Source: ACSOL
In another surprising ruling, the federal district court judge has decided to conduct a hearing on the pending preliminary injunction motion in the SORNA regulations case. The judge made this decision earlier today despite the fact that both parties had agreed to waive oral argument.
The hearing will be held on Monday, September 26 starting at 9 a.m.
View the hearing online by clicking on this Zoom Webinar link
Although the public is allowed to appear in the courtroom for this hearing, it is not recommended that you come as the judge is not expected to make or announce his decision during the hearing.
The attorneys for both parties will appear virtually at the hearing.
Oh now they found the time. Hopefully this is not a front to a perceived “fair” hearing. Pack the courts people.
This kind of back end forth, multiple delays, etc. is causing emotional distress to me. It very much feels like anticipation for sentencing after a conviction. I’ve been conviction free for 20 years. This is undue stress.
One of the reasons I remain in California is because I’ve come to reasonably understand the law in California and the added complications of SORNA make life almost impossible for me to leave the State. I’ve lived in two other states, neither of which were SORNA compliant.
This seems like a positive turn of events? It always feels to me that if a judge doesn’t want to hear it, that seems much more favorable to the government given past precedent. But wanting to hear arguments seems like they really want to know why this should continue?
Good luck!
It’s time for this entire scheme to end.
That is a surprise. I didn’t agree with waiving oral argument and figured the nonstop delays were just an effort by the state and court to get the plaintiffs to lose heart. Beyond that, it’s a pretty open secret that judges don’t read 90% of what crosses their desk, so I never had much confidence in any case decided on briefs alone.
The registry tends to get a lot of attention around Halloween. Maybe the judge wants to get a ruling out when it’ll get additional press. Or maybe he just wants to get the hearing out of the way and let it languish for a few years.
I hope I can see the hearing though, if for no other reason than to watch the verbal gymnastics from the state on how the registry isn’t punitive. Like the Michigan AAG arguing the registry wasn’t like parole or probation solely because it didn’t require random drug testing and wasn’t prepared to answer if there was a point where reporting was excessive a couple of years ago.
Packingham Jr.: Louisiana Court Upholds Ban on Certain Sex Offenders Using Many Social Media Sites
I wonder if they’ll be appealed to the Supreme Court?
Pardon my ignorance but what makes this a “surprising ruling?” Wasn’t a hearing already scheduled and delayed multiple times? Weren’t we already expecting this hearing?
I am confused. Perhaps someone letter understand this situation for me. I thought the judge was going to rule based upon his review of the briefs in there so many documents period
I did not think there would be a hearing but now there is going to be a hearing? Am I missing something??
I am curious if in the PLF suit they added how they filed for an injunction, but it has been delayed a total of six times, three times by the courts and three times by AG (defendant). And by waiving oral, there was no definitive timeline for judgement. That poses a serious question about a speedy trial and the whole point of the injunction.
Maybe someone or the judge noticed this delay for an injunction problematic to where the courts may have been negligent with respect for a timely injunction or an accomplice for a timely hearing.
Getting a hearing is a great thing! I believe PLF is overly versed in how to counter every argument the AG’s lawyers try to bring up, especially increasing the threshold of what constitutes as no longer a conviction via original SORNA as well as not recognizing state’s law on the registry.
The logical conclusion is that the judge seeks answers to questions that he has (in his mind) which have not been fully answered through the briefs (submitted by both sides). The judge may be leaning towards one side or another, or he may be 50/50 on the issues. We do not know, although he may tip his hand at Monday’s hearing. However, if we look at the cup as half full, then this decision to have oral arguments bodes well for our side. If he was not open to hearing arguments against SORNA (our side) then why have oral arguments? This also allows the judge to pose questions to both sides that will help him decide the issues. Keep the faith.
odd…
What a cluster fuuu of court dates and delays. Finally.
Jancie, what do you make of all this? Is something happening behind the scenes? This is crazy.
I will never understand how this is not considered punitive. SORNA will make our lives so much harder! How are we suppose to travel, visit family, friends etc. with these restrictions? Register 4 times a year?? This is a complete infringement on our freedoms.
And how in the HELL are local LE going to handle the increase of traffic of notifications when leaving your area for more than a week and registration 4x’s a year? What if I travel for work? Ridiculous…
It is starting …..!
I’m on the Zoom now. Anyone getting any sound?? 🤷🏻♂️
Hearing delayed until 9:30
ATTY Wyer FED was NOT PREPARED, even the Bernal Jdg made her look foolish as she claimed the CA LAW Re; ignorance of Reg req of SORNA then could NOT be prosecuted. He’s quite on her for SORNA defense only had ONE ATTY there, lol.
The men applying had THREE (3) Atty’s. wordage is the worst and the right way to anyone can read he is of Latino descent and knows that all must be understandble language, she even stated V A G U E.
got ahead of herself. JoHN DOE, under SORNA. Crystal Clear to RC, factual, now the defense atty agreed, This was just the first thirty minutes with some mic issues at start with Judge wiring.
Interesting witness watching Zoom with UNDER CALIFORNIA LAW.
Would love to get an ongoing ‘play-by-play’ update from those of you in the legal business as to get some additional insight as what is going on in this hearing?
Anybody in the know here… 🙂
(*SORNA)
14 days has amendment ready?
This should of been prepared when filed, new plantiffs would be usage from ACSOL over and over Feds stated 100k mbrs, interesting. UNLIKE John Doe, more specific persons not generalized, Fed atty wasn’t prepared nor had CA LAW re: sex offense law and Tiered system and she did NOT familiarize herself, WHAT were these two doing all this time, specifics is what the Judge is requesting of a descrip of a group. Don’t think Judge read total 85 or how many pages, he wants refile after an hour of zoom and wants it on an individual not a whole group. Maybe back within fourteen days.
Wow. The Judge seemed to ask reasonable questions and requested an amended hearing. The focus on someone with a COR seems very limiting for the “class”. BTW the prosecution seemed more helpful than the defense for the result we would like. Get Janice up there!
Well, that was a fun Hearing!!
‘Not thrilled with the decision….. but the judge appears to be well-informed about the issues, the law, etc.
Frankly, I’m really looking forward to reading the PLF’s amended Motion for Injunctive Relief.
Oh, oh! Pick me! Pick me! 👋🏻 👋🏻 👋🏻
I wanna be a plaintiff!! 🤗 😁 😃
I came, i saw, I’m not surprised about the outcome. Our guy showed great confidence,
the lady on their side kept stammering with many “uh’s and um’s” which showed her lack of confidence. The Judge denied the injunction as a joint civil suit, Now he want’s Celeb to give him actual names of registrants with-in 14 days for what i’ll assume to be personalized punishment for the 2 Celeb informed the court he knew of. I question the States motives at this time.
The Court left the Judges Zoom camera & microphone active after it ended. I decided to keep the Zoom meeting open and I overheard laughing chatter off screen.
See y’all in 2 weeks.
So I was confused. Calen Kruckenburg was on our side. The other lawyer is for the Feds and didn’t seem dynamic or knowledgeable. That is why he was speaking and negotiating in terms of anti SORNA.
I used to trust the “government.” That was a huge mistake on my part! Amazing that we have “people,” in power, that are so gung-ho in violating the Constitution they swore an oath to.
The “system” is a complete Joke.