Assembly Committee to Consider Internet Identifier Bill (SB 448)

that’s how it begins pass a law that they figure only a handful of opposition to then expand it once it’s passed.even if it doesn’t effect you please call and send letters. this law as written doesn’t affect me but I will be calling and sending hard facts and data in opposition.

The problem with SB-448 is not just in it’s restriction of freedoms but in it’s application by law enforcement. How do they enforce the thing? The other point about enforcement because we have no tiered registry law enforcement tends to blanket enforce. The Orange county Parks ban of 2011…one of the authors of the law Orange County Supervisor Nelson assumed it was applied only against registrants that had child victims…The OC Sheriff’s department enforced that law against ALL 290 registrants. Law makers make laws but don’t control their application. Below is interesting:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JWfYqmNzpA

http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/can-a-registered-sex-offender-be-barred-using-social-

here we go and the erosion of our constitution is ever expanding with policies based on fear. the government can and have been putting people US citizens on a no fly list with absolutely zero due process and since it’s been okay to deny ex-offenders constitutional rights specifically where it all started the right to bear arms with absolutely no procedural due process just because ogf a crminal coviction for the justificqtion the government uses to claim they are dangerous is going to get expanded to include anyone and any right justified because the government claims you’re dangerous. so much for due process and are constitutional democratic Republic. this country is going to hurt because of all the misery it’s conflicting abroad and on its own citizens. it’s called collective karma at least that’s what Im calling it.

initial decision, with explanations and final judgment and order in the Nebraska FEBERAL court decision banning the state from requiring Internet identifiers as unconstitution al

excerpt
(1) Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 28-322.05 and 29-4006(1)(k) and
(s) (West, Operative Jan. 1, 2010) are facially
unconstitution al under the First Amendment and the
equivalent Nebraska constitutional provision;
(2) Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-322.05 (West, Operative Jan. 1,
2010) is facially unconstitution al under the Due
8:09-cv-00456-RGK-CRZ Doc # 536 Filed: 12/21/12 Page 2 of 4 – Page ID # 6881
3
Process Clause and the equivalent Nebraska
constitutional provision;
(3) Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 29-4006(1)(k) and (s),
29-4006(2), and 28-322.05 (West, Operative Jan. 1,
2010) are facially unconstitution al under the Ex Post
Facto Clause of the United States Constitution and
the equivalent Nebraska constitutional provision
regarding (a) offenders who had served their time
and were no longer under criminal justice
supervision on January 1, 2010; and (b) offenders
who had been sentenced prior to January 1, 2010, but
who remained under criminal justice supervision on
or after January 1, 2010;
(4) Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-4006(2) (West, Operative Jan.
1, 2010) is facially unconstitution al under the Fourth
Amendment as to those plaintiffs who were
previously convicted of sex crimes, but who were
not on probation, parole, or court-monitored
supervision on or after January 1, 2010.
(5) Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 29-4006(1)(k) and (s) and
29-4006(2) (West, Operative Jan. 1, 2010) are
unconstitution al as applied to all those Plaintiffs
listed on Court’s Exhibit 1 who are identified therein
as “presently a Plaintiff” and who must register as a
sex offender under the Nebraska Sex Offender
Registration Act, Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 29-4001 to
29-4014;
8:09-cv-00456-RGK-CRZ Doc # 536 Filed: 12/21/12 Page 3 of 4 – Page ID # 6882
4
(6) Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-322.05 (West, Operative Jan. 1,
2010) is unconstitution al as applied to Does 2, 3, 4,
6, 12, 13, 17, 18, 19, 27, and 35; and
Permanent Injunction
B. The defendants and their agents, servants, employees, attorneys
and any other persons acting in concert with them are permanently
enjoined from enforcing the foregoing statutes.
Attorney Fees and Costs
C. The plaintiffs are hereby awarded attorneys’ fees against the
defendants in the amount of $292,564.88.
D. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1), the
plaintiffs are prevailing parties for purposes of taxation of costs.
If the plaintiffs desire to recover costs, they must file the required
documents with the Clerk within 14 days.

In the text of this bill, it gives police the ability to post about warrants to the website directly. Then look at who is funding this bill. I’m wondering why its so important for police, such as Facebook Police Menlo Park, which is FaceBook’s funded police force they applied for over 2 years ago, to be able to post about a registrant to a website, presumeabley the one that already exists and not a new one created by FaceBook, if a registrant has any warrants. Warrants aren’t convictions after all and it appears even a warrant for a traffic ticket could trigger this. If FaceBook/Kelly are still claiming that SB 448 is needed to be on an emergency status as supposedly registrants using the internet with anonymity is causing a state of emergency, which is all bogus nonsense, then there is not much to stop the same entity, FaceBook, with their own FaceBook Police, Menlo Park to issue a slew of bogus warrants to then post about it to the website.