<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Colorado court of appeals says internet prohibition is constitutional	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.narsol.org/2021/07/colorado-court-of-appeals-says-internet-prohibition-is-constitutional/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.narsol.org/2021/07/colorado-court-of-appeals-says-internet-prohibition-is-constitutional/</link>
	<description>National Association for Rational Sexual Offense Laws</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 22 Jul 2023 00:34:33 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Tim in WI		</title>
		<link>https://www.narsol.org/2021/07/colorado-court-of-appeals-says-internet-prohibition-is-constitutional/#comment-24105</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Tim in WI]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 18 Jul 2021 18:47:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://narsol.org/?p=84777#comment-24105</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In reply to &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.narsol.org/2021/07/colorado-court-of-appeals-says-internet-prohibition-is-constitutional/#comment-24104&quot;&gt;Mike Phillips&lt;/a&gt;.

Sounds to me like you are your own best friend. You&#039;ll find it cathartic to confront these people via the propper channels. Hey, if it perfectly acceptable behavior for SOR compliance task force personal to come to your house\property unannounced to confront you even when registered then that sword cuts both ways. You should have seen the look on the face of the WISOR agent who have found me camped on the sidewalk in front of his home at 6:30 a.m.! I&#039;m sat in a lawn chair w\ thermos of coffee and waited. I assure you he was more than upset. I said &quot; I&#039;m breaking no law&quot; when he threatened to call the cops. He didn&#039;t call, but his wife did, so here they come. Two squad cars show up, but so what i wasn&#039;t breaking the law, just having coffee in a public place. Some of the neighbors began to take notice. The wife is saying &quot; ...my kids.... &quot; and the agent has the Sgt off by the garage explaining and I&#039;m still sitting in my chair having coffee. The cops discuss something about an ordinance for obstructing a public sidewalk, a offense usually pertaining to parked vehicles w\ 15$ fine, but I wasn&#039;t a parked car. Then it was &quot;creating a nuisance&quot; but sitting in a lawn chair isn&#039;t creating a real confluence of people, nor possible threat to persons. They attempted to question me about what i was doing, how I&#039;d gotten there, where was my car, and how long I intended to stay.  I told the cops I&#039;d be going soon anyway. because i had almost finished my thermos and needed to pee. It was told I was free to go, but I&#039;d be reported &quot;to my agent or whoever&quot; and not to come back. I looked at the agent and his wife and said, &quot;Next time I&#039;ll knock on the door.&quot; All four of them stood there dumbfounded as I folded up my lawn chair and walked away.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In reply to <a href="https://www.narsol.org/2021/07/colorado-court-of-appeals-says-internet-prohibition-is-constitutional/#comment-24104">Mike Phillips</a>.</p>
<p>Sounds to me like you are your own best friend. You&#8217;ll find it cathartic to confront these people via the propper channels. Hey, if it perfectly acceptable behavior for SOR compliance task force personal to come to your house\property unannounced to confront you even when registered then that sword cuts both ways. You should have seen the look on the face of the WISOR agent who have found me camped on the sidewalk in front of his home at 6:30 a.m.! I&#8217;m sat in a lawn chair w\ thermos of coffee and waited. I assure you he was more than upset. I said &#8221; I&#8217;m breaking no law&#8221; when he threatened to call the cops. He didn&#8217;t call, but his wife did, so here they come. Two squad cars show up, but so what i wasn&#8217;t breaking the law, just having coffee in a public place. Some of the neighbors began to take notice. The wife is saying &#8221; &#8230;my kids&#8230;. &#8221; and the agent has the Sgt off by the garage explaining and I&#8217;m still sitting in my chair having coffee. The cops discuss something about an ordinance for obstructing a public sidewalk, a offense usually pertaining to parked vehicles w\ 15$ fine, but I wasn&#8217;t a parked car. Then it was &#8220;creating a nuisance&#8221; but sitting in a lawn chair isn&#8217;t creating a real confluence of people, nor possible threat to persons. They attempted to question me about what i was doing, how I&#8217;d gotten there, where was my car, and how long I intended to stay.  I told the cops I&#8217;d be going soon anyway. because i had almost finished my thermos and needed to pee. It was told I was free to go, but I&#8217;d be reported &#8220;to my agent or whoever&#8221; and not to come back. I looked at the agent and his wife and said, &#8220;Next time I&#8217;ll knock on the door.&#8221; All four of them stood there dumbfounded as I folded up my lawn chair and walked away.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Mike Phillips		</title>
		<link>https://www.narsol.org/2021/07/colorado-court-of-appeals-says-internet-prohibition-is-constitutional/#comment-24104</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mike Phillips]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 18 Jul 2021 13:26:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://narsol.org/?p=84777#comment-24104</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[The probation and registry requirements for a sex offender are hate crimes. Purposely targeting an individual for failure, for life. Racism legally inflicted. I&#039;m 60, have a job, bike for a vehicle and 40 hrs wk. Its not gonna reach. Doomed to fail, go homeless, be arrested and off to prison for non compliance. I find no help and the clock is ticking.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The probation and registry requirements for a sex offender are hate crimes. Purposely targeting an individual for failure, for life. Racism legally inflicted. I&#8217;m 60, have a job, bike for a vehicle and 40 hrs wk. Its not gonna reach. Doomed to fail, go homeless, be arrested and off to prison for non compliance. I find no help and the clock is ticking.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Tim in WI		</title>
		<link>https://www.narsol.org/2021/07/colorado-court-of-appeals-says-internet-prohibition-is-constitutional/#comment-24102</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Tim in WI]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Jul 2021 17:45:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://narsol.org/?p=84777#comment-24102</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[The man is on court ordered probation via sentence and he never had a viable case to begin with. No different than the moron complainer in Connecticut DPS demanding procedural process he had already &quot; intelligently &quot; dismissed away by signing the states standard waiver of civil rights. 
What is more interesting is the case when the person is done with their sentence but is still required ( ex post) to register combined with same registrant serving a probation sentence for failure to register. Does the probation dept. have the prohibitive authority in that peculiar scenario to limit internet use?. If the answer is Yes, than it must be affirmative restraint based upon the 1st sex case and not based on the failure to register behavior. I am 7-1 in FTR cases against me and I indeed found myself in that exact scenario when i lost at trial and got 3yr. probation sentence. They (WiDOC ), tried to prohibit me from having pornographic material and accessible internet, but to no avail because I pushed the matter up the ladder of DOC using their own sticks. There was infact an intelligible reason why SCOTUS in Connecticut DPS made mention of the potential substantive 14th amendment claim in case that made no mention of it in complaint by plaintiff. The intelligible reason becomes readily apparent in the context of FTR trial and aftermath. These factors are also the inevitable natural outcomes from congressional choice to engage the use of ex post language in statute making applied to statutory enumerated crimes]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The man is on court ordered probation via sentence and he never had a viable case to begin with. No different than the moron complainer in Connecticut DPS demanding procedural process he had already &#8221; intelligently &#8221; dismissed away by signing the states standard waiver of civil rights.<br />
What is more interesting is the case when the person is done with their sentence but is still required ( ex post) to register combined with same registrant serving a probation sentence for failure to register. Does the probation dept. have the prohibitive authority in that peculiar scenario to limit internet use?. If the answer is Yes, than it must be affirmative restraint based upon the 1st sex case and not based on the failure to register behavior. I am 7-1 in FTR cases against me and I indeed found myself in that exact scenario when i lost at trial and got 3yr. probation sentence. They (WiDOC ), tried to prohibit me from having pornographic material and accessible internet, but to no avail because I pushed the matter up the ladder of DOC using their own sticks. There was infact an intelligible reason why SCOTUS in Connecticut DPS made mention of the potential substantive 14th amendment claim in case that made no mention of it in complaint by plaintiff. The intelligible reason becomes readily apparent in the context of FTR trial and aftermath. These factors are also the inevitable natural outcomes from congressional choice to engage the use of ex post language in statute making applied to statutory enumerated crimes</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
