Comments that are not specific to a certain post should go here, for the month of January 2019. Contributions should relate to the cause and goals of this organization and please, keep it courteous and civil.
Related posts
-
Senators call for audit of TSA’s facial recognition tech as use expands in airports | The Record from Recorded Future News
Source: therecord.media 11/22/24 A bipartisan group of 12 senators on Wednesday sent the Department of Homeland... -
-
SORNA Case Advances in Federal Court; PLF Files Motion for Summary Judgment
The Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) filed a motion for summary judgment on November 18 in its...
What do you guys think about this? that is a 9th circuit case too that was cited. You know I can find NO 9th circuit cases or SCOTUS cases directly addressing privacy issues. The 9th has years ago by citing Doe V Portiz which is a Pennsylvania SC but no others, at least not any with any bite. If any are out there cite em please.
Can it be shown that the “legislative facts on which [the statute] is apparently based could not reasonably be conceived to be true” by the legislature. Clover Leaf Creamery, 449 U.S. at 464, 101 S.Ct. at 724, quoting Vance v. Bradley, 440 U.S. 93, 111, 99 S.Ct. 939, 949, 59 L.Ed.2d 171 (1979). See In re Lara, 731 F.2d 1455, 1460 (9th Cir.1984).
What do you guys think about this? that is a 9th circuit case too that was cited. You know I can find NO 9th circuit cases or SCOTUS cases directly addressing privacy issues. The 9th has years ago by citing Doe V Portiz which is a Pennsylvania SC but no others, at least not any with any bite. If any are out there cite em please. From what I have seen they are violating the 1974 Privacy ACT publishing our addresses specifically, no two ways about it.
Can it be shown that the “legislative facts on which [the statute] is apparently based could not reasonably be conceived to be true” by the legislature. Clover Leaf Creamery, 449 U.S. at 464, 101 S.Ct. at 724, quoting Vance v. Bradley, 440 U.S. 93, 111, 99 S.Ct. 939, 949, 59 L.Ed.2d 171 (1979). See In re Lara, 731 F.2d 1455, 1460 (9th Cir.1984).
Thorne v. City of El Seguendo, 726 F.2d 459, 469-71 (9th Cir. 1984) (stating that government may seek and use information covered by right to privacy if it can show that its use would advance legitimate state interest).
“Disclosure of Plaintiff’s home addresses is prohibited by the Privacy Act of 1974 (Privacy Act), 5 U. S. C. § 552a (1988 ed. and Supp. IV). Disclosure of the home addresses is prohibited by the Privacy Act unless an exception to that Act applies.” Department of Defense v. FLRA, 510 U.S. 487 (1994); “The employee addresses sought by the unions are “records” covered by the broad terms of the Privacy Act.” Id.
The Privacy Act reads in part,
“No agency shall disclose any record which is contained in a system of records by any means of communication to any person, or to another agency, except pursuant to a written request by, or with the prior written consent of, the individual to whom the record pertains, unless disclosure of the record would be … (2) required under section 552 of this title [FOIA].” 5 U. S. C. § 552a(b)(2) (1988 ed. and Supp. IV).
It is well established, and the United States Supreme Court has “stated time and again that courts must presume that a legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says there.” Cf. Connecticut Nat. Bank v. Germain, 503 U. S. 249, 253 (1992). “It is true that home addresses often are publicly available through sources such as telephone directories and voter registration lists, but “[i]n an organized society, there are few facts that are not at one time or another divulged to another.” DOJ v. Reporters Comm. for Free Press, 489 U.S. 749 (1989), at 763.
This is the only thing possibly relevant, but SCOTUS has stated NO addresses specifically over and over. There are no exceptions in the ACT authorizing the state to do what they are doing. That is why they would not re;ease the addresses under the FOIA because specifically there are no exceptions in the Privacy Act for FOIA and stated if the legislature wants they can amend the Privacy Act or no go.
(7) to another agency or to an instrumentality of any governmental jurisdiction within or
under the control of the United States for a civil or criminal law enforcement activity if
the activity is authorized by law, and if the head of the agency or instrumentality has
made a written request to the agency which maintains the record specifying the
particular portion desired and the law enforcement activity for which the record is
sought;
https://www.justice.gov/opcl/file/844481/download
“Hundreds of sex offenders get their names taken off the sex offender registry every year in Colorado – Sex offender gets off registry, despite victim’s plea” News anchors go apeshit. ////
https://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/contact7/hundreds-of-sex-offenders-get-their-names-taken-off-the-sex-offender-registry-every-year-in-colorado
This is the damn lady’s problem,
After the charges became public, Stillahn said she went from popular cheerleader at Arapahoe High School to social outcast — overnight.
“Kids put together the crying girl in the counseling office was the one on the news, and I was being called a slut,” she said, the emotions still raw almost two decades later. “I had no friends; it was so hurtful.”
I do not care a 14 year old knows what they are doing no matter what our laws state. She is just pissed because she got a touch of same treatment that the adult got.
Also, Liam Neesom facing backlash something he said 30-40 years ago or whenever,
https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/liam-neeson-faces-fierce-backlash-for-racist-admission-of-wanting-to-kill-a-black-bastard
Love it when any of these politicians or public figures get a little taste of our treatment in any way. What a frigging not job anyway. As bad as that nut job Mel Gibson.
You know I really have sympathy and empathy for the lady, but it is not completely
the dude’s fault. Blame it on the real culprits-the MOB. They learn at a very young age how to be the MOB and it just carries over thru the entire lives.
“After he went to prison in 2005 on a probation violation, the son of an attorney went to law school, passed the Colorado bar and now practices law in Denver, focusing on marijuana and criminal defense, according to his firm’s web site.”
Good for him…..
I think I may be on to something here,
Is the court prescience, or can the court in-vision every conceivable situation that may occur in the future? Simply because there were no fundamental rights demonstrated on the record in other similar cases it must follow the logic the it is the same in every case to ever come after, no matter what evidence, facts or assertions are presented in any post-decision case?
Are the vigilante attacks and deaths Plaintiff has documented been a mere consequence of a conviction? How many other criminal offenders has the Court, or the Defendant pointed out that have been murdered by a vigilante because of their criminal conviction?
NEW YORK WOULDNT LET GO ,I can only go by what their info say (ny dept of justice website),unless its old info, anyone who was in jail,probation or did time for a sex crime after 1996 has to register I was off parole in 1990,i lived in ny till 1999,they (ny) passed the registry law in 1996,no one from the police or the nys justice dept informed me on registering but of course I’m no lawyer,and if they go such a route as to painting me a monster,just about anyone who hasn’t been in trouble for 34 years I believe is not a real threat to society…. plus my first offence (not trying to say I’m a saint,but if ny goes by facts this is so) but you know and I know the law was built on lies and deceit peace to all…