Comments on: Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Overturns Previous Victory

By: Brian Hope

Brian Hope — Thu, 04 Aug 2022 03:51:36 +0000

The case is still ongoing. there were three points two got shot down by the full court this is taken from the June 30th opinion of the district court “The Seventh Circuit remanded this case so that this court could determine whether SORA, as applied to Plaintiffs, violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” In which he agreed that it did violate it.

By: mut

mut — Tue, 23 Nov 2021 16:46:54 +0000

In reply to Jeanne. spose to have a lawyer for that. but some are conflicted, from their college days perhaps.

By: Tim in WI

Tim in WI — Tue, 16 Nov 2021 03:15:47 +0000

In reply to mike candela.

Mike you accurately report the inherent effect of all internet broadcasts that vastly exceed “functional necessity.” If the intent of registration is to inform the people concerning ” offenders in their area” then why opt to broadcast (publish) on a world wide scale? Laying claim to the cause of “potential mobility of offenders” directly implicates a liberty interest of that offender and uncovers the true underlying intent of overbroad affirmative restraint imposed via the registry database.

A qestion I put to agents goes like this:

By: Jeanne

Jeanne — Thu, 07 Oct 2021 02:24:43 +0000

I wish someone would address the challenges of learning disabilities of some sex offenders when it comes to defending themselves against accusations and complying with registering.

By: Tim in WI

Tim in WI — Wed, 01 Sep 2021 23:36:13 +0000

In reply to A z. You know we've a history in WI of AGs bucking for Governor. J. Kaul is no different. You figure he's using the exact same modus. Sure is!

By: Larry

Larry — Sat, 28 Aug 2021 01:22:17 +0000

In reply to Sandy.

None of this is or can be answered in the federal courts. These are state laws and are protected from federal interference by the 10th amendment. This is an example of the courts using the constitution when it serves their needs.
We all know that the federal government extorted the states into implementing these registries by threatening withholding federal subsidies from state and local law enforcement agencies if they weren’t implemented. But they can’t do anything about state and local laws. Just ask them.
But don’t bring up 10th amendment presetent when it comes to the 2nd amendment.

By: Larry

Larry — Sat, 28 Aug 2021 01:02:17 +0000

In reply to Aj.

You have to remember that the Constitution is not used in the court system or in most law enforcement for that matter. The justice department relies on president. The only time the Constitution comes into play is when it is to the benefit of the court. The Magnacarta holds more sway in the court than the Constitution.
If the Constitution was really in effect then they couldn’t hold you in jail waiting on trial because it’s unconstitutional to imprison an innocent person. So just saying innocent until proven guilty is a lie in it’s self. The grand jury finds you guilty before you ever go to trial and the burden of proof rests upon you to prove your innocent.

By: mut

mut — Fri, 27 Aug 2021 02:35:22 +0000

they didnt just decide to make people register. they first envisioned a real time data bank. then they figured out how to populate that data bank. for free, to aleviate the cost of acquiring the data by alternate means. that is so immoral. pretty much the same thing they convicted me of.
blabla

By: mut

mut — Fri, 27 Aug 2021 00:35:57 +0000

18 usc 1595 allows a private action for human trafficking. but the way the federal court here and in the 9th circuit just disposed of my five dollar 2241 petition makes me worry i would be hit with attorney fees and costs if i sued under 1595. especially if i include the federal judges and deputy attorney general involved as individual defendants.

By: mike candela

mike candela — Fri, 27 Aug 2021 00:33:19 +0000

Well, I’m tired of putting strain on my brain to learn new law definitions, such as “en blanc”. None of that matters. The precedents don’t matter. The fact that in Fl, the only retroactive part of the statute , besides things like having a scarlet letter on ur license, is when they first created the registry, which had affected how many would be on there in the beginning when the hysteria hit the fan and the news stations called the play-by-play of the most unconstitutional law at least since the Jim Crowe era laws, and that was the definition of a sex offender: Someone who was convicted ON or AFTER Oct. 1, 1997. Residency restrictions, halloween participation, the Juvenile registry, were all written as convicted AFTER the law went into effect. It’s obvious why the law that controlled how many would be on the site when it launched, was written as it was. But what can be done about it?