General Comments Oct 2022

Hello Family!

I’ve been following this forum for 7 years, but incarceration & computer restrictions have hampered my ability to comment. Now I’m off parole and free to say what I want, but not do what I want because of the registry. The nightmare start 7 years ago. I was just under 50, had no criminal record, have a masters degree and was about to wind down my career because of health problems, then the police came rolling up to my door because of dirty pictures I viewed on the internet. Now granted, I live in a city steeped in violence and crime, yet John “Holiday Parade” Chisholm decided to make a sacrificial lamb out of me by dangling me in front of the Karen save the children crowd. Now you all know about Holiday Chisholm? The Milwaukee County prosecutor who low bailed a violent criminal who went out and mowed down a few grannies and a 9 year-old child during a holiday parade last year? May God bless their souls. Chisholm wouldn’t budge on my cp possession charge, so I got served 3 years in 3 years out. John Chisholm is also the same prosecutor responsible for the “deferred prosecution” scheme giving 2nd chances to violent thugs. But no 2nd chance for an educated black man with no criminal history for 50 years. Anyways, enough about that loser John Chisholm.

During prison, the DOC decided to change my status to lifetime registration & ankle bracelet. They have some twisted view that pleading to more than 1 count of cp possession makes someone a repeat offender. When I got out of prison, I found a rooming house in the ghetto. Neighbors don’t seem to care about my status, probably because there’s many other sex offenders around! I did nearly 3 years of SOT. They kept extending my hours. They believed I was minimizing my offense, only because I felt my punishment didn’t fit the crime. Many times, you’ll hear the word “minimizing” from WI DOC bureaucrats, parole agents and therapists. They can’t stand parolees criticizing the state, so they’ll try to “brainwash” them into believing it’s perfectly acceptable to incarcerate citizens, for years, for an offense involving no contact or communication with a victim. Anyways, I had none of that, so they tried to make it hard on me. At first they set me up in a SOT group that’s 90% black located in a fancy white area of the city. The state hired African American lead facilitators—I guess—to communicate better with the black sex offenders? We know “the man” pulls the strings at the top. And it’s well known that Wisconsin reeks of institutionalized racism, an ineffective & corrupt justice system, and lest not forget crooked politicians.

Now people have talked a lot on this forum about Wisconsin’s abuse of territorial jurisdiction. It’s all true, true, true. If you decide to move to another state, you still have to register with WI, pay your fees and update your information in your new state. Personally, I plan on leaving DamErica for Turkey next month. But I still have to update my foreign address with WI SOR, and report my whereabouts every week if I don’t have a permanent address. Of course I plan on suing over this rule, because it makes zero logical sense, and it’s non-enforceable. The biggest mistake of my life was moving to this miserable state of Wisconsin. I’ve been away from my home state of California for over 35 years, and I now regret leaving. At least Cali is a little bit enlightened. I know I wouldn’t have served a single day in prison there for cp possession. Anyways, I’m out of this midwestern backwater next month! And I’m definitely not returning to this sh*thole state. Turkey approved visa (J. Brown – 1 Wisconsin DOC – 0) So goodbye Wisconsin! Hello middle-east. Heck, I may not even come back to DamErica! I’m not afraid to use my real name because I don’t care what you Wisconsin scumbag politicians, DOC officials, police, prosecutors, MeToo, and victim’s rights industrialists think about me. I speak truth to power until the day I die. Peace & LovE!

Yours truly, James Brown

PA: Challenge to offender law delays hearing (due to constitutionality concerns)

Looking at the SCOTUS precedents. Two ( Hendricks and Crane) are regarding Civil Commitment.Brown and Comm ascn v Douds deal with Bills of Pains and Penalties, a lesser type of Bill is Attainder.

Kansas v Hendricks: 521 U.S. 346 (1997)
Kansas v Crane: 534 U.S. 407 (2002)
United States v Brown: 381 U.S. 437 (1965)
Communications Association of America v. Douds: 339 U.S. 382 (1950)- Could they have a longer name? Only because ref’d in Brown

Hendricks: Data from Wikipedia: Kansas v Hendricks
A “mental abnormality” was defined, in turn, as a “congenital or acquired condition affecting the emotional or volitional capacity which predisposes the person to commit sexually violent offenses in a degree constituting such person a menace to the health and safety of others.” § 59-29a02(b).

Crane: Data from Google Scholar Kansas v Crane (lots of it)
We do not agree with the State, however, insofar as it seeks to claim that the Constitution permits commitment of the type of dangerous sexual offender considered in Hendricks without any lack-of-control determination. See Brief for Petitioner 17; Tr. of Oral Arg. 22, 30-31. Hendricks underscored the constitutional importance of distinguishing a dangerous sexual offender subject to civil commitment from other dangerous persons who are perhaps more properly dealt with exclusively through criminal proceedings. 521 U. S., at 360. That distinction is necessary lest civil commitment become a mechanism for retribution or general deterrence”—functions properly those of criminal law, not civil commitment. Id., at 372-373 (Kennedy, J., concurring); cf. also Moran, The Epidemiology of Antisocial Personality Disorder, 34 Social Psychiatry & Psychiatric Epidemiology 231, 234 (1999) (noting that 40%—60% of the male prison population is diagnosable with antisocial personality disorder). The presence of what the “psychiatric profession itself classifie[d] . . . as a serious mental disorder” helped to make that distinction in Hendricks. And a critical distinguishing feature of that “serious .. . disorder” there 413*413 consisted of a special and serious lack of ability to control behavior.

And this, when viewed in light of such features of
the case as the nature of the psychiatric diagnosis, and the
severity of the mental abnormality itself, must be sufficient
to distinguish the dangerous sexual offender whose serious
mental illness, abnormality, or disorder subjects him to civil
commitment from the dangerous but typical recidivist con-
icted in an ordinary criminal case.

In recognizing that fact, we did not give to the phrase
“lack of control” a particularly narrow or technical meaning.
And we recognize that in cases where lack of control is at
issue, “inability to control behavior” will not be demonstrable with mathematical precision. It is enough to say that
there must be proof of serious difficulty in controlling behavior. And this, when viewed in light of such features of
the case as the nature of the psychiatric diagnosis, and the
severity of the mental abnormality itself, must be sufficient
to distinguish the dangerous sexual offender whose serious
mental illness, abnormality, or disorder subjects him to civil
commitment from the dangerous but typical recidivist convicted in an ordinary criminal case. 521 U. S., at 357–358;
see also Foucha v. Louisiana, 504 U. S. 71, 82–83 (1992) (rejecting an approach to civil clommitment that would permit civil commitment
the indefinite confinement “of any convicted criminal” after
completion of a prison term).

Brown: Data from Justia: United States v Brown 
“The designation of Communist Party membership cannot be justified as an alternative, “shorthand” expression for the characteristics which render men likely to incite political strikes.”

“A statute which inflicts its deprivation upon named or described persons or groups constitutes a bill of attainder whether its aim is retributive, punishing past acts, or preventive, discouraging future conduct. In America Communications Ass’n v. Douds, 339 U. S. 382, where the Court upheld § 9(h) of the National
Page 381 U. S. 438

Hendricks suggests: Mental Abnormality, predisposes…beyond ” dangerous but typical recidivist” established in Crane.

Crane suggests: Crane was a, “Dangerous but typical recidivist convicted in an ordinary criminal case. ” and not a “dangerous sexual offender” like Hendricks. 

General deterrence is a function of criminal not civil law? That Crane is a “Dangerous person” like any other criminal but not a “Dangerous Sexual Offender” like Hendricks.. Check out Crane, he’s not typical.

Brown suggests: Sex Offender has become a Shorthand expression for characteristics? Sometimes Crane, sometimes Hendricks. Residency Restrictions suggest Hendricks, “Total lack of Control” vs Crane’s “Dangerous but typical”. If you have some control, like Crane, why can’t you live near a park? Seriously, check out Crane, he’s far from typical.

Brown suggests: Preventative or discouraging future behavior is punishment. Has to be, or Brown isn’t a Bill of Pains and Penalties, subject to Bill of Attainder law. It was ruled a BoA…so…has to be.

Thus, these decisions suggest that RSO is a Shorthand for dangerous but not total lack of control, even if SVP, except for residency restrictions, which suggest total lack of control. The “general deterrence” of the registry is civil, when it should be criminal. Instead of Civil Commitment, the registry has become a “mechanism for retribution or general deterrence”. Preventive, discouraging future conduct which is punishment.

Qualified immunity may be finally heading to the Supreme Court ?

Patrick Jaicomo and Anya Bidwell
Sun, October 9, 2022, 6:00 AM·4 min read
The Onion, the nation’s most well-known parody publication, did something this week it has never done before: It filed a brief with the U.S. Supreme Court.

Hi everyone,
sorry for the late comment! However, I have a question. Well, not really on my behalf but mainly for my wife if I’m being honest here. She has this lingering worrying feeling about the cops showing up at our front door for Halloween at the end of the month if we choose to decorate our home. I tell her that since I am no longer under supervision the laws here in California (LA County) does not prohibit me from celebrating Holloween with our children and extended family members. Nevertheless, she feels that that is not entirely true and she is asking me for physical proof that I can celebrate without any blowback. Our children want to decorate and celebrate and I’m all for it. Am I wrong? Is there a website or somewhere where I can show my wife that the law does not prohibit me? If I am wrong, please let me know. I rather have the talk with my wife and both of us be in the same page and not give myself or my family hope. I was told I could celebrate since I live in LA County. Hopefully you guys can help.

Best,Ruben!

What happened to ‘Along for the Ride’? Did he “ride” out of here? I hope it wasn’t because he had some disagreements on this forum. Debate & disagreement is healthy amongst registrants. As long as they are a registrant. But if you are law enforcement, parole, a politician looking to earn some points—please stay away from this forum. We don’t have the patience to debate your scum!

Whatever happened with the Model Penal Code (MPC)? Wasn’t it supposed to be addressed right about now?

Another fruitless Idea. Or is it? Original? probably not.

Per Wiki (Grain of salt, recommend)
Article: Mass shootings in America:
“Under the definition used by the Gun Violence Archive, by the end of 2019, there were 417 mass shootings; by the end of 2020, there had been 611; and by the end of 2021, 693.[37] By mid-May 2021, there were 10 mass shootings per week on average; by mid-May 2022, there was a total of 198 mass shootings in the first 19 weeks of the year, which represents 11 mass shootings a week.

And yet, the States and Federal government continues to dump millions a year into the registry. A registry, that has never been proven to have provided any benefits of any kind. A registry who’s only justification for existence was based on erroneous data, disproven numerous times. A registry that manufactures mass incarceration for technical violations that have resulted in hundreds of not thousands of years of combined prison terms. Mass incarceration that have been considered, “Human Rights violations” by two different courts in two different nations”.

This is the best use of money and resources possible?

Of course:
we have plenty enough money to maintain the registry and address this…right?
We don’t know who the next shooter will be, but we know about you! Right?
Mass shooting is difficult and a political minefield, but you’re easy and always advantageous, right?

The money wasted on a worthless, counter productive registry could be better used. These people represent a vastly greater danger to children than PFRs. The threat to your child is already in their life, not the stranger living down the street on the registry.

Just witnessing an event, even if not directly threatened, can cause life long trauma. It can also rob a child of one or more parents just as easily as a parent can be robbed of one or more children. Then there are… grandparents, Aunt’s/Uncle’s…Cousins…the list goes on and on.

This should be an issue! This should matter! This should be…but it won’t, will it? The registry is, easy…advantageous for all. All other crimes are…not. 

The future does not bode well for families of people forced to register.

“A Court Just Ruled Collective Punishment Is Legal in America“