Fighting the Destruction of Families!
  • Home
  • old News and comments

old News

  • 29 Dec 2014 10:52 PM | Administrator (Administrator)
    Pennsylvania Supreme Court rules against provision of Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act that applies to serious offenses by older juveniles

    Read more: http://www.wtae.com/news/pennsylvania-court-throws-out-child-sex-offender-registration/30448124#ixzz3NLzh3UWP


  • 23 Dec 2014 10:07 AM | Administrator (Administrator)

    Let’s get real folks! Ariel Castro (Ohio), Jerry Sandusky (PA) and many others we hear and read about were not on any public registry and that is exactly the point. The public has been groomed to believe all they have to do is check a registry and be aware of “those on it” and their family will be safe. The truth of the matter is that according to credible studies the recidivism rate for another “sexual” offense is 3.5 percent and those who are beginning to educate families are advising the other 93-95 percent of sexual offenses come from within the victim’s family, friends and those having access to the children and those never get reported.

    There are over 774,600 men, women and children (as young as 6, 8 and 10 in some states) required to register and the "crimes" range from urinating in public (indecent exposure), sexting, incest, mooning, exposure, false accusations by a soon-to-be ex-wife, angry girlfriend, or spiteful student, viewing abusive or suggestive images of anyone 18 years old or younger, playing doctor, prostitution, solicitation, Romeo and Juliet consensual sexual dating relationships, rape, endangering the welfare of a child and many others.

    If you multiply the number on the registry by two or three family members you can clearly see there are well over three million wives, children, moms, aunts, girlfriends, grandmothers and other family members who experience the collateral damage of being harassed, threatened, children beaten, have signs placed in their yards, homes set on fire, vehicles damaged, asked to leave their churches and other organizations, children passed over for educational opportunities, have flyers distributed around their neighborhood, wives lose their jobs when someone learns they are married to a registrant....all these things occur when these people try to hold their family together and provide the three things that professionals state are needed for successful re-integration; a job, a place to live, and a good support system.

    Education is the key. We need to set up Child Sexual Abuse Prevention training programs to empower kids and teens to protect themselves as much as possible and to speak up if someone makes them uncomfortable or oversteps their bounds. Programs like radKIDs and others are great tools. Parents cannot be everywhere.

    Residency restrictions push former offenders away from the supervision, treatment, stability, and supportive networks they may need to build and maintain successful, law-abiding lives. As one Iowa sheriff said, "We are less safe as a community now than we were before the residency restrictions."

    Throughout the United States, courts have found residency laws unconstitutional because they are punitive or against the Ex Post Facto laws.

    Many child safety and rape prevention advocates would like to see more money spent on prevention, education, and awareness programs for children and adults, counseling for victims of sexual violence, and programs that facilitate treatment and the transition back to society for convicted sex offenders.



  • 12 Dec 2014 3:28 PM | Administrator (Administrator)
    The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday said it would decide whether its 2012 decision prohibiting mandatory sentences of life without parole for juvenile murderers under the age of 18 at the time of their crimes is retroactive.
    After turning away a number of cases raising the retroactivity question since its decision in Miller v. Alabama, the justices agreed to hear arguments by George Toca, who was 17 in 1984 when he accidently shot his best friend, Eric Batiste, during a botched armed robbery.
    Toca's counsel, Emily Maw of the Innocence Project New Orleans, told the court in her petition that most state and federal courts have recognized that Miller created a new substantive rule that applies retroactively to youths whose sentences became final before it was announced.
    "But courts in a handful of statesundefinedincluding Louisiana, which has a large population of juveniles automatically sentenced to die in prisonundefinedhave misconstrued what this court mandated in Miller and concluded the rule it announced is not retroactive," she wrote.
    Hundreds of prisoners, she added, are entitled to new sentencing hearings under Miller but are blocked from relief in the minority of states that have refused to recognize Miller's retroactivity.
    Louisiana argued against review, contending that Miller did not meet the court's requirements for retroactive application. The state contended that Miller did not announce a substantive new rule of law, only a change in sentencing proceedings, and its holding was not a "watershed development" in criminal procedure implicating the fundamental fairness and accuracy of the proceeding.
    The justices also added two bankruptcy cases to its decision docket this termundefinedBullard v. Hyde Park Savings Bank, and Harris v. Viegelahnundefinedand a patent challenge, Kimble v. Marvel Enterprises.


    Contact Marcia Coyle at mcoyle@alm.com. On Twitter: @MarciaCoyle
    Read Source: Here

    See referenced case law: Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 - Supreme Court 2012


  • 10 Dec 2014 11:30 PM | Administrator (Administrator)

    by STEVE WATSON | INFOWARS.COM | DECEMBER 10, 2014


    An amendment to a Senate bill in Illinois has been overwhelmingly passed to ensure that recording police officers and government officials is now a felony.

    The Amendment to Senate Bill 1342 was stealthily introduced on the back of an unrelated piece of legislation last week. It essentially reestablishes a completely unconstitutional eavesdropping law that was previously overturned by The Supreme Court in March for being too draconian.

    The amendment has stripped away safeguards to free speech rights from the original legislation and instituted a blanket ban on recording officials in public. It was passed by both the Illinois House and the Senate, with huge majorities, within two days of its introduction.

    A post at watchdog website IllinoisPolicy.org notes that the bill is designed to prevent people from documenting interactions with cops on their cell phones by making it a class 3 felony to “eavesdrop” on city and state officials including police officers, police, an attorney general, an assistant attorney general, a state’s attorney, an assistant state’s attorney or a judge.

    The new amendment legislates its way around the ‘reasonable expectation of privacy’ standard in law by refraining from defining it, and merely states that recording any “oral communication between 2 or more persons” is now illegal.

    A class 3 felony is punishable by a prison sentence of two to four years. The bill also outlines that it is now a class 4 felony to record a private citizen in such circumstances. The crime is punishable by one to three years in prison.


    The vaguely worded legislation states:

    (a) Eavesdropping, for a first offense, is a Class 4 felony (from Ch. 38, par. 14-4) and, for a second or subsequent offense, is a Class 3 felony.

    (b) The eavesdropping of an oral conversation or an electronic communication of any
    law enforcement officer, State’s Attorney, Assistant State’s Attorney, the Attorney General, Assistant Attorney General, or a judge, while in the performance of his or her official duties, if not authorized by this Article or proper court order, is a Class 3 felony, and for a second or subsequent offenses, is a Class 2 felony

    Jacob Huebert, Senior Attorney at Liberty Justice Center, notes “There’s only one apparent reason for imposing a higher penalty on people who record police in particular: to make people especially afraid to record police.”

    Huebert also notes that the legislation could impact the widely proposed move to implement body cameras for all police officers

    “Police may argue that using body cameras to record encounters with citizens outside of “public” places would violate the law, as citizens have not consented to being recorded.” he writes.


    In its previous overturning of the bill, The Supreme Court justices noted that the eavesdropping ban


    "criminalizes a wide range of innocent conduct," including "the recording of conversations that cannot be deemed private: a loud argument on the street, a political debate on a college quad, yelling fans at an athletic event, or any conversation loud enough that the speakers should expect to be heard by others. None of these examples implicate privacy interests, yet the statute makes it a felony to audio record each one. Judged in terms of the legislative purpose of protecting conversational privacy, the statute’s scope is simply too broad."

    Activists are calling for citizens to pressure Illinois governor, 

    Pat Quinn   (email here to veto the amendment.


    Source: http://www.infowars.com/its-now-illegal-in-illinois-to-film-cops/



  • 09 Dec 2014 12:10 AM | Administrator (Administrator)

    12-9-2014 West Virginia:


    USA -v- Collins

    Dwaine Allen Collins was convicted of knowingly failing to register as a sex offender under the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA). The district court sentenced Collins to 30 months' imprisonment and ten years of supervised release. On this direct appeal, Collins contests his conviction primarily on the grounds that the government failed to prove an essential element of a SORNA violation: that he knew he had an obligation to register.

    In support, he points to comments made by a state court judge in a separate proceeding, which in Collins's view suggest that his obligation to register had expired. We agree with the district court, however, that the state judge appeared to be giving advice rather than a binding legal opinion. Moreover, there is substantial evidence in the record to support the district court's conclusion that Collins knowingly avoided an obligation to register as a sex offender. We thus find Collins’s claim unpersuasive and affirm his conviction.

    Collins also appeals his sentence. We find his 30-month term of imprisonment, which is within the applicable Guidelines range, to be reasonable and thus affirm the district court's sentence in that respect. As to the term of supervised release, however, the United States Sentencing Commission recently issued a clarifying amendment stating that a failure to register under SORNA is not a "sex offense" for the purposes of the Guidelines. Consequently, we vacate the supervised release portion of Collins's sentence and remand for further proceedings.

    ... ... ... ...

    For the reasons provided above, we affirm Collins's conviction and his term of imprisonment, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion as to his term of supervised release.



    Source: http://sexoffender-decisions.blogspot.com/2014/12/usa-v-collins.html


    See also: US v. Collins 14-4019


  • 07 Dec 2014 11:22 PM | Administrator (Administrator)

    JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) -- A new constitutional amendment enhancing Missouri's gun rights is being put to the test by a felon who is citing it as a reason why he shouldn't be disqualified from carrying guns.

    The Missouri Supreme Court is to hear arguments Wednesday on whether the provision subjecting gun-control laws to strict legal scrutiny means that Missouri can no longer bar nonviolent felons from possessing firearms.

    Voters approved the amendment in August with greater than 60 percent support.

    The court is considering whether a man convicted of a federal drug distribution felony in 1986 can face new charges under a state law barring felons from possessing firearms.

    Sen. Kurt Schaefer, who sponsored the constitutional amendment, has filed a court brief saying it wasn't meant to invalidate the felon gun-possession ban.

    Source: http://fox2now.com/2014/12/07/missouri-high-court-to-hear-felon-gun-rights-case/


  • 30 Nov 2014 6:16 PM | Vicki Henry


    podcast: Ashby Jones tells WSJ's Hank Weisbecker why cities are scaling back on these restrictions 

    When Palm Beach County, Fla., was sued earlier this year over its housing restrictions for registered sex offenders, its attorneys took an unusual approach: They suggested the county relax its law.

    The county’s commissioner's prompted largely by the lawsuit brought by a sex offender who claimed the limits rendered him homeless,  voted in July to let such offenders legally live closer to schools, day-care centers and other places with concentrations of children.

    “We realized the law was costing the taxpayers money [for services for the homeless] and was causing more problems than it was solving,” said county attorney Denise Nieman.

    In the mid-1990s, states and cities began barring sex offenders from living within certain distances of schools, playgrounds and parks. The rationale: to prevent the horrible crimes sometimes committed by offenders after their release. In October, for instance, officials charged sex offender Darren Deon Vann with murdering two women in Indiana. Mr. Vann, who is suspected of killing several others, pleaded not guilty.

    Now, a growing number of communities are rejecting or scaling back such limits out of concern that they don’t prevent repeat offenses, and, in some instances, may make sex offenders harder to track.

    Before Palm Beach County shrunk its buffer zones, only small pockets of the county were open to sex offenders, said Mark Jolly, the head of the unit at the county sheriff’s office charged with tracking sex offenders. “They’d either just become homeless or they’d tell us they were homeless, then would move into housing within a restricted zone,” he said. “It became a nightmare to track these guys.”

    Mike Rodriguez, the executive director of the county’s criminal justice commission, estimates that the change in the law increased the area in which sex offenders could live by about 70%.

    In August, the Dallas City Council considered a proposal to adopt residency restrictions for Dallas’s nearly 4,000 sex offenders. Jerry Allen, a council member, said he “looked for research” to support the idea, but came up empty. So Mr. Allen persuaded the council to shelve the proposal.

    A 2013 Justice Department study that examined Michigan’s and Missouri’s statewide restrictions showed they “had little effect on recidivism.” Other studies have found the vast majority of sex-offense cases involving children are committed not by strangers but by family members or others with established connections to the victims, such as coaches or teachers.

    About 30 states and thousands of cities and towns have laws restricting where sex offenders can live, while others are adding them. In March, a 1,000-foot buffer from parks took effect in San Antonio. In July, Milwaukee passed a law banning sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of a variety of places where children gather.

    In October, the City Council in Elkhorn, Wis., population 10,000, passed an ordinance requiring offenders who move into town to live at least 2,000 feet from places such as schools and parks. The move was prompted by an influx of sex offenders released from the nearby county jail, many of whom had begun to congregate in the town’s business district, said Mayor Brian Olson. After the vote, he said he got several calls and letters from residents thanking him. “I think people were afraid to speak up on the issue, and that there was a bit of a sigh of relief,” Mr. Olson said. We’re just trying to keep our kids safe, and just did what a lot of other communities around the state have done,” he said.

    Critics, however, say such moves do little more than score lawmakers political points and give an area’s residents a false sense of security. Some argue they can make communities less safe, by making it hard for offenders to find stable housing.

    David Prater, district attorney of the county that encompasses Oklahoma City, said he and other state prosecutors have tried to get the state to relax its 2,000-foot buffer, to no avail. “No politician wants to be labeled the guy who lessens restrictions on sex offenders,” he said.

    The police chief in Greeley, Colo., Jerry Garner, said he started having doubts about the restrictions when, a few years ago, Greeley officers discovered a registered sex offender living in his car, partly, recalls Mr. Garner, because he was “boxed out” of so much of the city. “Because of the restrictions, he was basically living as close to children as he wanted to,” said Mr. Garner. At his urging, in February Greeley slashed the size of the restricted areas for its 265 registered sex offenders from 1,000 feet around places like schools to 300 feet.

    In October, three residents of a Miami outdoor encampment sued Miami-Dade County in federal court, claiming that sex-offender residency restrictions in the county rendered them “unable to locate stable, affordable housing,” thereby forcing them and “hundreds” of others into homelessness.

    A Miami-Dade County spokeswoman declined to comment on the suit.

    Miami-Dade County has come under fire for its residency restrictions before. In 2006, an encampment that ultimately grew to include more than 100 homeless sex offenders developed under a Miami freeway, largely as a result of the county’s residency restrictions. Four years later, to alleviate the problem the county eliminated some of its 2,500-foot buffer zones for sex offenders.

    Some smaller towns are chucking restrictions, partly in the name of public safety. De Pere, Wis., a town of 23,000 south of Green Bay, tossed out its 500-foot buffer last year after reviewing data on its effectiveness, said several council members. The issue was reopened by some townspeople several months ago ,when a convicted sex offender moved across the street from a school for children with special needs. But the council didn’t budge.

    “You track where they live, you check in on them, but you let them live at home, where they’re comfortable and stable,” said Scott Crevier, a DePere city councilman. “I feel we’re actually safer than a lot of other towns in the state that have them.”

    Write to Ashby Jones at ashby.jones@wsj.com

    Source:  http://online.wsj.com/articles/cities-and-towns-begin-scaling-back-limits-on-sex-offenders-1417389616

8 The Green Suite #8219, Dover, DE 19901 | Support Hotline 800-311-3764 | Women Against Registry © 2011-2023

Powered by Wild Apricot Membership Software