Rights and Law

12 thousand lawyers speak on the Adam Walsh Act and SORNA

amandaking — Mon, 10 Jan 2011 18:42:01 +0000

FORWARD

12,800 attorneys examined the guidelines set forth in the Adam Walsh Act and SORNA and all have rejected the Federal Acts as having a great many flaws. They found the imposition of these regulations upon not only the states but also the citizens to be ineffective at protecting society as well as unconstitutional and harmful to men, women, children and families as a whole.

If you will take the time to read the full article, and realize this article has the backing of THOUSANDS of professional who work in the criminal justice system you will see, these professionals know full well SORNA and the Adam Walsh Act were put together by people who had no clue the impact or legality of what they had created.

If you are a politician or lawmaker and want to be a leader, someone who actually cares about America and her people, I would suggest you promote the work being done here at Citizens for Change, America. A full blown investigation into just how and why the Adam Walsh Act ever was made into law. Ask yourself after you look into this matter, To what level of corruption was this law implemented? Who stands to profit from the Adam Walsh Acta and SORNA. Who is already profiting? If you follow the money.. I am quite sure you will come up with some very interesting things.

Thank you,

Amanda King
Citizens for Change, America

I. Introduction

The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (“NACDL”) is a nationwide, non-profit, voluntary association of criminal defense lawyers founded in 1958 to improve the quality of representation of the accused and to advocate for the preservation of constitutional rights in criminal cases.

NACDL has a membership of more than 12,800 attorneys and 92 state, local and international affiliate organizations with another 35,000 members including private criminal defense lawyers, public defenders, active U.S. military defense counsel, law professors and judges committed to preserving fairness within America’s criminal justice system.

On February 24, 2007, NACDL issued a comprehensive statement on sex offender legislative policy.

NACDL opposes sex offender registration and community notification laws but also believes that if such laws are passed they should classify offenders based upon true risk, with full due process of law.

Community notification provisions should be reserved for offenders who are at a high risk to re-offend. Unfortunately, with the passage of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 (Adam Walsh Act), Congress went in a different direction.

The Adam Walsh Act includes the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA).

SORNA sets forth a federal supervisory program that, if implemented by the states, is likely to significantly de-stabilize offenders, cause substantial confusion over registration and notification requirements and eventually make our communities less safe. Equally, the recent implementation of SORNA retroactively starting January 28, 2011 is a direct violation of the constitutional ban on retroactive law.

Unfortunately, in enacting SORNA Congress failed to recognize several important facts about sex offenders. Sex offenders, as a class, exhibit low recidivism rates and are less likely to re-offend than other convicted criminals1. Additionally, research suggests that community notification laws do little to reduce recidivism2. At least one study found that “the passage of sex offender registration and notification laws have had no systematic influence on the number of rapes committed” in the jurisdictions which were studied3. At the same time sound research demonstrates that sex offenders are not a homogeneous group4 and come from a wide range of offenders including the rare but highly dangerous treatment-resistant offender as well as the more common offender who, once convicted, is unlikely to commit additional offenses. Requiring the same registration and notification provisions for all sex offenders diminishes the ability of the community to ascertain the truly dangerous sex offender. It also undermines the ability of the non-dangerous sex offender to maintain employment, family ties, and treatment programs. Many sex offenders report negative consequences, including physical assaults, resulting from registration and notification programs5. NACDL believes that a determination of offender risk must be based upon the individual characteristics of the offender and not solely on the offense for which the offender was convicted. In fact, many states now have registration and notification programs that are tiered upon the basis of individual risk assessment studies performed by competent mental health professionals. In this regard, SORNA is a step in the wrong direction. SORNA and the regulations proposed in this docket will cause substantial confusion in the states and impose exorbitant costs for states to convert to a less safe system of registration and community notification.

See, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Recidivism of Sexual Offenders Released From Prison in 1994, November, 2003, State of Washington Sentencing Guideline Commission, Special Sex Offender Sentencing Alternative Report (2004), State of Ohio, Ten Year Recidivism Follow Up of 1989 Sex Offender Releases (2001). See also, Hanson R.K. and Morton Bourgon, R.K., Predictors of Sexual Recidivism: An Updated Meta-Analysis, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada (2004); Harris and Hanson, Sex Offender Recidivism: A Simple Question (2004); Hanson, R.K. and Bussiere, M., Predicting Relapse: A Meta-Analysis of Sex Offender Recidivism Studies, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology (1998).
See, Welchans, S., Megan’s Law: Evaluations of Sexual Offender Registries, 16 Criminal Justice Policy Review, 123-140 (2005)
See, Jeffrey T. Walker, et al., The Influence of Sex Offender Registration and Notification Laws in the United States, available at:PUT LINK HERE
See, Lisa L. Sample and Timothy M. Bray, Are Sex Offenders Different? An Examination of Re-Arrest Patterns, 17 Crim. Justice Policy Rev. 83 (2006).
See, Jill S. Levenson and L. Cotter, The Impact of Megan’s Law on Sex Offender Reintegration, 21 Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 49 (2005); Richard Tewksbury, Collateral Consequences of Sex Offender Registration, 21 Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 67 (2005).

Nonetheless, NACDL recognizes that the Adam Walsh Act and SORNA have become law. In these comments NACDL will highlight portions of the proposed regulations that ignore certain important constitutional rights or are otherwise inappropriate for an effective and fair registration and notification system.

II. Fifth Amendment Rights

The proposed regulations fail to allow the exercise of important Fifth Amendment privileges. The Fifth Amendment protects individuals from compelled self incrimination. The proposed regulations do not recognize or provide a means for an individual to exercise Fifth Amendment rights. The proposed regulations do not require the registration authority to advise a registrant of the Fifth Amendment right not to answer any question that may tend to cause self-incrimination. Indeed, several areas of the proposed regulations suggest that uncovering prior criminal activity of the registrant is a goal of the regulations. Additionally, certain types of registration information required under the Attorney General’s “expansion authority,” will compel information from the registrant that will cause self-incrimination. For instance, the proposed regulations require registrants to provide their social security numbers as well as all “purported” social security numbers. The proposed regulation specifically recognizes that such social security numbers may be false. Admitting to the use of a false social security number can expose an individual to prosecution for a number of crimes including identity theft. Similarly, the Attorney General exercises his “expansion authority” to require a homeless registrant to provide information identifying where he “habitually lives.” In many jurisdictions providing such information will subject the homeless registrant to criminal prosecution for offenses such as vagrancy, loitering, public urination, indecent exposure and the like.

The regulations should require that offenders who are required to register be advised that they are not required to disclose information that may tend to incriminate themselves. Additionally the regulations should clearly state that the exercise of the Fifth Amendment privilege cannot be the basis of a criminal prosecution. Alternatively the regulations should require that the registrant be immunized from prosecution based upon information provided pursuant to the proposed regulations.

III. Principles of Federalism

The regulations, as written, infringe upon important state rights and disregard the notion that our legal system is based upon principles of federalism, which value state sovereignty especially in the area of criminal justice. The regulations disregard state sovereignty in areas pertaining to pardons, annulments, and expungement of convictions; juvenile delinquency; and state legislative discretion as to appropriate sentencing.

Many states, either constitutionally or via legislative enactment, have procedures that permit the annulment or expungement of criminal convictions for reasons other than actual innocence. Likewise, many state governors and pardon boards have the authority to pardon criminal convictions for reasons other than innocence. In most cases such annulments or pardons are based upon recognition that the former offender has been rehabilitated. State constitutions and annulment statutes place a high value on rehabilitation and the need to remove the stigma of a criminal conviction in certain rare but important cases. Section IV, A, of the proposed regulations specifically requires that a state continue to register a former offender regardless of the annulment and pardon laws of the jurisdiction except in cases where the former offender is pardoned on the ground of innocence. SORNA does not require that former offenders who are pardoned or whose convictions are annulled or expunged be included with those who must register. The proposed regulations violate fundamental notions of federalism and are well beyond the authority granted to the Attorney General to promulgate such regulations.

Similarly, the proposed regulations violate fundamental notions of federalism in the juvenile delinquency area. Juvenile delinquency is an area of the criminal justice system that, for the most part, is left to the exercise of state authority. Many states recognize the fact that juveniles are different than adults and reflect such differences in their juvenile justice systems. In many states, delinquency is not considered to be a criminal act and great emphasis is placed on rehabilitative efforts and confidentiality. In most states a juvenile delinquency finding is not considered to be a criminal conviction. Applying registration and community notification requirements to delinquent children is likely to substantially interfere with state systems designed for the rehabilitation of children. In addition registration and community notification put those children who are required to register at risk for sexual exploitation by others as their identifying information will be freely available in the public domain. In addition to the risk of exploitation, the registration and community notification provisions will unnecessarily stigmatize children and impose impossible challenges for such children in school and in the community. In creating juvenile justice systems most states have recognized the importance of providing a rehabilitative process that is best approached in confidence. The proposed regulations disregard this important policy concern which has already been addressed in virtually every state. The proposed regulations violate fundamental notions of federalism and will likely cause unnecessary harm to a significant number of children6. The proposed regulations should not include registration of children. At the very least the proposed regulations should be amended to eliminate the community notification and web site requirements for delinquent children.

Another area which is constitutionally left to the sound discretion of the states is sentencing for criminal conduct. The proposed regulations, as required by the statute, lay out a specific requirement that the maximum sentencing penalty for a failure to comply with SORNA be at least greater than one year. This provision interferes with the rights of individual states to legislate appropriate criminal punishment. It is also unwise in that the complexities of the proposed regulations may force many former offenders into a technical default which is neither knowing nor intentional but nonetheless exposes them to felony prosecution.

IV. The Proposed Regulations Exceed the Statutory Authority Granted By SORNA And Will Not Foster the Real Purpose of the Legislation

The Attorney General, relying on SORNA § 114 (a) (7), expands the types of registration information that must be provided beyond that required in the statute. The “expansion authority” exercised by the Attorney General is well beyond the authority permitted by the statute, will not foster the goals of the legislation, and will subject former offenders to exploitation, vigilantism, shame and ridicule. The Attorney General indicates that he has exercised his “expansion authority” to require additional information to be provided by persons required to register as sex offenders. However, the exercise of this authority is unnecessary to the purpose of the Adam Walsh Act and is unwise policy. The stated purpose of the Adam Walsh Act is to protect the public by creating a comprehensive system for the registration of sex offenders. The act was not passed to impose a non-judicial probation or supervisory status over persons who have been convicted of sex offenses. The “expansion authority” exercised by the Attorney General to require far more information than the statute requires does not enhance its purpose, which is simply to create a registry. The proposed regulations invoke the “expansion authority” to require the following information at the time of registration: remote identifiers (screen names and e-mail addresses); telephone numbers; “habitual living” places of offenders lacking fixed abodes; temporary lodging information; other employment information such as travel routes; professional licenses; additional vehicle, watercraft and aircraft information; and, date of birth.

6 The efficacy of juvenile registration and community notification is further diminished when one considers the fact that the recidivism rate of juvenile sex offenders is very low. See, National Center on Sexual Behavior of Youth, Center for Sex Offender Management and U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Protection, (2001). Juveniles Who Have Sexually Offended: A Review of the Professional Literature Report. http://www.ojjdp.ncjrs.org.

Requiring such information will expose former offenders to exploitation, vigilantism and public shame and ridicule without any benefit to the establishment of a comprehensive system of registration. Requiring the provision of telephone numbers and dates of birth will subject former offenders to the very real possibility of identity theft. Providing information about where a homeless former sex offender may “habitually live” (e.g., a certain park bench or under a certain overpass) would expose that vulnerable individual to the likelihood of assault and battery by vigilantes in the community. Similarly, former offenders may hold professional licenses that have nothing to do with children or sex (e.g., electrician or plumber’s license) and the only purpose of publishing such information is to shame and ridicule the former offender in his community. Requiring such information endangers the public rather than making it safer. Social science research demonstrates that sex offenders are more likely to re-offend when they are put into de-stabilizing situations7. The additional information required under the Attorney General’s “expansion authority” serves to de-stabilize former offenders and may render them unemployed and unemployable, subject to vigilantism and other types of exploitation. The “expansion authority” should not be used to require this information. At the very least the regulations should mandate that none of the information obtained via the “expansion authority” shall be made available to the public in any format.

V. The Proposed Regulations Fail to Require Fundamental Due Process

The proposed SORNA regulations fail to require states to provide any due process protections to registrants so that they can contest their designation as a Tier I, Tier II, or Tier III offender. SORNA § 118(e) requires the states to include on their web sites, “instructions on how to seek correction of information that an individual contends is erroneous.” However, the proposed regulations do not mandate that a state have such a method. The proposal’s only example of compliance with the act is a suggestion that a state web site might refer someone to the state agency responsible for correcting erroneous information. That suggestion is insufficient and fails to require states to protect the due process rights of registrants.

7 See, Kruttschnitt, C., et al., Predictors of Desistance among Sex Offenders: The Interaction of Formal and Informal Social Controls, 17 Justice Quarterly 61 (2000); See also, Colorado Department of Public Safety, Report on Safety Issues Raised by Living Arrangements for and Location of Sex Offenders in the Community, 2004, http://dcj.state.co.us/odvsom ; Levenson, J. And Cotter, L., The Impact of Sex Offender Residence Restrictions: 1000 Feet from Danger or One Step from the Absurd?, 49 International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 168 (2005).

The system of registration and community notification contained in SORNA and in the proposed regulations is, in reality, a system of supervision of former offenders. It amounts to another method of probation, supervised release or parole. Therefore the regulations should require that each state must have a system for the proposed registrant to contest his or her designation as a sex offender accompanied by the full panoply of due process protections including, but not limited to, the right to be represented by counsel. The effects of registration and community notification on the registrant are severe and life altering. The registrant must have due process protections and the Attorney General ought to recognize and require such protections of all state programs.

VI. SORNA and the Proposed Regulations Are Ex Post Facto Laws Prohibited by Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution of the United States of America.

The proposed regulations apply SORNA retroactively in violation of Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution prohibiting the passage of ex post facto laws. NACDL has previously raised this concern in comments dated April 30, 2007, in OAG Docket No. 117. Those comments are incorporated by reference herein.

VII. Conclusion

In enacting the Adam Walsh Act and SORNA Congress succumbed to myths about sex offenders which are not supported by the existing scientific and social science research. The proposed regulations in this docket fail to protect important constitutional rights of sex offender registrants and go beyond the statutory authority granted to the Attorney General to promulgate regulations that implement a registration system. The system created by the confluence of SORNA and these regulations is a non-judicial system of supervised released coupled with the ever present specter of additional prison time for even the most minor of violations.

1150 18th St. NW, Suite 950 Washington, DC 20036

7 (202) 872-8600 - Fax (202) 872-8690

www.nacdl.org - assist@nacdl.org

Sign the Petition to Abolish the Public Registry

SHORT LINK TO THE PETITION
http://bit.ly/f7Z4MJ

Abolish the public humiliation of families in America. Sign the petition.

Second Chances Only for Some in America

amandaking — Sun, 02 Jan 2011 19:47:34 +0000

People Can Change

Killed by Laws: Former Sex Offenders (FSOs) and Persons Associated with Them

amandaking — Sun, 05 Dec 2010 20:32:11 +0000

The following persons (former sex offenders (FSOs) and persons associated with them; family in one case of a FSO child) died, directly or substantially, because of the law noted. Their manner of death differs (i.e., murdered, suicide, died because of exposure, died because of lack of medical care, etc.), and of those, some were homeless as well. Each case must be reviewed to understand why they are listed here. Clicking on their name will direct you to their stories:
SO Residency Law (*Froze to death; #Homeless; @Medical; %Murdered; $Suicide):

$#New York-2010: Adam Wheeler (19)

@#California-2010: Nicholas Chaykovsky (61)

*#Michigan-2009: Thomas Pauli (52)

%Georgia 2007: Christopher Barrios (6)

@#California-2007: Gerald Gay Kifer (69)

SO Public Registry (*Shot **Beaten to Death):

**California-2009: Edward Vaughn Keeley (75)

*Maine-2006: Joseph Gray (57)

*Maine-2006: William Elliot (24)

*Washington-2005: Hank Eisses (49)

*Washington-2005: Victor Vasquez (68)

-SO Community Notification, !SO Nursing Home,

or +Legislatively Changed Registration Laws:

+Michigan-2010: John Doe (17)

!Delaware-2008: Joseph Heverin (22)

-Florida-2005: Clovis Claxton (39)

+Michigan-2004: Justin Fawcett (21)

+Michigan-2004: Brian K Corbitt (28)

-Maine-1997: Thomas Varnum (31)

-California-1998: Michael Patton (42)

In each of the above cases a -sex offender law- played a significant part in their deaths. With that said, as to Civil Commitment laws, while the law did not necessarily play a part in their death, keeping them confined generally kept them from receiving proper medical care, frequently resulting in their deaths. Occasionally other causes factored in a death. All are shown below.

eAdvocate

-SO Civil Commitment Laws: Folks died/killed in Commitment

-Massachusetts-2010: Joseph Harlow (47)

-Wisconsin-2010: Robert C. Carney (80)

-Minnesota-1992-2008: Former Offenders (24 Deaths)

-Florida-2008: Leland Lloyd (??)

-California-2007: Frank Valado (45)

-California-2005 Eugene Costa (69)

-Florida-2004: Michael Canty (??)

-Florida-2004: Scott Gartley (??)

-Florida-2004: George Capaldo (75)

-Kansas-2004: Former Offenders (2 Deaths)

-California-1998: Craig Black (54)

-Massachusetts-1987: Former Offenders (2 deaths)

This article in the original is from another website, for Updated and Current statistics, please visit the Original Website:

http://congress-courts-legislation.blogspot.com/2010/12/killed-by-laws-former-sex-offenders.html

Take Down the Public Sex Offender Registry

amandaking — Sun, 05 Dec 2010 20:28:44 +0000

If you are sick of being shamed, humiliated, degraded and banished from society by the in sanity of the public sex offender registry.. If you cannot afford an attorney to fight for your rights.. at least make an effort to say YOU WILL NOT STAND TO BE HUMILIATED AND DEGRADED LIKE THIS.Greetings, ,

The National Public Sex Offender Registry, Sex Offender Registration Notification Act, (SORNA) and the Adam Walsh Act is counter productive to the safety of men, women and children in society.

Not only does the Public Sex Offender Registry banish all those upon the registry including their innocent children, but also it actually has been shown to create a heightened potential for recidivism among ex offenders who would be otherwise law abiding citizens.

Placing the name, age, address, crime, place of employment and many pieces of information on a Publicly accessible website creates a state of constant instability for the ex offenders and their families.

EMPLOYMENT FOR EX SEX OFFENDERS

Employment is basically not an option as all job applications ask if the prospective employee has ever been convicted of a sex crime. Not only that, but employers do not want to wear the stigma of having an employee listed on the public shaming sex offender registry as working at their business. Employers fear loss of customers due to the stigma.

HOUSING FOR EX SEX OFFENDERS

Anyone who is on the public sex offender registry faces huge challenges when seeking to rent housing. Not only is there residency restrictions which make it almost impossible to find suitable housing in many cities but also many rental applications ask if a person is on the registry…once that is disclosed.. the applicant is denied.

EFFECTS OF THE PUBLIC SHAMING SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY ON THE INNOCENT CHILDREN OF EX OFFENDERS

The innocent children of ex offenders suffer great amounts of pain and humiliation due to their parent being on the registry. The registration laws were created to protect children from being raped and molested. But in fact, the very registration laws created to protect children are the tools used by government and state law enforcement to rape and molest innocent children with their laws. Children of ex offenders have been found to not only be bullied, ostracized, ridiculed, humiliated, excluded and treated as lepers by fellow students and neighbors in their communities but also have suffered by having to live sub standard lives economically due to the parent not being able to find employment or start their own businesses due to the stigma of being on the registry.

BIGGER GOVERNMENT AT TAX PAYER’S EXPENSE FOR LAWS WHICH ARE PROVEN TO BE NOT ONLY INEFFECTIVE AT PROTECTING SOCIETY BUT ALSO INCREASE THE POTENTIAL FOR RECIDIVISM OF THE EX OFFENDER

SORNA and the Adam Walsh Act seek to expand the Public Sex Offender Registry and all the attached laws and regulations. SORNA and the Adam Walsh Act seek to increase the number of support staff nationwide and have YOU the tax payers fund it. What the proponents of these laws do NOT tell you is that on every level they are a failure. The are a huge balloon which is everincreasingly becoming larger while the citizens become less safe due to the ineptness of these laws in protecting society.

Everyone who knows anything about GPS monitoring knows it protects NO ONE. The only thing GPS monitoring can do is tell you where a person has been. It cannot tell you what they have been doing. Many cases where people were on the registry, wearing GPS tracking devices and still raped and murdered people. The registry, residency restrictions and GPS tracking did NOTHING to protect those victims. Nor will they protect YOU.

ALL WHO ARE ON THE REGISTRY ARE OPEN TARGETS FOR VIGILANTES, MANY HAVE ALREADY BEEN KILLED AND ASSAULTED FOR SIMPLY BEING ON THE REGISTRY

Anyone who can use Google or Bing can find news stories of law abiding citizens who were on the registry but were murdered or beaten or assaulted for simply being on the registry. Nobody who is on the registry is safe from anyone who seeks to do them harm. Being on the registry is an open invitation for murder and assault. This extends to the innocent family members of the ex offender. Innocent women and children who reside in the homes of ex offenders can be burned alive, shot, assaulted just because their parent happens to have his or her name, address and place of employment listed on the national shaming public sex offender registry.

http://on-vigilantism.blogspot.com/

Murdered in the United States – 2008: Registered Sex Offenders & Others.

2-18-2009 National:
The total number of People who were murdered who were on the Public Sex Offender Registry up to the year 2008 is 55. Fifty Five people have been murdered up to 2008 for simply being a registered ex sex offender.

The 2008 year was the worst year ever for deaths of RSOs, Persons accused of sex offenses and other related deaths. This year brought so many new circumstances that we have had to restructure our statistical methods to be able to report what has happened.

In 2008, of those murdered or killed, not in jails, prisons or civil commitment centers, the most dangerous state is Florida where 5 persons were murdered.

PA and TX reported 3, CA, MD, MA, NC, and TN each reported 2. AZ, CO, DE, GA, IL, IN, IO, KS, KY, ME, MO, NM, NY, UT, WA each reported 1.

For a more complete chart, click the link below…

http://sexoffenderresearch.blogspot.com/2009/02/murdered-in-united-states-2008.html

This information clearly shows being on the registry makes a person and their family a target for murder and assault.

EDUCATION, PROPER SENTENCING AND TREATMENT IS THE KEY

Educating society about how to protect themselves and their children and designing laws which properly sentence those who are convicted of crimes is the key. That and treatment for those who will be released back into society after their sentence is completed will be the only tools which are effective in curbing the sexual assaults in this country. One other huge aspect, the very key to the whole thing is Remove all the sex and violence from the media, game consoles, television, theaters, and yes, the internet. Pumping sex and violence into the minds of the people 24 hours a day, 7 days a week is creating a heightened state of sexual appetites in the citizens.

Drawing closer to God and what HE would have us do in how we treat others is another key element in decreasing the amount of sexual assaults.

Amanda King
Citizens for Change, America

http://www.cfcamerica.org

Everything stated above is documented by studies which can be found on our website.

GEORGE D. WILLIAMS Vs. STATE OF OHIO, Supreme Court

amandaking — Fri, 29 Oct 2010 17:08:25 +0000

Filed October 4, 2010

Proposition of Law: The retrospective application of Senate Bill 10 violates the Ex PostFacto Clause of the United States Constitution and the Retroactivity Clause of the OhioConstitution. (Section 10, Article I of the United States Constitution, and Section 28,Article II of the Ohio Constitution,

INTERESTS OF AMICI

Amicus Curiae, the American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio Foundation, Inc. (ACLU ofOhio) is a non-profit, non-partisan membership organization devoted to protecting basicconstitutional rights and civil liberties for all Americans. The ACLU of Ohio’s commitment tothe Bill of Rights includes a deep belief in the principles underlying of the Ex Post Facto Clause,Section 9, Article I of the United States Constitution and the Retroactivity Clause, Section 28,Article II, Ohio Constitution. Because this case implicates those principles, the ACLU of Ohiooffers this brief to assist the Court in resolving this case.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Amicus adopts Appellant’s statement of the case.1ARGUMENTProposition of Law: The retrospective application of Senate Bill 10 violates the Ex PostFacto Clause of the United States Constitution and the Retroactivity Clause of the OhioConstitution. (Section 10, Article I of the United States Constitution, and Section 28,Article II of the Ohio Constitution, applied.)

GEORGE D. WILLIAMS VS. State of Ohio (1.19 MB)

Americans should have a right to earn a living

amandaking — Fri, 29 Oct 2010 15:24:25 +0000

All Americans are protected from abusive lawmaking by not only the Constitution of the United States, but also each and every state has a Constitution. Americans also have the Bill of Rights which offers ALL citizens of these United Socialists States of America protections from lawmakers who seek to remove protections and rights from SOME select individuals or groups.

In the past, there have been groups who have been targeted for HATE LAWS which diminished the rights of whole groups of people.. the Indians, the Negroes and Women…

Today, the Government, Lawmakers and the Media have created a New Group to Hate using the Hate Laws.. That group is comprised of anyone who can successfully be placed into the Sex Offender sub class of Americans.

All Americans should have the right to earn a living. Have a safe home to live in. Have friends and be accepted by the community. Enjoy the protections offered by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Lawmakers and Politicians do not have the right to create and punish one group more severely than the rest of the nation of people.

Sex Offender Laws Go Too Far

amandaking — Fri, 29 Oct 2010 08:28:09 +0000

Attorney Peter Aiken, Florida speaks out on the abuses of many of these retroactively applied sex offender laws.

His website

Notice the Extreme Media Bias in presenting this report.

Who put “Offensive Language” in The Small Business Act of 2010 (HR 5297)?

amandaking — Tue, 28 Sep 2010 18:29:19 +0000

In case folks are not aware of this, the House, on 9-23-2010, passed HR-5297 Small Business Act of 2010, and the bill will soon be signed by the President and made law.

So, how did this “Offensive Language” get into HB 5297?

Source: House Report 111-506, H.Res. 1436 “(2) LOAN RECIPIENTS.—With respect to funds received by an eligible institution under the Program, any business receiving a loan from the eligible institution using such funds after the date of the enactment of this title shall certify to such eligible institution that the principals of such business have not been convicted of a sex offense against a minor (as such terms are defined in section 111 of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (42 U.S.C. 16911)). “

Lets go back to when the bill was introduced on 5-13 and referred to the House Financial Services Committee, the introduced version contained nothing about sex offenders , according to the Thomas website (Click on bill above then goto “All Congressional Actions with Amendments”) these are the initial steps shown for the bill:

5/13/2010:
Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.

5/19/2010:
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.

5/19/2010:
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 42 – 23.

5/27/2010 11:18pm:
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Financial Services. H. Rept. 111-499.

5/27/2010 11:19pm:
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 283.

6/14/2010 7:34pm:
Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 1436 Reported to House. Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 5486 and H.R. 5297 with 1 hour of general debate. Previous question shall be considered as ordered without intervening motions except motion to recommit with or without instructions. Measure will be considered read. Specified amendments are in order. All points of order against consideration of each bill except for clauses 9 and 10 or rule XXI are waived.

6/15/2010 3:35pm:
Rule H. Res. 1436 passed House.

Notice that the Financial Services committee did amend the bill, but if you review the Report they provided (111-499) there is nothing about sex offenders. The bill then went to the House Rules Committee.

Now, any lawmaker may submit proposed changes to the Rules Committee, and several lawmakers did exactly that, on the Rules Committee website they have a list of which lawmakers submitted changes and what those changes were. See Rules Committee website here (Should this be removed from the Rules Committee website, I have saved it on a Word Doc). Assuming those lawmakers were truthful about what they submitted, I say that because the website says “(summaries derived from information provided by sponsors)”, then we still are left with, where did the offensive language come from?

The next thing to review is H.Res 1436 (Introduced by Rep. Pingree of Maine on 6-14) the text of which says nothing about sex offenders, but there is a House Report (111-506) resulting from this H.Res., thats where we first find offensive language covering certain sex offenders.

Reviewing the House Report 111-506, we find this:

Ms. PINGREE, from the Committee on Rules, submitted the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany H. Res. 1436]
The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration House Resolution 1436, by a non-record vote, report the same to the House with the recommendation that the resolution be adopted.

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF THE RESOLUTION

Then comes a LONG READ …… and buried deep is the following:

Page 23, after line 13, insert the following new subsections:

(c) Required Certifications-

(1) ELIGIBLE INSTITUTION CERTIFICATION- Each eligible institution that participate in the Program must certify that such institution is in compliance with the requirements of section 103.121 of title 31, Code of Federal Regulations, a regulation that, at a minimum, requires financial institutions, as that term is defined in 31 U.S.C. 5312(a)(2) and (c)(1)(A), to implement reasonable procedures to verify the identity of any person seeking to open an account, to the extent reasonable and practicable, maintain records of the information used to verify the person’s identity, and determine whether the person appears on any lists of known or suspected terrorists or terrorist organizations provided to the financial institution by any government agency.

(2) LOAN RECIPIENTS- With respect to funds received by an eligible institution under the Program, any business receiving a loan from the eligible institution using such funds after the date of the enactment of this title shall certify to such eligible institution that the principals of such business have not been convicted of a sex offense against a minor (as such terms are defined in section 111 of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (42 U.S.C. 16911)).

(d) Prohibition on Pornography- None of the funds made available under this title may be used to pay the salary of any individual engaged in activities related to the Program who has been officially disciplined for violations of subpart G of the Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch for viewing, downloading, or exchanging pornography, including child pornography, on a Federal Government computer or while performing official Federal Government duties.

Immediately it looks like Rep. Pingree did this, but the text of her H.Res. 1436 does not contain one word about sex offenders.

Accordingly, the only plausible answer is, somewhere within the House Rules Committee Staff is someone who has the ability to change the language of the bills presented to them, and without Committee Member’s knowledge. I say that because a few of my readers have called the Rules Committee and have been told “they know nothing about that language.”

I wonder who is responsible for preparing House Reports for the Rules Committee, and where they get their input from? And especially, who told them to insert the “Offensive Language.”

Thats all folks, have a great day and a better tomorrow.
eAdvocate

Afterthoughts: Hopefully there is someone who has a better understanding of the inner-workings of the House Rules Committee that could explain, how this happened, if not then Congress needs to review that Committee’s procedures because there is skullduggery going on. Just so folks know, I have found that this HAS OCCURRED on another bill as well, but that will be another commentary.

If this ever gets to court it will take a proper Plaintiff, one who has tried to get a loan and was denied, because until that happens no one is actually denied anything. And it may take several folks to get it up to a class action. These are issues for lawyers. ACLU Where are You?

http://congress-courts-legislation.blogspot.com/2010/09/who-put-offensive-language-in-small.html

Should Videotaping the Police Really Be a Crime?

amandaking — Tue, 28 Sep 2010 14:50:19 +0000

A frame grab from a video Anthony Graber made during a traffic stop by Maryland state trooper Joseph D. Uhler in March 2010

Anthony Graber, a Maryland Air National Guard staff sergeant, faces up to 16 years in prison. His crime? He videotaped his March encounter with a state trooper who pulled him over for speeding on a motorcycle. Then Graber put the video — which could put the officer in a bad light — up on YouTube.

It doesn’t sound like much. But Graber is not the only person being slapped down by the long arm of the law for the simple act of videotaping the police in a public place. Prosecutors across the U.S. claim the videotaping violates wiretap laws — a stretch, to put it mildly.Cop Pulls Out Gun On Motorcyclist

www.youtube.com/watch?v=RK5bMSyJCsg

www.youtube.com/watch?v=izegE5fF7pA

These days, it’s not hard to see why police are wary of being filmed. In 1991, the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) beating of Rodney King was captured on video by a private citizen. It was shown repeatedly on television and caused a national uproar. As a result, four LAPD officers were put on trial, and when they were not convicted, riots broke out, leaving more than 50 people dead and thousands injured (two officers were later convicted on federal civil rights charges).(See TIME’s special: “15 Years After Rodney King.”)

More recently, a New York Police Department officer was thrown off the force — and convicted of filing a false report — because of a video of his actions at a bicycle rally in Times Square. The officer can plainly be seen going up to a man on a bike and shoving him to the ground. The officer claimed the cyclist was trying to collide with him, and in the past, it might have been hard to disprove the police account. But this time there was an amateur video of the encounter — which quickly became an Internet sensation, viewed more than 3 million times on YouTube alone.(Read about the hidden side of the NYPD.)

In the Graber case, the trooper also apparently had reason to want to keep his actions off the Internet. He cut Graber off in an unmarked vehicle, approached Graber in plain clothes and yelled while brandishing a gun before identifying himself as a trooper.

Back when King was beaten, it was unusual for bystanders to have video cameras. But today, everyone is a moviemaker. Lots of people carry video cameras in their pockets, on iPhones, BlackBerrys and even their MP3 players. They also have an easy distribution system: the Internet. A video can get millions of viewers worldwide if it goes viral, bouncing from blog to blog, e-mail to e-mail, and Facebook friend to Facebook friend.(See photos from inside Facebook’s headquarters.)

No wonder, then, that civil rights groups have embraced amateur videos. Last year, the NAACP announced an initiative in which it encouraged ordinary citizens to tape police misconduct with their cell phones and send the videos to the group’s website, www.naacp.org.

Law enforcement is fighting back. In the case of Graber — a young husband and father who had never been arrested — the police searched his residence and seized computers. Graber spent 26 hours in jail even before facing the wiretapping charges that could conceivably put him away for 16 years. (It is hard to believe he will actually get anything like that, however. One point on his side: the Maryland attorney general’s office recently gave its opinion that a court would likely find that the wiretap law does not apply to traffic stops.)

Last year, Sharron Tasha Ford was arrested in Florida for videotaping an encounter between the police and her son on a public sidewalk. She was never prosecuted, but in June, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Florida sued the city of Boynton Beach on her behalf, claiming false arrest and violation of her First Amendment rights.

The legal argument prosecutors rely on in police video cases is thin. They say the audio aspect of the videos violates wiretap laws because, in some states, both parties to a conversation must consent to having a private conversation recorded. The hole in their argument is the word “private.” A police officer arresting or questioning someone on a highway or street is not having a private conversation. He is engaging in a public act.

Even if these cases do not hold up in court, the police can do a lot of damage just by threatening to arrest and prosecute people. “We see a fair amount of intimidation — police saying, ‘You can’t do that. It’s illegal,’” says Christopher Calabrese, a lawyer with the ACLU’s Washington office. It discourages people from filming, he says, even when they have the right to film.

Ford was not deterred. According to her account, even when the police threatened her with arrest, she refused to turn off her video camera, telling her son not to worry because “it’s all on video” and “let them be who they continue to be.”

The police then grabbed her, she said, took her camera and drove her off to the police station for booking.

Most people are not so game for a fight with the police. They just stop filming. These are the cases no one finds out about, in which there is no arrest or prosecution, but the public’s freedoms have nevertheless been eroded.

Ford was right to insist on her right to videotape police actions that occur in public, and others should too. If the police are doing their jobs properly, they should have nothing to worry about.

Cohen, a lawyer, is a former TIME writer and a former member of the New York Times editorial board

See photos of U.S. gun culture.

The Massachusetts Declaration of Rights bans retroactive punishments

amandaking — Sun, 19 Sep 2010 18:19:03 +0000

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court says that people convicted of sexual crimes before 2006 do not have to wear GPS devices if they violate parole or probation. The decision split the court 4-3. The majority, however, said that the law cannot be applied retroactively.The case involves a Bristol County sex offender who was convicted in 1997. Russell M. Cory pled guilty toindecent assault and battery on a child. He served time in prison for several years and was ordered to serve 25 years probation.

Cory left prison in May 2006. He did not take part in mandatory counseling sessions or treatment. Soon after the 2006 law went into effect, Cory was ordered to wear a GPS for violating his probation. Cory, a Level 3 sex offender, is back in jail.

Cory found that using the GPS device, which a sex offender must wear at all times, was a physical and emotional burden. Today, the Supreme Judicial Court said that forcing someone convicted of a sex crime before 2006 to use a GPS device is an unconstitutional burden on his or her liberty and that providing Cory with his constitutional protections against government intrusion takes precedence over the concern regarding public safety.

The Massachusetts Declaration of Rights bans retroactive punishments. This means that only sex offenders convicted of committing crimes that occurred after December 2006 will have to wear the GPS bracelet when on probation.

The Massachusetts Parole Board reports that there are 82 sex offenders on parole that have to use GPS devices. The board will now determine if any of these people are affected by the SJC’s ruling.

GPS Monitoring Devices for Sexual Offenders
The GPS bracelets transmits signals that reveal a sex offender’s location. This device allows law enforcement officers to know when a sex offender has entered an area where he or she is not allowed.

In May, the Supreme Judicial Court ruled that defendants charged with Massachusetts sexual crimes but have yet to be convicted do not have to wear GPS devices.

Even if you have been arrested, charged with, or convicted for a sexual crime, you are entitled to certain legal and civil protections under state and federal law. An experienced Boston criminal law firm can make sure that your rights are protected and provide you with a solid and effective defense.

A split SJC says 2006 law violates rights of some sex offenders, Boston.com, August 18, 2009

SJC decision allows thousands of sex offenders to wander freely, LowellSun.com, August 18, 2009

Sex offender can’t be required to wear GPS device, rules Massachusetts’ highest court, Lawyers USA/All Business, May 11, 2009