at large without further police surveillance.

In short, the fair intendment of these two statutes when read together is that conviction denotes a need for registration and police surveillance when the convicted person is allowed to return to society, whether after serving a sentence or upon the granting of parole or when released upon probation prior to the imposition or the execution of a sentence of imprisonment. But in the case of the probationer who demonstrates his ability to go straight, upon his own, by faithfully fulfilling all of the terms and conditions of his probation, the need for further surveillance and registration terminates upon his release pursuant to the sanction of section 1203.4. fn. *

The registry is an attack on character, social standing or reputation (Melvin). 1203.4 is supposed to remove the negative characteristics by setting aside the guilty verdict as well as dismiss the accusation/info against the individual.

Kelly used the punishment angle since the registry was considered punishment back in 1958. But the registry scheme was deemed “statutory. Yet with “right to reputation” as well as “right to privacy” in place of “releases thereafter all penalties and disabilities” (aka punishment), Kelly’s decision runs parallel to Melvin’s decision. The right to reputation and to be left alone should be upheld, especially after the legal system has recognized you were rehabilitated by the rewarding of 1203.4, which states your information is no longer public and cannot be disseminated to any statutory agency.

========
Personal

The registry ruined my reputation and privacy after earning a 1203.4, which should have been protected under CA Constitution’s “right to privacy” amendment of 1972 and the Information Practice Act of 1977.

PC 290.007 should never have been passed if the following CA Constitutional laws were extended to registrants:

1. Article 1, Section 1: Right to Privacy
2. Article 1, Section 7(b): Equal privileges or immunities … pursuant to 1203.4 and Right to Privacy
3. Article 1, Section 9: Law impairing the obligation of contracts may not be passed. 1203.4 was established law and contract before PC 290.007 was made into law. 1203.4 is supported by Right to Privacy as the legal pathway to pursue and obtain privacy.

There was no scientific reasoning for delaying the right to be left alone as well as the right to regain reputation with the passing of PC 290.007. PC 290.007 utilized being a part of a statutory scheme to circumvent Kelly, but the “right to privacy” was never extended to all registrants nor was the fact that dismissed info cannot be shared with a statutory agency. There’s a whole lotta wrong judicially and legislatively in denying de-registration via 1203.4 b/c the right to privacy was never extended to the registrant class.

How can the state of CA state I have been rehabilitated with the granting of 1203.4, but also state I am a monster simultaneously? This duality cannot exist. And looking deeper into the CA laws, once a person earns a 1203.4 then that person’s info cannot be disclosed to any statutory agency, which is the registry. The registrant class was not extended both “the right to privacy” and “1203.4’s dismissal of accusation/info”. That’s how the duality of the state recognizing rehabilitation and labelling one a monster persisted… it suppressed laws against the registrant class.

The state of CA continued to label me a monster after earning 1203.4 rehabilitation. I lost job opportunities because my information was shared after earning 1203.4. I shut down a military base check point for about 30-45 minutes. That experience still haunts me. I would have to wait an additional seven more years before I could petition off the registry via CoR. I can’t gain back those 7 years lost nor the job opportunities that could have blossomed into something more nor the mental anguish with the reputation of being a monster after earning a 1203.4.

The more and more I dig, the more and more I see the 1203.4 registrant class being shafted judicially. I’ve brought up right to privacy for years on here, but it’s finally got noticed recently. Remember that Japanese Internment camps were legal for a period in America. The US is paying restitution for that. Whelp, denying de-registration of the 1203.4 registrant class appears to be trampling on registrant civil rights. Will CA pay restitution for judicial malpractice on the 1203.4 registrant class?

Anyone know of how to appeal your tier that doesn’t involve getting an attorney? I read the FAQ on the DOJ website that says to get in touch with an attorney.

At this point though I don’t want to spend another dime on any of this BS. I have been perfectly fine the last few years not being listed on the ML site and counting the days when 10 years would be up and I could try for the COR. Got 17b and 1203.4 in 2019 and everything was going well.

Then this year all of a sudden they list me as Tier 3, lifetime, and blast my full info on the ML site. And they say to get an attorney to appeal?

All of a sudden the state says I’m a monster and puts my full info for everyone to see… and they say it’s not punitive?

Petition at change.org to abolish the registry.

Google search:Abolish Sex Offender Registry

Address:https://www.change.org/p/abolish-the-sex-offender-registry.

So far over 12,000 have signed.

My wife just called me crying. Apparently someone at her work looked up our address and linked it to me on the registry, which resulted in a bunch of angry parents coming in to rag on her for living with someone like that (a bunch of the store staff are under 18). Her manager sent her home for the day. I’m pissed. I’m seriously pissed. Now we have no idea if she’ll be let go, and even if not, how does she stay in an environment like that? She’ll constantly have eyes on her and people harassing her about it, particularly because she herself is an assistant manager and all these kids work under her. I had a feeling this would happen. Things have been going too well lately. It finally felt like we were stabilizing financially, and I just kept waiting for something to get in the way. I guess it just did. Ugh!!!!

… 1203.4 stuff …

I’ve always listed “set aside the verdict of guilty”, but never did read the segment before it.

be permitted by the court to withdraw their plea of guilty or plea of nolo contendere and enter a plea of not guilty; or, if they have been convicted after a plea of not guilty, the court shall set aside the verdict of guilty;

So it’s two parts:

……. Part 1: be permitted by the court to withdraw their plea of guilty or plea of nolo contendere and enter a plea of not guilty;

……. Part 2: or, if they have been convicted after a plea of not guilty, the court shall set aside the verdict of guilty;

If you pled guilty or nolo contendere (Part 1), then the court will withdraw that plea and enter the plea of “not guilty” in its place. You case isn’t just dismissed, but the courts recognize the plea as “not guilty”.

To be put on the registry, one has to be convicted of a sex crime, or rather found guilty of a sex crime. But if the courts now legally stated you are “not guilty” of said conviction, then how can you be kept on a statutory agency scheme “WHEN” you are “not guilty” of a sex crime? The registry is propagating false information!

During probation, you are still temporarily guilty. One should be on the registry during that time.

When you earn 1203.4, then the courts removes the guilty conviction and changes it to a “not guilty” result. That is why 1203.4 is often referred to as a case dismissal. If you are “not guilty” of a sex crime, then you no longer belong to the registry.

That is why 1203.4 includes the immunity of “the court shall thereupon dismiss the accusations or information against the defendant.” This immunity reaffirms and solidifies the court to enter a plea of “not guilty”.

Quick review:

1. court enters plea of not guilty
2. dismiss accusation/info and shared only with criminal agency
3. released from all penalties and disabilities

The statutory agency scheme, or registry, is sharing info that you are still guilty of a sex crime as well as forcing you to remain on the registry under penalty of law. This makes no logical sense. PC 290.007 denies the fact the court changed the plea to “not guilty”; it is negating the contractual obligation set within 1203.4.

This also brings us back to “right to privacy” as 1203.4 is the legal pathway to regain your private information from being shared, or disseminated. PC 290.007 denies the not only the constitutional right to privacy, but also the benefit of a “not guilty” legal change by the court and the prohibition of using that accusation/info against the defendant.

The court of CA says you are “not guilty” of sex crime, but the registry says you are still guilty of a sex crime.

The court of CA says your accusation/info is dismissed, but the registry is using that accusation/info as live information to keep you on the registry and share with.

The court of CA says your accusation/info can only be shared between you and a criminal agency. The registry isn’t a criminal agency. On a standard background check, the registry does not pop up. On a more in-depth background check like schools or military bases, then the registry pops up.

There’s so much wrong here now that I know I am “not guilty” of a sex crime, but the statutory agency called the registry is saying I am still guilty of a sex crime because a conviction of a sex crime is the only to be on the registry. These two cannot exist without violating protected civil rights:

Const. Art 1. Sec. 7b: equal immunity or benefits (1203.4)

Const. Art 1. Sec 9: law impairing the obligation of contracts may not be passed (290.007 impairs 1203.4 immunities and benefit)

Const. Art 1. Sec 1: right to pursue and obtain privacy (290.007 negates the legal remedy within 1203.4 to obtain privacy, which is dismissed accusation/info against defendant)

Civil Code 1798.1: right of privacy in information pertaining to them (290.007 violates 1203.4’s legal remedy to stop the sharing of private info)

Const. Art 1. Sec 1: right to happiness, which includes a freedom from unnecessary attacks on his character, social standing or reputation as founded in Melvin v Reid, 1931. (PC 290.007 violates 1203.4’s not guilty plea and dismissal of accusation)

.
Even the old SORNA recognized if one was no longer convicted, then that person is no longer part of the registry program. 290.007 is retributive as it has no true scientific support.

SB-384 is a legal pathway off the registry, but what of 1203.4’s legal pathway to regain privacy as well as be recognized as not guilty of a sex crime? There’s three tiers for SB-384. Not all tier 1’s qualify for 1203.4. You don’t need a 1203.4 to get off the registry in SB-384. This is another piece of evidence of legislative retribution against the 1203.4 registrant sub-class.

290.007 has ruined my reputation and social standing 7+ years too long after earning my 1203.4. 290.007 violated all the rights listed above that should have been extended to me. I didn’t realize until today that I was “not guilty” of sex crime when I earned 1203.4 over seven/eight years ago, but the registry said I am convicted and guilty of a sex crime during that time.

Is there enough here to sue the State of CA? It’s apparent that the immunities and benefits of 1203.4 are not extended to registrants who earn 1203.4. They still aren’t today!