Comments that are not specific to a certain post should go here, for the month of Nov 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
-
US appeals court rejects sentencing panel’s compassionate release policy
Source: reuters.com 11/1/24 Nov 1 (Reuters) – A federal appeals court on Friday ruled that the... -
Korea: ‘Squid Game 2’ sparks outrage over casting convicted sex offender
Source: jang.com.pk 11/3/24 The most awaited trailer of Netflix’s Squid Game 2 has unveiled on November 1, which... -
NY: D.A. Whines That He Can’t Use Abusive “Sexually Violent Offender” Term
Source: Jason Schmidt on observertoday.com 11/2/24 I write to clarify and correct the public record created...
I guess they rather us die in the gutter
Shenandoah denies request in sex offender ordinance to allow end-of-life care at relative’s home
The Onion (satire)…. funny/not funny? 🤷🏻♂️
Frustrated Man Still On Waitlist To Register As Sex Offender.
Is the law of God a strange thing to government today? Does the internet take presence over everything today. American Government seems to be base and as wicked as their own being. So tell me how many more have to go to prison to get a rush to judgement in the form of a plea deal. If I don’t sound angry than lets let someone who know’s answer the question of what render to Ceser really means. Is government playing the whore or when did they stop giving out traffic tickets for switch and bait.
Guess rebuking government is out of the question it seems or do all roads lead to Rome.
@someone who cares… More thoughts on 1203.4…
PC 290 and 1203.4 do not conflict with one another, but rather run parallel. The best explanation was shared in Kelly v Municipal, 1958:
The first paragraph specially states that 290 cannot supersede 1203.4.
The second paragraph deals with the finality judgement of conviction. With a 1203.4 recipient, the final judgement is not final and temporarily exists during the probationary period. If the 1203.4 recipient fails probation, then the existing judgement is final. If the 1203.4 recipient successfully completes probation, then the judgement is withdrawn and replaced with a “not guilty” plea. The conviction no longer exists as granted by 1203.4 as well as the accusation/info against the defendant is dismissed.
=======================
PC 290.007 violated 1203.4 as shared above.
=======================
Not only does PC 290.007 violate what set as law in re Williamson (in Kelly), it violated two other CA constitutional laws in CA Const. Art 1, Sec 9 and Art 1, Sec 7(b). I will share how later in this post.
CA Const. Art 1. Sec 9 states, “law impairing the obligation of contracts may not be passed.”
CA Const. Art 1. Sec 7(b) states, “A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens.”
========================
Why did 290.007 pass in 2007?
========================
Kelly addressed the punitive aspect of the registry in 1958. Around the 2000s, the registry was redefined from being punitive to being a regulatory scheme, belonging to a regulatory agency. There was nothing to defend if based upon the punitive aspect of Kelly.
No one sought to use “right to privacy” in place of the punitive aspect of Kelly.
========================
Right to privacy
========================
Right to privacy, or the right to pursue and obtain privacy, was amended into the CA Constitution in 1972.
1203.4 cites three contractual obligation upon successful completion of probation:
…. 1) Court withdraws original plea and enters a plea of “not guilty”
…. 2) Court dismisses the accusation/info against the defendant
… 3) Court releases defendant from all penalties and disabilities
Contractual obligations 1 and 2 fall under the umbrella of “right to privacy”, specifically the right to “pursue and obtain privacy”.
Under 1203.4, you are only convicted during the probationary period and no longer convicted after successfully completing probation, which Kelly shared that 290 recognizes this distinction.
But 1203.4 goes one step further. It dismisses the accusation and information against the defendant to further solidify one can say he or she was never convicted.
========================
Registry changes from criminal to regulatory agency and 1203.425
========================
When 290 changed from being quasi-criminal to a regulatory scheme/agency, it made Kelly v Municipal, 1958 not good law. A 290 registration officer is not the same as a law enforcement officer (LEO), otherwise any LEO can register you. Also, the registration officer cannot update any information with DOJ. Thus, we can say the registry is not a criminal agency.
On Jan 1, 2023, “the court shall not disclose information concerning a conviction granted relief pursuant to this section or Section 1203.4, 1203.4a, 1203.41, or 1203.42, to any person or entity, in any format, except to the person whose conviction was granted relief or a criminal justice agency”.
Point 1. Since the registry is not a criminal agency, then the registry cannot disseminate dismissed information nor disseminate a conviction since it no longer exists.
Point 2. Why the explicit explanation of the use of dismissed accusation/info? That was always implied that no one can use that dismissed information. But with “privacy rights”, that accusation/info being dismissed is protected by the CA constitution.
======================
Continue to register under 1203.4/1203.425
======================
Nowhere within 1203.4 nor 1203.425 does it state one must continue to register. 1203.4 does state which sex crime do not qualify for the program.
This omission is important because the law to continue to register resides outside of 1203.4, which brings us back to Kelly v Municipal identifying that 290 and 1203.4 run parallel with one another as well as 290 cannot supersede 1203.4.
290.007 violates the obligations of 1203.4 (CA Const. Art 1, Sec 9) as well as excludes two of the three benefits of 1203.4 to the registrant class in not recognizing a “not guilty” plea and dismissal of the accusation/info against the defendant by disseminating said accusation/info as true, current information (CA Const Art.1, Sec 7(b)).
======================
When is a Final Judgement Final?
======================
People v Banks, 1959
If upon appeal, the court finds a defendant “not guilty” in a sex crime, then the defendant must be taken off the registry.
1203.4 has a similar outcome to an appeal where the court enters a “not guilty” plea, but why does the defendant continue to register?
From Kelly v Municipal, it denotes a defendant is only convicted during the probationary period. An appeal can take several years and the defendant is identified as convicted during that time period. If the court enters a plea of “not guilty”, then the defendant is no longer identified as a convict. Similarly, when a defendant successfully completes probation, then the court enters a plea of “not guilty” and the defendant is no longer identified as a convict.
One only gets onto the registry through a conviction. When there is no longer a conviction via appeal, the defendant is removed from the registry. Why is it different when a defendant earns 1203.4 and the conviction no longer exists, but must continue to register, especially under the umbrellas of “right to privacy”?
Continuing to be part of the registry states that the defendant is convicted of a sex crime. There is an obvious flaw between 290/SB-384 and 1203.4. This is what happens when a new law violates re Williamson, “right to privacy”, CA Const. Art 1, Sec 9, and CA Const. Art 1, Sec 7(b). In fact, it is straight libel by the state of CA to cite one is convicted of a sex crime when the court withdrew the the guilty/nolo contendere plea and entered a plea of “not guilty” as well as dismissed the accusation/info against the defendant. The state shares you have no conviction, but the registry disseminates you are convicted simultaneously cannot be reconciled logically. One cannot be both for the same case file at the same time.
1203.4 is a legal pathway to obtain privacy that is protected by the CA Constitution, but it isn’t being recognized nor extended to the registrant class by the non-criminal agency. In fact, the state has created a double jeopardy situation by proving oneself twice for the same case. Pre SB-384, a registrant must earn 1203.4 to be able to petition for the Certificate of Rehabilitation (CoR). A registrant must prove him/herself twice to earn a legal pathway to obtain privacy. For SB-384, a registrant does not need a 1203.4 to regain privacy. There are some registrants who do qualify for 1203.4 and those who do not, but 1203.4 is meaningless as two of the three contractual obligations are not being recognized and extended to the registrant class.
The passing of 290.007 while not recognizing “right to privacy” has created an illogically, inconsistent set of laws that contradict and override one another unconstitutionally.
So…..its Monday morning, my 4 day Thanksgiving break is over, and I spent a fair amount of time watching the news. Not once did I hear of a report of a PFR committing a new offense. Instead, the news was filled with shootings. There was a family argument in Detroit over the holiday and the guns came out. A young teen was showing his friend his father’s gun and accidentally shot him (He’s going to be ok).
So who is the real danger here?
You know people on here that have gotten involved in this sex registry scheme should take not. Sure their is a limit to everything. Are governments a “wolf in sheep’s clothing today”? This registry borders on Church and state issues or who is assumed innocent.
So who is playing the harlot today in Government. Every state that is enticing these people on this internet system. Law enforcement would rather not give warning instead they manipulate those ones and set them up for the fall. Government should see the errors of their ways with this scheme.
No true Christian with any type of salt in government would do such a trick on their neighbor. Government is not the supreme authority and yes God is still in control in fact all authority was given to Jesus Christ. Government seems to not understand that biblical proof and yes all righteousness is as filthy rags but playing the harlot to entrap will be governments downfall. Better with a little righteousness than great revenue without right.
I’m sure many don’t even understand that or should you look on your database …..
If the registry is “not punishment,” then why does one have to file a petition to have RELIEF from it?
re·lief (/rəˈlēf/): a feeling of reassurance and relaxation following release from anxiety or distress.
They can’t keep hanging their hat on the “civil in nature” and “public safety” lie forever.
So where does all this commenting end. We have all been commenting about this sex registry for over 10 yrs or more and have we gained anything. While some can claim victory or a win. Who is deceiving themselves?
Seems Tim n WI want’s to solve this registry by its all about the database. David wants to solve it by his reasoning. Janice wants to solve it by her teams victories but who’s winning the war.Who’s really understands this registry in many ways. How many more have to suffer under this error of this Christian Government.
OOps I said Christian Government shame on me. I would imagine two wrongs don’t make a right and remember One is conning and grooming while the other one is sucking this up in this registry type of game action of planning and scheming. So is a lot of this registry talk and comments really getting anywhere when people cut and paste what they think is beneficial. So is government casting stones today?
Are we all thinking like a child.. Maybe this should enlighten some to take a bit of ACTION and understand more about this registry.
maybe a positive move?
Fox News;
NYC bill preventing landlords from performing criminal background checks backed by majority of councilAlexis McAdams
Tue, November 29, 2022, 6:00 PM
So no incident has taken place so why deny care?
Proposed telehealth limit causes public safety concerns
I’m probably late to the party, but has anyone tried leveraging ChatGTP for their legal efforts, if only for kicks? I’m sure you legal eagles could compose better instructions for better results, but here’s my attempt (by the way, the AI robot and potential harbinger of doom (or salvation?) spit this out in all of 3 seconds):
Me: Write legal argument for why the California sex offender registry is unconstitutional and should be discontinued. Include historical case law.
ChatGTP: The California sex offender registry, as it currently operates, is unconstitutional and should be discontinued. The registry violates the constitutional rights of those listed on it, specifically the rights to due process and equal protection under the law.
First, the registry violates the right to due process. The registry is often based on old, invalidated, or unproven allegations, which can be found on the registry indefinitely. This means that individuals who have been cleared of charges or have served their sentence can still be subject to the registry’s harsh restrictions, such as housing and employment restrictions, without any form of due process. This is in violation of the 14th amendment’s guarantee of due process.
Additionally, the registry violates the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. The registry is applied unevenly, with some individuals being subject to harsher restrictions and penalties than others based on subjective factors such as the perceived “severity” of the crime. This has been found to be unconstitutional in cases such as Smith v Doe (2003) and Doe v Snyder (2015) where the court found that sex offender registry schemes are subject to rational basis review and are not constitutional if they are punitive in nature and not reasonably related to a non-punitive purpose.
Furthermore, the registry has been found to be ineffective in preventing recidivism and may even cause additional harm to the individuals listed on it. In the case of Doe v. Harris (2013), the court found that the registry was not rationally related to the State’s interest in protecting the public and preventing recidivism, and may even have a detrimental effect on the rehabilitation of sex offenders.
In light of these constitutional violations and lack of effectiveness, it is clear that the California sex offender registry should be discontinued.