SORNA Regulations Hearing Postponed Again. Now it is on September 26

Source: ACSOL

The federal district court has once again postponed the date of the hearing during which arguments in support of and in opposition to a pending Motion for Preliminary Injunction (PI) was to take place.  The new hearing date is September 26.  The location remains the same — U.S. District Court in Riverside, California.

This is the sixth scheduled hearing date for the PI motion.  The hearing date has been changed three times at the request of the Attorney General and three times by the court It is possible that oral argument could be waived by the parties and if that takes place, a decision regarding the PI can be made solely upon the written documents that have been filed.  If oral argument is waived, ACSOL will send out a notice regarding that change.

The Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) filed a challenge to portions of the SORNA regulations on May 23 in federal district court.  The PLF then filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction in the case on June 3.  If the preliminary injunction is granted, enforcement of portions of the SORNA regulations could be stopped nationwide.

Related posts

Subscribe
Notify of

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 and a**
  4. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Use person-first language.
  5. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  6. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  7. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  8. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  9. 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 that are not personally identifiable.
  10. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  11. Please do not post in all Caps.
  12. 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. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  13. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  14. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  15. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people.  Do not use your real name.
  16. Please do not solicit funds
  17. No discussions about weapons
  18. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), Person Forced to Register (PFR) or any others, the first time you use it in a thread, please expand it for new people to better understand.
  19. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  20. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  21. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
  22. If addressing another commenter, please address them by exactly their full display name, do not modify their name. 
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.  
 

26 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

They just dont wanna deal with all the families if reg citizens and in their Courtroom NOR have a good reason to object why SORNA should allow govern in Calif or the non-SORNA U,S. States.

What on earth is going on? No reason appears in the Docket and this cant be good for the Attorneys who are trying to schedule travel plans for this. Is something pending that the Feds might be waiting to be release beforehand? Its all very frustrating.

IMO another delay suggests the onset of “milk fever” in the criminal justice system. The cause is a natural one evolved from the thinking that the DDI could prevent crime (over reliance) when in fact the databases has exacerbated and complicated the crime rates and impacted the criminal justice processes. Judges on the bench using the modern DDI are actually clearing larger workloads than ever before, but the advantages gained are overwhelmingly outpaced by the sheer numbers of crimes and particualarly those involving unlawful internet use. Expert testimony ( computer science & computer forensics) concerning DDI use in criminal trial contexts are rising. Those analysis take time, often necessitating courts’ use of time limit waivers. In the long run there is a price to pay for the convenience of the DDI.

Who wants to bet that it’ll get postponed till October 10th on or about September 21st?

I think they ‘are caught between a rock and a hard place’ and are trying to find a way out!!
I knew this was going to happen.
I believe they could be looking for some way out of this, and hopefully there isn’t one.

ACSOL got them on the run 🏃‍♂️

If oral arguments are allowed, then is there a back and forth to the oral arguments, like rebuttals, or do both sides just read the written documents?

I’m curious if there’s any benefit for oral argument opposed to written documents?

I’ll try to be optimistic and believe PLF has the AG and courts on the run, but delaying it six times feels like a delay on justice on purpose if the end result is PLF winning.

Wasn’t this a request for an emergency injunction to block implementation of SORNA updates that my be unconstitutional? Updates that went into effect months ago? Potentially unconstitutional updates that we are all subject to and have been for better than half a year?

Obviously the AG would want to delay resolving that question as long as possible. Why not just assume everything is fine, go with these updates as much as you choose to, assume that you will prevail in all challenges, and not worry about the expanding mess you may be creating if you loose. Rock solid thinking in the finest traditions of the Justice department!

Lots of assumptions being made around us. Ever notice that?

* Assume that PFRs have a uniquely high propensity to reoffend.
* Assume the unverified, unreviewed report used in Smith v Doe that established this High and Frightening propensity is rock solid.
* Assume that all new data suggesting otherwise is inaccurate or irrelevant.
* Assume that this system prevents crime.
* Assume that there is not, nor will there ever be a need to prove that assumption.
* Assume that all data that suggests this system does not prevent crime, and may even make the exact crimes it is intended to prevent more likely are wrong.
* Assume that every single act of vigilantism, harassment, false accusation, civil rights abuses, destruction of families is compensated for by the assumed crime prevention benefits of the system.
* Assume that multiple acts of premeditated murder that have included at least one person that is not a PFR can be compensated for by the assumed benefits even on a moral and ethical basis.
* Assume that no matter how many times the system is proven to include unconditional elements, it is not fundamentally unconstitutional, so long as you win most/some of the challenges
* Assume that no matter how many challenges must be fought against in the defense of the system, it does not suggest the system is fundamentally unconstitutional
* Assume that fundamentally constitutional, beneficial, valuable, vital to safety of the citizens systems have to be constantly defended in court, like all other similar laws are.

Kicking this case down the road for as long and as far as possible indicates to me that the DOJ/AG, and/or the judge, are hoping for another ruling in another case from a HIGHER COURT that will essentially get them ‘off the hook’. The government attorney does not want to be saddled with a loss to sex offenders (not good for their career). And the judge would not want to make a controversial ruling, as it is a no-win case. Any decision (either for or against our side) will be appealed and then quite likely wind its way to the U.S. Supreme Court. That court is anxiously awaiting any case in which they can now rule that Congress must adhere to the non-delegation doctrine, essentially ending the “regulatory state”. (With the addition of Justices Kavanaugh and Barrett, there now exists a majority who have already indicated their proclivity to rule in this way). It may take another year, or two, but eventually, we’ll prevail. I am hopeful.

They need more time to rig the outcome.

It also seems like there are a lot more news reports on sex offenses some which include failure to register and others that are more severe but the media seems to really push these reports right now more than the usual. Im wondering if this relates at all but looks like they want public support by keeping them in fear. Every week I’ve been seeing more reports on sex offense.

Before moving too quickly to conclusions, let’s bear in mind that we do not know the reason for many of these delays. Some may be at the DOJ’s request, some may be at PLF’s request, and some may be the judge’s own need to reschedule….. A family illness, an elderly parent in need – possibly cross country, an urgent medical procedure…. who knows? 🤷🏻‍♂️ Patience…. we’ll get there. 👍🏻

Can’t they just force them to finish this up and deal with their decision?

O.K., who had the 26th in the office pool. You get a dinner for 2 at Applebees. Start picking your dates for the next continuance. Prize will be an all expense paid weekend in BAKERSFIELD!

My brother was picked up in a raid at our mom’s home in back in August 3 2022. So was I.

I posted these videos up that captured what we went through here in CA.

My brother’s case in Victorville Superior Court MVI22004432

The case status online now says criminal proceedings have been postponed due to mental health competency issue. My brother has been maliciously setup by people who have been after our family for years. His original case that made his requirement for registering is MVI17005732 for an alleged incident on June 3 2017 that he was convicted of on September 26 2017.

The family struggled for years after to try and stay together. But the neighborhood worked against us.

After being released and making my way home on August 18 2022 the neighbors called the cops on me and I was rearrested on false allegations of an attempted kidnapping. My case number is MVI22004704.

If you search for an alleged kidnapping in Barstow CA on that date you’ll see what I’m talking about.

In both cases the alleged victim is a minor. They use the details to conceal the identities of an accuser. Meaning your accuser can be literally anyone, especially in a state with “crime victim protections”. They are not protections, they are obstructions.

I lost my job, my dad, and now possibly my brother. But he’s counting on me to help and I won’t let him down. If anyone can help us it would be appreciated. This neighborhood has been difficult on us.

Thank you
Munoz

3 more days till they hearing again. Figured I’d just say it ahead of time lol sorry.