Offender Rights!

The Principles of Bills of Attainder.

2010-09-27T23:29:00.000-07:00

Bills of Attainder, and their lesser version Bills of Pains and Penalties, are the one power by which governments have ruled through the ages.

To understand a Bill of Attainder, one needs to piece together definitions from a few cases from the Supreme Court of The United States.

-Congress can only make laws in general applicability.

-Congress cannot choose whom the law shall apply to.

-Congress cannot give or remove any rights that are not equally shared by all.

-Congress cannot use a past action as a trigger for a law.

Bills of Attainder and Bills of Pains and Penalties are forbidden to Congress via the US Constitution.

"No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed." Article 1, Section 9 (excerpt)

"No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility." Article 1, Section 10 (excerpt)

And each individual state has it as a part of their constitution as well.

Bills of Attainder (Bills of Pains and Penalties included) are such that they are targeted law against/for an easily definable group of individuals, or an individual.

They are not required to name the party they apply to.

The "punishment" may be inflicted absolutely, or conditionally.

It can come in a civil form, or a criminal form.

Their creation usually comes not from one overt act, but a series of subversive acts that accumulate over time. Statutory Schemes are used to implement such laws.

The simplest definition that I've been able to come up with is:

"Any targeted law that provides for unequal benefits, or attempts to remove a right otherwise enjoyed by everyone else."

Bills of Attainder have been used throughout history to control the populace by the government.

Here is a list of groups that have been effected by Bills of Attainder.

Sex Offenders
Jews in Germany
African Americans in America and Europe
Native Americans by Spaniards
Muslims by Spaniards
Native Americans by America
Jews in Egypt

I think you get the idea.

Bills of Attainder are the one means by which governments have been able to set up hierarchy. Without this tool, we would not have had the "classes" all throughout Europe and into America.

One man would not be the master of another.

As mentioned before, Bills of Attainder can also give rights that are not shared by everyone else.

Easiest way to understand that comes from this statement:

"If Congress gives a group a right, everyone else is being punished for not being part of that group."

Only when people understand how Congress does this will they be able to stop it.

Citations:

FindLaw.com
Cornell University
Cummings v Missouri (1866)
Ex Parte Garland (1866)
US v Brown (1965)
Yick Wo v Hopkins (1886)
US v Lovett (1946)

The Real Due Process.

2010-07-24T09:02:00.000-07:00

"The Fourteenth Amendment, in declaring that no State 'shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws,' undoubtedly intended . . . that equal protection and security should be given to all [and] they should have like access to the courts of the country for the protection of their persons and property, the prevention and redress of wrongs, and the enforcement of contracts...."

- U.S. Supreme Court Justice Steven Field, Barbier v. Connolly, 113 U.S. 27, 35 (1885)

Due Process is a term that is difficult to define. Many courts have tried to define it, to create tests to measure it, and show equality in it.

But, if you look at it, and think about it, Due Process is a rather simple concept.

The base version of Due Process is that it has a beginning, a middle, and an end.

All three parts are equally important. Without any of those three elements, there would be a violation of Due Process.

This leads us to the question of:

"Where is the beginning of Due Process?"

When this country was created, it was done so with the understanding that the government drew it's power from the permissions of it's citizens.

As the source of the sovereignty, we have a right to have our legislation passed in accordance to the social contract created with the Constitution.

Every time that a law is passed outside of the original construction methods that the Constitution lays out, our Due Process rights are being violated.

The Legislative Branch does in fact have the ability to suspend our rights for a time. That leads us to an understanding of the two types of Due Process.

Procedural Due Process

"Procedurally, due process prescribes the manner in which the government may deprive persons of their life, liberty, or property. In short, the procedural guarantees of due process entitle litigants to fair process." Excerpt from TheFreeDictionary.com

To take that quote and to think about it leads one to understand that our Procedural Due Process rights guarantee us that our rights will only be suspended by certain methods.

Procedural Due Process is the method by which the government can suspend our rights for a time.

Substantive Due Process

"Substantively, the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments protect persons from legislation infringing on certain individual rights. Such individual rights may be expressly enumerated in a constitutional provision, as are the liberties that are enumerated in the Bill of Rights and have been incorporated into the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."

"These unenumerated rights have been derived from Supreme Court precedent, common law, history, and moral philosophy. Such rights, the Court said, "represent the very essence of ordered liberty" and embody "principles of justice so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked fundamental" (Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 58 S. Ct. 149, 82 L. Ed. 288 [1937])" Excerpt from TheFreeDictionary.com

Substantive Due Process is the safeguards against encroachment of our rights by the government.

Now we can explore the idea of:

"Where is the 'middle' in Due Process?"

The "middle" in Due Process is the breaking of a law, and the beginning of the Court process.

This is the portion that most people try to define when talking about Due Process.

Here is where people mix up the idea of "Due Process OF law" vs. "Due Process IN law."

"Due Process OF law" is the entirety of Law.

"Due Process IN law" is merely in the Court Room.

And lastly:

"Where is the 'end' in Due Process?"

The 'end' in Due Process is exactly that, the end of a courts sentence on a person.

The finality of a sentence. The completion.

Without that end in a sentence, not only is our Due Process rights violated, but we are put into a form of Involuntary Servitude.

To recap, Due Process has a beginning, a middle, and an end. It is very limited in it's allowance of suspension of rights, and exponential in it's protection of rights.

A simple concept to understand, but a hard one to put into practice.

Until you know where the boundaries are...

The Nature Of 'Political Power' And What It Means To The Average Joe

2010-05-20T19:23:00.000-07:00

Many State Constitutions around the Country say that "All political power is inherent in the people."

To show it a little more in depth, the Washington State Constitution states in Article One, Section One:

"All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established to protect and maintain individual rights."

So as I look at this section of my State Constitution, I try to understand the concepts that are wrapped up in it's language.

All political power is INHERENT in the people.

Before there was a Government, the political powers resided in the people. These powers are so ingrained in who we are as a country that they were written into our constitutions. As our constitution was written, it was these powers that gave it the strength to set us aside from other countries.

Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.

Without the people agreeing to being governed, our government would cease to exist. The government holds no power that we do not give it, or agree to.

Governments... are established to protect and maintain individual rights.

We the people, using our authority as sovereigns, created a government that was to "protect and maintain our individual rights." Our population was getting big enough that we created a government to help protect us, and to make sure that our rights were maintained. They were to be maintained not only from the usurpation of others citizens, but also from the laws created, as well as in the court system.

It is the constitution that defines and assigns the powers that the government enjoys. It was the sovereignty of the people that gave that constitution power.

Without the consent of the governed, the government has no power.

So here is a question:

If all political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their "just powers" from the consent of the governed, then what happens when they don't "protect and maintain individual rights?"

Our government is starting to believe that "it" is the sovereign. They have forgotten in their greed and corruption that it is us that gave them any power to begin with.

Remember, YOU are a sovereign. Does that mean that you have the right to take other sovereigns powers? NO. It just means that when it comes to political power, it comes from you, not the government.

I write this article in the hopes of teaching my fellow citizens about the nature of political power. With the understanding of that nature, you are better suited to help protect not only your own powers, but the powers of your friends, family, and neighbors as well.

When faced with a problem, without action, there can be no solution.

Bill of Attainder Revisited.

2010-02-23T08:42:00.000-08:00

A long time ago, I wrote a piece on Bills of Attainder. It was 14 pages long.

This time, I'm going to keep it short, sweet, and too the point.

I've learned a lot in the last almost two years.

So here goes...

A Bill of Attainder boils down to one key component.

It is any legislation passed in which the legislators assume your guilt without you having ever gone to trial. They then proscribe your punishment in their law.

For example, some states have DUI Registries. It is assumed (and sometimes backed up with studies) that you (the DUI criminal) will commit your crime again. So, since you are guilty of a future offense of driving under the influence, then you must submit to having your name plastered all across the land.

Or, in Hawaii, if you are merely charged with a crime, their Sheriff's website will put you up on their front page. Doesn't matter if you are found not guilty, they still have you up on the internet as presumed guilty.

The easiest way to argue the "punishment" aspect of Bills of Attainder is to realize that our Rights, inalienable as they are, once removed, constitutes punishment. To take someones God given right, is punishment in and of itself. It doesn't matter if the "law" is Civil in nature, or Criminal in nature. The removal of an enjoyment of rights is a punishment.

The other part of Bills of Attainder that needs to be slightly clarified is the area of "targeted legislation."

It is stated in the US Constitution that we are to have Equal Protection. Any legislation that targets and singles out an individual, or an easily ascertainable group of individuals, and creates a law different for them versus the rest of society, is a Bill of Attainder.

Remember, I am not a lawyer. I am a student of the Constitution. IF you feel that there is action that needs to be taken, please consult a Lawyer for guidance.

Oath of Office and Affirmations.

2009-12-29T13:23:00.000-08:00

In the Constitution of the United States, there is a clause that says "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." (Article VI, paragraph 3)

According to the dictionary, an Oath is:

"Any type of attestation by which an individual signifies that he or she is bound in conscience to perform a particular act truthfully and faithfully; a solemn declaration of truth or obligation.

An individual's appeal to God to witness the truth of what he or she is saying or a pledge to do something enforced by the individual's responsibility to answer to God.

Similarly an affirmation is a solemn and formal declaration that a statement is true; however, an affirmation includes no reference to God so it can be made by someone who does not believe in God or by an individual who has conscientious objections against swearing to God. Provisions in state statutes or constitutions ordinarily allow affirmations to be made as alternatives to oaths.

In order for an oath to be legally effective, it must be administered by a public official. The law creating each public office and describing the duties of the official ordinarily indicates who is authorized to administer the oath of office. A spoken oath is generally sufficient; however, a written and signed oath can be required by law."

And the Oath they must take is: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God." (This is the Congressional Oath of Office. Different positions require different wording, but the idea is the same.)

Everyone that swears an oath (or affirmation) swore to uphold the Constitution. They didn't swear to uphold the laws that are written, but to uphold the Constitution. That means in making the law, the enforcement of that law, and how that law is used in Court.

When someone breaks, or violates their Oath, there are strong and serious consequences for that.

A Congressperson can be removed from office, a lawyer dis-barred, and a Judge pulled from his/her bench and dis-barred as well as all of their cases being suspect.

The Code in each State has different punishments for violating the Oath of Office for State Government workers. But the US Code is universal enough to be shown here.

5 US 7731 Section 8(5) says: "Knowing membership with the specific intent of furthering the aims of, or adherence to and active participation in, any foreign or domestic organization, association, movement, group, or combination of persons (hereinafter referred to as organizations) which unlawfully advocates or practices the commission of acts of force or violence to prevent others from exercising their rights under the Constitution or laws of the United States or of any State, or which seeks to overthrow the Government of the United States or any State or subdivision thereof by unlawful means."

So when anyone (Congress, Judges, Lawyers, etc.) helps to deprive citizens of their rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States through force, or coercion, is violating not only their Oath of Office, but the US Code as well. If they are waging war on the Constitution by their actions, they are violating this section as well.

The punishment for Congress for waging war on the Constitution (and thus the US Government) is found in a different section.

18 U.S.C. § 1918 says: "Whoever violates the provision of section 7311 of title 5 that an individual may not accept or hold a position in the Government of the United States or the government of the District of Columbia." (The conditions of who this applies to can be read at the link given.)

And another consequence for violating 7731 is a Civil Suit under 1983 law.

When an Unconstitutional law is passed by Congress, upheld in court by the Judges and the Lawyers, the consequences for those actions are fairly strong. Lawyers are dis-barred, Judges impeached, and Congress people are removed from office and never allowed to hold office again.

Charges of Oath of Office are a serious thing. And not to be brought about without some serious facts to back it up.

And lastly, please remember, I am not a Lawyer. This is not legal advice, but merely my understanding of things that I found in the Constitution. If you wish to use this information, please consult a Lawyer.

Stigma- The Antithesis of Liberty

2009-11-03T22:39:00.000-08:00

stig·ma

(stĭg'mə)

A mark or token of infamy, disgrace, or reproach: "Party affiliation has never been more casual . . . The stigmata of decay are everywhere" (Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.) See Synonyms at stain.
Archaic A mark burned into the skin of a criminal or slave; a brand.

Token of Infamy, Disgrace, Reproach, a Brand.

All of these are tools to keep the "criminal" from interacting with the rest of society. Criminals are a hated group of society, but one group of criminals brings out the animalistic nature of humans.

Sex Offenders.

Stigma is so heavily attached to sex offenders that a mere accusation is enough to raise the hackles of most people.

Why is this important? Stigma removes Liberty.

lib·er·ty [lib-er-tee]

1 :the quality or state of being free: a : the power to do as one pleases b : freedom from physical restraint c : freedom from arbitrary or despotic control d : the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges e : the power of choice

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." --Declaration of Independence

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness are endowed by our Creator. That means that they cannot be taken away.

When Stigma is present, Liberty cannot exist.

To argue that Stigma is removing Liberty, you must meet the "Stigma Plus" rule. More than just mere reputation must be lost with the Stigma. Such as employment or property of some sort.

Once you meet that requirement, you have proven that Liberty is lost due to Stigma. At that point, suits under 1983 and the 14th Amendment become applicable.

Stigma is created by the lies told. A majority of sex offenders do not recidivate. The numbers that do, float between 3-5% depending on the study. The general public feels that sex offenders are monsters that if given a chance, will do the unthinkable again.

The numbers don't lie.

Yet Stigma still remains.

Peonage, A form of Slavery

2009-11-01T23:23:00.000-08:00

A page from LectLaw:

"INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE & PEONAGE - a condition of compulsory service or labor performed by one person, against his will, for the benefit of another person due to force, threats, intimidation or other similar means of coercion and compulsion directed against him.

In considering whether service or labor was performed by someone against his will or involuntarily, it makes no difference that the person may have initially agreed, voluntarily, to render the service or perform the work. If a person willingly begins work but later desires to withdraw and is then forced to remain and perform work against his will, his service becomes involuntary. Also, whether a person is paid a salary or a wage is not determinative of the question as to whether that person has been held in involuntary servitude. In other words, if a person is forced to labor against his will, his service is involuntary even though he is paid for his work.

However, it is necessary to prove that the person knowingly and willfully took action, by way of force, threats, intimidation or other form of coercion, causing the victim to reasonably believe that he had no way to avoid continued service, that he was confronted by the existence of a superior and overpowering authority, constantly threatening to the extent that his will was completely subjugated.

Title 18, U.S.C., Sec. 1584, makes it a Federal crime or offense for anyone to willfully hold another person in involuntary servitude.

A person can be found guilty of that offense only if all of the following facts are proved beyond a reasonable doubt:

First: That the person held the victim in a condition of 'involuntary servitude';

Second: That such holding was for a 'term,'; and

Third: That the person acted knowingly and willfully.

It must be shown that a person held to involuntary servitude was so held for a 'term.' It is not necessary, however, that any specific period of time be proved so long as the 'term' of the involuntary service was not wholly insubstantial or insignificant.

Title 18, U.S.C., Sec. 1581(a) is the peonage law cited in the indictment.

The specific facts which must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt in order to establish the offense of peonage include each and all of the three specific factual elements constituting involuntary servitude as previously stated and explained in these instructions, plus a fourth specific fact; namely, that the involuntary servitude was compelled by the person in order to satisfy a real or imagined debt regardless of amount. "

This was the entire page on Peonage from LectLaw. I copied it here, because to have paraphrased it would have brought an injustice to this work.

How is peonage important to offenders you might ask? Simple.

When an offender is sentenced, they sign their name on the "guilty" line and form a contract with the State. When that sentence is over, the offenders debt to that state is complete. But what happens when the state takes a portion of that "contract" and continually changes it, thus changing the contract.

The offender then no longer has the ability to complete the contract, and, is forced to do things not previously agreed upon.

Also, if this wasn't disclosed to the offender at the time of signing (the ever changing nature of the contract that is), the contract becomes null and void.

Contract Law states:

"Full Disclosure n. the need in business transactions to tell the "whole truth" about any matter which the other party should know in deciding to buy or contract. In real estate sales in many states there is a full disclosure form which must be filled out and signed under penalty of perjury for knowingly falsifying or concealing any significant fact."

If the Court did not fully disclose the nature of your sentence to you, and all the definitions of each portion of your sentencing, then that contract can be viewed as void. (Contract law would be tough to go into and make it easy to understand. Do a word search for Unconscionable.)

And for those that think that sentencing (plea bargains) are not contracts, please read this.

So, if your contract is now null and void, but you have no recourse, you are now suffering from peonage. Why? Because if you don't conform to the new contract, you will be thrown in jail. Coercion. Did the Legislators "knowingly" make a new law to make things tougher for you?

I'll leave that one for you to decide.

Is There "Corruption of Blood" Working in America?

2009-11-01T20:41:00.000-08:00

"The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person." --Article 1, Section 3 US Constitution

"In English law, the result of attainder, in that the attainted person lost all rights to inherit land or other hereditaments from an ancestor, to retain possession of such property and to transfer any property rights to anyone, including heirs, by virtue of his or her conviction for treason or a felony punishable by death, because the law considered the person's blood tainted by the crime.

Attainder and the consequent corruption of the blood were abolished by English statutes and are virtually unknown in the United States." --Answers.com

"...Because the Law considered the person's blood tainted by the crime." This phrase can be used on any convicted Felon. The Bureau of Justice Statistics states that as of 2007, one in thirty-one adults are on probation, parole, or in prison.

If the Law considers your "blood" tainted because of your crime, then that taint will effect your children and family as well. These people are the "heirs" to whatever potential you may have had. Does this excuse a crime committed? No.

Once a sentence has run it's course, the person is supposed to return to full citizen status. Today, stigma is attached to being a Felon. This stigma reduces your ability to find employment, a home, and build a positive life. The stigma (taint) of your crime has now turned you into a "second class citizen."

Your family, they will struggle with this for the rest of their lives. Your children will be affected by this through their most impressionable years.

Treason used to be the only crime that Corruption of Blood used to be an after effect of. Now, anything classified as a felony will attaint you with Corruption of Blood.

This stigma now removes many of the rights you were given under the Constitution of the United States of America. No longer are you allowed to vote, own a gun, or be eligible to serve this country in the Military. All of these rights (or their removal) will effect your family.

Collateral Damage is now acceptable in the United States. People say "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime." But I would challenge anyone out there to find me someone that knew what the social stigma would be before his sentencing. The true punishment doesn't become apparent until long after your sentence has run it's course.

Collateral Damage is a polite way of saying that your family is under Corruption of Blood.

Don't like it, then speak up to your legislators.

The Eulogy of The United States of America

2009-07-27T23:32:00.000-07:00

In the beginning, The United States of America was a bastion of hope. In her borders, people were given the chance to be free of oppressive governments. Free to believe and worship as their souls dictated.

The Founding Fathers wrote up her indoctrination articles. In them, they hammered out the ideas, and the concepts that would shape and mold this young Nation into a beacon to the world.

Each time they met at a Constitutional Conference, prayer was given. Not to say that the Christian Faith that they held was to be the universal religion, but to show that these men believed in a higher power than themselves.

Through this prayer, our Constitution was born.

With this Constitution, our Nation was given life. This life was to offer the people of the world a chance to say "Enough." To this end, we opened our borders to anyone that wanted Freedom. And this freedom was stamped out in our Bill of Rights. That "All Men were Created Equal!" From these "men," a few were chosen to be our voice. Chosen to speak on our behalf.

Congress was called to represent the people. They were to be "of the people, by they people, and for the people." These Congresspeople knew their responsibilities, and took them seriously.

Commerce was established. Ideas were brought forth. And shortly after her inception, America was a force to be reckoned with.

We accepted other nations as they were, but we showed through our efforts that certain behaviors would not be tolerated. We went to War on numerous occasions.

Through our union with our old brethren, we were able to defeat the threat from the East, as well as the threat from Europe. We abhorred the ideals set forth by Germany's leadership. We set out to right the wrongs committed by them.

No more would we allow men and women to be denied their "unalienable rights" in this world. The United Nations, using ideals from our nation, drafted The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

We even stopped the segregation that was happening within our own borders. We opened the minds of our own citizens to stop the hatred. Our people would be free, and equal!

Through our struggles to enlighten, we forced ourselves to continue to practice these ideals around the globe. Attempting to bring peace to all nations.

America has been a great nation to call home.

But, like in all things human; greed, complacency, apathy, and struggles for power ended up corrupting those that were supposed to be "for the people."

We quietly allowed our rights to be removed. Our Liberty was given up. The ideal that to remove someones rights was to also remove our own was gone. Still, the greed that consumed those in power continued to grow. The poison was leeching into the very minds of the backbone of our nation.

Justice no longer meant what it was spelled out to mean. Now, the more money you had, the more "justice" you received. In the end, her peoples were no longer "innocent until proven guilty," but "guilty until proven innocent."

Soon, the people no longer mattered in their opinions. Those in power began to tell the people, through the media, what they would think.

In the end, the very safeguards built into the Constitution, were utterly ignored. To the point that men ordained to the highest office were quoted as saying that our Constitution was but a "G.D. piece of paper!"

The ideals, the sacredness of the trust given, and the faith of the people were let down. No longer did a person have to be a natural born citizen to become the Nations President.

This President has ushered in a new Nation. This new nation no longer believes in the Republic she once was. This new nation breathes Socialism into her peoples.

Dead are the old ways. Dead is the Constitution. Dead are the Scales of Justice. The Great Nation known as The United States of America has finally fallen.

Fallen because of an attack from within.

Regulatory Laws on Personal Statutes

2009-07-13T15:38:00.000-07:00

Regulatory Laws are known as Administrative Laws.

Statutory Laws are laws established by an act of Legislature.

The most interesting form of statutes are those called Personal Statutes.

A personal statute is something that one is assumed to "carry with him wherever he goes." Being a sex offender creates that personal statute. Sex offenders are told where they can live, who gets to know their personal business, if they can congregate, and if they have any rights. These statutes are all based off of a crime committed.

Sex Offender Laws are also considered "regulatory" in Smith v. Doe. The argument here was that the statutes were not illegal because they were "regulatory" and not "punitive." They merely wanted (their intent) to control the sex offenders and not punish them. Punishing them would have been Double Jeopardy. But, regulating their lives wasn't considered to be punishment. If they broke from the statute, then they were brought up on new charges.

The punishment only comes from the deviation from the regulation, and not from the regulation itself.

But, there is a problem with their thinking. Putting a personal statute on someone based on their criminal history creates a Bill of Pains and Penalties. Not only that, but the Supreme Court ruled that "...the constitutional prohibition may not be evaded by giving a civil form to a measure that is essentially criminal."

Creating a "regulatory" statute that has a punitive effect (even if the intent is to merely regulate) based off of a crime committed is wholly unconstitutional. Creating a regulation of a "personal statute" nature creates a "cruel and unusual" punishment aspect, as well as violating Double Jeopardy issues.

Sex Offender Laws, whether seen as Regulatory or Punitive, are still Unconstitutional.

And there are other Registries being made every day off of the success of the Sex Offender Registry.

Time Served. Or Is It?

2009-05-26T12:21:00.000-07:00

Time Served. Or Is It?

Recently, I was reading an article titled "Paying a Debt to Society - Then What?" and couldn't help but wonder about the difference between Michael Vick and a sex offender.

Vick was convicted of a crime that touches peoples hearts and minds. So do sex offenses.

Michael Vick was making upwards of 100 million dollars a year. Now, he's pushed into bankruptcy, and making $10 an hour.

But, because he has undeniable talent at the game of football, people are talking about rethinking his ban. They might let him play again.

They (the people) are using the philosophy of "If you server your time and pay your debt to society, then you can rejoin us."

But, that philosophy is only used at select times.

What about the talents of the people that have paid their debt to society, served their time, but can no longer be let back into what they were doing.

Here are two people whom prove my point (names have been changed):

Joe was an IT Tech for about 20 years. He was making over $100,000 a year. He moves to another state, and is forced to register in the public's eye for a crime he had committed back in 1989. Now, he can't pay his bills, and is in forclosure. He can't get ANY job that utilizes his skill sets.

Jim was a highly successful businessman. He had 2 entire floors in a highrise in downtown for his financial services company. After his ordeal was made public, he had to give up both floors, and fire his entire staff. He went from ungodly amount of money each year to making barely enough to live off of.

But, these two men will not be given the same courtesy that Michael Vick was.

The question is, "If a person serves their time, pays their debts, and live a good life, WHEN is enough enough?"

Video of the March 10th 2009 AWA Committee Meeting

2009-03-13T04:44:00.000-07:00

The previous video has moved to a new location.
Click the link below to watch it from the House of
Representatives Judiciary Committee site.

http://judiciary.edgeboss.net/real/judiciary/crime/crime031009.smi

As An Offender

2009-03-02T21:32:00.000-08:00

I found this while going through my old files. I'm not sure who the author is, but I felt it worth of a post...

As An Offender

My crime, though not a child rapist/murderer, has landed me on the Sex Offender Registry. Throughout the process of my court trials, I attempted to maintain my integrity and the other views instilled in me as a child. Never once did I deny my crime. Never once did I shirk my responsibility to my victim.

Treatment was ordered, as well as a few other things. In my treatment, I learned about something called the "Abuse Cycle." It taught me to recognize what situations and feelings "triggered" me into my cycle. It also taught me the different stages of the cycle. As I gained a greater understanding of myself, I was soon taught about a Relapse Prevention Plan. This teaches you how to use a support network to keep yourself out of those situations that raise your risk to reoffend.

After gaining a strong understanding of that and a good time worth of demonstrating it, my treatment provider felt I was ready to venture back into society.

Boy what a rude awakening I had coming to me. The skills that I had learned as a young man prior to my incarceration were no longer good enough to get me a job.

My real barrier: The Sex Offender Registry. No one wanted to hire me. Finally, I found some jobs that were under the table. I was able to scrape up enough money get get a small hole in the wall apartment. I was also able to find a cheap car that I could drive around in. But that life that seemed to come so easy to others, was far beyond my grasp.

Eventually, people started to find out who I was as the Registry Laws changed. Even though my conviction was prior to these new laws, they were deemed "regulatory" and therefore acceptable by the Courts.

As more and more people saw my face on the Registry, my ability to find work stopped all together. I was kicked out of the apartment I had been living in trouble free for 4 years. Threats were made against me as I held my head down while walking the streets. I even had someone come across the street and threaten to hit me with a large stick as I was walking from a job interview. And using my relapse prevention plan was getting harder to do as my support network was drying up.

After a while, I discovered what was wrong with this picture.

I learned that there was an acceptable amount of harassment proscribed to me by the general public.

Knowing my responsibility for my crime, and the responsibility to my victim to never attempted to diminish my guilt for my crime.

So I learned to:

Duck my head when confronted
Walk on the other side of the street (no matter which side that had to be)
Learn to keep myself from any situation that I might be accused of something
Stay to myself
Take the harassment and abuse of those who didn't know my crime

But, what I also realized was what I had not given up when I was sentenced:

The right to live
The right to breathe
The right to warmth
The right to see
The right to think
The right to question
The right to be around friends
The right to believe in God
The right to property
The right to defend my home
The right to be heard in Court
The right to be Innocent until proven Guilty
The right to seek forgiveness

I learned that in our Constitution, All Men were Created Equal. If you committed a crime, even a heinous one like a sex offense, you were still free when your sentence was up. I learned of a word called Liberty.

Liberty taught me to hold my head up as I walked down the street. Liberty taught me to look people in the eyes. Liberty taught me that I am not an animal!

As I write my thoughts down, I humbly pray that anyone who may read this later, will think. Sex Offenders, albeit the "scum of the Earth" in the eyes of the public, still have rights within the Constitution.

The Courts may try to take that away, but everything comes full circle. One day, people will see that the laws are becoming increasingly more "punitive." One day, someone will stand up and make a difference. I hope I'm around to see that day.

I hope I don't end up like some of the offenders on the Registry, dead!

May God speed this to those that can use it for good. May God have mercy on my Soul.

Amen.

Recreating Segregation

2009-01-22T15:27:00.001-08:00

"We hold these truths to be self-evident..."

Self Evident: evident in itself without proof or demonstration; axiomatic

"...that all men are created equal..."

All men: regardless of origin, faith, political alignment, age, race, sex, sexual preference, and even regardless of past crimes.

"...that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

God (I'm sorry if you don't believe in Him, but I do) gave us these rights, not man, nor a government created by man.

Unalienable: not to be separated, given away, or taken away; inalienable

"...that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Life and Happiness are somewhat obvious, so I won't take the time to spell them out. But Liberty on the other hand, now that is a subject that few people truly understand. If you care to read about some of the ideas behind Liberty, read this, and this.

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

Despotism:

1.	the rule of a despot; the exercise of absolute authority.

2.	absolute power or control; tyranny.

3.	an absolute or autocratic government.

4.	a country ruled by a despot.

When a government, under the guise of protecting it's citizens, actively removes and abolishes the rights of others, it creates a scenario similar to that of when the pilgrims left England. That little shift in peoples perception of government led to the creation of the United States of America. The quotes from above are taken directly from the text of the Declaration of Independence.

In today's society, we are still recovering from the Civil Rights movements, Woman's Rights movement, and more recently, Gay and Lesbian Rights movements. What people forget, or sometimes were not aware of, is that when the government loses control over a previously subdued and segregated entity, they go and find another one to pick on.

Having a common enemy gives the government purpose. It helps the general public feel justified in giving the government it's money. Without a common enemy, the people would cease to bend to the wishes of the government.

The latest common enemy is criminals. And much more specifically, sex offenders. (I would like to clarify that I am not supporting the behavior of any sex offender, or the abolition of the sex offender laws by any means) Sex offenders have become the latest and greatest common enemy the government has seen.

Sex Offender legislation is reaching a fervor the likes of which I doubt this country has ever seen. Every single legislative season is crammed with S.O. bills. Bills that restrict how far an offender can live from another offender, or bills that put large bold type on a S.O.'s drivers license, or legislative bills that uniformly categorize and offender regardless of when it happened or the details, and lets not forget about legislative bills that speak of offenders getting their rights back and allowing them to become contributing members of society, except for S.O.'s.

Everyone loves to hate sex offenders. But, they are still human. In spite of what the government tries to preach about them being sub-human and worthless. Sex offenders have Civil Rights too. They were created equal, and they also have the same unalienable rights as those that never committed a crime.

Unfortunately, sex offenders are considered to be so sub-human, that even after they have served their time in jail, completed their treatment, and payed their debt to society, they continuously get shoved farther and farther down the ladder of society.

So far as to almost rival that of the slaves back in the 1800's. How could I possible say that you ask? Let me explain.

"Slavery", as defined by the Slavery Convention of 1926, is (1)the status or condition of a person over whom any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership are exercised, and "slave" means a person in such condition or status, (2) the slave trade includes all acts involved in the capture, acquisition or disposal of a person with intent to reduce him to slavery; all acts involved in the acquisition of a slave with a view to selling or exchanging him; all acts of disposal by sale or exchange of a slave acquired with a view to being sold or exchanged, and, in general, every act of trade or transport in slaves.

The government uses the "right of ownership" (via the DOC) to tell an offender where he can live, with whom he can live, how close he can live to another offender, how close that offender can live to a daycare, nursing home, park, school, bus stop, etc.

And good ol' Uncle Sam uses that "ownership" to come up with new ways to further suppress sex offenders every year.

Sex Offenders are being segregated out of society, for life! And all under the guise of "Regulatory". But, Liberty being an unalienable right, creates a Constitutionality issue with Uncle Sam's ideas of late.

I believe it was the thirteenth amendment that abolished slavery. And, I believe that there is a law about segregation as well.

In the thirteenth amendment, it talks about "except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted". When a criminal is "convicted", there is a sentence attached. If you continuously add to that sentence, you are going outside of the courts to attach punishment for a crime that is already ruled on. That creates another issue that we'll have to discuss at another time.

Here is a quote from a man I've quoted many times before:

"The right of voting for representatives is the primary right by which other rights are protected. To take away this right is to reduce a man to slavery, for slavery consists in being subject to the will of another, and he that has not a vote in the election of representatives is in this case.
- Thomas Paine."

Criminals lose their right to vote, and according to law, they get it back when their time is served. Except for Sex Offenders.

When will this country learn that segregation will only lead to hardship? Not only for the person being segregated, but also by the very government itself when it has to fight it out in court at a later time.

Segregation will ultimately lead to the destruction of this country as we know it. The very methods that help to create these laws will be used to separate and compartmentalize the very citizens that it's supposed to protect.

Few people realise that 93% of all sex offenders were known (either relatives, or close friend of the family) to the victim.

What if that was your son, your daughter, your wife, or your husband? Would you be able to watch them get treated like that? Would you feel that the system was just then?

Or would you come back and reread this post looking for ideas to fight it?

Stare Decisis's Role in Today's Political Climate

2009-01-03T18:18:00.000-08:00

STARE DECISIS is "to stand by that which is decided." The principle that the precedent decisions are to be followed by the courts.

The concept of Stare Decisis is fairly simple. If you have a defined set of laws, and a court ruling tries to define one of those laws to a more finite level, it sets a precedence outside of the original definition of the Law. It is easily understood if you check out these diagrams, and can visually see the progression that takes place.

When you understand how Stare Decisis can pervert the Judicial system, one then asks the question of how to fix it? The only way to truly set things “right” would be to find one of the more controversial laws from the past that helped to create a precedence setting ruling, and fight it on a Due Process and Stare Decisis basis.

The other question that can be asked is “How did this happen?” The answer to that question lies in the people elected to office that set these laws up. In my article “Adjournment Sine Die” I discuss this briefly. Not to mention that when Congress passes 10's upon thousands of new Legislation every year, The Supreme Court can't keep up with the caseload of deciding Constitutionality. So, until someone comes alone to challenge it, Congress gets to pass it as law. And, if no one challenges it, it sets precedence for the creation of new laws that are even more erroneous.

This has come about most strongly in the 20^th century. There has been a major push to create precedence for setting the Government up as the ONLY ruling body in the country.

This of course goes against everything the Constitution was created for. It is “For the people, by the people” and through the people that this Government is given it's power. The Constitution, and even the Federalist Papers talk about the power being the peoples and not the Government. There is even mention that the Government is null and void if the citizens rights are ever taken away. This too was discussed previously.

So, I ask: if our Rights are continuously being removed, if Congress is continuously creating legislation that is outside of it's authority, if the Judicial branch isn't ruling against these injustices, how are we supposed to set things right? How do we as citizens get the Government to pay attention to our wishes?

The only way left to us. We stand up and tell them that no longer are we going to sit idly by. No longer are we going to take the abuse. Each of us needs to educate our neighbor. We need the people to cry out long and hard. And only then will the Government listen. Only then can we effect the “change” that we have been asking for for so many years now.

Ask your Congress person to stick to the Constitution. Ask them to stop the insanity that plagues our Political Climate. Ask them to stop the use of Stare Decisis. Ask them to uphold the Constitution that they are sworn to protect.

How much longer must we suffer these injustices before we stand up and fight? How much longer do we have before we no longer have a way to turn it around? How much longer are you willing to wait?

Guilty Until Proven Innocent

2009-01-03T12:10:00.000-08:00

In the days of our Founding Fathers, it was considered to be the one of the most important aspects of the Constitution. That was the notion that every man was considered to be "Innocent until proven Guilty" by a Court of Law.

Through a series of small changes over the years, it feels more like we have become a Nation of "Guilty until proven Innocent" by a Court of Law. And that is only if you make it to the trial.

The general consensus by the Law Enforcement seems to have swung to "Everyone is suspicious and therefore guilty of some crime. It's my job to find out what it is." No longer are they trying to "protect" society, but are trying to find out what society did to break the law. And with "One in Every Thirty-One Adults", that makes for a lot of citizens in trouble with the law.

The Justice system is focused more of a political career and less on upholding the law. More and more "plea bargains" are being used to get the cases out of Court and create a "win-win" for the prosecutor and the defense attorney. (I doubt that many people realise that a plea deal is counted as a win for both parties.) And with more and more people "pleading" out, less and less are our rights being protected by the Court systems. This loss of defense of the Constitution is leading to the idea that citizens are guilty and therefore, it's only a matter of time before they get caught.

Anymore, the idea of being a free citizen, and being innocent until proven guilty is becoming a fallacy.

Where is our Due Process? Where is our Freedom from Persecution? Where is our Right to a Speedy Trial (oh, I forgot, that's given away with your "plea deal")? How can the Judicial system claim to uphold the Law when they are actively perverting it? How can our Legislature continue to create legislation that continually removes our rights and separates the classes? How can our Law Enforcement enforce the Law if they themselves are not held to the same if not higher standard?

What happened to "All Men were created equal"?

The American Way

2009-01-03T12:05:00.000-08:00

From the beginning of this country we call home, America has been a place of Justice. We have always stood for the underdog in any battle. We love to see right prevail over wrong. We have grown into a people that want to help others overcome their own tragedies.

But few realise anymore that this very country that we call home is going through it's own tragedies. Few pay attention to the fact that the Constitution is becoming less and less prevalent in our Government. It seems that only those few realise the danger that we face.

Our Government was meant to be a small and relatively quiet entity. The Federal Government was to manage the collection of States. The States were to uphold the Laws that the citizens agreed upon. "We the People" are the main governing body as set up by the very Constitution that the Government is sworn to uphold. But, since about the turn of the twentieth century, our government has created precedence out of thin air to allow itself to build upon that and grow. Now, the Federal Government is the all-powerful entity and the States are at it's mercy. No longer are the Feds being owned and operated by "citizens" but by the friends of big business and socialism.

The ironic and sad part is that the American people have been programed into believing that they need this big government to hold their hand and watch over them. They have forgotten that it is only through them that the government even draws it's power. They have forgotten that it is them that appoint their Representatives to the Congress and also the White House. Few remember what it means to be able to vote.

The American Way is slowly dying. As if it were an ancient relic put on display.

This injustice that we as Americans are living through demands that we stand up and say "Enough!" Our tax dollars are frivolously spent on trivial items. We are off fighting a war that few know the reason for anymore. Our government is constantly stealing from us. Both our Rights, and our monies. The numbers of the poor are growing. And with this economic recession at hand, it's about to explode those numbers.

Where is this American Spirit? Where are those that see the injustice? Does it not curdle your stomach? Does your fighting spirit speak to you of the corruption that is crippling our society? Who is going to fight for our freedoms? Who is going to fight for those that can't fight for themselves? Who is going to stand up and be the one? Or one of many?

It is not the American Way to stand idly by as our fellow Americans are led to the slaughterhouse. Be American, stand up and fight!

Give Me Liberty...

2008-12-26T10:06:00.000-08:00

I was reminded of the Quote that Patrick Henry said "Give me Liberty, or give me Death!" And began to ponder on what exactly is Liberty.

Now, such a word obviously has multiple interpretations, not to mention how many things have the word liberty in their title.

What I found was this: Liberty is the

Freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control

Freedom from external or foreign rule; independence

Freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction, hampering conditions, etc.; power or right of doing, thinking, speaking, etc.; according to choice

Freedom from captivity, confinement, or physical restraint.

I also looked at our family dictionary (Websters circa 1968) and it states: Freedom or release from slavery, imprisonment, captivity, or any other form of arbitrary control.

So, back to Patrick Henry's quote. One can assume that he was referring to freedom from oppression by the English Monarchy. But, it begs the question, "How does the unalienable, God given right to Liberty apply to today's political climate?"

With "Big Brother" looking over our shoulders at all times, how is Liberty maintained? Our Government has been set up to monitor our lives down to the littlest details. We can't drive down the street without a policeman running our plates to see if they have a reason to pull us over. We can't say "One Nation, Under God..." in the pledge of allegiance because it might offend a minority. How is that protecting the Liberty of those that want to say "Under God"?

Liberty is an all encompassing thought that governs our daily life. Without Liberty, we are no longer America, land of the Free. The Bill of Rights is a list that attempts to define some of our Liberties that cannot be taken away. The Founders did not attempt to write all of our unalienable Liberties down because the felt that it was understood by all at the time what was meant. Now, learned men attempt to twist and corrupt the meaning of those few articles of Liberties prescribed by our Founding Fathers into a way to manipulate and control the people.

Liberty is something that can only be taken away if you commit a capitol crime. Otherwise, we all have the rights guaranteed to us by the Constitution and it's Bill of Rights found therein. Liberty is what this great country was founded upon. Liberty is what our Founding Fathers fought for. Liberty is what our ancestors died for. Liberty is what we are losing in today's political climate.

Do you feel that the government is acting in accordance with the basic Liberties of the very citizens it's sworn to protect? Are our politicians fighting for out Civil Liberties in Congress? If Liberty is unalienable, how are we as citizens protecting it from the government?

I'm reminded of a quote a friend uses "I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees!"

"Give me Liberty, or Give me Death!"

The Cost of the Loss of Rights

2008-12-21T08:16:00.000-08:00

Recently I read an article on the ACLU site that talked about One in Every Thirty-One Adults having a criminal record. They quoted the report from the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) which, to give you the gist, states that numbers are up for people on parole/probation.

I bring this to your attention to illustrate a simple idea that occurred to me. If you took the 7.8 million offenders that the report talks about, and gave them the ability to be productive members to society, what would the influx of tax monies entail? Think on it this way; if you took each offender and multiplied it by an imaginary number of $10,000 (roughly the taxes to be paid by someone making $50,000), what would you get? Roughly 78 BILLION dollars. Now, if we had received the taxes on theses people in this amount for the last 10 years, would we have needed a Federal Bailout?

But, with the criminal record and the loss of rights that each offender has received as part of their sentencing, they lose the ability to become productive members to society.

Now, some offenders are unable to control themselves and recidivate. Those will be perpetually in the system. But, those offenders who learned their lesson, and have tried to return to society to gain employment have found it difficult to get jobs because of their record and our publics perception.

Recently I learned of a program that helps offenders get back on their feet. In the manual for that program, I learned that persons with Criminal Records and are on welfare, make up 46% of the welfare population. This program is designed to help overcome the "barriers" these offenders have in getting employment and getting off of welfare.

If the public perception wasn't so strong against those that have criminal records, they might have an easier time at getting work. Then, they would be able to contribute to society. And a lot of them would make more than $50,000 in a year. Some would make upwards of six figures.

So, with such a sizeable chunk of our population unable to gain meaningful employment, and unable to pay their potential in tax revenue, our Country is continually losing out on some serious revenue potential.

Do you think that offenders who have learned their lesson and are trying to reintegrate with society should be segregated from the other potential candidates for employment? If an ex-offender has the potential to contribute to society more than they currently are, shouldn't the door be opened for them? If 1 in 31 has a criminal record, and has lost their rights, wouldn't voting on new laws be skewed from their true potential?

Is ostracism effective?

Complacency: The Freedom Killer (Part 3)

2008-12-11T15:56:00.000-08:00

"The greatest obstacle to those who hope to reform American education is complacency."

---Diane Ravitch

Complacency has the ability to lull us into thinking that everything is OK. It provides a sense of false security. A security which, if unchecked, has the potential to rob us of our very foundation as a country.

In our effort to understand this vicious and quiet disease that is plaguing America, we have learned that not only does it teach us ignorance as Citizens, but that we also can potentially lose our ability to fight back.

In this final segment, we are going to discuss how the loss of our ability to fight back and our ignorance leads to us losing our Rights.

There is another quote that I've been meaning to share:

"You need to have a redesign because familiarity breeds a kind of complacency."

---Timothy White

In the "Civil Rights" Movement, we all became accustomed to hearing about Civil Rights. Some, even to the point of rolling their eyes. We all became "familiar" with the concept. Now, we are complacent to the idea of reformation in the area of Civil Rights.

The familiarity is where the ignorance comes from. In our familiarity, we stop caring enough to pay attention. While we are not paying attention, we quietly and slowly lose our ability to fight back. Laws are passed and judgements are made in Court that slowly and silently remove our ability to say "No!"

The intent of the article is to bring to attention the dangers of allowing ourselves to become complacent with anything in our lives, let alone becoming complacent with our Civil Rights.

Do your research, study up on what's going on around you. Become active. It's the only way for things to turn around. I cannot remember where I heard it before, but it's been said that "The only way for Evil to win is for enough good people to do nothing."

Don't be one of those that stood by and did nothing only to kick yourself later in life for failure to act. Complacency is (in my opinion) the leading cause of the failure in our Legislative Branch to create new and better laws. We see many many laws being passed that waste money, create hardships for citizens, and set precedence for future equally absurd laws.

Are you willing to continue to let this happen? Are you willing to stand up for no one else but yourself? Does the direction of the country worry you? Do you feel that things are being handled the way you think they should? Do you realise that a phone call to your local Senator makes a HUGE difference?

Complacency creates danger in all of our lives.

Complacency: The Freedom Killer (Part 2)

2008-12-07T09:18:00.000-08:00

"I hate to see complacency prevail in our lives when it's so directly contrary to the teaching of Christ."

---Jimmy Carter

The United States of America was founded on the principles of Christianity. Some may not be Christians or even believe in God. But the truth is, all men were created equal. In that equality, we all have a certain set of "inalienable" or "natural" rights. These "natural" rights come directly from God.

These natural rights have never been put into a complete list. Simply because it was presumed at the time of the Constitution that people knew what these rights were. For the sake of trying to prevent the Government they were trying to establish, the founding fathers put a few on paper.

This is known as the Bill of Rights.

The first 10 listed in the Bill of Rights are a pretty straight forward and simple list. What many people may not know, is that there is a bigger list of substantive rights. These substantive rights are the extension of the basic rights listed. For example, Freedom of Speech gives us the right to say what we want, when we want it. What people may not realise is that they also, under freedom of speech, have the right to: freedom to assemble, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom to petition. All of the minute and infinite rights that are protected under those are considered to be substantive.

These substantive rights are vitally important to the continued success of the American people and the "dream" that is America. For example, imagine the loss of the right to petition. We would no longer have the right to gather signatures for important matters. This would effectively stop the citizens from helping to create legislation. Imagine the havoc that would create and the doors it would open for the Government to bring in a different style of government.

So, in understanding that we have a need to fight for our rights and to protect them. Even if it means that a law that "feels good" or looks good on paper needs to not be passed, it's the greater good of protecting our rights that is more important.

Complacency breeds a need for bigger government, more "security", and allows us to turn on our fellow men.

Complacency by the people will be the downfall of this great nation.

Do not let complacency rule your life. Can you imagine what will happen if you keep on with the same things you are doing? Can you imagine what will happen if you don't stand up for your rights?

It reminds me of a poem I know of:

When the Nazis came for the communists,

I remained silent;I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,

I remained silent;I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,

I did not speak out;I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,

I remained silent;I was not a Jew.

When they came for me,

there was no one left to speak out...

Are you going to allow this to happen to you?

Complacency: The Freedom Killer (Part1)

2008-12-03T20:23:00.000-08:00

"I have absolutely no idea what my generation did to enrich our democracy. We dropped the ball. We entered a period of complacency and closed our eyes to the public corruption of our democracy."

---Wynton Marsalis

Many an author has written about the disgraceful state of mind called Complacency. Few have managed to stir people to action. We all aspire to create a burning need in the hearts of Man to get up and do something to change their world.

The more I read on personal development, the more that I learn that change always, and only, begins inside of one's self. Leo Tolstoy says "Everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one thinks of changing himself."

To understand complacency, we need to only examine the pace of our lives. Most people spend their time pretty much the same way. Few people actually strive to grow as individuals. Most are too busy trying to stay afloat in life to move forward personally. That, believe it or not, is stagnation. Also known as Complacency. They are complacent with their lives, how they live their lives, their surroundings, and where they are headed overall. The problem with that is that if one only thinks about today and how you are doing, you'll never see the speed bumps of tomorrow.

Complacency programs our brains into accepting that the dreams and goals that we sought after while we were children are unreachable. Or that we lack the power within ourselves to change and become the person that we always dreamed of.

How does complacency affect you? Think of it this way. If the Constitution is slowly and quietly being taken out of our country, and you are OK with how things are today, you'll never recognize the danger that lurks around the corner as our liberties are slowly eaten up.

As our liberties are taken away, you might think "It's not that bad" or "It sucks to be that guy" when you see him affected by the loss of liberty. But what you fail to realise is that as one right is effectively taken away, it sets us up to lose more.

"The only way for Evil to prevail is for enough Good people to do nothing" is a quote that I've heard many times. The more we think that this won't happen to us, or that it's the other guys problem and not mine, we lose our ability to stand up and say "That's not right!"

If we stay complacent, and do nothing, then nothing changes. Have you ever heard the saying "Nothing changes if nothing changes"? If you don't change, then the way the world is headed will not change.

Complacency will kill our ability to fight for our Freedom's granted by the Constitution of the United States of America. There is a sentence I recently found in the book called The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People that I'd like to share with you. It's found on page 60 and 61, "Each of us guards a gate of change that can only be opened from the inside. We cannot open the gate of another, either by argument or by emotional appeal."

So I humbly ask, Open your Gate. Let the change begin in your heart. In John C. Maxwell's book Thinking For a Change, he has a quote in there that states, "A belief is not just an idea that you possess; it is an idea that possesses you." Believe that you can make a change in your own life. Believe that you have the voice to stand up and be heard. Believe that through small changes in ourselves, big changes in our world can happen.

Fight for your Freedoms before they are all gone. Don't let the hubbub of life keep you stuck in the "rut". Stand up and be heard. Take complacency out of your life and replace it with belief and purpose.

A Series on the Loss of Rights: Due Process

2008-11-28T09:43:00.000-08:00

"Due process (more fully due process of law) is the principle that the government must respect all of the legal rights that are owed to a person according to the law of the land, instead of respecting merely some or most of those legal rights. In the laws of the United States (U.S.), this principle gives individuals a varying ability to enforce their rights against alleged violations thereof by governments. Due process has also been frequently interpreted as placing limitations on laws and legal proceedings, in order for judges instead of legislators to guarantee fundamental fairness, justice, and liberty. The latter interpretation is analogous to the concepts of natural justice and procedural justice used in various other jurisdictions."

There are two kinds of "Due Process", Procedural and Substantive. Procedural is the process by which things are done. Due process by procedures. Substantive on the other hand, are the rights given by the Constitution that are byproducts of the Bill of Rights.

Most everything you read these days is geared towards protecting your established rights. What you don't read about is the establishing of those rights.

Congress in it's near limitless power in creating a new law, often takes it upon themselves to use a House Rule to pass laws and not follow the Constitutional processes.

For example, the Senate is to have a Quorum when creating major legislation. In the definition of a Quorum, the Senate "presumes" that a Quorum is present unless someone calls for a roll call. Basically meaning that 1, 2, 5, or so people could be present to pass legislation. And unless one of those people is dumb enough to ask for a roll call vote, they can pass any legislation they want to. Couple that with Adjournment Sine Die, you get a Congress that does what it wants, when it wants, without the benefit of checks and balances.

Congress is supposed to have a quorum present (51%) when creating or passing major pieces of legislation. Congress is supposed to close it's doors at the end of their season. The Senate IS NOT to create legislation, they are to be the "cooling plate" for the House of Representatives.

So here's the question of the day. If Congress uses the House Rules to pass major legislation, are they following Procedural Due Process in the creation of laws? If they are not, are those laws considered to be Constitutional? Should they be "re-argued" with a true Quorum present? Are they completing their sworn duty to uphold the Constitution in the creation of these laws? Are our rights as citizens under the Constitution being protected when they create laws this way?

A Nation Trained to Fear.

2008-11-22T17:49:00.000-08:00

I found this on another site and found it to be appropriate for here...

COMMENTS WELCOME

A Nation Trained to Fear
By kiokwus, published Oct 19, 2008

Rating: 4.0 of 5

Sex Offender. A term that causes the hair on "decent" people to stand on end, bring out the cold sweat of uncontrollable loathing enough to make a person sick with revulsion. A term used by politicians to justify submission of proposals, totally opposite what this country was based upon, to further degrade, chastise, regulate, demoralise, restrain, those labeled sex offenders to a life of abject poverty as well as hopelessness beyond measure.

What constitutes a sex offender? Is it the 5 year old boy who while giving his teacher a hug, moves his face back and forth between her breasts? The 8 year old's "comparing themselves" to each other? The 12 and 13 year old boy/girl friend that are both charged against each other as both being victim and offender when the girl became pregnant? Or the high school teen lovers that are a few years apart and the boy turns 18? What about the girl who takes pictures of herself and sends it to her boyfriend and friends? Or the boys "slapping the rears" of girls while running down the hallway in school? (Girls did the same) How about the people forced to urinate in the bushes after the local DA locked the public rest rooms, to pounce on these unfortunates and charge them with indecent exposure? Or the old man chasing after young girls?

In our world today, they all are labeled as sex offenders.

From the young 5 year old to the old grandfather, a label of sex offender sticks upon them forever. It matters nothing of when the offense took place, the circumstances, how long they "must" register, nothing removes this stigma from their lives. Contrary to when the officials tell you, this stigma affects not only the individual, but every person associated with this person. Entire families are subjected to the painful applications deemed appropriate for the offense committed. The justification? To save the children of course.

There are those who firmly believe that anyone labeled a sex offender, deserves the most horrendous punishment that can be handed down by the courts of law. Stipulations are given, requirements must be fulfilled, restrictions are put in place, rules are to be followed, demands are to be kept, and changes come without notice that extends all of these so there really is no end in sight. The public believes that anything is justified, for the sex offender "destroyed" the life of the victim. When then does punishment end and forgiveness begin? Not all "victims" feel there should be unending punishment.

In many cases, the victim is a family member and over time, the family has worked diligently to be reunited. Once reunited, the family should be able to live life once again without constant harassment's and stipulations. But this is not to be so. Now the horror placed upon the stigma of sex offender, affects all the members of the family including the "victim". What is demanded of the offender, is now demanded of the victim and family. Housing restrictions do not mean just the offender. It also includes the family. The option of the offender again leaving the family unit is undesirable as all the work to reunite to family is for naught.

Many communities have passed laws or ordinances that stipulate just that. Additionally, many children services across the nation now feel they have the right to demand the offender leave, regardless of what the courts and counselors approved. Not doing so may cause the children to be removed from the family unit, the spouse to be charged with child endangerment or a host of other crimes, and the offender ousted into the cold once again.

Many states, in the frenzy of finding anyone who ever had a sex offense, has created laws governing the application, retroactive to 50 or 60 years before or longer. Those who have been caught up in this roundup, may have never done another crime, yet now their lives are to be destroyed as if the offense took place yesterday. The impact of such not only destroys everything this person has ever done in his or her life, causes the community to now fear this person and react according to this fear. Horror enters the persons life, fear that someone will take matters into their own hands becomes a daily fear. What had been punished and satisfied from many years ago, now resurfaces bringing all today's horrendous requirements into play. Why is such to be?

Truth is, there are those who do belong behind bars, to be monitored for life. Those who have committed such horrible crimes that cannot be satisfactorily punished regardless of what the courts dictate. Those who do commit over and over the crimes against children and adults as well, exist. How many? That I cannot answer. What can be stated is the majority of "sex offenses" are well beyond common sense. Not every action is a sex offense, though the elected leaders would have you believe so.

The application of sex crime is out of control and more "offenses" are dreamed up and included daily. When is the public to understand the actions of today may become the crime of tomorrow? The innocent baby pictures that are taken and exist for oh so many years, today could be and would be considered child porn under the standards set by those in power. You could be charged with child pornography without even understanding the why of the charge.

Halloween is once again upon us. Everywhere you look today, the unfounded fear that sex offenders are out in droves to molest or steel your children has brought "restrictions" that sex offenders are mandated to follow. Anything from reporting to jail, probation parole offices, locking their doors, turning off the lights, to placing "pumpkins" in their windows or on their doors exist. Special "visits" by the police are scheduled to insure sex offenders are following the "rules" or be subjected to immediate arrest. Sex Offenders are forbidden to partake in any activities to include those within their own families.

There has never been a case of any child being molested or stolen by a sex offender on Halloween.

Every holiday, this is becoming the "norm" in today's society. From those in power to the media, the standard is to keep the horror of sex offenders alive, to have the public fear for their children, to amass in rallies or other groups, demanding that those officials do something to drive the sex offender and family out of their neighborhoods. What is the justification? Sex offenders can never be changed, they will always commit another crime. Our anger and the safety of our children give us license to do what ever it takes against any sex offender and if they have a family, that family is either stupid, or like the offender and should be punished the same.

November 1st, all this will behind us once again. No one was molested, no child stolen. Things can calm down for a few weeks. Then we can start it all again come Thanksgiving, then Christmas, New Years. New demands will be voiced. New restrictions submitted. Further disenfranchisement of sex offenders and families be put into place. The public is unwilling to learn. The fear ingrained into them is much to powerful to allow opposing views and facts enter. The blinders remain.

Not every offense is a sex crime, not every person is a sex offender, not every person will commit another sex offense. Education works. Counseling works. This travesty must come to an end.

Adjournment Sine Die

2008-10-26T10:11:00.000-07:00

Adjournment sine die - The end of a legislative session "without day." These adjournments are used to indicate the final adjournment of an annual or the two-year session of a Congress.

This interestingly bland detail introduced itself to me yesterday. As far as I can understand it (not being a Congressman or a Lawyer), this tool is used to close Congress and stop the ability for Congress to pass laws until the next scheduled session.

In case you didn't pick up the connotation there, if it's not used, then any member of Congress can sneak in, and pass laws using trickery. There are documented cases of this. Many laws that are effectively screwing up America today are caused by this very detail. I would elaborate on which ones, but I'm not ready to present such Nationally destructive info as of yet. (stay tuned as I slowly elaborate and give my evidence)

Under the original intent of the Constitution, Congress was only able to act with a Majority. That came to a screeching halt when the South seceded from the Union. Which meant that the southern states were not in Congress. Therefore, not majority could be reached. So, Lincoln wrote a writ to allow Emergency Powers to Congress so that they could get back to writing laws.

One of those nasty powers granted under the writ Lincoln wrote was a little thing called: Suspension of Rules.

I've written about Suspension of Rules before, but here's a brief synopsis. Suspension of Rules allows for the Congress to set aside the normal rules of making laws and pass laws without the normal checks and balances.

After researching this suspension of rules, I became aware that it's existence is tracked back to the 1870's, which would imply the time of the Lincoln writ. Under the Constitution and on major pieces of legislation, it states a need of a 2/3 majority vote. Congress should not have the ability to use the Suspension of Rules to pass major legislation.

Congress does have the ability to create it's own rules in the passage of laws within each House and Senate, but those rules are to help in the making of laws.

The Suspension of Rules is one of those "house rules" that is supposed to be used only on mundane things like the naming of Post Offices and whatnot. It was not meant to be used on major Constitutional issues.

I bring up the Suspension of Rules to illustrate a problem with not adjourning Congress at the end of the session. If Congress is not "officially" closed for the session, someone can come in and use things like Suspension of Rules to pass legislation while most of Congress is not present.

Adjournment Sine Die is important for keeping Congress honest. We may not even have the ability for Congress to use Adjournment Sine Die because we are at a State of War. We have been at a State of War since September 11th, 2001, because the President keeps renewing this decree. While we are at "war", Congress cannot convene.

So, if a controversial law is passed using a "house rule" and not using the Constitutional Rule, should it still be a valid law? Or, should it be considered unconstitutional because Congress didn't use procedural due process to pass that law? If Congress cannot convene, are we given due process when someone in Congress passes a major legislative piece while the session is supposed to be over?

Human Nature v. Activism

2008-10-19T19:57:00.000-07:00

As I delve deeper in to the realm of Constitutional Law and Activism, I am constantly reminded of our human nature and peoples fear of the unknown. I've heard it all over that the greatest fear of man is the fear of change.

Feeling the call of duty that I feel, I continually strive to set an example and push forward in my activism. Knowing as I do that there are those that are so scared that they won't even read information to enlighten themselves, there are those that read but don't respond, and there are those that respond, but don't do anything.

The exceptional few have heeded the call and have stepped forward to fight the fight. At times, these "warriors" get tired and need a break. With so few people joining the ranks of the "warriors", there are gaps left in the wake of someone taking time to recharge their batteries.

Also, after a few of these times of recharge, people begin to question why they continue. I for one, will never stop, but I know of a few people that have grown bitter as time has gone on.

So I sit here pondering how to possibly appeal to peoples sense of impending doom or even their willingness to answer the call...

I'm afraid that people are so inclined to bury their heads in the sand that they are willing to run with the masses and not step out of the crowd to let their voices be heard.

The more people that step out, the more voices heard. The more we get the Government to stop and listen, the more we will get these laws changed.

I pray every day in my heart that people will wake up to the injustices that are happening to us every day. When will we stand up and say "No More Will I Sit Back And Do Nothing"?

I've heard it said that the only way for Evil to win is for enough Good People to do nothing.

Too many good people are doing nothing right now... How can we let the Evils of this world continue by standing by and letting it happen? Are we so scared about people knowing how we really feel that we will succumb to the mob mentality and watch as atrocities are committed in the name of the public good?

Do you feel that you could be doing more but are to scared to stand up and be heard?

Does knowing this allow you to sleep well at night? Or do you have internal struggles plaguing your every waking, and sometimes sleeping, moments?

Can you, and are you going to sit by and watch the world crumble? Or are you going to stand and fight?

I for one, chose to fight.

Judicial and Jury Nullification

2008-10-12T23:03:00.000-07:00

I just found this on another blog...

Jury Symposium

The Northern Illinois Law Review recently (Summer 2008) had a symposium, The Modern American Jury:

Paula L. Hannaford-Agor, Judicial Nullification? Judicial Compliance and Non-Compliance with Jury Improvement Efforts, 28 N. Ill. U. L. Rev. 407-424 (2008)

Irwin A. Horowitz, Jury Nullification: An Empirical Perspective, 28 N. Ill. U. L. Rev. 425-451 (2008)

Kirk W. Schuler, In the Vanguard of the American Jury: A Case Study of Jury Innovations in the Northern District of Iowa, 28 N. Ill. U. L. Rev. 453-501 (2008)

Elizabeth Dale, People v. Coughlin and Criticisms of the Criminal Jury in Late Nineteenth-Century Chicago, 28 N. Ill. U. L. Rev. 503-536 (2008)

Frank A. Perrecone & Lisa R. Fabiano, The Federalization of Punitive Damages and the Effect on Illinois Law, 28 N. Ill. U. L. Rev. 537-557 (2008)

I always find good stuff like this after the fact. Murphy's Law I suppose...

A Series on the Loss of Rights: A Right to Vote

2008-10-09T11:05:00.000-07:00

With the 2008 Presidential Elections less than a month away, I am getting more and more emails about our Right to Vote. Feeling compelled to clear up some misconceptions Americans have on our "Right to Vote", I find myself giving you yet another article in the series.

Our Right to Vote is a basic Constitutional right as set forth in the Fifteenth Amendment. What most people will miss is the second part. "The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

Appropriate legislation has turned into a "who's allowed to vote and who's not allowed". Even tho the "United States nor any State" can take away that right. Even based on a persons "previous condition of servitude". Interesting how most people with any type of criminal background are excluded from voting.

But I digress.

Here is a basic understanding of the voting process.

The President is elected by Electoral College votes and not by Popular vote. Just like in 2004. Al Gore won the popular vote, but Bush won the electoral vote.

So, why does it do any good to vote anyways? The more votes, the more electoral college points allotted to a state.

Here is another problem most people aren't aware of. We used to have the right to "write in" a candidate. Now with invention of electronic voting, we no longer have the option (at times) to "write in" a candidate. Not to mention all of the voting machine fraud.

So the question at hand remains. If neither candidate in the Presidential Election is worthy of holding office, what is the public to do? With the voting fraud, votes are shuffled from one candidate to another. And if the vote is for a third person, it may not even be counted at all. And not voting just reduces the numbers and therefore raising the percentages that a candidate has...

Then we have Obama busing people to get registered to vote, and vote in the same day. The ACLU is sending out messages both on their blog and in emails trying to get people to vote (their agenda is for the Constitution itself).

And this seasons elections are highly important. We are voting on a man who has acknowledged that he wouldn't mind being a dictator, and another who has close friends that are known terrorists. Who do we vote for to hold the highest office in the land? Who is "best qualified" to lead our Nation? If we write-in a candidate that we feel would do the job right, would our votes even make it.

Is voting a guaranteed right? Or just a motion to be gone through by the people to placate them into believing that everything is ok? Is the outcome of the Vote predetermined by some other group we are unaware of as citizens?

And with the reduction in eligible voters (people with a criminal record), do we really have a correct representation of the public in the voting system?

This years vote will be the most important vote that some will ever make. I pray that those voting do their homework and know who they are voting for.

Now is not the time for mistakes.

A Series on the Loss of Rights: Right to a Jury Trial

2008-09-30T20:36:00.000-07:00

In the Constitution, under Amendment #7 (for common law cases) and Amendment #6 (for criminal cases), we as Americans have a right to a jury trial.

A Jury Trial is a group of our peers (12 to be exact) that will hear the facts against us and determine our guilt of the crime or accusation brought against us.

In this trial, the jurors are screened to make sure they are "willing and able to follow the law as instructed by the court". If a potential juror is deemed to be unable, or just plain unacceptable, they are removed from duty. (This removal can happen all the way up to the reading of the verdict)

Jurors are asked to decide based on the law and the facts of the case if the person is guilty, or not guilty. What most people don't know, is that in the beginning of this country, and all the way up until the 1900's, the jurors were also asked to decide if the law itself was just or not. They had the power and the right to decide if a law should be "nullified" or not.

Here are some quotes to get you thinking:

Thomas Jefferson said, "I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which government can be held to the principles of its Constitution."

Alexander Hamilton proclaimed, "Jurors should acquit even against the judges instructions . . . if exercising their judgment with discretion and honesty they have a clear conviction that the charge of the court is wrong."

It was designed into the structure of the Constitution for the jury to decide not only guilt or innocence, but also the validity of a law.

But, if the case never makes it to trial, then there will be no jury. No decision by a group of your peers... No justice the way it was designed.

Plea Bargains are the culprits these days. One fact I found is that more than 90% of all cases never make it to trial because of the plea bargaining system.

Here is a quote from the above linked article:

"The rarity of jury trials is not the result of criminals who
come into court to relieve a guilty conscience or save taxpayers
the costs of a trial. The truth is that government officials
have deliberately engineered the system to assure that the jury
trial system established by the Constitution is seldom used. And
plea bargaining is the primary technique used by the government
to bypass the institutional safeguards in trials."

With the Prosecutors and the Public Defenders working hand in hand (so to speak), it's no wonder we have the highest prison rate in the WORLD.

With this erosion of a system meant to continue the belief "innocent until proven guilty", we see more and more people being bullied into accepting plea deals, missing out on their right of a jury, and also the safeguards that are provided by said jury trials.

With fewer jury trials, people are seeing an astronomical rate of imprisonment. Rates of recidivism are blown out of proportion to their "true" figures because of a watering down of the prison system with people who don't really belong there. Legislators are reacting to give the people a feeling of security. And these laws are being passed without the jury having the ability to dictate how they apply to the court cases. Our Judicial System is in danger of losing it's ability to maintain the "innocent until proven guilty" aspect. Without our juries there to decide cases, the Government perpetuates the cycle of corruption of the system.

Do your part. Ask for a jury trial.

Judicial Nullification and It's Implications

2008-09-30T18:33:00.000-07:00

Judicial Nullification is a right of the Judges to nullify a law if they feel it is to harsh (even the manditory minimums) for the situtation it is being applied to.

Although it is highly frowned upon, Judicial Nullification is allowed in our Judicial System. There is a test to see if nullification is acceptable in a case:

"Let us deploy this two pronged test, derived from the intuition that the wrongness of any governmental action can always be explained either as a violation of rights or a disservice to the public good. If it is wrong for courts to nullify the law, then nullification must either violate one or more background moral rights held by particular citizens (i.e., rights that are independent of positive law [16]) or else it must have on balance bad consequences for the public weal."

So, if it violates a Civil Right, or it is not in the best interest of the public good, then the nullification is illegal.

Judicial Nullification, just like Jury Nullification, isn't widely practiced in the courts these days. One, because of a lack of knowledge by the lawyers who assume the Honour and responsibility of being a Judge. Two, because these days, we see the courts siding with the legislators more and less with upholding the Constitution as it was written and the intent behind it.

As a Constitution Voter, I find it my duty to try and inform people of their rights in court, no matter what type of court, or for what circumstances they might be there for.

Judicial Nullification, Jury Nullification, two very important rights/powers to help send the legislators that we are tired of laws that steal our civil rights and seperate the Government from the people.

Jury Nullification

2008-09-25T21:32:00.000-07:00

In my effort to learn about obscure points of law, I discovered Jury Nullification. After googling it to learn it's true meaning, I ran across an alarming trend. But first, let me help you understand what exactly Jury Nullification really is.

Jury Nullification is the acquitting of a defendant by a jury in disregard of the judge's instructions and contrary to the jury's findings of fact.

Basically, a jury has the Constitutional Right to nullify a charge against the defendant based on the prescribed punishment being either too harsh for the situation, or the law that they broke was in essence unjust. Also, if enough juries find a certain law to be unjust, they can set a precidence for that law to be challenged in court.

In the beginning of the United States of America, juries were almost always told about their right to Jury Nullification, but in the last 110 years, Judges often times severely discourage this knowledge. Recently, it's been upheld that a Judge can actually remove a juror if he feels that the intent of that particular juror is to nullify. So the consensus of late is that Judges and Congress really don't want us to know that we have a right to nullify.

I also ran across this on youtube.

I also found a site that provides just about everything you'd need to know about being on a jury. They give resources for if you are facing charges, if you are called for Jury Service, and they even have a Juror's Handbook.

There is alot of support out there for informing juries of their rights. Especially their right to nullify.

Ultra Vires and Quo Warranto

2008-09-23T22:24:00.000-07:00

The inspiration for this post is a long series of mounting congressional laws that are making it increasingly difficult to live under said laws. Now, being a problem solver by nature, I wanted to know by what authority was congress allowed to make such laws, and was it within their scope of the law? And in so questioning, I stumbled upon two different yet essentially identical phrases: Ultra Vires and Quo Warranto.

Ulta Vires

By definition: Ultra vires is a Latin phrase that literally means "beyond the powers". It is used as a legal term in a number of common law contexts.

Interesting. Beyond the powers... And as I understand it, if it's beyond their powers, then all subsequent laws based upon that one ultra vires falls under the same term respectively. Kinda like dominoes falling...

Quo Warranto

By definition: Quo warranto (Medieval Latin for "by what warrant?") is one of the prerogative writs, that requires the person to whom it is directed to show what authority he has for exercising some right or power (or "franchise") he claims to hold.

In essence, questioning the authority of said person to prove their authority/power. If they don't have the authority/power to create a law or uphold it, then the result of "non-compliance" is null and void.

So, here we have two terms that question the authority of an entity or person.

If on one hand, they have the power and authority, but act outside the scope of their boundaries, then that law or result is void. If they don't have the power or authority, then it's a moot point anyways.

So the question remains, do they have the authority? And if so, did they act within their bounds?

A series on the Loss of Rights: Freedom of Speach

2008-09-23T21:28:00.000-07:00

The First Amendment states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Now, most Felons lose their rights upon a plea of guilty. But does the freedom of speech fall under that category? I've heard of the loss of the right to bear arms (understandable in most cases), the loss of the right to vote (not sure how that works), and a few others I can't remember at the moment. But, somewhere along the way, some states decided that it was ok to eliminate the right to gather signatures (as in setting up a petition to the Government). And others, the right to gather certain types of criminals (mainly sex offenders) into a group.

The latter two are part of the first amendment. One of our unalienable rights guaranteed by the Constitution. And as a part of the freedom of speech amendment comes our substantive rights: freedom of association, freedom to participate, freedom of movement, freedom of privacy, and freedom of choice to name a few.

But most states would have you believe that you are not worthy or allowed to have such rights as those guaranteed by the very Constitution that gives them power over the people. And based on what? Infamous Crime. Infamous Crime is what allows them to take away those rights.

What is Infamous Crime? Infamous Crime is any crime that is punishable by death or imprisonment in a state penal institution, with or without hard labor for more than one year. Catch that? Any crime with a sentence of more that a year. You know those misdemeanors that have a sentence of a year and a day? They can be considered to be "infamous crime" and allow for the removal of your civil rights.

And the very rights that they take away were put there to allow us to redress our sins before the courts. Without the first amendment, we lose the right "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." We lose the ability to gather about us the qualified amount of signatures it would take to present a new initiative to the legislature. We lose the ability to create change. We fall victim to the fear mongering and hate machines created by the media and the legislative branch of our Government.

Fortunately for some, their state constitution is worded different than most. It allows the felon to gain back their civil rights at the termination of their probation.

For the rest? Goodbye freedom of speech and all that falls under its umbrella.

Federal Domestic Spending Bill Cuts Crime Funding Program by 67 Percent

2008-09-15T01:18:00.000-07:00

Federal Domestic Spending Bill Cuts Crime Funding Program by 67 Percent
State Representatives try to get the Adam Walsh Act, SORNA, sex offender registration notification act, signed into being in each state, citing the loss of Federal Grant monies if their state does not comply.

But as Paul Harvey would have said, they do NOT tell you the rest of the story.

What little funding any state might have received, has been drastically cut. Leaving states which implement the Adam Walsh Act to ask all the residents of the state to agree to pay MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO FUND THE legislation, and only get back a few thousand dollars. Chart and Graph Below.

An example of what a state would have spent and received Prior to the cuts:States stand to lose 10 percent of Byrne Grant money if they do NOT implement SORNA.

Louisiana's Cost of Implementing SORNA ……..$6,963,401

Louisiana Byrne Money 2006……………………………….$3,514,704

Louisiana 10 percent of Byrne money……………………..$351,470

On December 27 President Bush signed the 2008 Omnibus Appropriations Bill, a $555 billion domestic spending package that included short-term funding for US troops and an estimated $10 billion in pork-barrel projects. The raft of earmarks prompted Bush to say he was “disappointed” by Congress’s inability to “rein in government spending.”

But the bill did include major funding cuts, including, notably, a 67 percent reduction in appropriations (from $520 million to $170 million) for the Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) program. According to the Justice Department, the program “allows states and local governments to support a broad range of activities to prevent and control crime and to improve the criminal justice system.”

How will this cut affect states’ and municipalities’ ability to protect public safety? That’s a supremely wonky (and supremely politicized) question–but it’s a good one, I think.

Walter Phillips Jr., chairman of the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency, offered a tentative answer today. Pennsylvania received $11.7 million in Byrne JAG funds in 2007; the two-thirds reduction for 2008 drops that number to $3.9 million. “Let there be no mistake,” Phillips warned, “this cut in federal funding will hamper justice improvements and innovations which ultimately help to protect our citizens.”

Wisconsin, too, has weighed in. The state’s Office of Justice Assistance (which is charged with disbursing federal justice and homeland security grant funds) says it uses Byrne JAG funds to “support the operations of multi-jurisdictional drug task forces, prosecutors, help crime victims and reduce racial disparities in Wisconsin’s justice system”; it is facing a $4.1 million cut, from $6.48 million to $2.37 million. David Steingraber, who directs Wisconsin’s Office of Justice Assistance and serves as president of the National Criminal Justice Association, said recently that “communities everywhere” will suffer from the cuts. “Congress has just made the job of every police officer in this country more difficult,” he adds.

I’ve got a related (admittedly wonky, politicized) question, one that will probably betray my ignorance on the subject. I ask it because I don’t know enough about how and under what conditions JAG funding is disbursed, and because I haven’t seen much commentary on this subject since the bill was signed into law. If these grants are primarily being applied to help police “toughen” up on crime and, say, bolster the victims’ rights lobby, then I’d conclude that cutting them by two-thirds might not be such a terrible idea. But if they’re expressly used to support the kind of reform efforts youth advocates and criminal defenders champion–and if increased funding could relieve, or work in tandem with, the nonprofit organizations that have stepped up in the absence of federal leadership–then I’d have a very different opinion on the matter.

So, how will this cut affect efforts at reform?

Cost of Implementing Adam Walsh Act
Fact Sheets Examine Impact of Sex Offender Registries

Impact of Sex Offender Registries

Factsheet: Youth Who Commit Sex Offenses
9/2/2008

Author(s): Justice Policy InstituteTopic(s): Juvenile Justice, Public Safety

Factsheet: The Negative Impact of Registries on Youth

9/2/2008

Author(s): Justice Policy InstituteTopic(s): Juvenile Justice, Public Safety

Factsheet: What Will It Cost States to Comply with the Sex Offender Registry and Notification Act?

9/2/2008

Author(s): Justice Policy InstituteTopic(s): Juvenile Justice, Public Safety

Link to Original

Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)

Washington Wire - WSJ.com : Police Chiefs Urge Candidates to Focus on Cri…
Department of Justice Announces More Than $10 Million in Grants for Prisone…
Federal/Provincial/Territorial Ministers Committed to Addressing Key Justic…

An Alarming Trend...

2008-09-14T19:44:00.000-07:00

Recently I became aware of 2 articles that might surprise people with some of the content they have. One is the ACLU's article titled "What Seven Years Have Taught Us" and the other is from another blog and the article is "Investigation into Whether America Is Still a Constitutional Government."

Both of these articles are talking about essentially the same thing. We have been at War for 7+ years now due to the declared State of Emergency from the terrorist attacks on 9/11/01. This State of Emergency give the President powers almost akin to that of a dictator.

Some of the powers he gains are:

seizure of property
organize and control the means of production
seizure of commodities
assign military forces abroad
institute martial law
seize and control all transportation and communications
regulate the operation of private enterprise
restrict travel
and, in a plethora of particular ways, control the lives of all American citizens

One might ask how that has any bearing on Sex Offender laws. With the ability to "institute martial law" and "regulate the operation of private enterprise," he can in effect, create a law that will stop Sex Offenders from going anywhere or getting any jobs.

One way this happens is by a tricky little piece of Legislation called a Suspension Calendar. You can find a decent deffinitioin of that on the ACLU site with the article "Congress-ese: A Suspension of…Rules." The suspension calendar is for mundain bills coming forth like the naming of post offices and whatnot. It was never meant for major bills like the Patriot Act or FISA or the AWA.

The other piece of the puzzle is the Unanimous Consent used in Legislation as well. Check it out at the ACLU site with the article called "The Golden Child of the Legislative Process." Unanimous Consent allows the Congress to take a "voice vote" which allows them to call out Yeah or Nay. This is not recorded, and there is no way to know which direction a Legislator voted (or even if someone else voted for them...)

Both of these were brought into precidence with the Patriot Act. It was used with the AWA and also FISA.

The President has allowed our country to be ruled by laws that don't work, and give the Government more power than the Constitution has set forth. This Declaration of a State of Emergency or Declaration of War has allowed the President to bypass the checks and balances system built into the Constitution.

I think that there should be a Committee of Legislators (from both houses) and from the Judiciary Branch to sit down and look at the state of affairs and decide if a Declaration of War/State of Emergency is still warranted.

The Constitution was set up to protect the citizens from the Government. Not allow the President total power over how the country is running by the simple Declaration of War/State of Emergency. This power has allowed precidence in the Judicial system to be set. Their hands are tied. They must follow the flow of things until there is a case braught before them that challenges the Constitutionality of this Power...

The Bill of Attainder Argument

2008-09-08T20:55:00.000-07:00

I wrote this in late July. For some reason I forgot to post it. So here you go...

July 30th, 2008
To Whom It May Concern:

I write this letter with the intent of bringing to light some constitutional issues that have arisen in our country in the last decade. Congress has begun the eroding of our rights, one at a time. They are hoping to establish a precedence of the people relying on the government for protection of all rights. This gives an air of an implied or awarded rights and not an inalienable right. This is against the very nature of the constitution that we hold as the basis of all laws in this nation. This matter has come to a boiling point in the last 2-3 years. No longer are people sitting by and complaining. Now we are starting to see an emergence of advocates on many different issues. All of which are in regards to Civil and Human Rights.

In writing this letter, I hope to evoke some thought as to the erosion of Human Rights in this country, mostly, in the arena of criminals. That is where Congress is starting, most specifically, with Sex Offenders.

According to Federalist Papers #57:

“The aim of every political constitution is, or ought to be, first to obtain for rulers men who possess most wisdom to discern, and most virtue to pursue, the common good of the society; and in the next place, to take the most effectual precautions for keeping them virtuous whilst they continue to hold their public trust.”

This shows that Congress was meant to show wisdom and discernment in the making of new laws. They were also supposed to stay “virtuous” while still in office.

It goes on to say:

“I will add, as a fifth circumstance in the situation of the House of Representatives, restraining them from oppressive measures, that they can make no law which will not have its full operation on themselves and their friends, as well as on the great mass of the society. This has always been deemed one of the strongest bonds by which human policy can connect the rulers and the people together. It creates between them that communion of interests and sympathy of sentiments, of which few governments have furnished examples; but without which every government degenerates into tyranny.”

This shows that the Congress is not supposed to pass any law that is not applicable to them as well. And if they try to, how is it to be combated? Here is the response:

“If it be asked, what is to restrain the House of Representatives from making legal discriminations in favor of themselves and a particular class of the society? I answer: the genius of the whole system; the nature of just and constitutional laws; and above all, the vigilant and manly spirit which actuates the people of America, a spirit which nourishes freedom, and in return is nourished by it.”

And with the tolerance shown by today’s society, here is the response to that as well:

“If this spirit shall ever be so far debased as to tolerate a law not obligatory on the legislature, as well as on the people, the people will be prepared to tolerate anything but liberty.”

We have shown that Congress is there to create laws for which we are all to live by. Originally, Congress helped in the creation of the Constitution. The Constitution was put in place to help govern the people. It was set up to give us the structure we needed, but also the freedoms that we would live by. It was signed by the Framers as a contract between the citizens and the government sworn to protect them. With the passage of laws in the last four decades, we have started to get away from the intent set forth by the Framers. The government was created as an entity of support and protection. Not a tyrannical establishment bent on seizing the rights of the free, and especially those that have sinned against the common good.

In the Contract Clause of this very Constitution, it states:

The Supreme Court laid out the test for whether a law violates the Contract Clause. The test is a three part test.

· First, the state regulation must substantially impair a contractual relationship.

· Second, the State "must have a significant and legitimate purpose behind the regulation, such as the remedying of a broad and general social or economic problem." 459 U.S. at 411-13

· Third, the law must be reasonable and appropriate for its intended purpose.
This test is similar to rational basis review.

Never has our Constitution “substantially impaired” our contractual relationship. Never has there been a “significant legitimate purpose” for “remedying” our Constitution. The Bill of Rights, yes; the Constitution, NO! The new “laws” have proven themselves to be unreasonable and inappropriate for their “intended purpose.” These laws are proving themselves to be more punitive in nature than the regulatory one that the States would have us believe it to be.

What is the difference between punitive and regulatory you may ask? I’ll answer your question.
But first, a little background on the two stages we will be talking about.

Regulatory Action

According to http://www.wikipedia.org/,

Civil law courts provide a forum for deciding disputes involving torts (such as accidents, negligence, and libel), contract disputes, the probate of wills, trusts, property disputes, administrative law, commercial law, and any other private matters that involve private parties and organizations including government departments. An action by an individual (or legal equivalent) against the attorney general is a civil matter, but when the state, being represented by the prosecutor for the attorney general, or some other agent for the state, takes action against an individual (or legal equivalent including a government department), this is public law, not civil law. In public law the objective is usually deterrence, and retribution. The victim, or people secondarily harmed by the wrong, do not get compensated, except with that vague notion called 'closure.'

So, as we see here, Civil Law is for disputes with contracts. Torts, contract disputes, probate of wills, trusts, property disputes, administrative law, commercial law, and private matters are all between two “people” and are set with no punishment (aka no punitive action).

Criminal Law on the other hand…

According to http://www.wikipedia.org/,

Criminal law is distinctive for the uniquely serious potential consequences of failure to abide by its rules. Every crime is composed of criminal elements. Capital punishment may be imposed in some jurisdictions for the most serious crimes. Physical or corporal punishment may be imposed such as whipping or caning, although these punishments are prohibited in much of the world. Individuals may be incarcerated in prison or jail in a variety of conditions depending on the jurisdiction. Confinement may be solitary. Length of incarceration may vary from a day to life. Government supervision may be imposed, including house arrest, and convicts may be required to conform to particularized guidelines as part of a parole or probation regimen. Fines also may be imposed, seizing money or property from a person convicted of a crime.

Five objectives are widely accepted for enforcement of the criminal law by punishments: retribution, deterrence, incapacitation, rehabilitation and restitution. Jurisdictions differ on the value to be placed on each.

Retribution - Criminals ought to suffer in some way. This is the most widely seen goal. Criminals have taken improper advantage, or inflicted unfair detriment, upon others and consequently, the criminal law will put criminals at some unpleasant disadvantage to "balance the scales." This belief has some connection with utilitarianism. People submit to the law to receive the right not to be murdered and if people contravene these laws, they surrender the rights granted to them by the law. Thus, one who murders may be murdered himself. A related theory includes the idea of "righting the balance."

Deterrence - Individual deterrence is aimed toward the specific offender. The aim is to impose a sufficient penalty to discourage the offender from criminal behavior. General deterrence aims at society at large. By imposing a penalty on those who commit offenses, other individuals are discouraged from committing those offenses.

Incapacitation - Designed simply to keep criminals away from society so that the public is protected from their misconduct. This is often achieved through prison sentences today. The death penalty or banishment have served the same purpose.

Rehabilitation - Aims at transforming an offender into a valuable member of society. Its primary goal is to prevent further offense by convincing the offender that their conduct was wrong.

Restitution - This is a victim-oriented theory of punishment. The goal is to repair, through state authority, any hurt inflicted on the victim by the offender. For example, one who embezzles will be required to repay the amount improperly acquired. Restitution is commonly combined with other main goals of criminal justice and is closely related to concepts in the civil law.

The word punishment is found many times in the Criminal Law. Punishment is not a Regulatory Action. It is punitive in nature.

So, back to the question at hand.

What is the difference between punitive and regulatory?

Regulatory is meant to do just that, regulate. There is no “punishment” associated with regulation. Regulations provide direction and information on how to do something. If a regulation has a “punishment” attached to it, it ceases to be regulatory and becomes punitive. Punitive is meant to punish and rehabilitate. Punitive does not show you how to do something, or even direct you. It is there for one purpose only. Punish.

If a punitive law is passed and it is meant to be retroactive, it falls under the Ex Post Facto Clause of the Constitution.

An ex post facto law or retroactive law, is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences of acts committed or the legal status of facts and relationships that existed prior to the enactment of the law. In reference to criminal law, it may criminalize actions that were legal when committed; or it may aggravate a crime by bringing it into a more severe category than it was in at the time it was committed; or it may change or increase the punishment prescribed for a crime, such as by adding new penalties or extending terms; or it may alter the rules of evidence in order to make conviction for a crime more likely than it would have been at the time of the action for which a defendant is prosecuted. Conversely, a form of ex post facto law commonly known as an amnesty law may decriminalize certain acts or alleviate possible punishments (for example by replacing the death sentence with life-long imprisonment) retroactively.

The constitution has a strict policy on this. It says “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.” In theory, this should stop any bill from being passed retroactively. Unfortunately, this is not what happens in the creation of today’s laws.

Another piece that these laws are inhibiting is Due Process of Law.

Due Process of Law has two parts to it, Substantive and Procedural.

Substantive Due Process:

Substantive Due Process is the inherent freedoms mentioned in the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. It also takes into consideration those secondary rights allotted by these same documents.

In the words of www.answers.com/due%20process the definition is as follows:

“Substantive due process concerns specific behaviors of individuals that, according to the Court, are generally beyond the reach of government power, such as the free exercise of religion or participation in private organizations that petition the government about public problems and issues. The government may not regulate these actions, not even by the use of the fairest legal procedures, because to do so would violate the most fundamental rights of individuals in a constitutional government, such as rights to liberty, property, and equality under the law. If government officials want to regulate these kinds of usually protected actions, they must demonstrate that they cannot achieve a legitimate public purpose by any other means.”

Some of these rights are:

· Freedom of Association
· Freedom to Participate
· Freedom of Movement
· Freedom of Privacy
· Freedom of Choice

This is just a partial list of the Rights we have that Substantive Due Process provides for.

Procedural Due Process:

Procedural Due Process is the process by which our rights are maintained. Precedence and procedures are the basis for this right.

According to www.answers.com/due%20process the definition is as follows:

“These rights of the accused are examples of procedural due process, and they are constitutional limits on the power of government designed to protect the rights and liberties of individuals.Procedural due process—the idea that government must follow fair and generally accepted legal procedures in its actions against individuals—has been traced to the great English charter of liberty, the Magna Carta (1215). By signing this document, King John of England agreed to “obey the law of the land.” This idea developed into the legal guarantee of procedural due process of law to protect people against arbitrary or lawless punishments or penalties imposed by the government.”

Some of these rights are:

· Freedom of Assembly
· Freedom to Vote
· Freedom to Travel
· Freedom from Search and Seizure
· Freedom of Property
· Freedom from Bodily Invasion

Basically, if Congress doesn’t follow “fair and generally accepted legal procedures,” then it is not following the law of Procedural Due Process.

This leads us to the issue of Civil Rights and how they are allotted.

In the Civil Rights Act of 1871, they were specific as to what would happen, or be allowed to happen, if Congress were to take one of our rights away.

“Every person who under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, Suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.”

Later, the United Nations also came out with a Bill of Rights that the United States of America signed.

The document can be found at http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/lang/eng.htm. But the basic gist of the document reads that no Nation shall usurp the Rights of its citizens as these are inalienable rights handed down by God.

Some of our inalienable rights can be found in the Constitution, and some in our own Bill of Rights.

One of the main inalienable rights is Liberty.

“Liberty is divided into four types: natural, personal, civil and political. The first two are inalienable; the latter two are government granted. Natural liberty is absolute freedom, limited only by the laws of nature. It is exercised upon one's private property or upon unclaimed property (anywhere else would be a trespass). Personal liberty is the right of locomotion, the freedom to travel upon public roads and waterways; limited only by the requirement to not infringe another's right to travel. Civil liberty is the permission from government to do that which would otherwise be a trespass, a tort or not allowed by law. A license to practice medicine is an example of a civil liberty (inflict injury without criminal liability). Political liberty is the permission to vote and hold office. In countries with socialist / communist governments that abolish private property rights, natural and personal liberty does not exist. Permission (license) is required for most activities and actions.”

Other inalienable rights have already been discussed in this letter.

To take these rights away, there has to be a great reason for doing so.

The problem lies not so much in surrendering your rights once you have broken the law, it’s the continued loss of these rights as well as new ones after the fact. This continual loss of rights is a punishment greater than that set aside for us in any plea bargain we may sign or have signed.
To punish someone like that, creates a punitive action. Any bill that is passed by Congress with the intent to punish, or has punishing capabilities is illegal. Congress’ right is to create laws, not enforce them. That is the job of the Judiciary Branch of the Government set forth in the very Constitution of these United States of America.

Some examples of Congress’ intent for punitive action:

Rep. Virginia Brown-Waite [R-FL]:
“That is what this bill is all about; it is going after those, as someone once described, pond-scum predators.”

Sen. Orrin Hatch [R-UT]:
“The bottom line here is that sex offenders have run rampant in this country and now Congress and the people are ready to respond with legislation that will curtail the ability of sex offenders to operate freely.”

Sen. Charles Grassley [R-IA]:
“Child sex offenders are the most heinous of all criminals. I can honestly tell you that I would just as soon lock up all the child molesters and child pornography makers and murderers in this country and throw away the key.”

Rep. James Sensenbrenner [R-WI]:
“…the bill increases criminal penalties to punish and deter those who prey on children.”
As well as this:

“The bill also increases criminal penalties to punish and deter those who prey on children…” (Stated in two different parts of his speech)

Here we have a bill that is Civil, yet creates and intent of punishment, which is Criminal.
Any time Congress creates a law that is meant to punish (either with intent by the legislators creating the law, or in fact with the wording of the law) it falls under the Bill of Attainder Clause found in the Constitution under Article 1, sections 9 and 10.

Bills of Attainder:

According to http://www.findlaw.com/

''Bills of attainder . . . are such special acts of the legislature, as inflict capital punishments upon persons supposed to be guilty of high offences, such as treason and felony, without any conviction in the ordinary course of judicial proceedings. If an act inflicts a milder degree of punishment than death, it is called a bill of pains and penalties. . . . In such cases, the legislature assumes judicial magistracy, pronouncing upon the guilt of the party without any of the common forms and guards of trial, and satisfying itself with proofs, when such proofs are within its reach, whether they are conformable to the rules of evidence, or not. In short, in all such cases, the legislature exercises the highest power of sovereignty, and what may be properly deemed an irresponsible despotic discretion, being governed solely by what it deems political necessity or expediency, and too often under the influence of unreasonable fears, or unfounded suspicions.'' The phrase ''bill of attainder,'' as used in this clause and in clause 1 of Sec. 10, applies to bills of pains and penalties as well as to the traditional bills of attainder.

Basically, if Congress passes a law that has a punishment attached to it, and it singles out a person or “easily ascertainable group,” then it falls under a Bill of Attainder. This is providing that the punishment is handed out without the benefit of a Jury Trial.

Also, this comes to mind:

“They inflict punitive sanctions in disregard of judicial methods of proof designed to insure fairness in fact‐finding. The history of bills of attainder has also shown that their passage was often induced by popular passion or motivated by unproved suspicions.”

With Congress and the media continually misquoting recidivism rates for the sex offenders, it’s no wonder that these laws are flying through our Legislative system. One bill that I know of, from introduction to the Senate, to the passage in the House of Representatives, was a total of eight and a half months. This time included only 120 minutes of total discussion time collaboratively between the House and the Senate. It was brought under a suspension calendar which is only supposed to be used for the mundane things like the naming of post offices. It was never meant to be used for major controversial issues of the current day. Those need to be debated thoroughly to make sure that no rights are infringed upon. But in this case, that was purposefully pushed aside in an attempt to rush the bill to vote.

Specifically, we are talking about the Adam Walsh Act. This is a collection of popular issues with the focus being on sex offenders. The issue of sex offenders was used to piggyback the other topics. Then the bill was placed on suspension calendar which didn’t allow for amendments, or debate. Many times over, according to the Congressional Record, it was shown that the intent was to “punish” the “pond-scum predators.” Congress was intent on finding ways to “regulate” these offenders by giving them greater “punishments.” That’s a mix of Civil Law and Criminal Law. Also against the Law they are sworn to uphold.

On one hand, it’s a Bill that needs to be voiced. But, on the other hand, the way in which it was passed, the lack of Congressional Record to the final vote cast, or the submission of the passed bill to the President, screams of something foul.

There were Legislators for and against. We’ve heard from some that were for it a moment ago.

Now let’s hear from some that are against it.

Rep. Fortney Stark [D-CA]:
“Once again, this Congress is attempting to address very serious and complicated problems with a law that substitutes the talking points of "tough on crime" politicians for the wisdom of judges, prosecutors, treatment professionals and child advocates.”

That seems to say that Congress is trying to institute themselves as the Judge and Jury while pushing out those that are supposed to cover that arena.

Also from Rep. Stark:
“I cannot violate my Constitutional duty to protect our independent judiciary nor can I support extreme, dangerous policies, so I will vote against this bill.”

Rep. Barney Frank [D-MA]:
“…it is being dealt with in a manner in which no amendments are allowed, in which only 40 minutes total of debate are allowed. And it is a bill brought forward because the committee leadership didn't like what happened when the House actually voted on it in a democratic manner.”

Also from Rep. Frank:
“This is a shameful example of the degradation of the democratic process that has befallen this House. What happens is what has happened in the past: things get put in here that cannot be individually examined, they cannot be debated. Members will feel pressured to vote for the overall package. Members, and this is the goal, put a lot of things in here that are very important and very good, many of which I have voted for in the past, many of which I want to vote for. But Members have put in a few other things that are very controversial and do not allow this House to approach looking at things individually and saying an amendment here, yes or no. And then if Members do not buy the whole package, then you go after them.

The Republican majority has decided to legislate in the same manner in which you give a pill to a dog: you take something that the dog wants and you stick a couple of pills in it and you ram it down its throat. That is an inappropriate way for this democratic House to proceed.”

Here he is speaking of the underhanded tactics of some people in Congress to slyly pass this highly controversial bill. He speaks of a lack of following procedure in the House and how it shames said House.

Rep. Robert Scott [D-VA]:
“Now, with no more basis than we had before, just the name of the crime and the continuing political appeal of appearing tough on sex offenders, we are again greatly increasing penalties with more death penalties and increased mandatory minimums, including more mandatory minimums for teenagers having consensual sex.”

On one hand, he is referring to the ridiculousness of having consensual sex teenagers having to register. But, on the other hand, he shows the intent of the Congress to gain more votes by the passage of new Sex Offender Laws for the mere appearance of being “tough on predators.”

This effort to appear to be tough on predators has launched a barrage of laws that have created serious problems in our society. Many studies show that offenders without support networks, jobs, friends, family, significant others, and the basic human right of self esteem, are at an increasingly high risk to reoffend. When an offender has nothing to lose, he can become dangerous indeed. These new laws are creating that effect, whether intentional or not.

With Congress using the suspension calendar to review and vote on so sensitive a topic as sexual abuse, it flies in the face of tradition. Due Process of Law by procedure is a valuable tool in the assurance of rights for all. Are we not afforded the same courtesy when a new law is being written as well? Are we not allowed the right to have laws passed by tradition and precedence? The AWA was passed without that consideration. And on the Substantive side of things, it takes away several of our human rights set forth in the constitution. The law is applied to ALL sex offenders, regardless of when they were convicted. This falls under the Ex Post Facto Clause of the Constitution. The Supreme Court has ruled several times that according to Smith v. Doe (Alaska ruling) that the Registry is “regulatory” and not “punitive.” Well, just recently, Alaska ruled in Doe v. Alaska, that the registry when used to apply to someone convicted prior to the passage of the law is in fact a punitive action. Therefore, the AWA is punitive for anyone convicted prior to its passage and target effect date. The AWA also falls under the Bill of Attainder clause found in the Bill of Rights as well as the Constitution. This law was passed with the intent and the effect of punishing hundreds of thousands of people in an “easily identifiable class” and their families as well. This can also be seen as a cruel and unusual punishment as well as falling under the Double Jeopardy Clause for punishing those offenders after they served their sentence and time.

Congress has the moral obligation to protect ALL of the citizens. These laws need to be written to help the offenders get rehabilitated, not solely to punishing them at every turn. Congress has gotten away from its intended purpose of creating legislation for the greater good of all. They are bent on finding ways of using hot topics to further their careers and ride the backs of those people who have made poor choices in life. They ceased to be a party of the people, by the people, and for the people. They are now a party of greedy people looking to cement their names in history.

Lately, there has been a strong call to restore the original intent of the Constitution and the ideas for which it stands for. This letter is intended to help facilitate that action. Repeal the AWA and send the message that people of these United States of America are tired of being deceived and lied to for political gain. The people are tired of oppression, and they are tired of corruption. Now is the time to stand and fight for our God given rights as human beings. If we continue to sit back and allow things to happen, no longer will be allowed our basic human rights. No longer will this be a Free Nation, but one of Dictatorship and Tyranny.

Now is the time to cement your name in history by creating a just and fair law that will stand the test of time. Create a law that works towards the rehabilitation and reunification of sex offenders into our society as productive members. Create groups that will offer support for offenders in need of counsel. Show that this country can be not only just, but compassionate as well. We need fairness and equality more than ever in our Legislation. Use the true facts, not just the ones made up to create a fear factor among the public. Show them the true colors that make up America. Show them the greatness that lies within. Show them, before it’s gone forever.

Thank you for your time.

A List of Resources:

The Federalist Papers:
· http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fedindex.htm

Bill of Attainder:
· http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder
· http://www.answers.com/topic/bill-of-attainder
· http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article01/47.html
· http://frontpage.brightok.net/~sempai/billofattainder
· http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Sanctions
· http://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_06_4_manweller.pdf

Congressional Record:
· http://www.govtrack.us/congress/record.xpd?id=109-h20060308-32&bill=h109-4472#sMonofilemx003Ammx002Fmmx002Fmmx002Fmhomemx002Fmgovtrackmx002Fmdatamx002Fmusmx002Fm109mx002Fmcrmx002Fmh20060308-32.xmlElementm48m0m0m
· http://www.govtrack.us/congress/record.xpd?id=109-s20060719-13&bill=h109-4472
· http://www.govtrack.us/congress/record.xpd?id=109-s20060720-7&bill=h109-4472
· http://www.govtrack.us/congress/record.xpd?id=109-h20060725-33&bill=h109-4472
· http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=71&invol=277

Due Process:
· http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_duep.html
· http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process
· http://www.answers.com/due%20process
· http://members.aol.com/abtrbng/sdp.htm

A list of further resources is available upon request.

Sex Offender Regulations: Punitive v. Regulatory

2008-07-08T19:01:00.000-07:00

Sex Offender Regulations
Punitive v. Regulatory
Evidence of Laws since Smith v. Doe
July 7, 2008

To whom it may concern:

This letter is sent in the effort of shedding some light on the recent laws that have been passed in the effort of protecting our Nations children from Sex Offenders. In Smith v. Doe, it was put forth by the Supreme Court that the Sex Offender Registry was considered to be a “Regulatory action and not a punitive consequence.” But, in the years since that verdict, several states have gone so far as to pass new laws that restrict our Nations Sex Offenders to ever farther reaching boundaries. Lately, many of these have come under fire for being “Unconstitutional.”

Here are some examples of Sex Offender Laws being challenged across this Country:

“Utahn can ignore state sex-offender registry”
http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_9761706

“Federal judge halts sex offender law”
http://www.lvrj.com/news/22752939.html

“Sex offender law goes too far, court rules”
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080625/NEWS02/806250426

“Dover defends sex offender ordinance in NHCLU challenge”
http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Dover+defends+sex+offender+ordinance+in+NHCLU+challenge&articleId=56e6f675-a6f0-4d7a-8200-0983ab2e4d1d

“Deltona takes steps to relax residency rule for sex offenders”
http://www.news-journalonline.com/NewsJournalOnline/News/WestVolusia/wvlHEAD03WEST061708.htm

Apparently there is a lot of consensus these days that the Laws being passed by our Legislators across the Country are considered to be Unconstitutional.

If one believes them to be Unconstitutional, then that would lead one to believe that they were written to do more than Regulate. Might one then consider that they were in fact written to be Punitive? To the point that in Georgia, Sex Offenders are banished to ONE county out of 129!! How is that Regulatory? They even tell the Sex Offenders that they can’t use “homeless” as an address. They say that if you can’t afford a place to live, then you are in violation of the Registry and you will go to jail. This is being argued in court as you read this.

In Florida, they found that they needed to relax the city Residency Restrictions of 2500 ft (the States RR is only 1000 ft) to now exclude “bus stops.”

New Hampshire is fighting a battle right now. The NCHLU has determined that the RR’s in New Hampshire actually are against the States own Constitution.

Here are a few examples of Legislators who are bent on punishing Offenders beyond their terms:

“La. could allow confinement of sex offenders beyond prison sentences”
http://www.wwltv.com/topstories/stories/wwl070708cbsexoff.2ffefc40.html

“Jindal runs into voter backlash”
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1080630/jsp/frontpage/story_9482170.jsp

“Sex offender lawsuit”
http://abclocal.go.com/wtvg/story?section=news/local&id=6240568

In Louisiana, the Governor has come under fire for attempting to circumvent the Supreme Court. He even goes so far as to call their actions “atrocious.” He has vowed to pass as many laws as it takes to provide an equivalent Death Penalty in the hopes of getting around the Supreme Courts Decision.

In Ohio, the law has become so strong that a clerk at a Hustler store is suing the state. She is afraid that she might be forced to Register as a Sex Offender because she sells pornographic materials (which is seen as “obscene material”). Anyone possessing or distributing “obscene material” could be forced to register as a Sex Offender, even if they have no victim.

More and more, it is becoming apparent that the Legislators are attempting to pass laws to show the public that they are “tough on Sex Offenders” and that they want our votes. They create and try to pass laws (sometimes behind closed doors) to further box in the Sex Offender. New laws are being passed in Missouri that would keep Sex Offenders (even those that haven’t reoffended in decades) from participating in Social Networks (i.e. Facebook, MySpace, etc.). So, now they can’t live within 2500 ft of parks, schools, churches, daycares (Florida); but they also can’t go online to try to form socially acceptable relationships (for those that don’t target children). Tennessee now requires them to have a “special license” stating that they are Sex Offenders.

So my question is, where does the Regulatory action end and the Punitive Damages begin? With all of these laws, it become increasingly hard for Sex Offenders to find jobs, keep friends and family, and to acquire adequate housing. No longer does our Nations Legislators work to regulate. They now work with the intent of helping the Nation “feel” like it’s being protected. As in the case of Georgia, they will just send any law that gets knocked down back to have the phrase that got it rejected reworked. This shows a lack of concern for the “reason” that it was knocked down in the first place.

We appreciate your attention to this matter. We hope that you will look into this with an intent to see the true nature of the laws. Punitive!

ARE YOU LOOKING FOR A JOB? CHECK THIS OUT

2008-06-24T00:28:00.000-07:00

ARE YOU LOOKING FOR A JOB? CHECK THIS OUT

Are you looking for a job? Having a hard time getting someone to hire you? Try this...links to Federal bonds... check out these links so you can tell your prospective employer that he can get a special bond to hire a high risk employee!

http://www.bonds4jobs.com/index.html home page

http://www.bonds4jobs.com/index.html bond seekers

http://www.bonds4jobs.com/state-coordinators.html state directory

The Age of Culpability.

2008-06-23T23:43:00.000-07:00

The Age of Culpability argument is founded on the principle that a child's brain does not develop to maturity until later in the teenage years all the way up to the age of 25. The Legal argument is that children under the age of 18 are less "culpable" than those that are over the age of 18.

This legal argument overlaps the Defence of Infancy law which states that no child under 7 can be help liable for a crime. Most states have that age between 11-14 and some even as high as 18.

When you add the two together, you get an idea as follows:

-Children are less and less culpable the younger they are from the age of 18

-Children under the age of 7 are exempt from prosecution-Children who commit crimes between the age of 7 and 18, need to have their age at the time of the crime taken into consideration

-Children who commit crimes between the age of 7 and 18 should have greater care taken for their understanding and rehabilitation for their actions

-The Judicial System, mainly the Juvenile Courts, is set up to protect the children from the sentences of the Adult Courts

When you take all of these things into consideration, the responsibility of the Courts is a grave one indeed. To protect our children, even from themselves. To hand out justice to those that need it, and leniency to those that deserve it.

Unfortunately, this doesn't happen in this day and age anymore...

Does our Judiciary Branch actually monitor the laws being passed these days?

2008-06-11T23:09:00.000-07:00

More and more it is being braught to my attention that our Judiciary System is failing us in favor of winning votes. There are several laws on the books that are actually taking away the constitutional rights of a certain class of individuals. All in the name of Regulation. But the Courts fail to notice the Ex Post Facto, Due Process of Law, and many other Rights that are being taken away from these people. The Supreme Courts are there to protect the public from the onslaught of Laws being passed in ignorance of the implications that these have on the Citizens.

How long before we start to get back to a more fundamental outlook on Society? Too long we have been passing "feel-good" laws that do nothing to protect society as a whole. These laws give a false sense of being protected when they actually in some cases, have the potential to do the opposite of their intent.

The time to take back America is almost gone. And most American's never even knew it had started.

"Why the "Natural Way" is wrong"

2008-05-21T02:24:00.000-07:00

"How to have Confidence and Power in Dealing with People" by Les Giblin
Page 105, under the title of "Why the "Natural Way" is wrong"

"The natural thing to do when we run up against a contrary idea or opinion is to argue. It may be only a question of which baseball team is best- or it may be a question debated by statesmen in the United Nations. Unfortunately, the natural thing is still to attempt to argue down our opponent.

Someone has said that golf is difficult because the golf swing is unnatural. It goes against every natural impulse of how to swing a club. We must learn a scientific, but unnatural swing.

The same thing might be said for the art of persuasion. It is natural to regard someone who opposes our ideas as an opponent to be overcome in one way or another. Yet, what we really want to do is convince the other fellow, induce him to change his mind rather than to conquer him or beat him down.

When someone opposes our ideas, it is natural for us to take it as a threat and a slap to our own ego. And so it is natural to hit back at his own ego, to become emotional and hostile, to shout, threaten, shame, ridicule, and try to ram our ideas down his throat by intimidation or force. We exaggerate every one of our own so-called reasons or clams, and make light of every one of our opponent's points.

But this natural way does not win. Because the only way you can ever really win an argument is to get the other fellow to change his mind."

I post this in an attempt to get people to realise that the only way you will ever win the argument you may be having with an opponent, is to find a way to get them to change their mind about where they stand. Bashing and defaming will not work.

I hope that we can all take this to heart.

Residency Restrictions becoming Unconstitutional.

2008-05-21T01:08:00.000-07:00

There are alot of States that are starting to realise that it is Unconstitutional to restrict the area in which a Registered Sex Offender can live after his sentense period is up. Someone subject to the laws after they are written, will on the otherhand have to abide by them. But the ones that live there now, get grandfathered in. But, if they move, they now have to follow the laws.

I will find more cases where this is displayed.

I will also look for a way to get the Federal Government to see this logic and make it a Federal Law.

Tort Laws.

2008-05-20T04:54:00.000-07:00

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_tort_law

Under United States tort law, torts are generally divided into three categories: intentional torts, negligence, and strict liability torts.Intentional torts include those actions that are intentional and voluntary and that are made with knowledge by the tortfeasor (i.e. the person who committed the tort) upon the plaintiff (the one who brings the complaint seeking relief). Intentional torts include: battery, assault (apprehension of harmful or offensive contact), false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), invasion of privacy, fraud, defamation of character (includes libel, which is written defamation of character and slander, which is non-written defamation of character), malicious prosecution, abuse of process, the real property tort of trespass to land, and the personal property torts of conversion and trespass to chattels.

Hmmm.... let it soak in...

A Letter.

2008-05-20T03:55:00.000-07:00

To Whom It May Concern:

The topic of this letter is to ask for the help of the ACLU. My intention in writing this letter is to try and find a way to change some laws that are currently on the books. Both on the State level, as well as Federally.

There are several major parts to my idea/argument.
· The Civil Rights Act of 1871
· The Contract Clause after 1934
· The Fourteenth Amendment
· Ex Post Facto Law

There is also one minor part of my idea/argument.
· Punitive Damages

These laws are set in place to create a way for someone to fight a law/ regulation that they feel is unjust. By utilizing these laws, we can get the laws that are currently on the books changed into something more uniformly just.

I’m talking about Sex Offender Registration and Residency Laws.

My intent is not to ask for the laws to be abolished, but more to be smoothed out. To create a way that will more seamlessly mesh with the ideals of the Constitution of the United States of America. By this, I mean that the wording, the structure, and tone of the Laws be changed to create a system that will more equally represent the position of all involved.

In the next few pages, I will show you what it is that I am getting at. I hope that my meanderings make some sense. Also that we can work together to forge ahead in the pursuit of Justice.

The Civil Rights Act of 1871 1

This law was created to “allow individuals to sue state actors in State or Federal Courts for civil rights violations.” Section 1983 allows them to gain the jurisdiction of the Federal Court.

The document reads:
Every person who under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, Suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.

In the case of Monroe v. Pape: The Supreme Court decided that there are three purposes that underlay the statute: 1) 'to override certain kinds of state laws'; 2) to provide 'a remedy where state law was inadequate'; and 3) to provide 'a federal remedy where the state remedy, though adequate in theory, was not available in practice.

Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act provides a way individuals can sue to redress violations of federally protected rights, like the First Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment and Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. Section 1983 can be used to enforce rights based on the federal constitution and federal statutes.

The point that I’m attempting to make with the Civil Rights Act, is that as Sex Offenders, we are subjected to “regulatory” statutes that require us to not live in certain areas or to be in certain areas. Although I truly and fully understand why these laws were put in place, unfortunately, they strip us of our rights due to us by the Constitution. Again I state that these laws were intended well, but need to be rewritten. I will submit my proposal to you at the end of this letter.

The Contract Clause After 1934 2

A little history:
In Home Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell 290 U.S. 398 (1934), the Supreme Court upheld a Minnesota law that temporarily restricted the ability of mortgage holders to foreclose. The law was enacted to prevent mass foreclosures during a time of economic hardship. The kind of contract modification performed by the law in question was exactly the kind that the Framers intended to prohibit. However, Chief Justice Marshall famously said in McCulloch v. Maryland, "It is a constitution we are expounding." By this, he likely meant that the constitution must adapt to the times. This statement is also interpreted to mean that the "framers' intent is not controlling." The Supreme Court held that this law was a valid exercise of the state's Police Power. It found that the temporary nature of the contract modification and the emergency of the situation justified the law.

Further cases have refined this holding, differentiating between governmental interference with private contracts and interference with contracts entered into by the government. Succinctly, there is more scrutiny when the government modifies a contract to alter its own obligations. (See United States Trust Co. v. New Jersey, 431 U.S. 1 (1977).) [1]

Modification of Private Contracts After 1934
The Supreme Court laid out the test for whether a law violates the Contract Clause. The test is a three part test. First, the state regulation must substantially impair a contractual relationship. Second, the State "must have a significant and legitimate purpose behind the regulation, such as the remedying of a broad and general social or economic problem." 459 U.S. at 411-13 Third, the law must be reasonable and appropriate for its intended purpose. This test is similar to rational basis review.

Modification of Government Contracts After 1934
In United States Trust Co. v. New Jersey, the Supreme Court held that a higher level of scrutiny was needed for situations where laws modified the government's own contractual obligations.

Application of the Contract Clause Barbri Bar Review (2004)
The Contract Clause prohibits states from enacting any law that retroactively impairs contract rights. The Contract Clause applies only to state legislation, not court decisions.

Private Contracts

The Contracts Clause prevents only substantial impairments of contract, i.e. destruction or loss of most or all of a party's rights under an existing contract. However, not all substantial impairments violate the Contracts Clause.To determine whether state legislation is valid under the Contracts Clause, the following three part test applies:

(i) Does the state legislation substantially impair a party's rights under an existing contract? If it does not, the state legislation is valid under the Contracts Clause. If it does, such impairment will be valid only if it:

(ii) Serves an important and legitimate public interest; and

(iii) Is a reasonable and narrowly tailored means of promoting that public interest.

The reason that I gave you that information, was to highlight the areas that I felt proved my argument. My argument states that during a court hearing, the defendant and the State’s Prosecuting Attorney, enter into a “Contract” when the defendant signs a plea bargain set forth by the prosecuting attorney. The Judge ratifies this contract when he follows the recommendation of the prosecuting attorney. Therefore, when new Legislation is enacted that effectively breaks that contract, the State is then in violation of said contract. Such as Residency Restrictions.
Here is some information about the Fourteenth Amendment that shows the correlation between the Contract Clause and the Civil Rights Act.

The Fourteenth Amendment 3

The amendment requires states to provide equal protection under the law to all persons (not only to citizens) within their jurisdictions.

A legal person 4, also called juridical person or juristic person, is a legal entity through which the law allows a group of natural persons to act as if they were a single composite individual for certain purposes, or in some jurisdictions, for a single person to have a separate legal personality other than their own. This legal fiction does not mean these entities are human beings, but rather means that the law allows them to act as persons for certain limited purposes—most commonly lawsuits, property ownership, and contracts. This concept is separate from and should not be confused with limited liability or the joint stock principle. Also note that basic rights (like the rights to free speech and due process of law) do not necessarily follow from legal personhood. A legal person is sometimes called an artificial person or legal entity (although the latter is sometimes understood to include natural persons as well).

So, on one hand we have the Civil ramifications that come of unjust Legislation. On the other hand, we have the Federal ramifications of said Legislation that falls under the Ex Post Facto Law due to the retroactivity of said Legislation. Here is what I mean.

Ex post facto law 5

An ex post facto law or retroactive law, is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences of acts committed or the legal status of facts and relationships that existed prior to the enactment of the law. In reference to criminal law, it may criminalize actions that were legal when committed; or it may aggravate a crime by bringing it into a more severe category than it was in at the time it was committed; or it may change or increase the punishment prescribed for a crime, such as by adding new penalties or extending terms; or it may alter the rules of evidence in order to make conviction for a crime more likely than it would have been at the time of the action for which a defendant is prosecuted. Conversely, a form of ex post facto law commonly known as an amnesty law may decriminalize certain acts or alleviate possible punishments (for example by replacing the death sentence with life-long imprisonment) retroactively.

A law may have an ex post facto effect without being technically ex post facto. For example, when a law repeals a previous law, the repealed legislation no longer applies to the situations it once did, even if such situations arose before the law was repealed. The principle of prohibiting the continued application of these kinds of laws is also known as Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine praevia lege poenali.

Generally speaking, ex post facto laws are seen as a violation of the rule of law as it applies in a free and democratic society. Most common law jurisdictions do not permit retroactive legislation, though some have suggested that judge-made law is retroactive as a new precedent applies to events that occurred prior to the judicial decision. In some nations that follow the Westminster system of government, such as the United Kingdom, ex post facto laws are technically possible as the doctrine of parliamentary supremacy allows parliament to pass any law it wishes. However, in a nation with an entrenched bill of rights or a written constitution, ex post facto legislation may be prohibited.

Ex post facto is the uncomplimentary characterization of law and legislation that applies retroactively (i.e. "from a thing done afterward").

United States

In the United States, ex post facto laws are prohibited in federal law by Article I, section 9 of the U.S. Constitution and in state law by section 10. Over the years, when deciding ex post facto cases, the United States Supreme Court has referred repeatedly to its ruling in the Calder v. Bull case of 1798, in which Justice Chase established four categories of unconstitutional ex post facto laws. The case dealt with Article I, section 10, since it dealt with a Connecticut state law.

However, not all laws with ex post facto effects have been found to be unconstitutional. One current U.S. law that has an ex post facto effect is the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006. This law, which imposes new registration requirements on convicted sex offenders, gives the U.S. Attorney General the authority to apply the law retroactively. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Smith v. Doe (2003) that forcing sex offenders to register their whereabouts at regular intervals and the posting of personal information about them on the Internet does not violate the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws, because compulsory registration of offenders who completed their sentences before new laws requiring compliance went into effect does not constitute a punishment.

Another example is the so-called Lautenburg law where firearms prohibitions were imposed on those convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence offenses and subjects of restraining orders (which do not require a criminal conviction). These individuals can now be sentenced to up to 10 years in a federal prison for possession of a firearm, regardless of whether or not the weapon was legally possessed at the time the law was passed. Among those that it is claimed the law has affected is a father who was convicted of a misdemeanor of child abuse despite claims that he had only spanked his child, since anyone convicted of child abuse now faces a lifetime firearms prohibition. The law has been legally upheld because it is considered regulatory, not punitive - it is a status offense.

The intent of this part is to show you how Residency Laws (for some offenders, this came into effect long after their probation/terms of the contract were met) have Retroactively punished offenders.

In this section, we will address the Supreme Courts ruling in Smith v. Doe.

Smith v. Doe 6

Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84 (2003), was a court case in the United States which questioned the constitutionality of the Alaska Sex Offender Registration Act's retroactive requirements. Under the Act, any sex offender must register with the Department of Corrections or local law enforcement within one business day of entering the state. This information is forwarded to the Department of Public Safety, which maintains a public database. Fingerprints, social security number, anticipated change of address, and medical treatment after the offense are kept confidential. The offender's name, aliases, address, photograph, physical description, driver's license number, motor vehicle identification numbers, place of employment, date of birth, crime, date and place of conviction, and length and conditions of sentence are part of the public record, maintained on the Internet.

Smith v. Doe questioned the constitutionality of the Act's retroactive requirements. John Doe I and II were convicted of aggravated assault before the Act's passage and filed suit claiming the Act was punitive and violated the Ex Post Facto Clause of Article I of the U.S. Constitution. The District court ruled against the Does, saying that the Act was nonpunitive. The Appeals Court sided with the Does that the Act was in fact punitive and violates Ex Post Facto.

Supreme Court's Ruling

Held: Because the Alaska Sex Offender Registration Act is nonpunitive, its retroactive application does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause.

The question is if the intention was to impose a punishment or "civil proceedings". If the intention was to punish, that ends the inquiry. If the intention was to enact a regulatory scheme that is civil and nonpunitive, the Court must examine whether the scheme is so punitive as to negate the State's intention to deem it civil. Because the Court ordinarily defers to the legislature's stated intent, only the clearest proof will suffice to override that intent and transform what has been denominated a civil remedy into a criminal penalty. The Court decided 6-3 that legislature's intent was to create a civil, nonpunitive program to protect the public and that the resulting dissemination of the registration information was not significant enough to declare as debilitating. The dissenting justices held the Act could only cover persons convicted after passage without violating the Ex Post Facto Clause.

My rebuttal to the Supreme Court’s decision:

Punitive damages 7 are damages not awarded in order to compensate the plaintiff, but in order to reform or deter the defendant and similar persons from pursuing a course of action such as that which damaged the plaintiff.

So, by definition, punitive damages are set in place to deter and reform. The Residency Laws are punitive. To an extent, so is the Registration process. By pushing Sex Offenders out of their homes, you create a punitive law. Punitive Laws fall under the Ex Post Facto rulings. These punitive laws are effectively “segregating” us from the community as a whole. We Sex Offenders may not be described in the laws against Segregation, but we are “persons” under the jurisdiction of each individual state and the federal government as well. Being described as “persons” entitles us to “equal protection under the law.”

My Proposal:

I propose that the Residency Laws be marked as unconstitutional. They violated the contracts of those that were finished with/ started our contracts with the State prior to the Law being passed. That through the Registration process, we were stripped of our rights for equal protection under the law. And by passing retroactive and punitive laws, that Ex Post Facto be cited. This of course would be for those that were sentenced prior to the passing of said laws.

What I would like to see happen, is that the Registration process be reformed to allow the Sex Offender that can adequately display completion of treatment, be allowed to unregister. Those Sex Offenders that reoffend should be labeled as Sexual Predator. Sexual Predators should be subject to the current Residency Restrictions and public Online Registries. Persons in treatment, and those that have successfully completed treatment, should be allowed to get off of the public registry and be moved to a private registry. This registry would be for the law enforcement agencies to use in monitoring those still on the registry. Sex Offenders that meet certain requirements should be allowed to be removed from the registry (due process of law). As an offender shows progress and effort, they should be able to move from one registry to the next. Or, a lack of compliance to treatment would constitute a high risk behavior that might land them on the public registry. The general idea being that a person can achieve due process of law by following treatment, guidance from councilors, thus getting off of the registry all together. A person moves up or down the registries of their own accord.

I appreciate your time and diligence in reading my remarks. I hope that I have made some sense and that you will find a way to help me get these issues resolved.

Sincerely-

Resources:
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/42_U.S.C._%C2%A7_1983, http://www.familyrightsassociation.com/info/law/title42sec1983/
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_Clause
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juristic_person
5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto
6. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_v._Doe
7. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punative