A federal district court today issued a decision granting, in part, a motion for preliminary injunction that was pending in the SORNA regulations case. A copy of the court’s decision is being posted today on the ACSOL website, however, ACSOL must wait until the Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) issues a press release before it publishes an article describing the court’s decision.
PLF issued a press release regarding the decision on Wednesday, January 18. A copy of that press release is posted here on the ACSOL website.
I don’t understand that document. What does it mean ?
Everyone going to the doom and gloom…and didn’t happen. Good news for everyone!
I don’t know what this means for a person who is subject to SORNA.
explanation?
🥳 Yay!! 👏🏻 👏🏻 🤗
😁 Woohoo!! 👏🏻 👏🏻 👏🏻
🏆 PLF wins!! 🎉 🥇 🎖️
… ( 😥 usdoj loses 😭 ) …
🕺🏻 Happy, happy, happy!! 🤗 😁 👏🏻 👏🏻 👏🏻
For those that are wondering, a preliminary injunction is used to stop one party from continuing a specific act or in this case law until the court issued a judgment. In order to get a motion granted for an injunction the party filing must have shown that they’re in favorable in winning the case. Hopefully, something good comes of this. I’m just wondering what it will change for the country as a whole…
💥 BOOM 💥 Judge that sees truth !
Amen Sir. Bless Your Heart . ❤️ Now LFG Michigan !
It’s pretty complicated. Some good parts, some bad parts. There’s a reason a statement isn’t being issued until Tuesday.
The Court goes out of its way to say that SORNA is poorly drafted and the feds need to fix it.
Ultimately, the injunction was granted, but it solely applies to people who have been convicted of sex crimes in California, and it is very limited in that it only forbids the feds from prosecuting such people under 18 USC § 2250 unless and until the feds first 1) seek/obtain certification from CA that the person was required to register under CA law, and 2) if prosecution is for failure to provide certain info (as opposed to failing to register entirely), the feds have to seek/obtain certification from CA that CA allows such persons to provide that sort of information to the state (online identifiers, etc.).
It also prevents DOJ from prosecuting anyone who received a certificate of rehabilitation.
With regards to SORNA, before the feds can prosecute a CA resident, they have to consult with CA in each case and determine three things: the individual 1) was required to comply with state law, 2) could have complied with state law, and 3) failed to comply with state law.
It doesn’t vacate the rule or apply nationwide, but it adds steps the feds have to follow in CA and should provide us with some breathing room.
Great work, Janice! Thank you!
I don’t want to take away from the partial injunction as that is a positive development. But as someone who’s recently petitioned off the CA registry, I am troubled by the extensive takedown of 1203.4 by this judge. Despite being off the registry, I am still saddled with the broad definitions in IML of “covered sex offenders.” One definition in essence reads, “If you have ever been convicted of a sex offense…” I have held out some hope that my successful 1203.4 petition would be recognized federally and would therefore inoculate me from Angel Watch disrupting my international travels with their notices and warnings to destination countries.
This judge pointed to a number of rulings and language that seems to deem it very unlikely that our 1203.4s will ever be honored/recognized federally. Which means that despite not being a registrant, we will continue to be ensnared by IML and subject to the Feds whims of sending notices/warnings about us to our destination countries because we satisfy the “covered” definition.
It really is a phucking joke. You commit a misdemeanor 20 years ago, later win a court order to have the conviction expunged, and then later again win another court order to have your registration terminated resulting in you no longer being a registrant. Yet despite all that, IML gets to continue haunting you for the rest of your life, replete with Angel Watch reserving their right to destroy your ability to travel internationally if it so chooses. It is a total perversion of justice by the very entity who’s supposed to be ensuring “justice for all.”
While the Court recognized the due process arguments and based its injunction on a violation of due process – it was bound by prior case law on the nondelegation question (i.e., plurality in Gundy).
It also recognized prior precedent that while a state may remove and offender under state law, the federal requirement is independent and still applies. The question then is whether the state law would otherwise allow registration outside its own laws.
In the end, it solidified my decision to leave the U.S. as soon as my children graduate (getting very close). I have been off my non-SORNA state registry for 6-years and believe I am Tier I under SORNA (although the DOJ may or may not agree with the State on that). I will not give them any more time beyond my obligation to my kids, to try to force me back onto the registry.
OK, for those of us who don’t have to register anymore in California due to the tiered registry, what happens now? my petition was granted in October.
I read the entire decision. Out of respect for the PLF and to allow them time to prepare their press release, I will not comment on any specifics of the order. I will, however, say that I am greatly encouraged by this judge’s comments. While I wish the injunctions were not partial and were complete, I am convinced that THIS JUDGE GETS IT!!! And for this, I am very, very encouraged!!!
@everyone, so this injunction only applies to California and no one else , no other states correct?. Don’t get me wrong I’m happy for California registrants, I was hoping it would apply nation wide. What does it mean exactly. I know the actual press release doesn’t come out until Tuesday, and maybe it will explain more, hopefully Michigan will get a clue and finally do the right thing now. I mean we already won 3 different lawsuits and will probably win number 4 . Hopey this injury will get Judge Goldsmith to rule sooner or throw is own injunction on Michigan as well. Any explanation what this injection really means and of it only applies to Cali right now would be greatly appreciated. Thanks
To All: Yes, we are all anxious to understand exactly what the Court’s ruling means and to whom it applies. But please reread what the the website’s article above says:
“ACSOL must wait until the Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) issues a press release before it publishes an article describing the court’s decision.”
So…… Patience.
A small partial win is better than no win. And the fight is not over and will take years. I think eventually the higher up more conservative judges will be more open to the argument by the plaintiffs regarding the the non-delegation issue. In my opinion, OptimistPrime did a good job presenting a summary of the preliminary court order as to how it effects everyone. So congrats to those in CA for some relief.
In the meantime, many will still have their first amendment rights violated by the Department of Injustice (DOI). In the meantime, the Attorney General can unconstitutionally create criminal laws and enforce the criminal laws it creates. In the meantime, those in non-SORNA states that do not collect all the SORNA information (except for CA) are unconstitutionally automatically considered guilty of a federal crime by the DOI and can be arrested and prosecuted without any notice. In the meantime, the DOI unconstitutionally moved the burden of proof of a crime from the government to the person accused of the the crime.
Between the current US Supreme Court, the DOI and the states, constitutional rights are being eroded. As Jim Morrision once stated on stage “You are all a bunch of f_cking slaves.” It sure feels to me I am a slave of the government when my constitutional rights are taken away.
Thank you for your work on our behalf.
I don’t like the court’s treatment of 1203.4 at all. Depressing.
SORNA also appears to violate the Ex Post Facto Clause, Due Process, and Equal Protection of Law. Persons “convicted” prior to enactment should not be compelled to comply!
Praise the Lord.
I read the entire judgement. I am not a lawyer. That being said the judge ripped apart the majority of what the DOJ is arguing. The one part he did not agree with was the part that stated that the DOJ cannot enact laws that were not made by the legislature. That being said the judge seemed to state that that point was ripe for challenge at the SCOTUS level based on opinions recently stated by conservative judges in the past.
I never understood the big deal over new SORNA guidelines. Don’t states have the option to ignore them, just like many states have already been doing?
1203.4 inquiry from this case.
It’s often been cited in the lawsuit that the conviction is still viewed as a conviction for future purposes. I want to point out situation occurs only when another conviction arises and not before then.
From sandiegocounty.gov on 1203.4:
——– quote ———–
1. Result in a new entry in the court record showing the dismissal of the case;
2. Allow you to answer on many, but not all, job applications that you have not been convicted.
If, however, you are applying for a government job or a job which requires a government-issued
license, certificate, or permit, or a job which involves a security clearance, the conviction will be
discovered; in such cases, you should disclose the initial conviction and its later expungement;
3. Prevent use of the conviction to impeach you if you testify as a witness, unless you are being
tried for a subsequent offense.
4. If the conviction was for a felony, expungement is the first step in obtaining a pardon.
——- end quote ——-
Point 2 cites you have to disclose the initial conviction and its later expungement. It’s presented a part A and part B so that there is acknowledgement the conviction was set aside. The PLF case judge continuously misinterprets that 1203.4 means the conviction is always live. False. It’s only live when you are being tried for a subsequent offense.
Point 3 reaffirms what I interpreted in point 2, with 1203.4, your conviction cannot be used to impeach you if you testify as a witness. Why? Because you are supposed to be treated as rehabilitated.
I didn’t understand the SORNA injunction until someone explained in this thread or in the cancelled court date thread.
SORNA is being applied to each current and former registrant to get around states that are non-compliant. ::: mind blown ::::
That made reading the 56 page decision easier to comprehend. All the CA Does who no longer had to register made themselves try to register only to be told they cannot register since they’re no longer part of the CA registry. This showed standing to prove Does 1, 2, and 3 are breaking SORNA law through impossibility. That’s genius on the part of PLF to have these Does do this as well as get a CA registration LE officer write a letter about the impossibility.
Having Peckingham (NC) as a source for first amendment protection was much needed.
The judge is for the plaintiff for many of the issues, except when it came to vacated or set aside convictions. I felt there was some mental gymnastics going on both with CA’s 1203.4 and the original SORNA interpretation. Both 1203.4 and old SORNA both use “set aside” to describe no longer being convicted. The way the judge was writing, it’s as if 1203.4 means you’re still convicted. It doesn’t help when the judge cites 290.007.
On a tangent, for any CA former registrant who earned the CoR, does that mean every state and territory in the union cannot prosecute you for failing to register? And if so, then does that mean CA COR recipients are absolved from all state and US territory programs since this new SORNA is trying to usurp state and US Territory registries?
The judge does predominantly see our side and the ridiculousness and level of absurdity this has reached. He. nor any judge for that matter, cannot rewrite the law, so all that he can grant is severance to ordinances he finds unconsitutional. It looks like this is going to be won impartially by the plaintiffs. However, we all know that a probable result will be a separate ‘federal’ registration in the state of California to circumvent this ruling and that any further rulings nationwide such as this one will be followed by the same DOJ tactic-establish a separate ‘federal registration facility’. The AG and the DOJ are not going to let this rest and if necessary they will seek and get approved for separate government funding to set up and run such a federal registration facility. He, the AG, has been attempting to put all the eggs in one basket and create whatever laws he and DOJ can concoct and until SCOTUS makes a ruling in our favor he can continue to do so because of this ‘special power’ that congress has given him which this judge does not seem to side with either. Congress speaks out of both sides of its own mouth and urinates on the Consitution when necessary to pass laws.
@Jamoce Bellucci and ACSOL. For future reference and usage, here is an excerpt from state vs. Bodyke which refers to an actual statement made by the Supreme Court of the United States.
B. Separation-of-Powers Doctrine
{¶ 39} The first, and defining, principle of a free constitutional
government is the separation of powers. Evans v. State (Del.2005), 872 A.2d 539,
543. In Kilbourn v. Thompson (1880), 103 U.S. 168, 190-191, 26 L.Ed. 377, the
United States Supreme Court stated:
{¶ 40} “It is believed to be one of the chief merits of the American system
of written constitutional law, that all the powers intrusted to government, whether
State or national, are divided into the three grand departments, the executive, the
legislative, and the judicial. That the functions appropriate to each of these
branches of government shall be vested in a separate body of public servants, and
that the perfection of the system requires that the lines which separate and divide
these departments shall be broadly and clearly defined. It is also essential to the
successful working of this system that the persons intrusted with power in any one
of these branches shall not be permitted to encroach upon the powers confided to
the others, but that each shall by the law of its creation be limited to the exercise
of the powers appropriate to its own department and no other.”
From the above excerpt we clearly see how Congress has blatantly and viciously violated the ‘Separation of Powers’ doctrine in order to pass a law and unconstitutionally indoctrinate the AG with legislative and judicial powers he absolutely should NOT be vested with according to the US Supreme Court. Bodyke’s argument was not legislative in nature, which was still a violation of Separation of Powers, but Judicial, in that it allowed the AG to vacate final judgements of the court and its judges and re-classify registrants to a new law which endangered the finality of all judge’s decisions AND violated the Separation of Powers.
This may help in future suits and at SCOTUS
Please sign this petition, it’s an old one, but barely has any signatures considering it’s ten years old. Let’s revive it
“On October 13, 2008, Congress, through the Keeping the Internet Devoid of Sexual Predators (“KIDS”) Act, Pub. L. No. 110-400, 122 Stat. 4224, provided that the Attorney General “shall require that each sex offender provide to the sex offender registry those Internet identifiers the sex offender uses or will use of any type that the Attorney General determines to be appropriate”
That must have taken a lot of brain power to come up with “Keeping the Internet Devoid of Sexual Predators” which nicely fits with the acronym KIDS. Those bureaucrats should get a lolipop.🤠 They’re keeping children safe by having registrants report their online Capital One account