Archive

Archive for April 9, 2009

Missouri Retroactive Constitutional Amendment

April 9, 2009 Comments off

chezodysseus.blogspot.com : Dangerous Dots.

The Missouri State Senate has passed – with only one “nay” – a State constitutional amendment to be presented to the voters in November.

The amendment wants to allow retroactive laws in the matter of sex offenders. Previously, retroactive laws were forbidden by the State (and the US) constitution.

The US Constitution still forbids retroactive laws. Congress and the Supreme Court have gotten around that little hurdle. Congress piously intones that its intent is not ‘punitive’ but simply regulatory, like keeping a national database of drivers licenses or accredited doctors, and also – anyway – it’s an ‘emergency’. The Supreme Court has so far managed to agree, a feat achieved by refusing to take note of the world outside the doors of their hallowed hall and with a sly mulishness refusing to take official ‘notice’ of reputable studies – including those done by the Department of Justice – that indicate the ‘sex offender’ class of offense has almost without exception a lower recidivism rate than any other crime category.

After all, if the Court ‘noticed’ that the aggregate sum of all pains attached to the ‘sex offender’ classification adds up to something rather close to wearing a colored star on one’s clothing, or if the Court ‘noticed’ that there is not at all as great a danger to ‘public safety’ as has been asserted by various ‘advocates’, then the whole pyramid would collapse like a Ponzi scheme.

…But the voters of that Great State need to understand: this is not about ‘sex offenders’. What they are facing in November is the first (as far as I know) instance of the most basic Constitutional principles being abridged in the service of that ‘pain’ which has been the cat’s-paw of decades of domestic assault on the entire American political vision, on the American Experiment itself.

After decades of domestic ‘war’ – on this, on that – We have become used to living in a ‘state of emergency’ where ‘pain’ must be addressed immediately, and no ‘law’ can stand in the way. That was precisely the justification given by Lenin and Hitler in their ‘revolutions’ (although Hitler, more apposite in a way to Our present situation, saw that the best avenue of assault is to subvert democracy ‘legally’ and put your own people into the government and the courts – no decent German citizen could take heart from seeing uniformed Brownshirts ‘elected’ to the Reichstag, climbing those marble steps in a jackbooted gaggle to take up their seats and ‘vote’ the Republic away under the guise of ‘saving’ it from pain).

Clearly the Missouri politicians don’t grasp the unique Gift to world history and to the world’s peoples that was the Founding Vision of the United States, duly erected into a plan of self-government in the Constitution. But then, not only do their ‘bases’ not have a grasp of that sterling illumination, but many of them – especially on the ideological feminist Left – are actually committed to denying that historical reality root and branch, and ‘reforming’ it; what ‘good’, after all, can come from patriarchy, males, and whiteness? Oy. Nobody – not ‘victims’, not ‘oppressors’, not men, not women, not children – will benefit from the loss of the Constitutional structure. We are headed down a fatal path.

A house that divided, as Lincoln and Scripture observed, cannot stand.

VT Inmate Challenges Residency Ordinance

April 9, 2009 Comments off

rutlandherald.com ( Vermont) : Inmate challenges Rutland sex offender ordinance.

Rutland’s (Vermont) law forbids a convicted sex offender from living within 1,000 feet of a school, playground or day-care facility, putting almost the entire city off-limits. Barre also has such an ordinance, and other communities have discussed similar measures.

The law exempts offenders already living in one of the buffer zones when it took effect. Oney had a residence in Rutland at the time of his arrest but was in prison when the law took effect. It was unclear Wednesday what role the residency issue might play in the case but it appears it would block him moving back into his home.

Ohio Supreme Court – Sex Offender Case

April 9, 2009 Comments off

Ohio Supreme Court Case No. 2008-0991/ 08-0992
Roman Chojnacki v. Marc Dann, Ohio Atty. General [Nancy Rogers], in his Official Capacity, March 11, 2009

The Ohio Supreme Court – Senate Bill 10 challenge. Oral arguments whether those who challenge their reclassification are entitled to an attorney. Click preview image below to watch this video:



2008-0991. Chojnacki v. Cordray.
Warren App. No. CA2008-03-040. This cause is pending before the court on the certification of a conflict by the Court of Appeals for Warren County. Upon further review, It is ordered that the parties are to brief the following issues:
1. “Whether sex offender reclassification hearings conducted pursuant to the provisions of Am.Sub.S.B. 10 are criminal or civil proceedings.”
2. “Whether sex offenders are entitled to the appointment of counsel for Am.Sub.S.B. 10 reclassification hearings if those proceedings are civil in nature.” It is further ordered by the court that appellant’s brief shall be filed within 40 days of the date of this entry, and further briefing shall be in accordance with S.Ct.Prac.R. VI. Briefing in this case and 2008-0992, Chojnacki v. Cordray, Warren App. No. CA2008-03-040, shall be consolidated. The parties shall file two originals of each of the briefs permitted under S.Ct.Prac.R. VI and include both case numbers on the cover page of the briefs. It is further ordered that this cause shall be scheduled for oral argument upon the completion of the supplemental briefing.

2008-0992. Chojnacki v. Cordray.
Warren App. No. CA2008-03-040. This cause is pending before the court as an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Warren County. Upon further review, It is ordered that the parties are to brief the following issues:
1. “Whether sex offender reclassification hearings conducted pursuant to the provisions of Am.Sub.S.B. 10 are criminal or civil proceedings.”
2. “Whether sex offenders are entitled to the appointment of counsel for Am.Sub.S.B. 10 reclassification hearings if those proceedings are civil in nature.” It is further ordered by the court that appellant’s brief shall be filed within 40 days of the date of this entry, and further briefing shall be in accordance with S.Ct.Prac.R. VI. Briefing in this case and 2008-0991, Chojnacki v. Cordray, Warren App. No. CA2008-03-040, shall be consolidated. The parties shall file two originals of each of the briefs permitted under S.Ct.Prac.R. VI and include both case numbers on the cover page of the briefs. It is further ordered that this cause shall be scheduled for oral argument upon the completion of the supplemental briefing.