Questions or Concerns may be addressed to Constitutionalfights@yahoo.com. You may wish to use a subject line which relates to these issues, so that your email is not lost in the spam email filter.
Or click here ->>>> “Constitutional Fights“.
NOTE: All threatening or illegal correspondence will be forwarded to local, state and federal law enforcement agencies immediately (along with complete headers and message sources).
Intelligent, informative, or constructive comments are acceptable.
Emotional, personal or unintelligent reactions are not acceptable.
In other words; If you’re angry about this blog go kick your dog.
Regarding your blog on: Another federal district judge finds SORNA unconstitutional
Do you have a link to that 44 page ruling that you could point me?
Have you also kept a record of lower court rulings against portions of title 1 of the AWA?
Comment by Bennie — July 5, 2008 @ 8:14 pm |
More information about this ruling and a link to the judge’s decision can be seen here:
http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2008/06/more-on-the-way.html
Download ruling here:
http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/files/waybright_awa_ruling.pdf
Comment by constitutionalfights — July 6, 2008 @ 4:32 pm |
The Associated Press
Wed, Sep 10, 2008 (5:06 p.m.)
A federal judge issued a permanent injunction Wednesday that bars the state of Nevada from applying two new sex offender laws retroactively.
U.S. District Judge James Mahan said the laws, as applied to 12 sex offenders represented by the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada, are unconstitutional.
Mahan declined to rule on whether the new laws, which change the way Nevada classifies sex offenders, may be applied to those convicted of sex offenses in the future.
The ACLU of Nevada said the new laws, AB579 and SB471, drastically altered the way in which Nevada deals with sex offenders.
“Regardless of whether their crimes even involved children, sex offenders who committed even misdemeanors with any sexual element since July 1, 1956, would have fallen within the purview of registration and some notification provisions,” the ACLU said.
Many rehabilitated, low-risk offenders would have retroactively become high-risk offenders “subject to widespread community notification, which in turn would have meant that they and their families faced social ostracism, losing their jobs, and even possible vigilante violence,” the ACLU said.
“Judge Mahan’s ruling makes very clear that the Constitution applies to everybody,” ACLU attorney Maggie McLetchie said. “What this case is really about is a limit on the powers of government.”
Deputy Attorney General Binu Palal, who had argued for the retroactive application of the laws, said after Mahan’s decision that the state respected the ruling, adding, “We will review our options after we see the order.”
The federal judge’s decision follows the Nevada Supreme Court’s recent decision not to rule on the constitutionality of AB579, which states that teenage sex offenders can be punished as adults.
The state high court dismissed appeals of Clark County prosecutors who argued in 21 cases that the youths, who were 14 years old and older and had committed sexual acts, had to register as sex offenders.
Prosecutors appealed after Clark County Family Court Judge William Voy held that part of the 2007 law was invalid. He said there was no rational basis for setting the age at 14. Voy added that some youngsters who are younger than 14 are just as disposed to committing another sex crime and the law takes away the discretion of the courts.
The 2007 Legislature patterned AB579, after the 2006 federal Adam Walsh Act that included many teenage sex offenders age 14 and older with adults in requirements for sex offender registration and community notification.
The federal law, named for a six-year-old who was abducted from a Florida shopping mall in 1981 and later found slain, cut off certain grant funds to states unless they included in their registries juveniles who committed sex offenses when they were as young as 14.
Comment by Tracy Carman — September 11, 2008 @ 2:34 pm |
In most States convicted felons are not allowed to vote, but are still required to pay taxes. Is this not “taxation without representation?” If S O were allowed to vote you would see a big difference in the laws that get passed, but since they have no voice in their Government, neither do they have any rights or representation. Thank you!
Comment by Tracy Carman — October 22, 2008 @ 4:34 pm |
Thank you
Comment by chris bodyke — November 20, 2008 @ 4:00 pm |
Someone said:”This bill (International Megan’s Law) effectively prohibits anyone with a sex offense in their history, from traveling to another country, for pleasure, tourism or business. We must contact these elected officials to tell them to STOP these ever-increasing sex offender laws, which are piling one upon another.”
So why would they listen to us?
Comment by Limpy — March 30, 2009 @ 1:31 am |
Elected officials work for US ! That Congressman or Senator, is the employee of you and me ! We have got to cast away the myth that these elected officials are above us in some way. They owe their positions to the voting citizens and they are our public “servants”. This is how it was created within the Constitution. If we, the people do not like the job these people do, we can fire them (i.e. vote them out of office).
Comment by constitutionalfights — March 30, 2009 @ 1:07 pm |
I can’t vote. So how do I “fire” them?
Comment by Limpy — March 30, 2009 @ 7:29 pm |
Here I am to help, only if I can.
Comment by Anthony J. Rabquer — September 17, 2009 @ 12:59 pm |
Anthony,
You wrote “Here I am to help, only if I can.”
Does that mean you are offering to help in this fight? If so, there are many things you can do. Many are listed on the About Us page. And contacting RSOLOhio at http://ohiorsol.wordpress.com can connect you with the Ohio organizers who are active in working all over the state of Ohio. If you live in other states, RSOL National has a link from that page as well where you can find your state organizer. If you have additional questions, you can contact me at constitutionalfights@yahoo.com
Comment by constitutionalfights — September 18, 2009 @ 12:12 am |
How may I help and be proactive in this cause?
Answer:
There are many things you can do to help in this fight; and they range from legal action down to working online to help educate others. Throughout this blog we discuss ways anyone can help battle these unconstitutional laws. In many instances we give contact information to legislators throughout the country who are passing laws like these. We also urge all readers to post comments on news and blog webpages to refute the many postings out there which are either false, misleading or outrageous. Be sure to cite sources of data/fact/information like ours and stay away from emotional arguments, but rather state factual information. I encourage all readers to contact their legislators ( federal and state and local) to express opposition to these continued branding laws. Others seek to collect petitions door-to-door to present to legislators. Legally , every family of any ex- sex offender should be contesting these re-classification and life-long registration laws in the courts. Some state representatives will have local contacts who will actually speak to you (since the legislators never will) and some legislators have hours or days when they are in the local areas where you can meet and talk with them. Some people are printing out business cards or flyers to distribute in their local communities which bring this issue to more eyes (we have flyer samples posted on our yahoo group). Remember that most people are very ignorant about these laws and about what a sex offender is. Even the media does not know the difference between a sex predator and a sex offender. So it is important simply to educate others and bring the issue to the forefront. Most citizens do not even know that this law exists. So there are so many ways to get involved and many which I have not yet thought of. So yes! Join the fight. The more citizens who are willing to join this fight, the greater our chances of prevailing. But if most of us sit on the sidelines, we will lose. Remember there are some 600,000 sex offenders in this country and that number is growing fast. Add the family members of those people and our numbers are very large, indeed. We can make a difference to change these abhorrent laws, but only if we fight in large numbers. You can also contact your state group, which is fighting with your state against these laws. Check RSOL, OhioRSOL, or SOSEN to find the group in your state on our “Important Links” page.
Comment by David M — October 7, 2009 @ 10:19 am |
I am in support of your Constitutional Battle. I am located in Mt. Pleasant
S.C.. The laws here are similar to Ohio. I have to register twice a year
for life. My crime was 1986 and now I am being punished all over again.
Comment by JH Beeson — October 7, 2009 @ 4:40 pm |
I like how people are just now jumping on the bandwagon to fight this unconstitutional law now that their oxen are being gored.
Where were all you brave soldiers when we on the front lines were being abused by these cruel and unusual punishments?
No doubt leading the cheering to further punish we “monsters”.
Not until lots more *ex offenders are caught up in this snare, and not until some of the ruling class is caught up in it, will anything change.
Comment by Bob — October 7, 2009 @ 7:52 pm |
I am filing a Declaratory Judgment against the AG, Eric Holder, et al. To read the complaint in full, online, go to http://soadvocate.webs.com – My goal is to be removed–or be granted injunctive relief–from the SORNA and Arizona Sex Offender Registration and Notification requirement. Just thought I’d share my hard work with the nation. I’m going pro se against the “big boys”, so wish me luck!
Comment by Larry J — October 28, 2009 @ 3:45 am |
“Offenders of minor, non-violent exploitation laws should not have to be deprived of life and liberty or be punished [twice] for an offense they already served time for.”
With the stroke of a pen, I and millions like me who accepted a plea deal for a non-violent offense, were instantly turned into VIOLENT SEX OFFENDERS overnight!
Now comes folks like this guy petitioning SCOTUS for relief, but leaving a large percentage of the SO community out because of some frickin’ words!
(Noman: I would ask you to specify what overnight ruling you referring to please. And also what do you mean by “because of some words?” I would like to make your comment understandable to all.. Thanks)
Comment by noman — October 28, 2009 @ 10:08 am |
I couldn’t make much sense out of post #13 either, so clarity would be appreciated. I am pleading to the Ninth Circuit and local authorities along with the US AG (SORNA) for injunctive or declaratory relief. b)As for “…but leaving a large percentage….” I leave no man astray or “out”. A complaint to the court for redress of grievances is a right for each man/woman to go at on their own. I can’t fight your battle. I too was ’stiffed’ by a hot headed prosecutor that had a plea (charge bargain) for me to sign, so words are only what you make them and nothing happens ‘over night’.
In general)It may take me years to present my case to a judge that recognizes the ambiguities in the SO registration requirements. It took me four years to write the suit and now I’m starting to see many more being presented. NV and FL have issued injunctions for several cases and have taken those men off of the reg/noti requirement for those states until the time that the court can figure out if SORNA and other state requirements are constitutional. Remeber there are state constitutions as well as the US Constitution that a judge must considered so include the state in all pleadings of such.
Comment by Larry J — October 30, 2009 @ 12:13 am |