General Comments December 2016

This, from Bill Dobbs:

Just before the deadline, as expected, Michigan filed a petition asking the US Supreme Court to review Doe v. Snyder. So far this effort to get help from the Supreme Court hasn’t made the news; the legal papers are not yet online. If you want to see the state’s petition, drop me a line.

Doe v. Snyder is an important decision concerning Michigan’s sex offense registry. Lots of cheering by registrants, lawyers and civil libertarians last summer when the ruling was handed down by a federal appeals court, the US Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Michigan is unhappy and hoping to get some relief from the US Supreme Court. The chances? Many requests for review are made but few are granted…

The petition, recidivism fears: The public has much fear about sex offenses, and that those convicted of such crimes will do it again—recidivism. These widespread fears play a role in the creation of registries and other draconian laws. Michigan’s petition to the Supreme Court starts off with a bang, saying the recidivism rates related to sex offenses are “frightening and high,” quoting from a landmark 2003 Supreme Court case (Smith v. Doe). That’s a very interesting beginning because in 2015 a widely circulated essay by Ira and Tara Ellman debunked that claim—the statement was based on the bragging of a treatment provider, not on research. Recidivism rates are actually among the *lowest* for any category of offenses. With its fateful words in that 2003 decision the Supreme Court promoted a falsehood that went on to infect a whole area of law and policy. The Supreme Court’s own dubious reasoning has now come back to haunt – what will the court do? “Circuit splits” are another big issue in Michigan’s petition, there’s plenty about federal and state courts who see the registry as a mere administrative mechanism and refuse to reckon with its power to incapacitate, to cause what Michelle Alexander calls, “social death.”

Background: Michigan’s registry is one of the largest in the country with over 42,000 individuals required to sign it. Lawmakers didn’t just get the registry rolling and call it a day, over the years they’ve been enacting ever harsher measures designed to slam registrants harder and harder. A federal court lawsuit knocked some holes in the state’s registry law; Michigan, the losing party, took its plea to a federal appeals court. Late last summer a three judge panel of the US Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals handed down a remarkable ruling in Doe v. Snyder that did really serious damage to Michigan’s scarlet letter machinery. The appeals court blasted various registration requirements as “punitive,” the first federal appeals court to do so. And it put a stop to piling more penalties on those already sentenced, ruling the practice is ex post facto and unconstitutional.

What’s ahead: Next, the legal eagles fighting for justice for Michigan registrants will be answering this petition, led by Miriam Aukerman of the Michigan ACLU and Paul Reingold of the Michigan Clinical Law Program. Below is the first passage of Michigan’s petition to the Supreme Court, and some past headlines and links to new stories about Doe v. Snyder. Stay tuned. –Bill Dobbs

News coverage and blog stories about Doe v. Snyder

Washington Post | Aug. 26, 2016 | By Fred Barbash
Court says Michigan sex offender registry laws creating ‘moral lepers’
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/08/26/court-mich-treating-sex-offenders-as-moral-lepers-restrictions-struck-down/

Reason.com | Aug. 26, 2016 | By Jacob Sullum
6th Circuit Says Mich. Sex Offender Registry Is Punitive and, Not Incidentally, Stupid
http://reason.com/blog/2016/08/26/6th-circuit-says-michigans-sex-offender

Mimesis Law | Aug. 26, 2016 | By Andrew Fleischman
Sixth Circuit: Michigan’s Sex Offender Registry Is Punitive
http://mimesislaw.com/fault-lines/andrew-fri-sixth-circuit-sex-offender-registry-is-punitive/12483

Simple Justice | Aug. 27, 2016 | By Scott Greenfield
The 6th Circuit Finally Said The Magic Word: Punitive
https://blog.simplejustice.us/2016/08/27/the-6th-circuit-finally-said-the-magic-word-punitive/

Michigan Radio | Aug. 26, 2016 | By Jack Lessenberry
Michigan’s sex offender law is unfair and probably unconstitutional
http://michiganradio.org/post/michigans-sex-offender-law-unfair-and-probably-unconstitutional#stream/0

Slate | Aug. 26, 2016 | By Mark David Stern
Appeals Court Issues Scathing Ruling Against Michigan Sex Offender Penalties
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2016/08/26/appeals_court_strikes_down_michigan_sex_offender_penalties.html

Has anyone done their annual reg lately?

Have you noticed any significant changes or additions to the requirements?

I only asked because of the recent changes on the Megan’s law website and seems like our group is gaining traction and has a lot of articles and laws passed or rejected throughout the nation.

Safer out than in? The dangers of Icloud

http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/Montgomery-County-Pediatrician-Child-Pornography-Dead-407471925.html

Well, wasted my time applying, but had a better chance than Past POTUS’s since he did a Record conv. reliefs. Hoped to of been #79 since that’s when I Grad and also convicted date.
Here is the article… I was turned down but he helped Worse convicted. I didn’t take anyone’s life away perm.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2016/12/19/president-obama-grants-153-commutations-and-78-pardons-individuals-deserving-second

Since our Gov Brown won’t allow any 290’s, I thought what the heck, he has (POTUS) been helping more people than any other Pres.

I’ll try and post my denial from the office of the WH. for Pardons. Don’t own a scanner and use Chrome OS.

Going in for my annual this Friday. It’s only the 3rd time. The last 2 times it was pretty simple. For this one after I made the appointment I got a letter with a form I had to fill out and take with me. I’m in California (LA county).

The form asks for lots of info. Address, social, home phone, cell phone, drivers license number, additional address, emergency contact, work address, when I started working there, vehicle information including plate, make, model, year, color, VIN, year vehicle registration ends. They also ask for probation/parole officer contact info if on probation or parole.

I definitely don’t want to give them any more info than I have to, but I am still on probation and realize that during this time they have me by the balls so I have to do anything they say.

Am I correct in thinking that home address is the only thing legally required? But also that while I’m on probation I should just provide all they ask? With any luck I should be expunged and off probation by next year’s annual, I would definitely have more fire to fight anything then.

Thanks.

Rapper Tupac Shakur is being inducted into the Rock’n Roll Hall of Fame. Aside from being a gangsta rapper who is getting into the RR HOF – were he still alive today, Mr. Shakur would be a Registered Sex Offender. Of course, there is no mention of his Sex Abuse conviction from the mid 90s that I have seen.

Los Angeles is now considering barring all adults from playgrounds unless they are accompanied by children. And this in conjunction with Los Angeles’ continued actions to put in pocket parks everywhere in the city that they can fit a few feet of grass.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-playground-ban-20161227-story.html#nt=oft03a-1la1

This latest related to playgrounds comes from Councilman Mitch O’Farrell, a close protege of Mayor Eric Garcetti — both of them Democrats and (falsely) claiming to be liberals, so nix that thinking that Democrats will be our saviors, that is phenomenally naive. O’Farrell justifies his proposal by saying that it can’t be assumed that every adult at a playground is benign — that is, all adults on their own in a park are presumed by law to be pedophiles and shall be treated accordingly. And Garcetti has been the big pusher of the pocket parks everywhere, which we all know prevents us from living anywhere, even as these stupid pocket parks are normally too small for anyone to even use them for anything, some even only about 10 square feet, but they will keep us out.

At least the Los Angeles Times came out with the editorial at the link above opposing the proposal. But while they wrote the editorial, they have yet to cover the story, the public doesn’t even know about this proposal, because the Times generally chooses to keep the public in the dark about most of what is going on in the city, the better to manipulate the news.

I note, for what its worth, O’Farrell is gay. I have always been surprised at gays coming out in favor of all this crap imposed on registrants, as so many guys struggle with their sexuality, or course more so looking backwards that forwards. I also suspect gays are disproportionately represented in the registrant ranks, as that struggle can lead them (or anyone) to the wrong situations. So, I say not only are Democrats not going to be our saviors, neither does it seems gays will be.

On an aside, I have told friends for years that I won’t even go to a park because the hysteria is such that any lone male who goes to a park will automatically be leered at and presumed to be a child molester looking for a victim. Everyone tells me I’m being stupid, that is not so (no one knows my status). Well, I did end up at a park a year ago alone, the only time I have allowed that — waiting for two friends to show up who turned out to be very late. After a while the police came up and gave me the third degree and told me to get out. They said there had been complaints about me making people uncomfortable. But all I was doing was minding my own business sitting on a park bench, waiting, and even only about 25 feet from a security guard, as the park was adjacent to a museum (that’s where we were going), and the guard was there to make sure anyone going past that point had a ticket. The guard already knew I was waiting for friends. Yet the police terrified me and told me to get out, there had been complaints. And gee, there weren’t even any children around!

This proposal from Councilman O’Farrell now takes this public hysteria and makes it a formal law, and to hell with any Constitutional presumption of innocence. We should put O’Farrell high up on the enemy list.

Well as many of you know… I was denied entry into Thailand due to the Lovely IML. I have been to Thailand two times prior to spend time with my fiance… Now ex fiance. This is the most recent correspondence from my Thai lawyer in an attempt to obtain a copy of the Alert Notification sent
Dear Al
USA

Festive Seasons & Happy New Year.

THAI IMMIGRATION
1.1.1) The Thai Immigration authority has not yet disclosed written evidence about your case.
1.1.2) We will not pay the official to expedite communications because that could be interpreted as bribery.
1.2) Therefore, we telephoned them whereby its official stated it shall not disclose any correspondence received from the US authority; however, confirmed you were refused entrance after its receipt of the US correspondence.

APPEAL
2.1) It is possible for you to submit an Appeal to the Thai Ministry of Interior without inclusion of the requested evidence from the Thai Immigration authority.
2.2) The grounds shall be either:
– the Thai Immigration’s decision was erroneous or unsubstantiated;
– procedural non-compliance or impropriety; and
– your connections to Thailand, reason/s to return & subsequent conduct since the original offence.
2.3.1) The Appeal process cannot be used as a means for discovery because the Thai authorities cannot be compelled to present the US correspondence as evidence.
2.3.2) Instead, it is likely the Thai Immigration shall assert its reason to refuse you entry was your 1998 US conviction (howsoever such intelligence was reported and established) & your comments, including adverse admissions/ confession, made during interview.
2.3.3) Therefore, whether the Thai Immigration complied with the procedural requirement to provide you with an opportunity to Appeal may be asserted as a separate policy-issue to the substantive risk of prohibiting an alien felon from (re)entering the jurisdiction to prevent the commission of a potential further offence.
2.4) Regarding the prospects of your Appeal being successful, we cannot guarantee that the Ministry of Interior shall revoke the restriction. In our professional opinion cases involving a fact-pattern similar to your own matter, when the alien felon committed a less serious offence, have been dismissed.

US GOVERNMENT
3.1.1) Whether your Thai Appeal is successful shall not reveal the US correspondence.
3.1.2) Instead, if successful, it shall revoke the endorsement in your Passport and permit you entrance.
3.2.1) Therefore any potential action you may have against the US government authorities will be separate.
3.2.2) We cannot advise on whether the US government authority will disclose the correspondence directly to you.

OPTIONS
(a) Appeal ‘out-of-country’ from the USA = THB 50,000 & 7% VAT plus disbursements.
(b) Wait an indefinite period for the Thai Immigration authority to reply; whether including or omitting the US correspondence.
(c) You travel to Thailand and, during the 48-hour period while detained, Appeal ‘within country’.
(d) Separately, you engage an US attorney to apply to the US government authority/ies for disclosure of your personal information.
Option (d) can be initiated regardless of options (a), (b) & (c).
Option (c) attracts the actual risk of being refused entry & detained without a positive outcome; plus additional (wasted) travel expenses.

REQUEST
What are your instructions?

Best regards

In short….. I’m screwed on that front.

Just had my annual, which went well overall. Same woman I’ve had in the past and she is pleasant so that helps. Only issue out of the ordinary that was brought up was the station declares one must carry the receipt on the person at all times. I know better and asked for the ordinance or code number, something, to prove that. When she returned to provide me my copies, she stated there was nothing that could be found. She then followed that up with, “if a cop pulls you over and asks for it, you can deal with it then”, in a threatening like tone. I’ve read the other posts, including Janice’s, about the rules of the receipt. I’m somewhat appalled by the blatant lies, as this is not the first person from this station to feed me a line.