The Sleeper has Awakened

I, like many people, have for a very long time been plagued by stressful dreams.  Perchance it is my affinity for science fiction that many of the dreams fall into places and situations that seem outer worldly, then at other times they are very down to earth, but not necessarily places or times that I am actually familiar with. As I now look back on many of them I find  a similarity, I’m either forced to stand to the side and watch others being treated badly or am involved in trying to help, calm or perfect a person or group that I am part of.

Tonight I woke from one of those dreams with the realization that within those dreams that I am not myself. Sometimes I am one of the affected groups or sometimes I’m one of the majority that is doing the harm  I’m seeing in my dreams. When I am on the controlling group side I feel nothing if not anger and discussed for the actions of my peers but I’m trapped by my position within the group.

Perhaps you say, that is because I am one of the disfavored members of society and because of that I feel an empathy towards all others who because of their difference are being attacked and disfranchised. But my dreams take me across this world and beyond they have always, it seems been trying to show me something from the perspective of others. those others have not been necessarily been of my race, color, creed or religion nor have I found myself in places familiar or am I just in my time.

I have sat on the councils that judged witches and demons based on twisted religious beliefs and I’ve been a member of the family’s of those who are being judged. I’m was honest member of a gypsy caravan whose members have been rounded up and sent to the death camps, and I’ve been one of the soldiers doing the rounding up. I have walked the trail of tears as a Cherokee and as a soldier, I have been a poor child and the Sheriff caught up in America’s eugenics movement. I have been a pagan and Christian in ancient Rome. How many times and how many conflicts I have been on both sides of that fence in so many different situations. I cannot begin to tell you. In every case where there has been disfranchising no matter what side I have been on I have felt the frustration, the sadness, the shame, and the anger at not being able to do anything to help those from both sides knowing that many of my peers have felt the same as I do.

Tonight it was different it was as though I had stepped outside of the people directly involved. That are the boots on the ground level of things and reached into a plane above some of the common people’s problems standing off to the side and watching not the control-e but the controllers and I’ve recognize something. The problem of human suffering does not stem from the actions of the people directly involved in the conflict it comes from the policymakers, the religious leaders, the back seat drivers, and the zealots, whether their reasoning is based on religion or ethnicity, color, race, money or just plain irrational dislike of another group. They are responsible for placing the hate and distrust in those under them and then turning them loose like some child’s wild windup toy that slams into the walls until they destroy themselves and the other things around them.

Our founding fathers struggled with the same things as we are today where groups of people or those in power have attempted to take away basic human rights. That is why they wrote the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. They attempted to lay down moral guidelines for this country to follow.  Those guidelines can be put into simple terms even today,  All human beings have a right to live their lives as best they can with out fear of other groups, countries or governments including our own interfering in those individual freedoms. Those guidelines also point out that we are free to follow our beliefs. But we cannot force our religious or personal viewpoints on to others. 

There is a great evil in this world, but it doesn’t come from common people no matter what group they are in, what color they are, what their religion is, or their ethnicity, it comes from single individuals and small groups of people who force their values and beliefs onto others.  They attempt to take away peoples human right to live a life that is unburdened by overbearing restrictions and the fear of imprisonment or death.

We talk about the moral code of religious values. In reality those values pale when you realize how many different sects there are to religions and how those values can be interpreted by each religion and the divisions within it.

We in this country have a moral code that every one of us from the President down to the homeless person on the street should use as a guiding light and shine that light on any person or group that attempts to set up laws, rules and regulations that deprive another human being of the rights that have been granted by that overpowering moral code. That moral code for this country is set down in our Declaration of Independence, our Constitution, and our Bill of Rights. That is what has made this country great. That is what turned this country into the melting pot of the world, the shining example that brought people to our shores searching for a better life, no matter what their education, background, country of birth, or religion. They came here because they recognize that our Constitution and Bill of Rights gave them the opportunity that they had nowhere else in the world a better life without fear. Remember our forefathers set this country up to be a Constitutional Republic not a democracy.

In a democracy the Majority rules if the majority decided they wanted to take your property or freedom they can take it. In a republic your property & freedoms are yours and you do not owe them to anyone, they cannot be taken against your will by law. America set out to be a constitutional Republic. Now in a Republic the individual is protected from the majority. Constitutional law and a Constitutional Republic is what we were given and it’s up to us to make sure that we keep it.

Over the years people with power have recognized that this freedom granted to the people was detrimental to their control. Policy makers and Religious leaders have worked for years to steal our personal power of individual rights and our individual ability to make personal decisions. They recognize that if they take away that freedom from the people they will be turning the people below them into sheep and worker ants. Some do this out of some perverse pleasure of being able to control others’ lives. Others are blind fools who have been indoctrinated by those above them. They have used fear as pointed out in the book 1984. They have used control over our minds with subliminal bits of information and at other times out right mind control as was used in clockwork orange. They have piled lies upon lies. It was Hitler that said if you tell a lie enough times and loud enought it will become a truth. People today are fearful for their own safety to the point where they’re willing to give up their Constitutional freedoms for safety and security not realizing when they give up those personal freedoms they will have neither.

Don’t misunderstand me if a person not a group but a person does something wrong they should be held accountable before the judiciary and be penalized for their actions. The legislative body should not be dictating to the judiciary the length of sentence or the severity of punishment they should set guidelines especially for the maximum and minimum sentence but legislators should not hamstring the judiciary on the side of leniency and allow the judiciary to step outside those guidelines when circumstances arise. The legislative body should not be allowed to dictate an exact punishment for a crime and leave the judiciary no room for compassion and understanding.

By our own Constitution and Bill of Rights the legislative branch does not have the ability to pass a law, rule or regulation that treats a person or group of people, any group of people, differently than the rest of the population. this is covered in the federal Constitution under “Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3, of the U. S. Constitution guarantees that “no Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.” Similarly, Article l, Section 10, provides that “[n]o state * * * shall pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligations of contracts * * *.” A bill of attainder is a type of class legislation that imposes punitive burdens on a particular, legislatively determined group, without the benefit of a judicial proceeding”. To do so sets up a chain of events, that leads to the path of tyranny for all citizens. It’s easy for a legislative body to choose a disfavored group, we have seen this throughout history, and then legislate stricter requirements attempting to disfranchise or banish that group from their presence. This form of terrorism by our legislative bodies should be recognized for what it is, a violation of our Constitutional rights. In a Constitutional Republic, this is treason.

Citizens today seem to have forgotten that their forefathers that came to this country, left everything behind and jumped into the great beyond, not knowing if they would be able to find work, housing, food, safety or security. They did this because the United States offered the one thing that they did not have in their own countries, Freedom of choice. Now many of our own leaders, be they financial, political, or religious are trying desperately to strip those same freedoms from us so that they can impose their control over us.

When any person in power step outside those moral guidelines set down within our Constitution and Bill of Rights and uses other ideologies, dogma or others twisted moral values in an attempt to lay-down their moral codes for this country no matter what their realization, justification or how they attempt to minimize them, they are in fact political or sociological terrorists whose goal is to divide, conquer and control this nation.

Alexander Hamilton  wrote:
“Nothing is more common than for a free people, in times of heat and violence, to gratify momentary passions, by letting into the principles and precedents which afterwards prove fatal to themselves. Of this kind is the doctrine of disqualification, disfranchisement, and banishment by acts of the legislature. The dangerous consequences of this power are manifest. If the legislature can disenfranchise any number of citizens at pleasure by general descriptions, it may soon confine all the votes to a small number of partisans, and establish an aristocracy or an oligarchy; if it may banish at discretion all those whom particular circumstances render obnoxious, without hearing or trial, no man can be safe, nor know when he may be the innocent victim of a prevailing faction. The name of liberty applied to such a government would be a mockery of common sense.”

Anyone who insists on banishing, disenfranchise or trys to segregate or punishing a group for any reason is in fact evil, and our founding fathers recognized the possibility of this evil. No matter how high or what their position is, those who would steal a person or groups liberty should be held accountable for their treasonous crimes against this country and humanity.

3 comments for “The Sleeper has Awakened

  1. mike r
    September 12, 2016 at 11:11 am

    hey Will can you strengthen this argument with relevant case law or with your incredible talent to articulate????

    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.

    http://sosen.org/blog/2015/05/19/collateral-damage-in-americas-war-on-sex-crimes.html
    , http://sosen.org/blog/2015/02/09/spouse-of-registered-citizen-forced-to-quit-job-and-her-three-children-lose-their-home.html
    , http://sosen.org/blog/2014/12/01/refugees-usa-families-destroyed-by-the-registry.html
    . http://sosen.org/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. Maverick
    September 18, 2016 at 6:49 pm

    This letter should be shown ! Maybe a new book ? I wish I could help , I can’t even help myself. Be safe

  3. mike r
    October 12, 2016 at 1:24 pm

    man i just read this article again and it gave me goosebumps as you can tell will is writing from his heart and from his personal experiences and with great understanding of what this nation is supposed to be and what our founding fathers intended in our constitution and bill of rights beautiful article

Comments are closed.