From sexoffenderissues.blogspot.com:
Original Article
05/20/2010
By Jeffrey M. Nye
Today’s ruling from the Ohio Supreme Court in State v. Clayborn, 2010-Ohio-2123 [PDF] may offer some insight into whether the Court will strike down the Adam Walsh Act, which reclassified sex offenders and in many cases extended indefinitely their reporting or registration requirements.
The issue in Clayborn was simply the amount of time in which an offender who is classified under the Adam Walsh Act has to appeal. Appellate Rule 4 states that in a criminal case, a party has 30 days after entry of judgment to appeal. But in a civil case, a party has up to 30 days after being served with notice of the entry of judgment. In other words, in a civil case if the clerk fails to serve notice of the judgment under Civ.R. 58(B), the appeal time is extended, but in a civil case it’s not. The Court held that sex offender classifications under the Adam Walsh Act can only be appealed under the more stringent criminal rule, not the more lenient civil rule.
What does this have to do with the validity of the Act itself? Good question. The Adam Walsh Act, also known as R.C. Chapter 2950, required the state to re-classify all existing sex offenders into one of three new tiers. The reporting requirements for each tier were significantly more stringent than the prior reporting requirements. For example, an offender who had been convicted of a sexual battery may have been previously classified as a sexual offender and ordered to register annually for ten years. Under the Adam Walsh Act, that person (so long as they were still within that ten-year notification period) would be classified as a Tier III offender and would have to register every 90 days for life.
Many offenders have challenged the law as unconstitutional. A variety of theories are usually trotted out, including the separation of powers doctrine, equal protection, double jeopardy, and plea-bargain-as-contract. Particularly relevant here, though, is that the petitioners usually argue that the Adam Walsh Act violates the prohibition on retroactive laws in the Ohio Constitution (Article II, Section 28) or the ex post facto clause in the U.S. Constitution (Article I, Sections 9-10).
To my knowledge, all Ohio appellate courts have rejected these arguments to date. They tend to rely on the 1998 Ohio Supreme Court case of State v. Cook (83 Ohio St.3d 404), in which the Court approved the sex offender classification law enacted in 1997, known as Megan’s Law. The Cook Court held, among other things, that the sex offender law was a “merely remedial” law, and not a “substantive” law. The Court explained that “the General Assembly’s purpose behind R.C. Chapter 2950 is to promote public safety and bolster the public’s confidence in Ohio’s criminal and mental health systems,” and further found that “[t]he statute is absolutely devoid of any language indicating an intent to punish.” As directly and bluntly as possible, the Court said that “R.C. Chapter 2950, on its face, clearly is not punitive.”
“Merely remedial” and “not punitive” are other ways of saying “civil, not criminal.” In other words, the Cook Court’s approval of the classification system is based on a finding that the sex offender registration was a civil statute, not a criminal statute.
The significance of the Clayborn holding should be evident: the Court has now said, at least for purposes of protecting appellate rights, that the Adam Walsh Act must be treated as a criminal statute, not a civil statute.
Challenges to the Adam Walsh Act are pending before the Court right now. In November, for example, the Court heard argument in In re: Darian J. Smith, in which the petitioner contested the validity of the Adam Walsh Act on ex post facto and retroactivity grounds (docket available here). The decision in Clayton may indicate a tendency to strike down the Adam Walsh Act, or at least its retroactive application.
Monday, May 31, 2010
THREE CHEERS FOR THE ARIZONA 4!
From dreamacttexas.blogspot.com:
Four young immigrant students risked everything on Monday when they sat down in Senator John McCain’s office in Tucson and refused to leave. They were urging passage of the Dream Act, a bill offering a citizenship path to illegal immigrants who, like them, were brought to the United States as children, too young to have willfully broken the law...link to complete NYT article
The Famous 4 in Arizona make the NYT
---
Editorial
Courage in Arizona
Published: May 19, 2010 - New York Times
ON TESTILYING
I always thought the word "testilying" came from my compadre Jack "Viva La Revolucion" Gerritsen. From criminaldefenseblog.blogspot.com:
IN 1994, Alan Dershowitz coined the phrase "Testilying." The practice of giving false testimony against a defendant in a criminal trial, typically for the purpose of "making the case" against someone they believe to be guilty when legal technicalities weren't followed to the letter during the arrest of the suspect, or while searching the immediate area.
So cops lie. We all know that. It's something we don't like to talk about because it brings out the "so what, they're guilty anyway" crowd. Of course everyone will say "that's terrible," and "that's just wrong," but deep down inside those that wonder why we even have defense lawyers, there is the thought that it really doesn't matter. These are the same people who believe that a 1% error rate on the death penalty, is the "price we pay for having the death penalty." (Yes, someone actually said that.)
So in a Miami courtroom last week, it happened in one of my cases. No, this wasn't a high profile case where the public was screaming for a conviction. This was an old misdemeanor case that no one cared about, except my client, and the 4 prosecutors clamoring to object to all that was being asked. (Tip to a young prosecutor: When you've been practicing about 5 years, you'll realize that if it's that irrelevant, there's really no reason to object so much.)
This case involved two officers that pulled over my client. During a chance encounter with one of them, this officer told me they did not observe the same driving pattern observed by the other officer.
No, I didn't have a witness standing next to me. Just me and the officer.
I ran back to my office and on the same day, filed a motion laying out the details of the conversation.
It would be a few months before the motion was heard.
"Do you remember having a conversation with me?"
"Yes."
"It was out in the hallway."
"Yes."
"You said he wasn't weaving."
"I never said that."
Not, "I don't remember," or "I'm not sure exactly what I said," "I never said that."
"You never said that?"
"No."
This went on for a little while.
In the end, the testimony of both officers was enough for there to be reasonable suspicion for the stop. I don't disagree,
But this cop lied.
What struck me was the fact that not the judge, who knows me well, nor the four prosecutors, who haven't been practicing a year and don't know me at all, acted like anything was amiss.
No one thought to ask "is Mr. Tannebaum making all of this up?" "Is Mr. Tannebaum lying?" I kept looking around the courtroom, and noticing that everyone was carrying on as if there was nothing out of the ordinary.
I'm glad this happened. These are the things that reinvigorate my passion for the practice. It reminds me that for every prosecutor and police officer I respect and may even be friendly with, there is an undercurrent of shit in our system that affects defendants everyday. This is why defense lawyers must remain vigilant.
And that's the truth.
Brian Tannebaum is a criminal defense lawyer in Miami, Florida practicing in state and federal court, and the author of The Truth About Hiring A Criminal Defense Lawyer.
The Cop Lied, To Me
So cops lie. We all know that. It's something we don't like to talk about because it brings out the "so what, they're guilty anyway" crowd. Of course everyone will say "that's terrible," and "that's just wrong," but deep down inside those that wonder why we even have defense lawyers, there is the thought that it really doesn't matter. These are the same people who believe that a 1% error rate on the death penalty, is the "price we pay for having the death penalty." (Yes, someone actually said that.)
So in a Miami courtroom last week, it happened in one of my cases. No, this wasn't a high profile case where the public was screaming for a conviction. This was an old misdemeanor case that no one cared about, except my client, and the 4 prosecutors clamoring to object to all that was being asked. (Tip to a young prosecutor: When you've been practicing about 5 years, you'll realize that if it's that irrelevant, there's really no reason to object so much.)
This case involved two officers that pulled over my client. During a chance encounter with one of them, this officer told me they did not observe the same driving pattern observed by the other officer.
No, I didn't have a witness standing next to me. Just me and the officer.
I ran back to my office and on the same day, filed a motion laying out the details of the conversation.
It would be a few months before the motion was heard.
"Do you remember having a conversation with me?"
"Yes."
"It was out in the hallway."
"Yes."
"You said he wasn't weaving."
"I never said that."
Not, "I don't remember," or "I'm not sure exactly what I said," "I never said that."
"You never said that?"
"No."
This went on for a little while.
In the end, the testimony of both officers was enough for there to be reasonable suspicion for the stop. I don't disagree,
But this cop lied.
What struck me was the fact that not the judge, who knows me well, nor the four prosecutors, who haven't been practicing a year and don't know me at all, acted like anything was amiss.
No one thought to ask "is Mr. Tannebaum making all of this up?" "Is Mr. Tannebaum lying?" I kept looking around the courtroom, and noticing that everyone was carrying on as if there was nothing out of the ordinary.
I'm glad this happened. These are the things that reinvigorate my passion for the practice. It reminds me that for every prosecutor and police officer I respect and may even be friendly with, there is an undercurrent of shit in our system that affects defendants everyday. This is why defense lawyers must remain vigilant.
And that's the truth.
Brian Tannebaum is a criminal defense lawyer in Miami, Florida practicing in state and federal court, and the author of The Truth About Hiring A Criminal Defense Lawyer.
WHY I DON'T LIKE COYOTES AND OUR CURRENT IMMIGRATION POLICY
From nnirr.blogspot.com:
The human rights crisis that exploded after Arizona Governor Brewer signed into law SB1070, which gives local police the power to stop and arrest individuals for their immigration status, is over sixteen years in the making. SB1070 is the offspring of U.S. border security and immigration control policies that deliberately funnel migrants through the state's deadliest and desolate regions.
Thursday, May 20, 2010, marks the 520th consecutive week of a Thursday night community vigil organized by the Coalición de Derechos Humanos at El Tiradito shrine in Tucson, Arizona, to remember and honor the thousands of individuals who have perished on the U.S.-Mexico border as a result of U.S. militarization of immigration and border control.
Join DH to commemorate the fallen on the 520th weekly vigil, a pledge to bear witness to the deadly border and its victims.
Called "prevention through deterrence," the U.S. government implemented the current border security and immigration control strategy in 1993 on the El Paso, TX-Ciudad Juárez sector of the border as "Operation Blockade." The strategy was then extended to the entire border in 1994, as Operation Gatekeeper in California, Operation Safeguard in Arizona and Operation Rio Grande in south Texas.
520 Weeks of Witness to Human Rights Crisis
Coalición de Derechos Humanos Celebrates Ten Years of Raising Voices for Justice and an End to Border Militarization
Thursday, May 20, 2010, marks the 520th consecutive week of a Thursday night community vigil organized by the Coalición de Derechos Humanos at El Tiradito shrine in Tucson, Arizona, to remember and honor the thousands of individuals who have perished on the U.S.-Mexico border as a result of U.S. militarization of immigration and border control.
Ten years ago, the Coalición de Derechos Humanos (DH) began a vigil to recognize all victims of U.S. border security policies. In 2000, DH reported the recovery of 136 human remains solely on the Arizona border region. Now, from October 1, 2009 to February 28, 2010, DH reports an astounding 110 human remains recovered on the border over five months.
Since 1994, when the current border security strategy was implemented by the Clinton Administration on the entire U.S.-Mexico border region, more than 5,000 migrants deaths have been recorded on the U.S. side of the Mexico border.
Please join or support the Coalición de Derechos Humanos at the 520th weekly vigil Thursday, May 20, 2010, 7:00pm, at El Tiradito Shrine (Cushing and Main Streets) Tucson, AZ
In addition, May 20th marks the 13th year anniversary of the killing of 18-year old Esequiel Hernandez, Jr. by U.S. Marines in Redford, Texas as the young man tended the family's goats:
In addition, May 20th marks the 13th year anniversary of the killing of 18-year old Esequiel Hernandez, Jr. by U.S. Marines in Redford, Texas as the young man tended the family's goats:
Esequiel Hernandez, Jr.* May 14, 1979 - May 20, 1997
Join DH to commemorate the fallen on the 520th weekly vigil, a pledge to bear witness to the deadly border and its victims.
Background to the Human Rights Crisis in Arizona
NAFTA Border Control of Migrant Labor
Why are migrants dying and disappearing in the deserts and mountains of Arizona and in parts of California New Mexico and Texas?
The U.S. deliberately "funnels" migrants into the most dangerous and desolate regions of the border to supposedly dissuade them from coming to the U.S. This strategy was implemented as the North American Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA, was being negotiated and signed. NAFTA, instead of addressing the displacement of workers caused by "free" trade policies, put the costs of NAFTA on Mexico and specifically undermined the rights of migrant workers.
Border security and control strategies have been the policy of how migrant workers are integrated into the U.S. labor force. NAFTA and subsequent U.S. border security policies have made migrant workers, including Indigenous people and other people of color communities on the border, more vulnerable to abuse and exploitation. SB1070 is the latest form of labor control policy based on anti-immigrant racial profiling and discrimination.
"Prevention through Deterrence" means Migrant Deaths
Called "prevention through deterrence," the U.S. government implemented the current border security and immigration control strategy in 1993 on the El Paso, TX-Ciudad Juárez sector of the border as "Operation Blockade." The strategy was then extended to the entire border in 1994, as Operation Gatekeeper in California, Operation Safeguard in Arizona and Operation Rio Grande in south Texas.
Operation Blockade was implemented in September 1993 by then Border Patrol Sector Chief Silvestre Reyes that consisted of placing one Border Patrol agent with a Bronco jeep about every thousand yards across the entire width of the El Paso-Juárez metropolitan region on the borderline. BP Sector Chief Reyes under then-INS director Doris Meisner piloted the strategy that is responsible for causing the death, disappearance or, if they survive the ordeal, immense suffering and damage to the health of thousands of migrants.
The U.S. implementation of the border security strategy was part of the U.S. pact under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) that was signed and ratified by Congress in November 1993.
The goal of the now 17 year old U.S. border security strategy was to force migrants who chose to cross without authorization or inspection through the desert and out of the safer urban areas. Instead of offering options to enter legally, the U.S. offered migrants choose between not crossing or risking their lives and health to reunite with their families and seek work to survive.
How to End the Human Rights Crisis at the U.S.-Mexico Border
The human rights crisis at the border is the result of U.S. immigration and border control polices, practices and strategies that criminalize status, militarize immigrant and border communities, link immigration enforcement and services to the politics of national security. Ultimately, the U.S. border reflects the imposition of "free" trade policies and economic development that forces workers to move to find work -- in many cases into involuntary international migration -- and makes them vulnerable to hate and exploitation.
Communities have to learn each others histories and find common ground to roll-back the hate and end the policies that foment and bolster the anti-immigrant climate.
At the heart of this is building long-lasting and durable relationships between border and non-border communities, immigrants, Native American peoples, communities of color and working people. This relationship is strategic to expose, prevent and stop the current trading of rights that is central to "comprehensive immigration reform." Rights trading means that the rights of communities are negotiated away as part of the deal-making for immigration reform. The rights of border and immigrant communities have always been offered head first to satisfy the xenophobia and calls for "border security."
In 2007, NNIRR worked with the Black Alliance for Just Immigration (BAJI) to bring an African American and black immigrant delegation to the Arizona border to see first-hand the devastating results of the U.S. militarization of immigration and border control policies, practices and strategies.
In 2006, NNIRR with the Coalición de Derechos Humanos brought a national delegation of grassroots community groups and leaders to meet with their counterparts in the Arizona border region and dream a different border based on justice and human rights. These are were our recommendations to solve the human rights crisis at the border :
Implement routine programs of legalization that expand access to visas and provide access to permanent residency including future flows. Systematic legalization programs – recognizing human, labor, environmental, and civil rights – will ensure that migrants have options to unite with their families and avoid mortal danger.
End the deadly border enforcement strategies; instead protect the human rights and constitutional liberties of all immigrants and communities on the U.S.-Mexico border. This includes but is not limited to issuing sufficient visas so that all migrants that wish to can enter the country legally and safely and are not forced to choose between risking their lives crossing through the desert and mountains or subjecting themselves to inhumane violations of their rights and abuse just to reunite with their families and find work to survive.
Demilitarize the U.S.-Mexico border and cease all enforcement policies, practices, measures, laws, and strategies that criminalize migrants forcing them into crossing through the most dangerous areas in the mountains and deserts where hundreds die every year. And, prevent the initiation of policies, laws, practices and measures to militarize the U.S.-Canada border;
Address the backlog and facilitate family reunification by increasing visas and more legal options allowing migrants to cross safely and not risk their lives at the hands of smugglers, unscrupulous employers, or immigration officials who act with impunity and jeopardize public safety;
Repeal draconian federal criminal laws that prosecute and incarcerate migrants for merely crossing the border without inspection.
End the deportation of permanent residents, including ending indefinite detention or its expansion, preserving due process rights and restoring access to the courts and meaningful judicial review for all immigrants.
Develop bi-lateral migration policies and practices that uphold the human rights of migrants, which are accountable to independent, civilian community-based monitoring and oversight;
Restore the civil rights, civil liberties and human rights of border communities and immigrants everywhere.
Grant unrestricted crossing rights for members of Indigenous nations and communities living on both sides of the border.
Enhance the safety of border communities and protect migrants by demilitarizing the borders, including tearing down the walls along the U.S.-Mexico border, and establishing accountability mechanisms for independent civilian and community-based monitoring and oversight;
Clearly and publicly declare its opposition to private vigilante groups and the hateful acts they perpetrate, and prosecute any criminal activity against immigrants and others;
Create an independent monitoring and accountability mechanism that directly engages impacted communities in holding the Department of Homeland Security accountable for its immigration enforcement and detention policies and initiatives;
Transfer federal spending from border militarization to genuine “border security” programs including health care, housing, education, living wages, social security and fair trade between communities straddling the border and other nations;
Stop collaborating with other countries targeting migrants for arrest and detention and cooperate with neighboring nations to implement economic and social policies that effectively resolve problems of unsustainable development caused by “free” trade policies, which are the root cause of forced displacement and involuntary international migration;
End and reverse the privatization of border control and national security operations, which is rewarding private security contractors that have abysmal human rights records and corruptive practices in Iraq, Palestine, New Orleans and elsewhere;
Abandon all plans to militarize the U.S.- Canada border, virtually and physically, as contemplated in recently passed Congressional legislation calling for a “study” of the militarization of the northern border, including the high technological surveillance of the U.S.- Mexico border.
De-link the policies and politics of national security and the “war on terror” from all immigration services and enforcement and give priority to “human security,” fulfilling the human rights, economic well-being, civil liberties, labor protections, health, safety and freedom from fear and instability, for all communities and individuals regardless of their citizenship or immigration status; and,
Transfer all border and interior immigration services and enforcement functions now under the Department of Homeland Security back to the Department of Justice, including the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Bureau of Border Protection and Customs, and the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services, previously under the Immigration and Naturalization Services.
Address the root causes of involuntary migration and forced displacement in sending countries by ending “free” trade and other structural adjustment programs imposed on the global south by U.S.-controlled international financial institutions. Support sustainable economic development instead.
Make the United States a true partner in international cooperation by ratifying the International Convention for the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families.
MR. PRESIDENT, ARE YOU LISTENING?
From dreamacttexas.blogspot.com:
A second grader told Michelle Obama her concerns about "people being taken away." Click here to see video
-
Huffington Post - May 19, 2010
Also from arizonaboycott.blogspot.com:
But My Mom Doesn't Have Any Papers
A second grader told Michelle Obama her concerns about "people being taken away." Click here to see video
-
Huffington Post - May 19, 2010
First Lady Michelle Obama Questioned by Second-Grader Worried About Her Mom's Immigration Status
A second-grader stole the show today, even as U.S. President Barack Obama and Mexican President Felipe Calderon held a press conference in the Rose Garden at the White House.
While the two Presidents spoke about the need for immigration reform and about concerns over Arizona's harsh new law -- without saying anything new or different -- down the road in Silver Spring, Maryland, First Lady Michele Obama and Mexico’s First Lady Margarita Zavala visited an elementary school to speak with a class of second graders...link
ABC News’ Karen Travers reports what happened when a young girl spoke up:
The student shyly raised her hand and said, "My mom ... she says that Barack Obama is taking everybody away that doesn't have papers." Mrs. Obama replied: "Yeah, well that's something that we have to work on, right? To make sure that people can be here with the right kind of papers, right? That's exactly right." The girl then said quietly, "But my mom doesn't have any ..." and trailed off. Mrs. Obama replied: "Well, we have to work on that. We have to fix that, and everybody's got to work together in Congress to make sure that happens. That's right."
While the two Presidents spoke about the need for immigration reform and about concerns over Arizona's harsh new law -- without saying anything new or different -- down the road in Silver Spring, Maryland, First Lady Michele Obama and Mexico’s First Lady Margarita Zavala visited an elementary school to speak with a class of second graders...link
ABC News’ Karen Travers reports what happened when a young girl spoke up:
The student shyly raised her hand and said, "My mom ... she says that Barack Obama is taking everybody away that doesn't have papers." Mrs. Obama replied: "Yeah, well that's something that we have to work on, right? To make sure that people can be here with the right kind of papers, right? That's exactly right." The girl then said quietly, "But my mom doesn't have any ..." and trailed off. Mrs. Obama replied: "Well, we have to work on that. We have to fix that, and everybody's got to work together in Congress to make sure that happens. That's right."
Also from arizonaboycott.blogspot.com:
THE SUPREME COURT NEEDS TO RELEARN DUE PROCESS
From sexoffenderissues.blogspot.com:
Original Article
05/18/2010
By Matt Kelley
Yesterday in a disappointing ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court green-lighted the federal practice of detaining sex offenders for years — even after their sentences end.
The court ruled 7-2 in United States v. Comstock that it was okay for Congress to allow authorities to continue imprisoning people after sentence completion, so long as a judge sees “clear and convincing” evidence that the person would be likely to re-offend.
It's not often that I agree with Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, but as I wrote when this case was first argued, Scalia is right when he argues that the practice is unconstitutional.
Sadly, the two were the only ones to dissent in this latest ruling — the only ones to stand up for sensible sentencing practices and clear limits on the government’s power. As Thomas wrote, "The fact that the federal government has the authority to imprison a person for the purpose of punishing him for a federal crime — sex-related or otherwise — does not provide the government with the additional power to exercise indefinite civil control over that person.”
Sex offenders are already subject to frequently changing, and expanding, punishments. Sex offender registries keep getting bigger and bigger, and registration and residency requirements appear to be getting increasingly strict each year. Often, judges and juries sentence someone for a sex offense without knowing the nearly unlimited extent of the punishment to which that person's being condemned.
Although only 100 or so people are currently locked up past their sentences, that's 100 too many. Civil commitment is a backhanded maneuver that circumvents courts in order to extend punishment outside of the public eye.
In deciding Comstock yesterday, the court granted the federal government the power to incarcerate Americans without due process . Likewise, they also reinforced the dangerous notion that no punishment for sex offenders is ever too great.
- And that means they can lock you up without reason as well, just like they are doing with terrorists at Guantanamo.
Original Article
05/18/2010
By Matt Kelley
Yesterday in a disappointing ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court green-lighted the federal practice of detaining sex offenders for years — even after their sentences end.
The court ruled 7-2 in United States v. Comstock that it was okay for Congress to allow authorities to continue imprisoning people after sentence completion, so long as a judge sees “clear and convincing” evidence that the person would be likely to re-offend.
It's not often that I agree with Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, but as I wrote when this case was first argued, Scalia is right when he argues that the practice is unconstitutional.
Sadly, the two were the only ones to dissent in this latest ruling — the only ones to stand up for sensible sentencing practices and clear limits on the government’s power. As Thomas wrote, "The fact that the federal government has the authority to imprison a person for the purpose of punishing him for a federal crime — sex-related or otherwise — does not provide the government with the additional power to exercise indefinite civil control over that person.”
Sex offenders are already subject to frequently changing, and expanding, punishments. Sex offender registries keep getting bigger and bigger, and registration and residency requirements appear to be getting increasingly strict each year. Often, judges and juries sentence someone for a sex offense without knowing the nearly unlimited extent of the punishment to which that person's being condemned.
Although only 100 or so people are currently locked up past their sentences, that's 100 too many. Civil commitment is a backhanded maneuver that circumvents courts in order to extend punishment outside of the public eye.
In deciding Comstock yesterday, the court granted the federal government the power to incarcerate Americans without due process . Likewise, they also reinforced the dangerous notion that no punishment for sex offenders is ever too great.
- And that means they can lock you up without reason as well, just like they are doing with terrorists at Guantanamo.
Sunday, May 30, 2010
LAWS LIKE JESSICA'S LAW DON'T MAKE YOU SAFE, BUT ONLY SHIFTS THE CRIME AROUND
From sexoffenderissues.blogspot.com:
Original Article
So how long is California going to continue to play the "sex offender shuffle?" See the video at the end, which is from 2006.
05/18/2010
_____ Says His Family Was Evicted After Neighbors Found His Brother's Megan's Law Listing
CARLSBAD - A Carlsbad family is being forced to leave their neighborhood after a relative was found listed on the Megan's Law website.
“We moved here to be safe and the neighborhood's turned on us,” said _____ who lives in a Carlsbad neighborhood with _____ and their two children.
In 2007, _____’s brother, _____ was sentenced for burglary. _____ was released from prison two weeks ago
“[He] had no place to go, [so] we let him stay here for about a week,” said _____.
However, _____’s brother is a registered sex offender. _____ said his brother is not dangerous and the offense happened 25 years ago and involved a girlfriend.
But when _____’s picture appeared on the Megan’s Law website, neighbors launched an effort to get rid of them.
Neighbors worried that the next John Gardner might be just around the corner.
A 10News poll found 73 percent of San Diegans polled wanted to receive e-mail alerts if a sex offender moved in to their neighborhood. Eighteen percent said no, and eight percent were not sure.
Though _____ is now gone, he was legally entitled to live there.
“He’s still registered here, but doesn’t stay here now,” said _____.
_____, who closely resembles his older brother said he’s being targeted.
“We’re the ones in fear now because of a bunch of comments that say a child molester drives a black BMW; everything from that to people saying they’re worried they’re not safe in their own homes,” said _____.
“I didn’t realize people could get that ugly,” said Grove.
One neighbor said he’ll be glad when the family moves.
Another neighbor said everyone was on edge after what happened to Amber and Chelsea.
“I think it’s an incendiary environment and think people are in fear, checking Megan’s Law weekly,” she said. “I know I am and that’s how they saw it right away.”
Though the family is moving to another place, they said their next move would be to see an attorney.
Video Link
Original Article
So how long is California going to continue to play the "sex offender shuffle?" See the video at the end, which is from 2006.
05/18/2010
_____ Says His Family Was Evicted After Neighbors Found His Brother's Megan's Law Listing
CARLSBAD - A Carlsbad family is being forced to leave their neighborhood after a relative was found listed on the Megan's Law website.
“We moved here to be safe and the neighborhood's turned on us,” said _____ who lives in a Carlsbad neighborhood with _____ and their two children.
In 2007, _____’s brother, _____ was sentenced for burglary. _____ was released from prison two weeks ago
“[He] had no place to go, [so] we let him stay here for about a week,” said _____.
However, _____’s brother is a registered sex offender. _____ said his brother is not dangerous and the offense happened 25 years ago and involved a girlfriend.
Neighbors worried that the next John Gardner might be just around the corner.
A 10News poll found 73 percent of San Diegans polled wanted to receive e-mail alerts if a sex offender moved in to their neighborhood. Eighteen percent said no, and eight percent were not sure.
Though _____ is now gone, he was legally entitled to live there.
“He’s still registered here, but doesn’t stay here now,” said _____.
_____, who closely resembles his older brother said he’s being targeted.
“We’re the ones in fear now because of a bunch of comments that say a child molester drives a black BMW; everything from that to people saying they’re worried they’re not safe in their own homes,” said _____.
“I didn’t realize people could get that ugly,” said Grove.
One neighbor said he’ll be glad when the family moves.
Another neighbor said everyone was on edge after what happened to Amber and Chelsea.
“I think it’s an incendiary environment and think people are in fear, checking Megan’s Law weekly,” she said. “I know I am and that’s how they saw it right away.”
Though the family is moving to another place, they said their next move would be to see an attorney.
Monday, May 3, 2010
IF YOU'RE IN FLORIDA FILE YOUR COMPLAINT WITH THE ACLU
From sexoffenderissues.blogspot.com:
This goes for all other states as well. Contact your local ACLU and file a complaint. If you do not, then nothing will change, so FILE A COMPLAINT NOW!
It was strongly suggested by the Florida Civil Rights Association (Contact) that we (we meaning RSO's, and or their family members) start filling complaints. The FCRA cannot do anything with the educational material that I sent them via mail except "get educated" with it. We (the RSO community have to FILE A COMPLAINT in order to even discover whether their attorneys can assist us or not. Without a complaint, no attorney can take action on behalf of anyone or any group.
The FCRA also said that we as individuals MUST START filing mass individual complaints to the ACLU (Contact) and FCRA. Once the complaints start "massing up" (stacking up) this is a good indication that there are similar issues in neighboring counties. This means that "individuals" have to initiate the complaint with the ACLU at their web site or send it via a letter to their mail box, and initiate the complaint with the Florida Civil Rights Association (FCRA) website or send the complaint via letter to their mail box.
Nothing starts until WE INITIATE THE COMPLAINT(S)
I realize that there have been complaints sent into the ACLU from different parts of our state, but if you look at the complaints sent in against civil rights violations or constitutional challenges compared to the TOTAL POPULATION OF RSO's, then you can see that we are lacking in the volume of complaints that need to be submitted.
Also, the ACLU and the FCRA cannot divulge your name or address when you file a complaint. They are bound by law to give you anonymity. RSO's or their family don't need to be afraid to make a complaint. In fact, this is the only thing that will get them rolling on our behalf is if we start filling individually, then they will look at us as a massive group. Both the ACLU and FCRA are looking for commonalities in our complaints. And we have plenty, I assure you!
I have included the web site address of the ACLU and FCRA at the bottom of this email. It is imperative that every one make a complaint, even if you don't know if the complaint is valid. Let the lawyers decide that. You may not have a case but an RSO or their family member 5 counties over may have the same issue but their complaint may have additional info that will cause the lawyers to assist them. That case can be then used as a precedent for all of us later. FILE YOUR COMPLAINT(S).
I was also told that even if a bill has not been made into a law yet by vote, if you believe that your civil rights will be violated if it becomes law, you should immediate write out your complaint and be ready to send it in. Don't wait!
The politician's have gotten away with far too much already and we have sat by and done nothing. Start filling your complaints with the ACLU and FCRA NOW. They cannot ignore a group of determined, helpless, poor class of citizens that want justice and relief from the problems the politician's have caused.
Lastly: DO NOT CALL THESE AGENCIES. They do not have the staff to answer the phones. Send your complaint in by mail and ask for confirmation or use their web sites.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Link to the ACLU to file a complaint: http://www.aclufl.org/get_help/index.cfm
Here is the ACLU's mail address for those who need to mail it in:
ACLU of Florida
4500 Biscayne Blvd.
Suite 340
Miami, Fl 33137
Attn: Complaint Form Inside
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Link to the FCRA to file a complaint: http://fcranews.com/Complaint.html
Here is the ACLU's mail address for those who need to mail it in:
Florida Civil Rights Association
P.O. Box 593248
Orlando, Florida 32859
Attn: Complaint Form Inside
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
This goes for all other states as well. Contact your local ACLU and file a complaint. If you do not, then nothing will change, so FILE A COMPLAINT NOW!
It was strongly suggested by the Florida Civil Rights Association (Contact) that we (we meaning RSO's, and or their family members) start filling complaints. The FCRA cannot do anything with the educational material that I sent them via mail except "get educated" with it. We (the RSO community have to FILE A COMPLAINT in order to even discover whether their attorneys can assist us or not. Without a complaint, no attorney can take action on behalf of anyone or any group.
The FCRA also said that we as individuals MUST START filing mass individual complaints to the ACLU (Contact) and FCRA. Once the complaints start "massing up" (stacking up) this is a good indication that there are similar issues in neighboring counties. This means that "individuals" have to initiate the complaint with the ACLU at their web site or send it via a letter to their mail box, and initiate the complaint with the Florida Civil Rights Association (FCRA) website or send the complaint via letter to their mail box.
Nothing starts until WE INITIATE THE COMPLAINT(S)
I realize that there have been complaints sent into the ACLU from different parts of our state, but if you look at the complaints sent in against civil rights violations or constitutional challenges compared to the TOTAL POPULATION OF RSO's, then you can see that we are lacking in the volume of complaints that need to be submitted.
Also, the ACLU and the FCRA cannot divulge your name or address when you file a complaint. They are bound by law to give you anonymity. RSO's or their family don't need to be afraid to make a complaint. In fact, this is the only thing that will get them rolling on our behalf is if we start filling individually, then they will look at us as a massive group. Both the ACLU and FCRA are looking for commonalities in our complaints. And we have plenty, I assure you!
I have included the web site address of the ACLU and FCRA at the bottom of this email. It is imperative that every one make a complaint, even if you don't know if the complaint is valid. Let the lawyers decide that. You may not have a case but an RSO or their family member 5 counties over may have the same issue but their complaint may have additional info that will cause the lawyers to assist them. That case can be then used as a precedent for all of us later. FILE YOUR COMPLAINT(S).
I was also told that even if a bill has not been made into a law yet by vote, if you believe that your civil rights will be violated if it becomes law, you should immediate write out your complaint and be ready to send it in. Don't wait!
The politician's have gotten away with far too much already and we have sat by and done nothing. Start filling your complaints with the ACLU and FCRA NOW. They cannot ignore a group of determined, helpless, poor class of citizens that want justice and relief from the problems the politician's have caused.
Lastly: DO NOT CALL THESE AGENCIES. They do not have the staff to answer the phones. Send your complaint in by mail and ask for confirmation or use their web sites.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Link to the ACLU to file a complaint: http://www.aclufl.org/get_help/index.cfm
Here is the ACLU's mail address for those who need to mail it in:
ACLU of Florida
4500 Biscayne Blvd.
Suite 340
Miami, Fl 33137
Attn: Complaint Form Inside
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Link to the FCRA to file a complaint: http://fcranews.com/Complaint.html
Here is the ACLU's mail address for those who need to mail it in:
Florida Civil Rights Association
P.O. Box 593248
Orlando, Florida 32859
Attn: Complaint Form Inside
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
THE SUPREME COURT SHOULD THROW OUT THE INDEFINITE TIME A SEX OFFENDER IS REQUIRED TO STAY OUT OF CUSTODY
From sexoffenderissues.blogspot.com:
Original Article
01/12/2010
By Matthew Bigg and Will Dunham
(Reuters) - Supreme Court justices on Tuesday expressed skepticism about the Obama administration's argument that the U.S. Congress can keep sex offenders in custody for an indefinite time beyond their prison sentences.
Solicitor General Elena Kagan (Contact), the administration's top courtroom lawyer, urged the justices to uphold a 2006 federal law providing for the continued detention of sexually dangerous federal inmates who have completed their prison terms.
Chief Justice John Roberts asked Kagan why the federal government's authority in such cases does not end when the prisoner's sentence is done.
The Supreme Court in 1997 ruled that U.S. states could confine dangerous sex offenders to mental institutions after they serve their sentences. The issue on Tuesday was whether the federal government also had that authority.
Politicians from both U.S. political parties have backed tougher measures to deal with sex offenders in the U.S. criminal justice system to try to make sure they do not commit repeat crimes.
Crime has been a major issue in U.S. politics and many elected officials are sensitive to any accusations from opponents that they are too lenient on violent convicts. There has been ongoing public concern over repeat sexual offenders.
'TAKING OVER EVERYTHING'
Of the nine Supreme Court members, conservative Justice Antonin Scalia appeared the most troubled by the law.
Scalia told Kagan he was unimpressed by her argument that the federal government had to step in because some states might not confine prisoners who pose a danger. "This is a recipe for the federal government taking over everything," Scalia said.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor said that under the government's theory, any dangerous person could be held indefinitely.
A U.S. appeals court struck down the law for exceeding the limits of congressional authority and for intruding on police powers the U.S. Constitution reserves for the states, many of which have their own similar laws.
The law had been challenged by five inmates who had been kept in custody at a federal prison hospital in North Carolina after their sentences ended.
The federal law defined "sexually dangerous" as someone who suffered from a serious mental illness, abnormality or disorder and would have difficulty in refraining from sexually violent conduct or child molestation if released.
Kagan defended the law. Of approximately 15,000 federal prisoners who have engaged in sexually violent acts or child molestation, the government has identified only about 100 inmates for detention after serving their sentence, she said.
Kagan ended her argument by saying that Congress took the reasonable step of making sure the federal government can continue to hold a sexually dangerous, mentally ill prisoner when the state would not act.
G. Alan DuBois, an assistant federal public defender in North Carolina, argued that the law should be struck down and said the government's power to hold someone ended once the prison sentence has been served.
A decision in the case is expected by the end of June.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
Original Article
01/12/2010
By Matthew Bigg and Will Dunham
(Reuters) - Supreme Court justices on Tuesday expressed skepticism about the Obama administration's argument that the U.S. Congress can keep sex offenders in custody for an indefinite time beyond their prison sentences.
Solicitor General Elena Kagan (Contact), the administration's top courtroom lawyer, urged the justices to uphold a 2006 federal law providing for the continued detention of sexually dangerous federal inmates who have completed their prison terms.
Chief Justice John Roberts asked Kagan why the federal government's authority in such cases does not end when the prisoner's sentence is done.
The Supreme Court in 1997 ruled that U.S. states could confine dangerous sex offenders to mental institutions after they serve their sentences. The issue on Tuesday was whether the federal government also had that authority.
Politicians from both U.S. political parties have backed tougher measures to deal with sex offenders in the U.S. criminal justice system to try to make sure they do not commit repeat crimes.
Crime has been a major issue in U.S. politics and many elected officials are sensitive to any accusations from opponents that they are too lenient on violent convicts. There has been ongoing public concern over repeat sexual offenders.
'TAKING OVER EVERYTHING'
Of the nine Supreme Court members, conservative Justice Antonin Scalia appeared the most troubled by the law.
Scalia told Kagan he was unimpressed by her argument that the federal government had to step in because some states might not confine prisoners who pose a danger. "This is a recipe for the federal government taking over everything," Scalia said.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor said that under the government's theory, any dangerous person could be held indefinitely.
A U.S. appeals court struck down the law for exceeding the limits of congressional authority and for intruding on police powers the U.S. Constitution reserves for the states, many of which have their own similar laws.
The law had been challenged by five inmates who had been kept in custody at a federal prison hospital in North Carolina after their sentences ended.
The federal law defined "sexually dangerous" as someone who suffered from a serious mental illness, abnormality or disorder and would have difficulty in refraining from sexually violent conduct or child molestation if released.
Kagan defended the law. Of approximately 15,000 federal prisoners who have engaged in sexually violent acts or child molestation, the government has identified only about 100 inmates for detention after serving their sentence, she said.
Kagan ended her argument by saying that Congress took the reasonable step of making sure the federal government can continue to hold a sexually dangerous, mentally ill prisoner when the state would not act.
G. Alan DuBois, an assistant federal public defender in North Carolina, argued that the law should be struck down and said the government's power to hold someone ended once the prison sentence has been served.
A decision in the case is expected by the end of June.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
IF THE GUY IS STILL TOO POOR TO PAY CHILD SUPPORT, GIVE HIM AN ATTORNEY!
From kennedy-law.blogspot.com:
Indigent by any other name
I had an interesting experience sitting in Judge Jim York's court over in the Family Law Center this morning on an enforcement action. While we were waiting to go before the court, the parties in a suit to revoke the father's community supervision was called (apparently the father had been held in contempt for nonpayment of child support and then failed to pay the back due amount).
Judge York informed the father that since confinement was a possibility should the judge revoke his community supervision that he was entitled to the same rights as a criminal defendant -- one of those rights being the right to appointed counsel if he was indigent.
As proof of his inability to hire an attorney, the father produced pay stubs showing he had a job and was making $10 an hour. Judge York then looked at the father and told him that he was going to deny him an appointed attorney because, although he couldn't afford an attorney, he was not, by definition, indigent.
I sat and thought about that for a second and was dumbfounded (particularly since the next case on the docket involved a doctor and his wife getting a divorce and the court had appointed an attorney to represent the interests of the children (who had no risk of going to jail.).
After I got back to the office I pulled down my copy of Black's Law Dictionary and looked up the meaning of indigency. According to Black's, the "inability to afford an attorney" renders one indigent for purposes of the Sixth Amendment.
Oops. Score one for Harris County.
Indigent by any other name
I had an interesting experience sitting in Judge Jim York's court over in the Family Law Center this morning on an enforcement action. While we were waiting to go before the court, the parties in a suit to revoke the father's community supervision was called (apparently the father had been held in contempt for nonpayment of child support and then failed to pay the back due amount).
Judge York informed the father that since confinement was a possibility should the judge revoke his community supervision that he was entitled to the same rights as a criminal defendant -- one of those rights being the right to appointed counsel if he was indigent.
As proof of his inability to hire an attorney, the father produced pay stubs showing he had a job and was making $10 an hour. Judge York then looked at the father and told him that he was going to deny him an appointed attorney because, although he couldn't afford an attorney, he was not, by definition, indigent.
I sat and thought about that for a second and was dumbfounded (particularly since the next case on the docket involved a doctor and his wife getting a divorce and the court had appointed an attorney to represent the interests of the children (who had no risk of going to jail.).
After I got back to the office I pulled down my copy of Black's Law Dictionary and looked up the meaning of indigency. According to Black's, the "inability to afford an attorney" renders one indigent for purposes of the Sixth Amendment.
Oops. Score one for Harris County.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
