Comments that are not specific to a certain post should go here, for the month of Aug 2026. 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.
Misery’s Senator Eric Schmitt I believe was the former AG of Misery was questioning Jack Smith yesterday and got the Atlanta Hawks mistaken for the Iowa Hawkeyes. Instead of Misery wasting resources on Halloween sign lawsuit with the Supreme Court why not spend money on a better senator representing the state of Misery. Maybe Janice should wear an Iowa Hawkeye shirt if this case makes it to Washington, DC.
Misery’s Senator Eric Schmitt (former Misery’s AG I believe) questioned Jack Smith on Tuesday during a hearing and stated that Jack Smith was watching the Atlanta Hawks instead of the Iowa Hawkeyes game. Instead of Misery arguing the Halloween signs the Show Me State should invest in educating their representatives unless all Miserians are low on brain waves. If the Halloween sign case goes to the US Supreme Court Janice should wear a t-shirt, ” I know the difference between the Atlanta Hawks and Iowa Hawkeyes. I also have my facts straight before I speak or write about something because I don’t want to pull a Schmitt.”
What’s the point of having staffers if they can’t get their facts straight for a hearing, but then again they spew bull crap about the sex offense registry, registrants, and how useful a tool the registry is for public safety all the time. Geez all politicians are a bunch of robots rubes that couldn’t knock out a casino because they are drunk on power, hate, and the almighty dollar.
But minors aren’t supposed to be able to think for themselves at such times…
Dad of Student Who Had Inappropriate Relationship With Teacher Lets Her Off the Hook, Son Is ‘Thriving’ (Globe, 30 Sep 2026)
Oh wait, she couldn’t influence him daily at school since she wasn’t at his school…
According to 404 media, the USPS is putting cameras on their trucks (link therein) in a trial run for community safety since they are rolling all day long, but don’t run ALPR SW on their cameras which can double as ALPRs if needed.
Yeah…your elected WDC official needs to hear about this in opposition to the whole idea.
And by the way, happy new fiscal year 2027! Now the Supreme Court of the United States can get to work. Does anybody know of any cases we should be particularly looking forward to their opinions this new judicial year?
@MD Registrant
It appears the illustrious red bow tie Chief Justice in Washington DC seems was getting shunned by his neighbors this summer and people sitting outside of his home in kayaks protesting on the water
Judge T. Ludington from MI getting some sweet treatment from his fellow judge when it comes to punishment for DWI etc. And PFRs are a danger?!
Well, the PFR formerly known as Mr. Speaker has passed away at 84 at his home in IL. From a teacher to the third highest ranking person in the country to wheelchair bound in his home after his term in the Fed pen.
Justice Altio is considering retiring from the bench next year, so who and what will the court be like. If only Chief Justice Bow tie would retire since the views of the courts went down the tubes on his watch.
Anyone know of a good lawyer to build a federal lawsuit in new york for unlawful SORA arrest and continued harassment at home of family and house guest after the unlawful arrest was dismissed?
For those who access and get records from PACER:
Federal Courts Are Running a Surplus Charging for Public Records (Reason.com Oct Issue)
The Public Access to Court Electronic Records system rakes in about $145 million per year but only costs a fraction of that to operate.
This systems needs an update, badly, and people should be pushing on their elected WDC officials to pass this law and make them update the system for those who want records, especially PFRs for cases which can be used to fight the system.
(P.S. It would be nice to have an October Gen Comments instead of being stuck in Aug.)
Beware the Rush to Judgment in the Cornell Rape Case (Reason.com 29 Sep 2026)
As with similar cases at UVA and Duke Lacrosse, it’s important to get the facts first.
DUH! Ya think?! (And the more that comes out…oh boy)
The forum is smart and thoughtful, so read this and think about PFR identifiers needing to be known and alleged concerns others may have here with comms between people…
Kids Are Using NPR Podcast Comments as Secret Group Chats (Reason.com 29 Sep 2026)
Teenagers barred from social media are turning obscure corners of the internet into makeshift chat rooms.
Any different than a registry? I don’t think so…
The Cornell Rape Lawsuit Is Fueling a Deranged Social Media Mob (Reason.com 1 Oct 2026)
Crazy internet sleuths are doxing, threatening, and harassing the accused fraternity brothers—and also totally unrelated people.
From what I’ve been reading, this is seriously F’ed up by all involved, but sides don’t employ critical thinking most times.
Should people entering positions of public trust, including law enforcement, healthcare, education, and clergy, especially those who work with children and vulnerable populations, be required to provide a DNA sample?
Talk amongst yourselves with this thought. How many would get caught up in a past unsolved crime or situation through this?
CO: Feds investigate Jeffco Public Schools’ handling of sexual abuse cases (Denver Gazette 6 Oct 2026)
People in positions of trust not on the registry to start with…
Smith V. Doe and the Constitutions
Written by Quiet too long 10/13/2026
The federal Constitution was written and applied to serve as a guide and restraint upon public power. A group of laws Of The Land that should never be compromised by constitutions written by any of the 50 states under this union, the states may impose their own interpretation of the Federal constitution as long as it doesn’t conflict or go to extremes of stable law.
When registration (SORA) systems were conceived and or presented as a 10% bribe through federal funding incentives and later defended through Smith V. Doe (2003),constitutional protections diminished as civil and administrative laws succeeded over criminal, punitive and retroactive protections. Specifically bypassing Article I’s Ex Post Facto Clause. And any amended bill added to it regardless of restraints.
The states ultimately gave into federal rule placing sovereignty into a fraudulent claim with the acceptance of the bribe?
In effects: All 50 states has done two things in defiance of the state’s own rules to remain sovereign , once the states recognized and amended the Smith V. Doe case, And deformed Smith V. Doe beyond recognition, Through a 50-state test of over one million devastating statutory updates to see just what control they can get away with. And to whom they can apply it to.
The states determined the amended Smith V. Doe to be the civil successor and to nullify constitutional protections making the amended Smith V. Doe so superior that it successfully reroutes and rewrites its entire substance so that any constitutional challenges to it remain moot,
This is because no matter how you amend Smith V. Doe it becomes whatever the government
wills to do with it and never be challenged to a constitutional loss.
The states then hide these actions under the carpet as civil proceedings and aims it’s punitive retroactive effect towards its unsuspecting public (yes anyone it deems unfit for the cause is a target).
Once the framework was accepted as civil, By public scrutiny towards a single caste it can now be imposed as criminal prosecutions on any free people through civil administrative courts bearing the full weight of criminal prosecutions without any protections or juries. And apply it to any free man it wills against.
The constitutional objections were increasingly answered by the same premise: and the constitution does not apply here it is the amended Smith V. Doe that controls these proceedings
and the states conclude that the system is not retroactive or punishment intentionally leaving out the: 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th,6th 8th and the Fourteenth Amendment Right to Due Process or whatever other amendments get in the way gets in their way.
The citizens are then left with no constitutional questions to ask because examining it is moot.
this is because no matter how you amend Smith V. Doe it becomes whatever laws the government wants without any or all question, and can never be challenged to a loss through a civil court because they cannot answer or it’s not for this court to decide.
And the amended Smith V. Doe can be applied to any person or race the states can get away with.
So we need to ask these questions regarding the rulings on Smith V. Doe
1. Is this system civil or criminal?
2. Are the states united or sovereign?
3. Is the scheme state or federal?
Is Smith V. Doe the same exact document that was presented in (2003) yes or no only?
Are criminal cases held in a civil administrative courts without juries ?
and since the answer is no because it proves fraud upon the state for doing so how does the state hide the criminal prosecutions it claims is civil?
And how does the court conclude the 6th amendment when the courts exclude fraud upon the state?
And when voting and education is suppressed does this shield the state to an outcome to protect itself y/n?
Disclaimer: The contents of this document are written and published strictly for educational, informational, and political commentary purposes under the protections of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The views, arguments, and legal analyses expressed herein represent the independent commentary of the author and do not constitute formal legal advice, representation, or a solicitation of legal services. Readers should consult with a qualified attorney regarding specific legal matters or constitutional challenges.
15 years ago, I was released from confinement. What a journey it has been since in learning the world of PFRs and how messed up our nation’s legal system truly is whether Fed or State.
SC Rep introduced a proposal this week to require that anyone who brings such a defamation case (link therein) and loses must pay attorney fees for the alleged crime survivor (defendant).
Are Warrantless Phone Searches at the Border Constitutional? The Supreme Court May Soon Decide. (Reason.com 12 Oct 2026)
It all depends on who the person is being searched as PFRs sadly know already…
Cambridge Decriminalizes Sex Work—Sort Of (Reason.com 12 Oct 2026)
Harvard’s hometown just adopted a new policy against arresting or prosecuting sex workers. But what the policy means in practice—including for sex buyers—is debatable.
Vivick had a campaign ad with a registrant, so I guess we aren’t good enough to be in ads, but are fine to use for tough on crime laws and for hate by society.
Nothing on SCOTUSblog about the “Misery” Halloween sign centari being granted for review. Anyone heard anything new?
I believe one law that was passed long ago should be challenged all the way to the Supreme Court, specifically the Adam Walsh Child Protection and safety Act. There are so many things wrong with the law. The particular section I am talking about is where a person who is married to a foreigner is not allowed to bring his spouse to the US unless he can prove that he is not a risk to his spouse, if he has been convicted of a sex offense against a minor.
It is applied retroactively to offenses committed before the law was effective, under the guise that it is not punishment. When you take away a right that all other citizens enjoy, to me that is punishment. It is not intended to protect a child, even though your offense was against a child. You could have a child with your foreign spouse and your child is acUS citizens, so they can’t prevent you from bringing your child to the US, but you can’t bring the child’s mother. If you rape an 18 year old, you are not excluded and you are not a threat to the safety of your spouse? But if you molest a 17 year old, you are a threat. You can be a convicted murderer or drug dealer and not be a threat? You can be married to your souse for 20 years and your conviction could be 30 years old or more with no new offenses and you would still be considered a risk. The law gives too much power to the one who makes the decision. There is no criteria in the law regarding how you are deemed no risk. The Secretary of State has the total power to make up what ever rules he wishes, and you cannot challenge it. But they say it is not punishment. Here we have the federal government making laws that restrict the rights or privileges if US citizens not for violating federal law, but for violation of a state law. I think we got screwed big time with this law.
A person wrote on Facebook Prison Getting Out pen pal page for a friend with ” no creeps or CHOs.” Most people don’t go online asking others to send them money, have pictures that look strippers central, and claims of wanting a real relationship when they get released; which of itself is pretty creepy.