Do Political Candidates & Public Officials understand our Constitution?

What would happen if we would require our government employees to be able to pass a written tests where they had to show proof that they understood the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights, as well as other matters pertaining to citizenship within this country? Then after these people became employees of the government they would be held accountable both civilly and criminally for actions that violated other people’s constitutional protected rights. No more immunity for people in the government, I believe at that point in time we would start seeing all our government officials doing a better job of protecting all our constitutional rights.

Of course after this opening statement, the first question that comes to my mind is how many legislators and their staff could pass one of these tests? Lets say one not only that included the US citizenship test that must be passed by new citizens immigrating to this country, but also a test that has specific questions about the Constitution and Bill of Rights of the United States. One that would not put together by politics or politicians but by independent law professors and historians. These questions would be designed to find out if people working in government actually understand that these documents were designed to protect INDIVIDUAL freedoms. Failure to pass these tests would result in a person being unemployable by the government.

Today, many lawmakers or public officials have no idea about the rights that our Constitution protects. Lawmakers pass laws, rules, and regulations that that are outright or clearly in the gray area of being unconstitutional. Their comments are “let the courts decide“. Quite obviously they do not know their jobs. Simply put if a law has any possibility of being unconstitutional it should never be considered, let alone passed. Legislators that propose and push laws that are in this gray area are nothing more than political terrorists attempting to destroy the fabric of this country. Isn’t it time that this type of terrorism brought on by the looters of society against American citizens rights were punished?

When the craftsman sets out to learn their trade, for example, woodworking, they spend a great deal of time learning about their craft. They must learn not only the tools to use, but also the proper types of wood to work with. They must be totally versed in all aspects of woodworking if they want to be considered a master of their trade. This is true of any field of endeavor, except one, our public officials. For some reason many of our politicians feel that they will gain more popularity by pushing through more laws through. They do this without any consideration to the constitutional requirements of the laws they propose, and some people working in our government enforcing those laws, feel that they are above the laws themselves. Isn’t it about time the government employees such as law enforcement were held accountable for their actions?

The job of a politician is to uphold the Bill of Rights and the Constitution of both the state they represent, and our federal government. They take an oath to do this, but how many of these politicians today realize that the primary reason for our Constitution is to protect INDIVIDUAL rights, not the majority’s rights, and not the government’s rights to exist? Our founding fathers recognized the possibility of the government growing in power to such a point that individual freedoms would be lost.

That is why on March 4th of 1789, they added the Bill of Rights to the Constitution guaranteeing individual freedoms to the people in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of the government’s powers. Today the people holding government offices, whether elected or employed, have shown a total disregard for those individual rights.

How many laws have been passed in the last 100 years that have been found by our court systems to violate the principles of our Federal and State Constitutions? Examples might be the Jim Crow laws, or laws passed in the McCarthy era, as well as laws requiring businesses to implement unneeded measures, that increase the cost of goods and drive many companies out of business. Consider the cost of implementing those unconstitutional laws, and the costs of defending them in court, only to have them proven to be unconstitutional. Now, add in the cost of removing the laws and the mechanisms that they created and you soon realize that these mistakes have cost us, the taxpayers, billions of dollars. Also consider the cost in taxpayers dollars and the pain brought upon individuals because public employees have stepped outside the boundaries of the laws designed to protect the rights of individuals.

How well do public officials really uphold their sworn oath to protect the state and federal constitutions that require them to protect citizens’ individual rights? When public officials are faced with pressure from special interest groups that are attempting to strip the rights from small disfavored groups of American citizens,  the public officials that do stand their ground to protect small disfavored groups and prove they are true American patriots? They realize that even though they may be fired from their job or not reelected in coming elections because of their actions, of honor, integrity and their oath before God to uphold the Constitution is more important than their personal gain.

“The majority, oppressing an individual, is guilty of a crime, abuses its strength, and by acting on the law of the strongest breaks up the foundations of society.” Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)

How many organizations, businesses, and individuals have had to spend their time and resources fighting those unconstitutional laws or actions by public officials? If the public officials would have just done their jobs upholding the Constitutional principles of this country these laws would have never been proposed, let alone passed in the first place.

Public officials need to learn their jobs and not rely on special interest groups that lobby and feed the officials false or skewed information. They need to look at all sides of the issue and obtain accurate information before ever presenting a law for consideration. Most importantly the officials need to remember their primary job is to protect individual rights from the power of the majority, as well as the overwhelming power of government.

It is time that we the people start holding our government representatives responsible for their overzealous actions. We need to stop legislators from trying to put forth, knee-jerk legislation that Is not well thought out, and while it may satisfy some people, it is in fact unconstitutional because it infringes upon the individual rights that have a guaranteed protection by the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. Public employees who use their government positions for self gratification and financial gain should be held responsible as well. Those public officials should be held to a higher accountability than ordinary citizens instead of the way it is now where they have less accountability.

If a person who is in the military violates the military code of conduct they can be given a dishonorable discharge, losing all of their benefits, pensions and denying them positions in many government agencies. Corporate managers have been held responsible and imprisoned for allowing dangerous products to reach the marketplace. Why shouldn’t politicians and other public officials be held to that same accountability when they have placed on others in unconstitutional rules, laws and regulations that they have passed and enforced?

We firmly believe that our government’s representatives should be held accountable for proposing unconstitutional laws and if any bill is later found to be unconstitutional both the sponsor and cosponsors of it should be punished. They should be immediately barred from any type of public service, from serving in the Congress to working as a clerk in some DMV office somewhere. We also believe that because of the cost of fighting these unconstitutional laws, these lawmakers should lose their pensions and any benefits that they might have received while being in office. The same should also be true for any public employee who steps outside the lines of their authority, they too should be banned from any further public employment.

“When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty”. Thomas Jefferson

To some these penalties might seem harsh, but these people chose to become politicians or public employees and in doing so took an oath before God to uphold the Constitution and protect our individual rights. If they are unwilling to do this then they should face the consequences of their actions and should not have run for a political office or applied for a government position in the first place. Their job, right from the start, is to represent the rights of each individual person of this country.

We believe that when a person chooses to work for the government they should be held not to just the same but to even a higher accountability than ordinary citizens[,][.] [and] [This] [this] accountability should include the highest possible penalties when the public employees disregard others’ individual rights.

Holding people accountable for their actions has long been viewed as the best way to have a stabilized society, to create the best products and services and to create a moral conscience. Why should our public officials be exempt from that accountability?

It is time that a petition was started requiring all lawmaking officials and their staff to have to take a citizenship and a Constitutional test and to pass both of them before they and their staff can take office. This test needs to be given every two years for lawmakers and their staff, and this testing needs to be overseen by a civilian watchdog group, with no political ties.

This needs to be a requirement across this country for any public official that makes laws, rules, or has regulatory authority. There also needs to be as part of that petition the fact that all public officials will be held accountable for their actions and that there will be no qualified immunity for any public official that attempts to limit, remove, or ignore an individual’s Constitutional protected rights.

At the present time some individuals and actions, though they appear to have qualified immunity and thereby commit acts with impunity, can be held accountable for their actions. In a US Supreme Court case the court basically said that any official of the government, who steps outside his legal boundaries, can bring about a suit against the organization that he represents. In other words, if a judge or parole officer steps outside his boundaries in ordering restrictions that is unrelated to the crime then they can be held accountable for decisions outside their legal boundaries.

The US Supreme Court [official website] ruled unanimously Wednesday March 27, 2013 in Millbrook v. US [opinion, PDF; JURIST report] that the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) [28 USC § 1346] and exceptions [28 USC § 2680(h)] to it, waive the immunity of prison guards who commit intentional torts that are within the scope of their authority. The text of 28 USC § 2680 lists exceptions for which the FTCA will not compel immunity, and (h) includes: “Any claim arising out of assault, battery, false imprisonment, false arrest, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, libel, slander, misrepresentation, deceit, or interference with contract rights … ‘investigative or law enforcement officer’ means any officer of the United States who is empowered by law to execute searches, to seize evidence, or to make arrests for violations of Federal law.” The court held that this includes correctional officers, and they do not have to be in the process of of executing a search, seizing evidence, or making an arrest to be liable for an intentional tort. Justice Clarence Thomas delivered the opinion of the court:

The FTCA’s only reference to “searches,” “seizures of evidence,” and “arrests” is found in the statutory definition of “investigative or law enforcement officer.” By its terms, this provision focuses on the status of persons whose conduct may be actionable, not the types of activities that may give rise to a tort claim against the United States. The proviso thus distinguishes between the acts for which immunity is waived (e.g., assault and battery), and the class of persons whose acts may give rise to an actionable FTCA claim. The plain text confirms that Congress intended immunity determinations to depend on a federal officer’s legal authority, not on a particular exercise of that authority. Consequently, there is no basis for concluding that a law enforcement officer’s intentional tort must occur in the course of executing a search, seizing evidence, or making an arrest in order to subject the United States to liability.

A trial court is given wide discretion in establishing conditions of probation, and the order of the district judge providing for probation will be overturned only if it is abuse of discretion. (United States v. Kahl, 583 F2d 1351 (CA5 Tex 1978). )  While the court can adopt terms and conditions of probation recommended to it by an administrative agency of government, the court cannot delegate its power to fix terms and conditions of probation While the court can adopt terms and conditions of probation recommended to it by an administrative agency of government, the court cannot delegate its power to fix terms and conditions of probation ( Whitehead v. United States, 155 F2d 460 (CA6 Tenn 1946). ) or to determine the parties aggrieved, the amounts to be paid, and the time and manner of payment.United States v. Mancuso, 444 F2d 691 (CA5 La 1971). ) (  United States v. Shelby, 573 F2d 971 (CA7 Wis 1978).    ) The court must orally give the conditions of probation,  ( Buhler v. Pescor, 63 F Supp 632 (DC Mo 1945). ) and when there is a discrepancy between conditions given orally and conditions given in writing, the oral statements control (except in situations in which the conditions in question are standard conditions). (  United States v. Mesfin Haile Tulloch, 380 F3d 8 (CA1 Mass 2004).  ) If one condition of probation is void, it does not invalidate the sentence. (Watkins v. Merry, 106 F2d 360 (CA10 Okla 1939).)

The other thing that hasn’t been brought up yet is the fact that not only can they be sued, but they can be charged with a federal crime under Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 Conspiracy Against Rights, and  Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242, Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law.

Under section 242 it lays out quite plainly who can be held accountable for the attempt to deprive a citizen of their rights. This would include individual legislators and city Council members, etc., who pass laws with the intent to deprive a citizen of their constitutionally protected rights.

This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, to willfully deprive, or cause to be deprived, from any person those rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S.

This law further prohibits a person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation or custom to willfully subject or cause to be subjected any person to different punishments, pains, or penalties, than  those prescribed for punishment of citizens.

“Acts under “color of any law” include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the bounds or limits of their lawful authority,  but also acts done without and beyond the bounds of their lawful authority;  provided that, in order for unlawful acts of any official to be done under  “color of any law,” the unlawful acts must be done while such official is  purporting or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official  duties. This definition includes, in addition to law enforcement officials,  individuals such as Mayors, Council persons, Judges, Nursing Home  Proprietors, Security Guards, etc., persons who are bound by laws, statutes ordinances, or customs.”

17 comments for “Do Political Candidates & Public Officials understand our Constitution?

  1. The Inquiring Mind
    August 9, 2016 at 7:15 am

    Please allow me to offer my considered opinion on the above question. Either of two things: a) state and federal legislators KNOW the Constitution but choose to ignore it, especially when it comes to a registrant’s rights, and that is due in whole or in part to a public thirst for vengence on people who have committed sex offenses. Further, state and federal legislators have psychological/political fear of being labeled soft on registrants because that label can and will be used against him/her in their next election bid. b) state and federal legislators DON”T know the constitution. And if this is the case then this portends future dangerness on their part because now these people are subject to pass any type of onerous/draconian legislation and apply it to any or all despised group(s). It would appear that there are no more wise, grey haired people. People with cool heads that impart wise counsel—true elder statemen. It would appear that the majority of state and federal legislators are more than willing to sell their souls for thirty pieces of silver and win the next election. You know, as a kid in the late ’50s and early ’60s, my childhood hero was Perry Mason. My grandmother got me to watching that show because she like Perry Mason too. Perry Mason stood for justice, stood for what was right regardless the cost of his reputation he hung in there. And even though he was a fictional character, the principals he stood for are not fictional—they are real. However, today there are no Perry Masons. Oh yes, you have people that try and stand for what is right and just but these people are in the minority, drowned out by a majority who would take all rights and justice away. Makes me think of the Nazi and what they did to the Jewish people in the 1930s. Are we there yet? But when it comes to people who should know the US Constitution best and stand up for those principals enumerated therein and who kills me the most are those cowards that sit on the US Supreme Court! Specifically the ruling they made in Smith v Doe (2003) where a 6-3 majority held Alaska’s sex offender registration was “CIVIL/REGULATORY” and therefore was not “PUNISHMENT”. I mean seriously??? Are you kidding me? It was the three dissenting justices who got it perfect. Justice Ginsberg, Justice Souter, and Justice Breyer hit the nail square on the head with their dissent. The other 6 were either mentally retarded or bent over backward to appease an angry, vengful public—take your pick. I just know that these 6 people did not protect the rights of a depised group, did not uphold the Constitutional prohibitions of Ex Post Facto, Due Process, both Procedural and Substantive, and Equal Protection. This they abdicated to remain in favor—publical and politically and that makes them no Perry Masons.

  2. August 9, 2016 at 7:38 am

    Thank you for writing this column! I have seen firsthand legislators at the city, county and state levels utter the very words “let the courts decide” when it comes to bills that they pass. It is because of their disregard for the Constitution that I have carried with me for several years a pocket Constitution. I’ve read from it many times when testifying before a legislative body. I’ve also taken large copies of the Constitution to hearings and made them a gift to the legislative body along with encouraging words to read and apply it. I encourage others to do the same.

  3. mike r
    August 9, 2016 at 6:20 pm

    man will you are one very intelligent and articulate individual…just about every post you make on this site there’s something I can use in drafting my motion.if you happen to have any post on the effectiveness of the registry or ineffectiveness of it with cited sources to help cement my argument that the registry is completely useless please feel free to post it or contact me.thanks

  4. The Inquiring Mind
    August 10, 2016 at 6:51 am

    Ms. Bellucci~

    I am a big fan and a great admirer of your work in CA. I watched one of your lectures on utube on the unconstitutionality of SO registry/registration(SORR). You had mentioned in this lecture a planned attack on SORR in the US Supreme Court. If so, I have a question for you: How are you going to, with the ‘Clearest of Proof”, show that SORR is in fact “punishment”? Because as you well know, there was a 6-3 decision in the 2003 Smith v Doe case in which the majority ruled SORR was not punishment but civil/regulatory. A disingenuous ruling in my opinion but that’s what they held. Justices Breyer, Souter & Ginsberg got it right in their respective dissents. If you have not already, I would recommend that you read “Smith v. Doe: Judicial Deference Towards the Legislative Intent Behind a Broad, Punitive Civil Law Betrays the Core Principles of the Ex Post Facto Clause” by Dana L. McDonald. This is an excellent paper that breaks down the majority’s irrational/dubious holding in Smith v Doe. I say this Ms. Bellucci because if you cannot show that SORR is punitive in effect then your challenge won’t be successful. Oh, and I also recommend you read “But seriously folks – SORA is punishment”, which is another excellent paper from “Appellate Squawk” blog.
    Thank you again Ms. Bellucci and have a great day.

  5. The Inquiring Mind
    August 11, 2016 at 7:02 am

    Hi Mike R~
    To answer your questions I recommend reading everything by Dr. Jill Levenson, Florida International University. She has written extentively on SO laws and is considered an expert on this matter. Also, Catherine Carpenter, law professor Southeastern Law School out in California has wriiten an excellent paper: “The Evolution of Unconstitutionality in Sex Offender Registration Laws”. This too has excellent insight. But from my own point of view, sex offender (SO) laws are just flat out evil, not ot mention unconstitutional. These laws violate every tentant of Ex Post Facto (increases penalties after your conviction and sentence), Due Process, (arbitrary denial of life, liberty, or property by the Government) Equal Protection (denial of protection). The fifth and fourteenth and maybe even a the eighth (crual and unusual punishment) amendments to have been stripped away from people who have committed sex crimes. But don’t get my wrong here, I am not for sex offenses, i have three small grandbabies and I will KILL you for harming them and you can tell anybody I said that and I would call into question any man’s manhood who wouldn’t do the same. What I don’t like about this crap is how they (Government) can just take away a person’s constitutional rights without a hearing, with you being about to tell your side, or defend yourself against charges, or confront your accuser. They just arbitarially “F” your life up by subjecting you to these laws and then they (Courts) have the nerve, the gall, to say with a straight face that SO laws are not punishment but civil/regulatory! What the “F”??? Not punishment!!! Are you “shitting” me??? They must think registrants are mentally retarded. Anytime you disenfranchise, banish, stigmatize/scarlett letter, deny housing, jobs, and most importantly break-up or prevent family relationships, you are punishing that person or people. And this is exactly what SO laws do. If I had th e opportunity to do so I would love sit down with a few top proponents of SO laws, I don’t care who they would be. I would just like to sit down with these people and question them, make them convince me that SO laws are good for anybody and do what they purport to do, i.e., protect the community, ask why they are quick to supplant people’s constitutional rights. Because if protecting the community is the goal of a registry then why not a murderer’s registry, a robber’s registry, a burgular’s registry, a car thief, drug dealer and home invader’s registry—do not these people pose a threat to the community too? I’m just saying. Thank you Mike r.

  6. mike r
    August 11, 2016 at 1:42 pm

    great feedback inquiring I will definitely research the sources you provided so far the following issues are what I have in my motion but I think I will include a cruel and unusual punishment claim and a ex post facto claim as well even though that claim has been repeatedly rejected if argued correctly in the environment that we have now it could possibly be effective…

    This court has jurisdiction because ________________________________________________________________

    I the plaintiff ______________________do hereby bring forth this motion for Declaratory and/or Injunction relief.

    Introduction.

    This motion is being brought forth as a as applied challenge to the constitutionality of the sex offender registration and notification laws or Megan’s law (CA Penal Code § 290, Sex Offender Registration Act) as applied to me.

    I am the plaintiff in this case. I am a United States citizen who resides in Sacramento, CA.
    I am a non-violent, non-contact first time ex-offender from a incident that occurred over a decade ago. There was never any physical contact between myself and any victim. I completed my prison sentence and parole supervision without any incidents or violations despite all the obstacles and conditions of parole that were placed on me because of the sex offender designation. I have been arrest free and a completely law abiding citizen since my release. I do not pose any cognizable risk to the public. I was already severely punished for my offense and have been subjected to intensive monitoring and supervision while on parole. I should not be subjected to these registration and notification laws that involve consequences that are severely detrimental to so many aspects of my life.

    Issues.

    (1) The sex offender registration and notification laws (CA Penal Code § 290, Sex Offender Registration Act) violate my constitutionally protected liberty interest in my reputation which is protected under the federal due process clause in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and the California Constitution’s Article I, Section 7 on “due process, equal protection and the right to travel”.

    (2) The sex offender registration and notification laws (CA Penal Code § 290, Sex Offender Registration Act) violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth amendment of the United States Constitution and the California Constitution’s Article I, Section 7 on “due process, equal protection and the right to travel”

    (3) Sex offender registration and notification laws (CA Penal Code § 290, Sex Offender Registration Act) violate my constitutionally protected liberty interests by infringing on my freedom of movement and my freedom of association which is protected under the Fifth and Fourteenth amendment of the United States Constitution and the California Constitution’s Article I, Section 7 on “due process, equal protection and the right to travel”

    (4) Sex offender registration and notification laws (CA Penal Code § 290, Sex Offender Registration Act) violate my constitutionally protected right to liberty and to be free from unreasonable, arbitrary and oppressive official actions, which is protected under the Fifth and Fourteenth amendment of the United States Constitution and the California Constitution’s Article I, Section 7 on “due process, equal protection and the right to travel”

    (5) The sex offender registration and notification laws (CA Penal Code § 290, Sex Offender Registration Act) violate my constitutionally protected right to procedural due process which is protected under the federal due process clause in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and the California Constitution’s Article I, Section 7 on “due process, equal protection and the right to travel” with an irrefutable presumption of future offending that is universally untrue and which provides no meaningful process to determine such facts.

    once again thanks for the positive feedback….

  7. mike r
    August 11, 2016 at 1:46 pm

    I am also going to include the federal laws I am in the process of determining exactly what code section I need to include such as 42 USC § 16913 and exactly who I have to name as defendants..any help on that would be great

  8. mike r
    August 11, 2016 at 4:08 pm

    man that Catherine evolution of sex offender laws is an incredible article I wonder how much of that can be used in my motion…that’s great feedback inquiring…

  9. The Inquiring Mind
    August 12, 2016 at 6:41 am

    Morning Mike~

    I like where you’re going with this but here is the thing, that 2003 ruling in Smith v. Doe that SO laws were not punishment but civil kills all of this. [But read Justices Souter, Ginsberg & Breyer dissenting opinions for ammo] This 6-3 ruling actually stripped away the very constitutional protections [Due Process, Equal Protection Ex Post Facto & Liberty Interest] you are raising in your petition. Until a very, very smart lawyer, and I will mention a couple, can figure out how to show the US Supreme Court that SO registration/registry is in fact and in effect punitive, then any attack on SO laws will be like—well, do you remember the movie” War of the Worlds” where the aliens had this impenetrable shield around their ships and US military artillary couldn’t touch them? Well, the US Supreme Court are the aliens and they have an impenetrable shield call “Not Punishment” around SO laws. However, remember how the aliens were defeated? Anyway Mike see below:

    Here you go Mike, two best people in CA on this you can have. If they were a soldiers they’d be a four star Generals, real warriors. So give them a shout.

    a) Law Offices of Janice M Bellucci
    235 E Clark Ave Ste C
    Santa Maria, CA, 93455-5318
    Office (805) 896-7854

    b) Catherine L. Carpenter
    Southwestern Law School
    3050 Wilshire Blvd
    Los Angeles, CA 90010
    Office (213) 738-6875

  10. mike r
    August 12, 2016 at 9:59 am

    thanks inquire. I have talked with janice and I don’t believe she is ready to go forward on these particular issues but I will be contacting Catherine to see what she thinks or if she would help..the thing is is that these previous cases were not armed with the type of facts and empirical evidence that we have today proving that the registries justification was founded on misinformation and flat out lies and the overwhelming amount of data and research showing the ineffectiveness and counterproductivity of the registry along with all the documented collateral damage caused by these laws.yes it must be argued with precision and flawlessly in order to prevail….

  11. mike r
    August 12, 2016 at 10:04 am

    I am not sure if you have seen or read exactly what I have drafted so far but you seem like a very intelligent person and any feedback you give me is greatly appreciated. I find it very difficult to get any constructive criticism or constructive feedback so here is a copy of my motion and remember I am still in the process of determining what US codes and what defendants I need to name
    ..

    This court has jurisdiction because ________________________________________________________________

    I the plaintiff ______________________do hereby bring forth this motion for Declaratory and/or Injunction relief.

    Introduction.

    This motion is being brought forth as a as applied challenge to the constitutionality of the sex offender registration and notification laws or Megan’s law (CA Penal Code § 290, Sex Offender Registration Act) as applied to me.

    I am the plaintiff in this case. I am a United States citizen who resides in Sacramento, CA.
    I am a non-violent, non-contact first time ex-offender from a incident that occurred over a decade ago. There was never any physical contact between myself and any victim. I completed my prison sentence and parole supervision without any incidents or violations despite all the obstacles and conditions of parole that were placed on me because of the sex offender designation. I have been arrest free and a completely law abiding citizen since my release. I do not pose any cognizable risk to the public. I was already severely punished for my offense and have been subjected to intensive monitoring and supervision while on parole. I should not be subjected to these registration and notification laws that involve consequences that are severely detrimental to so many aspects of my life.

    Issues.

    (1) The sex offender registration and notification laws (CA Penal Code § 290, Sex Offender Registration Act) violate my constitutionally protected liberty interest in my reputation which is protected under the federal due process clause in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and the California Constitution’s Article I, Section 7 on “due process, equal protection and the right to travel”.

    (2) The sex offender registration and notification laws (CA Penal Code § 290, Sex Offender Registration Act) violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth amendment of the United States Constitution and the California Constitution’s Article I, Section 7 on “due process, equal protection and the right to travel”

    (3) Sex offender registration and notification laws (CA Penal Code § 290, Sex Offender Registration Act) violate my constitutionally protected liberty interests by infringing on my freedom of movement and my freedom of association which is protected under the Fifth and Fourteenth amendment of the United States Constitution and the California Constitution’s Article I, Section 7 on “due process, equal protection and the right to travel”

    (4) Sex offender registration and notification laws (CA Penal Code § 290, Sex Offender Registration Act) violate my constitutionally protected right to liberty and to be free from unreasonable, arbitrary and oppressive official actions, which is protected under the Fifth and Fourteenth amendment of the United States Constitution and the California Constitution’s Article I, Section 7 on “due process, equal protection and the right to travel”

    (5) The sex offender registration and notification laws (CA Penal Code § 290, Sex Offender Registration Act) violate my constitutionally protected right to procedural due process which is protected under the federal due process clause in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and the California Constitution’s Article I, Section 7 on “due process, equal protection and the right to travel” with an irrefutable presumption of future offending that is universally untrue and which provides no meaningful process to determine such facts.

    Facts.

    (1) My constitutionally-protected right to reputation is encroached upon by an irrefutable presumption of future offending that is universally untrue.

    The United States Supreme Court has previously recognized that a person’s reputation is a protected liberty interest under the federal due process clause. Wisconsin v. Constantineau, 400 U.S. 433 (1971) (hereafter “Constantineau”); Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (1972) (hereafter “Roth”).

    In Constantineau, the State of Wisconsin authorized the posting of a notice prohibiting the sale or gift of liquor to any person who “‘by excessive drinking’ produces described conditions or exhibits specified traits, such as exposing himself or family ‘to want’ or becoming ‘dangerous to the peace’ of the community.” On appeal, the Constantineau Court recognized that “[i]t would be naive not to recognize that such ‘posting’ or characterization of an individual will expose him to public embarrassment and ridicule.” 400 U.S. at 436. The Court therefore held that a protectible liberty interest is implicated “[w]here a person’s good name, reputation, honor, or integrity is at stake because of what the government is doing to him [or her.]” Id. at 437.

    One year later, the Court again recognized a person’s liberty interest may be implicated by damage to his or her reputation. See Roth, 408 U.S. at 573. The plaintiff in Roth, a university professor, alleged that “the failure of University officials to give him notice of any reason for non-retention and an opportunity for a hearing violated his right to procedural due process of law.” Id. at 569. The Roth Court reasoned that in declining to hire the plaintiff, the state had neither advanced “any charge against him that might seriously damage his standing and associations in the community” nor “imposed on him a stigma or other disability that foreclosed his freedom to take advantage of other employment opportunities.” Id. at 573. The Roth Court noted, however, that “a different case” would have been presented had the state either damaged the plaintiff’s reputation or imposed a stigma on him. Id. at 573-74.

    However, in Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, reh’g denied, 425 U.S. 985 (1976), the Court clarified that “reputation alone, apart from some more tangible interests such as employment, is [n]either ‘liberty’ [n]or ‘property’ by itself sufficient to invoke the procedural protection of the Due Process Clause.” Id. at 701. The plaintiff in Paul alleged a deprivation of liberty without due process of law after the circulation of flyers publicizing his conviction for shoplifting and labeling him an “active shoplifter.” Id. at 712. According to the Paul Court, because the plaintiff’s harm was not accompanied by the alteration of “a right or status previously recognized by state law,” there was no deprivation of a protectible liberty interest. Id. at 711-12.

    Paul has been interpreted to require “stigma plus” in order to establish a constitutional deprivation. See, e.g., Valmonte v. Bane, 18 F.3d 992, 999 (2d Cir. 1994). In other words, “an allegation that government dissemination of information or government defamation has caused damage to reputation, even with all the attendant emotional anguish and social stigma, does not in itself state a cause of action for violation of a constitutional right, infringement of more ‘tangible interests’ must be alleged as well”. Borucki v. Ryan, 827 F.2d 836, 842-43 (1st Cir. 1987); see also Marshall v. University of Hawaii, 9 Haw. App. 21, 32, 821 P.2d 937, 948 (1991).

    Courts have recognized the serious harm to other “tangible interests” as a result of registration as a sex offender. Potential employers and landlords are reluctant to employ or rent to me once they learn of my status as a “sex offender”. See Pataki III, 3 F. Supp. 2d at 468; W.P. v. Poritz, 931 F. Supp. 1199, 1219 (D.N.J. 1996), rev’d, 119 F.3d 1077 (3d Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1110 (1998) [hereinafter Verniero]; see also In re Reed, 663 P.2d 216 (Cal. 1983) (quoting In re Birch, 515 P.2d 12 (Cal. 1973)). (8). Indeed, the public notification provisions do adversely affect my personal and professional life, employability, associations with neighbors and choice of housing. Noble v. Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision, 964 P.2d 990, 995-96 (Or. 1998); State v. Myers, 923 P.2d 1024, 1041 (Kan. 1996), cert. denied, 521 U.S. 1118 (1997); Rowe v. Burton, 884 F. Supp. 1372, 1378 (D. Alaska 1994), appeal dismissed, 85 F.3d 635 (9th Cir. 1996) (personal and professional lives); Artway v. Attorney General, 876 F. Supp. 666, 668 (D.N.J. 1995),aff’d in part and vacated in part, 81 F.3d 1235 (3d Cir.), reh’g denied, 83 F.2d 594 (1996) (employability and associations with neighbors); Robin L. Deems, Comment, California’s Sex Offender Notification Statute: A Constitutional Analysis, 33 San Diego L. Rev. 1195 (1996) (citing Jenny A. Montana, Note, An Ineffective Weapon in the Fight Against Child Sexual Abuse: New Jersey’s Megan’s Law, 3 J. L. & Pol’y 569, 580-81 (1995)) (choice of housing). In addition, public disclosure encourages vigilantism and exposes me to possible physical violence. (9)See, e.g., Poritz, 662 A.2d at 430-31 (Stein, J., dissenting); Pataki I, 940 F. Supp. 603, 608-11 (S.D.N.Y. 1996); Doe v. Gregoire, 960 F. Supp. 1478, 1485 (W.D. Wash. 1997). Indeed, [w]hen a government agency focuses its machinery on the task of determining whether a person should be labeled publicly as having a certain undesirable characteristic or belonging to a certain undesirable group, and that agency must by law gather and synthesize evidence outside the public record in making that determination, the interest of the person to be labeled goes beyond mere reputation. . . . [I]t is an interest in avoiding the social ostracism, loss of employment opportunities, and significant likelihood of verbal and, perhaps, even physical harassment likely to follow from designation.
    Noble, 964 P.2d at 995-96.

    The Paul Court recognized that, in addition to the interests recognized by state law, “[t]here are other interests . . . protected not by virtue of their recognition by the law of a particular State but because they are guaranteed in one of the provisions of the Bill of Rights which has been ‘incorporated’ into the Fourteenth Amendment.” Paul, 424 U.S. at 710 n.5. As an example, in Bohn, 772 F.2d at 1436 n.4, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit found a protectible interest in reputation where the stigma of being identified as a child abuser was tied to the protectible interest in privacy and autonomy of family relationships. See also Poritz, 662 A.2d at 419 (holding that the stigma resulting from notification that petitioner was a sex offender was tied to the protectible interest in privacy inasmuch as he had an interest in his reputation); Neal, 131 F.3d at 830 (holding that Hawaii’s designating of prisoner as “sex offender” without hearing and requiring successful completion of treatment program as precondition for parole eligibility together implicated a liberty interest protected by the right to due process of law).

    Additionally, in an oft-quoted dissent in Poe v. Ullman,367 U.S. 497 (1961), Justice Harlan wrote,
    [T]he full scope of liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution. This ‘liberty’ is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property; the freedom of speech, press, and religion; the right to keep and bear arms; the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on. It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints.
    Id. at 543 (Harlan, J., dissenting).[4] These words “eloquently” describe the Court’s role in the substantive due process inquiry. Moore v. City of East Cleveland,431 U.S. 494, 501 (1977).

    These laws effectively brand me a “sex offender”, i.e., a public danger, for life. See Doe v. Pataki, 3 F. Supp. 2d 456, 467 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) [here in after Pataki III]; Doe v. Attorney General, 686 N.E.2d 1007, 1013 (Mass. 1997) [hereinafter Doe II];see also Bohn v. County of Dakota, 772 F.2d 1433, 1436 n.4 (8th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1014 (1986).

    Specifically, the public notification provisions imply that I am potentially dangerous, thereby undermining my reputation and standing in the community. Doe v. Poritz, 662 A.2d 367, 419 (N.J. 1995); cf. Neal v. Shimoda, 131 F.3d 818, 829 (9th Cir. 1997) (noting that “[o]ne need only look to the increasingly popular ‘Megan’s laws’, whereby states require sex offenders to register with law enforcement officials, who are then authorized to release information about the sex offender to the public, to comprehend the stigmatizing consequences of being labeled a sex offender”). Indeed, public notification that I am a convicted sex offender implicitly announces that, in the eyes of the State, I present a risk of committing another sex offense. Doe II, 686 N.E.2d at 144.

    The sex offender registration and notification laws or Megan’s law is causing irreparable harm to my reputation and professional life, employability, associations with neighbors, and choice of housing.

    The sex offender registration and notification laws violate my liberty interest in my reputation by making public my current personal address and current photo which is not public information and which puts me in physical harm every time I enter or leave my home and even while I’m in my home I can not feel safe. This information is also being publicly distributed on the Internet from privately owned and operated websites such as homefacts.com. That information being made public puts not only myself but my families lives and property in danger of physical harm, harassment and vandalism. These claims are not hypothetical situations or exaggerations, these claims are facts and the possibilities of these incidents occurring are real and in fact some have already occurred in my case. The Megan’s law website also displays my criminal record which is only available to authorized individuals who meet certain criteria and have a need to know basis, not to the general public at a click of a computer mouse.
    These laws affect and limit employment as very few employers will hire me simply because I am on a sex offender website that is accessible to the general public. These laws also restrict or limit my ability to travel for work or to be employed by local, state or federal agencies and severely affects my ability to obtain a business licence or business loans. They also limit what professions and careers that I can pursue and affect my personal and professional relationships in a severely negative way because of my inclusion on the sex offender registry and the publicly accessible Megan’s law website. These issues are not minor inconveniences but are major obstacles to my financial stability and to my fundamental right to life and liberty for me and my family. It also affects housing because very few property owners or property management organizations will rent to me for fear of vandalism and or the loss of present or potential tenants because of the accessibility to the registry by the general public. I am reluctant to move or purchase property for fear that I may violate some local ordinance or be forced to move because of some new law or ordinance being enacted and applied retroactively. I am also reluctant to move or purchase property for fear that I will be subjected to even worse harassment and vandalism by the community in which I move then I have already endured in my present location. These laws create real fears of being the victim of vigilante attacks, harassment and vandalism which forces me limit my activities to avoid being outside of my residence for fear of being harmed or harassed. I have had to call the police twice due to my family and I being physically threatened in one instance and having threats and profanity written all over our porch on the

    See also for collateral damage caused by these laws.

    /blog/2015/05/19/collateral-damage-in-americas-war-on-sex-crimes.html
    , /blog/2015/02/09/spouse-of-registered-citizen-forced-to-quit-job-and-her-three-children-lose-their-home.html
    , /blog/2014/12/01/refugees-usa-families-destroyed-by-the-registry.html
    . /blog/2014/02/25/government-sanctioned-cruelty-to-over-half-1-million-american-children.html

    I have a liberty interest protected by the Constitution that entitles me to procedural due process because of: (1) the public disclosure of accumulated and synthesized personal information that would not otherwise be easily available; (2) the harm to my personal and professional life; (3) the foreseeable harm to my reputation; and (4) the statutory branding of me as a public danger, i.e., as a sex offender. I note that the “interest cannot be captured in a single word or phrase. It is an interest in knowing when the government is moving against you and why it has singled you out for special attention. It is an interest in avoiding the secret machinations of a Star Chamber.” Noble, 964 P.2d at 995.

    (2) The sex offender registration and notification laws are discriminating irrationally among classes of ex-offenders which violates the equal protection clauses.

    All sex offenders fall into the classification of felons and felons are a group or classification. The question is, are sex offenders being treated the same as all other felons, do other felons have to register or have the community notified of their presence after they have completed their sentence, are they being denied state and government services, are other felons restricted where they can live, work and recreate, do other felons face criminal prosecution, a felony offense which is punishable by three or more years in state prison, not for engaging in any type of criminal conduct but simply for not providing personal information to the government within a certain time frame? The answer is, no they are not. The courts have found that a distinction among members of the class of offenders is irrational regardless of the importance of public safety consideration underlying the regulations or relevance of prior convictions simply discerning any regulatory reason, however plausible, will not serve to satisfy the rational basis requirement of equal protection; relevant inquiry more properly focuses on whether the means utilized to carry out the regulatory purpose substantially furthers that end.

    These laws do not substantially further the regulatory purpose or the legislative objectives of increasing public safety, reducing sexual abuse or preventing recidivism as evidenced in the following reports and actual facts from the leading authorities on this subject.

    California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) End of Year Report 2014. (page 13)

    Under the current system many local registering agencies are challenged just keeping up with registration paperwork. It takes an hour or more to process each registrant, the majority of whom are low risk offenders. As a result law enforcement cannot monitor higher risk offenders more intensively in the community due to the sheer numbers on the registry. Some of the consequences of lengthy and unnecessary registration requirements actually destabilize the life’s of registrants and those -such as families- whose lives are often substantially impacted. Such consequences are thought to raise levels of known risk factors while providing no discernible benefit in terms of community safety.

    The full report is available online at. http://www.casomb.org/index.cfm?pid=231

    National Institute of Justice (NIJ) US Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs United States of America.

    The overall conclusion is that Megan’s law has had no demonstrated effect on sexual offenses in New Jersey, calling into question the justification for start-up and operational costs. Megan’s Law has had no effect on time to first rearrest for known sex offenders and has not reduced sexual re offending. Neither has it had an impact on the type of sexual re offense or first-time sexual offense. The study also found that the law had not reduced the number of victims of sexual offenses.

    The full report is available online at. https://www.ncjrs.gov/app/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=247350

    The University of Chicago Press for The Booth School of Business of the University of Chicago and The University of Chicago Law School Article DOI: 10.1086/658483

    Conclusion.
    The data in these three data sets do not strongly support the effectiveness of sex offender registries. The national panel data do not show a significant decrease in the rate of rape or the arrest rate for sexual abuse after implementation of a registry via the Internet. The BJS data that tracked individual sex offenders after their release in 1994 did not show that registration had a significantly negative effect on recidivism. And the D.C. crime data do not show that knowing the location of sex offenders by census block can help protect the locations of sexual abuse. This pattern of ineffectiveness across the data sets does not support the conclusion that sex offender registries are successful in meeting their objectives of increasing public safety and lowering recidivism rates.

    The full report is available online at. http://www.jstor.org/stable/full/10.

    From Justice Policy Institute.
    Estimated cost to implement SORNA
    Here are some of the estimates made in 2009 expressed in 2014 current dollars: California, $66M; Florida, $34M; Illinois, $24M; New York, $35M; Pennsylvania, $22M; Texas, $44M. In 2014 dollars, Virginia’s estimate for implementation was $14M, and the annual operating cost after that would be $10M.

    For the US, the total is $547M. That’s over half a billion dollars – every year – for something that doesn’t work.

    http://www.justicepolicy.org/images/upload/08-08_FAC_SORNACosts_JJ.pdf

    These conclusions are virtually the same in the majority of conclusions and reports on this subject from multiple government agencies and throughout the academic community.

    (3) The sex offender registration and notification laws violate my right to freedom of movement and freedom of association by severely curtailing my ability to travel both interstate and intrastate and also international travel. With all the different state laws and local ordinances that are in place and the constant introduction of new legislation in the different states and the constantly changing local ordinances in thousands of cities and counties across the country, it makes it virtually impossible for me to travel or visit anywhere in this country without a very real fear and potential for violating one of these laws or ordinances. It is virtually impossible for a person of average intelligence to research, assimilate and abide by all the different state laws and local ordinances that apply to registered sex offenders across the country. I can not visit family or friends without extensive research of local ordinances and state laws and even after extensive research I still fear I could have missed one of these laws or ordinances. I can not attend meetings or protest that occur in places that prohibit registered sex offenders from being present. The laws effectively bar me from attending higher education institutions simply because there are day care centers on most college campuses therefor curtailing my ability to obtain a higher education. The punishments for violating one of these laws or ordinances are severe. The registration and notification laws makes it virtually impossible for me to travel to a multitude of major countries in the world as they are notified by our government of my registration status so therefore I am denied entry. These are not hypothetical situations and are not minor inconveniences of registration but are major violations of my constitutional rights to liberty. These violations will continue to cause me irreparable damage as long as I am subjected to these registration and notification laws.

    (4). The sex offender registration and notification laws violate my right to be free from unreasonable, arbitrary and oppressive official actions. These laws achieve no legislative purpose as demonstrated above and are completely irrational as applied to me in my case since I currently pose no cognizable risk of re offense. Since I am a non-violent, non-contact, first time ex-offender from a incident that occurred over a decade ago there is no rational basis to continue to subject me to these laws that have consequences that destabilize my life, restricts my abilities to reintegrate into society and have been shown to actually increase known risk factors for re-offense while not achieving any legislative objective of preventing sexual abuse, increasing public safety or reducing recidivism. Since these laws have been seen as strictly regulatory in nature and not considered part of the punishment for an offense, there must be some evidence that the regulations actually achieve some legislative objective. These laws were originally designed to give law enforcement a tool to investigate and apprehend sexually violent predators, child abductors/rapist and habitual repeat offenders when such acts have been committed in the community but have since been expanded to the point to make the registration and notification laws useless to law enforcement or the general public. Just because these laws are so popular within the legislature or the public does not mean that there is a rational basis for such laws. With the facts and evidence of all the destabilizing collateral consequences I endure and all the recent research done on this subject there is overwhelming evidence that these laws are completely irrational and counterproductive especially when applied to non-violent, first time offenders such as myself who currently pose no cognizable risk of re-offense. The theory or legislative purpose for the sex offender registry that is stated by the legislative body and the courts is that there is a extremely high recidivism rate for sexual offences which has been irrefutably debunked.

    The Supreme Court has fed the fear of frightening high sex offender recidivism rates that has proven to be universally untrue. It’s become the “go to” source that courts and politicians rely upon for “facts” about sex offender recidivism rates that aren’t true. Its endorsement has transformed random opinions by self-interested non-experts into definitive studies offered to justify law and policy, while real studies by real scientists go unnoticed. The Court’s casual approach to the facts of sex offender re-offense rates is far more frightening than the rates themselves, and it’s high time for correction.

    The sources relied upon by the Supreme Court in Smith v. Doe, a heavily cited constitutional decision on sex offender registries, in fact provide no support at all for the facts about sex offender re-offense rates that the Court treats as central to its constitutional conclusions. This misreading of the social science was abetted in part by the Solicitor General’s misrepresentations in the amicus brief it filed in this case. The false “facts” stated in the opinion have since been relied upon repeatedly by other courts in their own constitutional decisions, thus infecting an entire field of law as well as policy making by legislative bodies. Recent decisions by the Pennsylvania and California supreme courts establish principles that would support major judicial reforms of sex offender registries, if they were applied to the actual facts.

    I am asking this court to apply the actual facts submitted in reports from the leading authorities and credible experts in the fields such as the following.

    California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB)

    Sex offender recidivism rate for a new sex offense is 0.8% (page 30)

    The full report is available online at

    http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Adult_Research_Branch/Research_Documents/2014_Outcome_Evaluation_Report_7-6-2015.pdf

    .
    Document title; A Model of Static and Dynamic Sex Offender Risk Assessment Author: Robert J. McGrath, Michael P. Lasher, Georgia F. Cumming Document No.: 236217 Date Received: October 2011 Award Number: 2008-DD-BX-0013

    Findings: Study of 759 adult male offenders under community supervision Re-arrest rate: 4.6% after 3-year follow-up
    The sexual re-offense rates for the 746 released in 2005 are much lower than what many in the public have been led to expect or believe. These low re-offense rates appear to contradict a conventional wisdom that sex offenders have very high sexual re-offense rates.

    The full report is available online at. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/236217.pdf

    Bureau of Justice Statistics
    5 PERCENT OF SEX OFFENDERS REARRESTED FOR ANOTHER SEX CRIME WITHIN 3 YEARS OF PRISON RELEASE
    WASHINGTON, D.C.

    Within 3 years following their 1994 state prison release, 5.3 percent of sex offenders (men who had committed rape or sexual assault) were rearrested for another sex crime, the Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) announced today.

    The full report is available online at. http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/press/rsorp94pr.cfm

    Document Title: SEX OFFENDER SENTENCING IN WASHINGTON STATE: RECIDIVISM RATES BY: Washington State Institute For Public Policy.

    A study of 4,091 sex offenders either released from prison or community supervision form 1994 to 1998 and examined for 5 years Findings: Sex Crime Recidivism Rate: 2.7%

    Link to Report: http://www.oncefallen.com/files/Washington_SO_Recid_2005.pdf

    Document Title: Indiana’s Recidivism Rates Decline for Third Consecutive Year BY: Indiana Department of Correction 2009.

    The recidivism rate for sex offenders returning on a new sex offense was 1.05%, one of the lowest in the nation. In a time when sex offenders continue to face additional post-release requirements that often result in their return to prison for violating technical rules such as registration and residency restrictions, the instances of sex offenders returning to prison due to the commitment of a new sex crime is extremely low. Findings: sex offenders returning on a new sex offense was 1.05%

    Link to Report: http://www.in.gov/idoc/files/RecidivismRelease.pdf

    More state studies;
    AK 03% page 8 Criminal Recidivism in Alaska Alaska Judicial Council January 2007
    https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8635&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf
    AZ 05.5 % Sex Offender Recidivism Arizona dept. of corrections note bottom of page 03.3%
    https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8633&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf
    CA 00.8% The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) “2014 Outcome Evaluation Report“ http://californiarsol.org/2015/08/new-cdcr-report-reduces-rate-of-re-offense-to-less-than-1-percent.
    CA 05.0 % fig 12 California Department of Corrections And Rehabilitation
    2010 Adult Institutions Outcome Evaluation Report
    https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8632&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf
    CA 03.5% table 3-2 California sex offender management Board January 2008
    https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8630&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf
    CA figure 11 01.9% California sex offender management Board 2012 in looking at this one I realize that this is another attempt to increase the visual concept of a higher reoffend rate than actually exists you will note in table 11 , that there are 8490 released sex offenders and that 5870 are returned to prison or 69.1% going onto figure 11. The pie chart does not represent the 8490 but rather represents the 5870 . When you take this into account and do the math. 1.9% of 5870 comes out to 111 and 111 people involved in the new sex crime, out of 8490 comes out to an actual reoffend rate of 1.3% . This is just another way that the government is using razzle-dazzle techniques. In doing their statistical analysis.
    https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8943&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf
    CA 01.9 % figure 11 California Department of Corrections And Rehabilitation 2012 Outcome Evaluation Report
    https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8943&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf
    CA 5 year study 03.2% RECIDIVISM OF PAROLED SEX OFFENDERS – A FIVE (5) YEAR STUDY
    https://onedrive.live.com/?cid=A754C96E86E37F71&id=A754C96E86E37F71!8627
    CA 10 year study 03.3% RECIDIVISM OF PAROLED SEX OFFENDERS – A TEN (10) YEAR STUDY
    https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8626&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf
    CT page 9 01,7% And prisoners with no prior sex crime are six times more likely to be involved in a new sex crime Recidivism among sex offenders in Connecticut, State of Connecticut
    Office of Policy and Management, Criminal Justice Policy & Planning Division, February 15, 2012
    DE Table 26 03.1% REARREST 6 offenders and on table 27 3 Offenders were not found guilty of a crime that makes the percentage of people convicted of a new sex crime. 01.5% Rearrest should never be used as a determining factor. Delaware Sex Offenders, Profiles and Criminal Justice System Outcomes, January 2008
    https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8622&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf
    DE 3.8% rearrest table 7 Recidivism of Delaware Adult Sex Offenders Released from Prison in 2001 July 2007
    https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8621&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf
    DE 5% rearrest table 8 after 5 years Recidivism of Delaware Juvenile Sex Offenders Released in 2001 September 2007
    https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8620&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf
    FL 4.2% page10 Figure 2 10 year follow up SEX OFFENDER RISK AND RECIDIVISM IN FLORIDA
    https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8784&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf
    HI RECIDIVISM/REOFFENDING BY SEXUALLY ABUSIVE ADOLESCENTS: A DIGEST OF EMPIRICAL RESEARCH STUDIES Years: 1943-2008 85 RESEARCH STUDIES MEAN RECIDIVISM RATE FOR ALL STUDIES = 7.73%
    https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8619&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf
    IA page 7 #4 “With the overall recidivism for sex offenses as low as 2% “ Iowa Sex Offender Research Council Report to the Iowa General Assembly January 22, 2009
    https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8618&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf
    IA table 4 03% new sex crime THE IOWA SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY AND
    RECIDIVISM Iowa Department of Human Rights Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning and Statistical Analysis Center
    https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8617&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf
    IA ARREST 02.3% page 7 Iowa Department of Corrections Report to the Board of Corrections
    Third in a series of reports highlighting issues contributing to corrections population growth April 2006 Sex Offenders
    https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8616&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf
    IN bottom of page “1.05%of identified sex offender’srecidivated for a new sex crime within 3 years.” Indiana Department of Correction Recidivism Rates Decrease for 3rd Consecutive Year
    https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8935&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf

    IN page 22 05.7% Recidivism Rates Compared 2005-2007 Indiana Department of CORRECTION
    https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8936&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf
    ME page 12 03.8% Returned to prison for sex offense SEXUAL ASSAULT TRENDS
    AND SEX OFFENDER RECIDIVISM IN MAINE 2010
    https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8612&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf
    MI 8/10 of 1% three-year study has come out of Michigan looking at the number of people on parole that were returned to prison for new crimes they found that of the sex offenders who were released from prison and found that they were involved in the new sexually related crime at 8/10 of 1%, or in other words, that 99.2% DID NOT Reoffend in the new sex crime. And that they had the lowest reoffend rate of all the criminal classes released. the full report is here http://nationalrsol.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/CAPPS.pdf
    MN 5.7 % over 12 years Table 2 page 21 Sex Offender Recidivism in Minnesota April 2007
    https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8610&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf
    NY 04% profile and follow-up of sex offenders released in 1986 this one is another attempt to hide the facts . I finally found this information on page 19. They state that there were 556 offenders released below that on page 19. They show a table 14 the number of people related to each of those crimes that were returned to prison. If you look at the numbers for a new sex crime. You will see that they are 5,6,5 and 7 totaling 23 , when you do the percentages 23/556 UN that with the re-offense rate of 4% . If you look at the other graphs that they have provided they have shockingly high numbers . The problem is that they are only looking at the people that are returned to prison and ignoring the people that stayed out of prison. So their numbers are skewed because they did not include people not reoffending in their statistical data.
    https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8607&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf
    OH report to the Ohio criminal sentencing commission, January 2006 sex offenders Sex offenders in Ohio have a lower recidivism rate than the recidivism rate of all offenders (38.8 percent). A 10-year follow-up of a 1989 cohort of sex offenders released from Ohio prisons found that only 8 percent of sex offenders were recommitted for a new sex offense
    https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8604&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf
    OH Ten-Year Recidivism Follow-Up Of 1989 Sex Offender Releases EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommitment for a New Crime Sex Offense 8.0 % after 10 yeaars
    https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=A754C96E86E37F71!8603&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf
    WA03 07% Re-offended Department of Corrections Public Safety Update What is the re-offense behavior for sex offenders under supervision in the community? •Of the 264 offenders who committed a re-offense:•83% or 218 were unemployed •73% or 192 DID NOT have stable housing
    WY again I have to dig through the research to find the numbers . The end result is that between 2000 and 2005 , 545 sex offenders were released and of that 24 reoffended it in a new sex crime . That makes the reoffend charade of 04.4%
    For further information and empirical evidence on recidivism rates see also,
    http://sexoffender-statistics.blogspot.com/search/label/Recid%2001%25-05%25

    http://sexoffender-statistics.blogspot.com/search/label/Recid%2001%25-10%25

    http://sexoffenderissues.blogspot.com/p/studies.html

    http://www.oncefallen.com/recidivismchart.html

    /blog/2015/01/12/simple-question.html

    /blog/2014/11/06/why-are-the-reconviction-rates-so-important.html

    http://news.legislature.ne.gov/dist20/files/2013/08/NE_sex_offender_recidivism.pdf

    http://therealosc.blogspot.com/2013/04/as-we-said-so-long-ago.html

    https://rsoresearch.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/butner_study_debunking_kit.pdf

    http://www.oncefallen.com/SOMyths.html

    These conclusions are virtually the same in the majority of reports on this subject from multiple government agencies and throughout the academic community.

    When the laws that have been passed are based on the justification of the high numbers. And they come out, in fact, be not only low, but extremely low. Lower than any other group that does not have the same restrictions or requirements. You would think that there would be a public outcry to do away with these laws but because of politicians are continuing the myth for their political gain, as well as professionals who have a fiduciary interest in the myth continuing and victims advocates, whose only real purpose is revenge. as well as Sensationalism of the news media. All these people continue the myth. Even though the hard data shows that it is a lie. What is it going to take to bring sanity back to our country and overturned laws based on lies and myths? That are in fact a springboard to passing other laws taking away constitutional rights of the American citizens.

    Finally what is this lie that is so corrupting and insidious that it has destroyed lives, family’s and children. And the fear of being added to the list created by this law has caused both adults and children to commit suicide. The laws based on this lie that have stolen the constitutional protected rights of not only individuals but whole families, well the answer is real simple. The lie is that people who are involved in sex crimes, have a high propensity to do it again. And even though at the time that these laws were passed there were studies showing lower reoffend rates of those in this group than any other criminal class, the laws were passed based on studies that since have been proven false and inaccurate and all the recent studies have shown no high propensity to reoffend.

    Without this issue, (the high reoffend rate) to support the states justification of the existence of the laws the rest of their reasons fall way as nothing more than rules, regulations and laws based on fear that is now unjustified.

    Recently a number of legislators and news articles have attempted to use information from a study that said that one in four girls and one in five boys have been sexually abused before the age of 18 as proof of the high re-offense rates for people on the registry and they have used the twisted data mentioned above from the 1997 US Department of Justice study to prove their point, even though that researched conclusion ha been thoroughly debunked.

    First of all the student study on unreported sexual abuse has been called into doubt because of the type questions that were asked and the way that they were asked. They worded the questions on the study to get the answers that they wanted and not the facts or truth. They also biased study by using small numbers of the tested group that were chosen from specific locations that didn’t represent most groups of teenagers.

    But even if the numbers are correct there are a couple of other issue that need to be brought out that are totally being ignored by the yellow journalists that are attempting to make a point by using this information. We now know through multiple studies and lots of number crunching that the re-offense rate for people on the registry is less than 1% in any given year, and that means of the new sex crimes that are committed each year 99% plus are by people that are not on the registry. If there is under-reporting then it also has to follow that particular logical progression and that is if there is a percentage of under-reporting then 99% of those unreported crimes are not done by people on the registry.

    Here is the primary issue that should be pointed out, nowhere in the under-reporting study, or for that matter any accredited study, was there any proof that any portion of the under-reporting was due to people on the registry reoffending. For the media to jump to this conclusion is at the very least biased reporting.

    Therefore attempting to use under-reporting to justify the existence of the registry is another myth, or a lie. This is another form of misinformation perpetrated by those who either have a fiduciary interest in continuing the unconstitutional treatment of a disfavored group or are seeking to justify their need for punishment for people who have already paid for their crime by loss of their freedom through incarceration and are now attempting to reenter society as honest citizens. When this information is placed into the public’s attention by naive media then you have to wonder if the media also falls into one of these two groups that are not truly interested in reporting the truth.

    Both of these groups of people that have that type of mentality can be classified as vigilantes, bullies, or sociopaths, and are responsible for the destruction of our constitutional values and the erosion of personal freedoms in this country.

    (5) The sex offender registration and notification laws (CA Penal Code § 290, Sex Offender Registration Act) violate my constitutionally protected right to procedural due process with an irrefutable presumption of future offending that is universally untrue,(as demonstrated in the above studies), and which provides no meaningful process to determine such facts. When “particularly important” interests are involved in a civil proceeding, whether or not physical restraint is threatened, the United States Supreme Court has mandated a clear and convincing evidence standard of proof and stated that, “[n]otwithstanding ‘the state’s “civil labels and good intentions,” ‘ . . . this level of certainty [is deemed] necessary to preserve fundamental fairness in a variety of government-initiated proceedings that threaten the individual involved with ‘a significant deprivation of liberty’ or ‘stigma.’ ” Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 756 (1982) (requiring clear and convincing evidence standard to support termination of parental rights), quoting Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 425, 426, 427 (1979) (civil commitment); Woodby v. INS, 385 U.S. 276, 285 (1966) (deportation); Chaunt v. United States, 364 U.S. 350, 353 (1960) (denaturalization); Schneiderman v. United States, 320 U.S. 118, 125, 159 (1943) (denaturalization). A registrant’s liberty interest is seriously infringed in the creation of a long-term relationship with the police, in the potential criminal sanctions overshadowing that relationship, and in the stigma of notification – all penalties that are “more substantial than mere loss of money.” Santosky, supra, quoting Addington v. Texas, supra at 424.

    The court also too easily confines the State’s interest to a single dimension. While the primary purpose of the registration statute is to protect the public from sexual predators, the State also has “an interest in ensuring that its classification and notification system is both fair and accurate.” E.B. v. Verniero, supra at 1107. The State has no interest in making erroneous classifications and implementing overbroad registration and notifications. Id. See Doe v. Pataki, supra at (slip op. at 32). Contrary to the court’s conclusion, the burdens on the government are great, without any likely benefit, when it holds hearings for and maintains the registration of thousands of registrants for whom there is no clear evidence that they pose any danger to the public. Requiring the government to assemble and present clear evidence of a sex offender’s dangerousness would ensure that limited adjudicatory and police enforcement resources would be concentrated on those individuals who realistically may pose.threats to young children and other vulnerable populations. As observed in an altogether different context, but oddly apropos of this classification system as well, “when everything is classified, then nothing is classified, and the system becomes one to be disregarded by the cynical or the careless.” New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713, 729 (1971) (Stewart, J., concurring).

    Conclusion.

    (1) The sex offender registration and notification laws (CA Penal Code § 290, Sex Offender Registration Act. ) as applied to me, severely violate my fundamental liberty rights to my reputation and to my right to due process.

    (2). The sex offender registration and notification laws (CA Penal Code § 290, Sex Offender Registration Act. ) violate the equal protection clause.

    (3) The sex offender registration and notification laws (CA Penal Code § 290, Sex Offender Registration Act. ) violate my freedom of movement and freedom of association.

    (4). The sex offender registration and notification laws (CA Penal Code § 290, Sex Offender Registration Act. ) violate my right to be free from unreasonable, arbitrary and oppressive official actions.

    (5) The sex offender registration and notification laws (CA Penal Code § 290, Sex Offender Registration Act) violate my constitutionally protected right to procedural due process with an irrefutable presumption of future offending that is universally untrue and which provides no meaningful process to determine such facts.

    Supreme Court Justice Brandeis noted that the Founding Fathers
    recognized the significance of man’s spiritual nature, of his feelings and of his intellect. They knew that only a part of the pain, pleasure and satisfactions of life are to be found in material things. They sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensations. They conferred, as against the government, the right to be let alone-the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men.
    Olmstead v. United States,277 U.S. 438, 478 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting), overruled in part by Berger v. New York,388 U.S. 41 (1967) and Katz v. United States,389 U.S. 347 (1967).

    Law enforcement already has accessible records of my criminal record, including my DNA, my photograph and my complete set of prints and can easily locate me if they were to implicate me in a crime in the future. That process is the alternative to sex offender registration and notification laws and is the least restrictive measure that is available to the government that is related to the legislative objectives of increasing public safety and preventing recidivism. Furthermore, the government already has a meaningful process to determine if an individual poses a significant risk for re offense before ever releasing the person from custody. It is available in the states civil commitment statues. If a person is found to present a potentially high risk of re offense then that individual is confined under the civil commitment statues until it is determined that they no longer pose a risk to the public.
    It is in the public best interest to grant me this relief as it will increase my ability to reintegrate into society and increase the probability that I will maintain stability in my life and be a law abiding, productive member of society which actually decreases my risk for re-offense even further. It will also allow governmental agencies and law enforcement agencies to re-direct their limited resources to monitor high risk offenders more intensively thereby increasing public safety. It will also save the state tax payer dollars that can be used for policies that have proven to actually be effective.
    These laws will continue to cause me irreparable damage if the court fails to grant me relief.
    No one can doubt that child sexual abuse is traumatic and devastating. The question is not whether the state has an interest in preventing such harm, but whether current laws are effective in doing so.

    Prayer.
    I pray the court grant me Declaratory relief and/or Injunction relief or any other relief the court deems necessary and to enjoin local, state, and federal agencies from requiring me to register as a sex offender and subjecting me to the public notification laws (CA Penal Code § 290, Sex Offender Registration Act. ) .

    I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to my knowledge on __________ Signed: _____________________________

  12. Extremely Disgruntled
    August 14, 2016 at 3:36 pm

    And of course added with all of your Federal stuff, please mention the fact that the State of Ohio Supreme Court has already RULED that the AWA as punitive and falls under Ex-Post Facto under THEIR own Constitution (Ohio’s paralleling the US Constitution in ex-post-facto wording,) in the Williams 2011-Ohio 3374 decision reverting most all classified since the Bodyke decision which illegally RE-classified everyone there after AWA first went into effect in 2007 back to Megan’s Law which was in effect when the actual crimes were committed. Basically, everyone RE-classified were reverted (Bodyke), and anyone whose crimes were BEFORE 1/1/2008 went BACK under Megan’s Law, even if they were sentenced under AWA (Williams). Ohio was WISE in ruling this way as to take SCOTUS out of the picture in removing the possibility of THEIR ruling being overturned. SOSEN does have a copy of the decision floating around, and on the OH SC site they have the actual oral argument of 45 minutes or so which is a nice sit down and watch when you have the time. Ms. Szudy really makes the case and is a pleasure watching her (and the Court) make the prosecution squirm. A 41 minute video, 227.22 MB if you download it in MP4 from the Court site. I know, I did, and have my own copy now.

    Amy Borrors testimony SOURCES are here:
    Written testimony:
    U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY SUBCOMMITTEE ON
    CRIME, TERRORISM, AND HOMELAND SECURITY HEARING ON THE SEX OFFENDER
    REGISTRATION AND NOTIFICATION ACT (SORNA) TUESDAY, MARCH 10, 2009
    http://judiciary.house.gov/_files/hearings/pdf/Borror090310.pdf

    Video link from the RSOL Youtube page:
    https://youtu.be/75VBmND8A98

    Hope this helps. Any questions, use the forums, and also look in the Ohio forum on SOSEN for more material. Many cases that Ohio has BLAZED as they were the first to pretty much implement AWA and found out the hard way how LEGALLY wrong they were to do so as they originally legislated it. Re-read that last sentence. Everyone else seems to have either NOT implemented the AWA, or made it PRO-active instead of RETRO-active and made it harder, but not impossible to fight.

  13. The Inquiring Mind
    August 15, 2016 at 8:00 am

    Hi Mike r~

    Yes sir, I have just completed reading your petition and I believe you have something here; now, if you can just get an attorney to help you out with this. I say you need a lawyer because courts aren’t to keen on listening to Pro Se litigants. And then the complexities of navigating throught the court system, e.g., filing deadlines, answering pleadings, costs, etc., is a B.I.T.C.H I’m telling you. So I would recommend you try and get yourself a good lawyer. Thanks Mike r and Godspeed.

  14. mike r
    August 15, 2016 at 11:55 am

    thanks for the feedback im taking everything you guys are saying in. there will be arguments including ex post facto claim and cruel and unusual punishment claim and maybe even more as I research this more. I would love to have an attorney who would help but I have tried extensively to get help and will continue to do and believe me I know how involved it is and how stringent I will have to be in order for my case to continue in the courts all the way up to SCOTUS if necessary. I am currently working on my pro se argument now and so far have the following
    .

    pro se

    Elmore v. McCammon (1986) 640 F. Supp. 905
    “… the right to file a lawsuit pro se is one of the most important rights under the constitution and laws.”

    Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1959);
    Pro se pleadings are to be considered without regard to technicality; pro se litigants’ pleadings are not to be held to the same high standards of perfection as lawyers.

    Maty v. Grasselli Chemical Co., 303 U.S. 197 (1938)
    “Pleadings are intended to serve as a means of arriving at fair and just settlements of controversies between litigants. They should not raise barriers which prevent the achievement of that end. Proper pleading is important, but its importance consists in its effectiveness as a means to accomplish the end of a just judgment.”

    Puckett v. Cox, 456 F. 2d 233 (1972) (6th Cir. USCA)
    It was held that a pro se complaint requires a less stringent reading than one drafted by a lawyer per Justice Black in Conley v. Gibson.

    Picking v. Pennsylvania Railway, 151 F.2d. 240, Third Circuit Court of Appeals
    The plaintiff’s civil rights pleading was 150 pages and described by a federal judge as “inept”. Nevertheless, it was held “Where a plaintiff pleads pro se in a suit for protection of civil rights, the Court should endeavor to construe Plaintiff’s Pleadings without regard to technicalities.”

    42 USC § 16913

    also working on what US codes I need to include such as the one above..

  15. mike r
    August 29, 2016 at 1:18 pm

    hey Will got a question..why do you think none of these organizations will bring suit challenging the real issues instead of these incremental or technical issues? just curious on your take about this….

    • Will Bassler
      August 29, 2016 at 2:13 pm

      it’s called setting the stage for the big fight baby steps the second world war against Japan was not won by the atomic bomb it was won by a whole bunch of battles and then the knockout blow was delivered to the Japanese mainland it’s easier for us to win some of these small battles than we have case law on our side to attack the larger ones

  16. mike r
    August 30, 2016 at 3:20 pm

    well I hope by this time next year we are ready to drop the big bomb because I’ll be filing my atomic bomb then ready or not……..I’m not waiting 20-30-40 years to see something significant happen…thanks for the feedback Will…

Comments are closed.