ConstitutionalFights.wordpress.com Repeal Adam Walsh Act Laws !

Constitutionalfights Blogs Set to Archive Status

2011-07-15T16:55:00.005-04:00

NOTE:
Constitutionalfights blogs were set to Archive Status and our email address was inactivated on Sept. 22, 2010.

History:
Our blogs were actively updated for 32 months. We had well over 250,000 readers and published more than 1100 blog posts. Our sole and primary mission was to repeal the Ohio Adam Walsh Act (Senate Bill 10) and to defeat it's unconstitutionally retroactive implementation. However, our mission to defeat the Ohio Adam Walsh legislation has been accomplished. Therefore, we ceased actively updating these blogs.

Emailing Constitutionalfights:

Our email account is no longer active. You may still try to email us, but we do not check this email account at any regular interval. If you do email us, there is virtually no chance of the message getting to me unless it has a relevant subject line. If your email does not have a relevant subject line, it will surely be lost in the junk mail folder.

Also, if you do try to email us, please do not ramble on about your personal situation and tell me how bad it is. I know how much damage these laws to in the lives of those who are forced to deal with them. Everyone seems to write me long stories about about how unfairly they have been treated and how bad they have it, but don't do this because I wont read it. Frankly don't really care about the specific facts of your case. But if you have a legitimate question, I may still catch it if I check the email account periodically. Why do you think I started Constitutionalfights ? The answer is: to fight against these laws, because they were unconstitutional. I already know how damaging they are to families and individuals.

Finally, search our blogs before you ask a question. Most answers are found on our blogs. Use the search box on each blog to find related posts. For example: I am constantly asked by readers about laws in other states, or whom they can contact in their state. We only focused on Ohio legislation. Therefore, we do not know the laws in your state, and we are not familiar with laws related to moving to or from Ohio. If you read the blogs, you will see a Links Page with an RSOL link where each state's organizer can be contacted.

I am not a legal professional and therefore I cannot and will not offer legal advice. So don't ask me for legal advice.

Victory in Ohio:
Now, on the heels of the June 3, 2010 Ohio Supreme Court ruling which invalidated the reclassification of ex offenders into more punitive registration requirements, we claim this victory in our mission. we claim this victory for The Constitution of the United States of America and the rule of law.

Continuing the Battles:
But this is just one battle in the war against onerous, unconstitutional and ineffective sex offender laws across this country. We have posted countless times on our blogs how these sex offender laws are unjust, unconstitutional and ineffective. Hundreds of thousands of ex offenders remain victims of these laws. But the task of spearheading the battles of these citizens will have to be taken by others. Someone must and will eventually step forward just as we did. If not, hundreds of thousands of citizens will continue to have their throats under the boots of legislators across this great nation. Desperate times call for desperate measures.

Decision:
I have mixed feelings about ending our active involvement in these fights. I have thought long and hard about it. But the truth of the matter is that everyone in battles such as these are in it for their own interests. I have experienced this many times throughout this 2-1/2 year fight. When an individual's interests are satisfied, they leave the fight. We lost many of those soldiers throughout these last few years. Even those who were in the fight with us but who did not benefit by this particular court ruling have become dismissive of our work now that we have claimed victory.

Furthermore, very few of those who contacted us, or followed our blogs, actually took any action to join the fight. Sure, there were a few individuals who sent letters and emails or made calls, but these are just a tiny fraction of those who were affected by these laws. Most people took no real action or got actively involved. Most emails I received were complaining to me about their situation, or asking me to do something for them.

Accolades:
I would like to recognize those who did do wonderful and effective work; RSOL, Ohio RSOL, Margie Slagle of the Ohio Justice and Policy Institute, Amy Borror of the Ohio Public Defender Office,

We received only three donations in 32 months. We thank those individuals for their generosity and help. If you would like to contriubute, you can still send a donation here for all the work we have done over the past 2-1/2 years. But once again, this lack of help by others makes the decision to step away much easier.

It's Not Over:
Even after this victory in Ohio, we continue to see good people trampled on by politically-correct sex offender legislation. These laws are destroying families across the United States. Many good people are caught up in these webs of public shaming created by our state and federal legislators of both parties. Children of ex offenders are ostracized and shamed. Parents are banned from being involved parents. And people are being shamed on public government web sites and banned from living in certain areas or visiting public places.

Of course, there are some real monsters out there. But only these sensational crime cases make the headline news. Most ex offenders are not a danger to society and simply made a terrible mistake. I know of no one in this world who hasn't made mistakes, yet this is the only group of citizens we refuse to forgive, or allow to continue on living a normal life.

Sadly, the Federal Adam Walsh Act (AWA) remains alive, albeit on "life-support". It has been crippled with various legal challenges and revisions. All those who are affected by this terrible legislation should continue to seek its ultimate repeal. An AWA Study Guide can be downloaded here.

Lawsuit Against Ohio:

If any reader is a legitimate legal professional who is willing to organize a class action lawsuit against the State of Ohio, in the wake of the Supreme Court rulings which found these laws to be a violation of our constitutional rights, please contact us (or Ohio RSOL). Because these laws were enforced for two years before being ruled unconstitutional, we believe we have standing to form a large class action lawsuit against the State of Ohio.

Logic and Facts:
If we are to have offender registries, they must be risk-based. Evidence must be given in a court of law to prove that an offender is a high risk. If this evidence cannot be made in court, an ex offender should not be on a sex offender registry.

Sex Offender Registries should not be public ! Registries of those truly dangerous should be available to law enforcement agents only. Over 90% of sex assaults are committed by an acquaintance of the victim. This "stranger danger" hysteria myth must be killed with factual data.

The widespread lies about sex offender recidivism must be defeated. Many research studies have been completed to determine actual sex offender recidivism. Their results almost always provide a recidivism rate range between 5 -15% .

Encouragement:
We urge all those who are still adversely affected by sex offender laws in this nation to become actively involved in the fight against them. Join and support the efforts of RSOL and your state RSOL affiliate. Write, email, call and meet with legislators, donate your time and money to the efforts of those actively fighting, create information blogs like ours, post responses to online articles, gather statistics and spread truth.

And so this blog is now set to Archive Mode. This means that we will no longer be updating it, but will retain its content for the world to read. We will also not be checking or responding to any emails after October 1, 2010. In addition to the above referenced reasons, this is partly due to the fact that too many people in the "network" too often abuse the "reply all" button without regard to whom they are sending emails.

Final Word:

"First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me. "

Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984)

Ohio Supremes Ban Retroactive Use of Sex Offender Law

2011-07-14T04:05:00.009-04:00

Court: Sex offender law not retroactive

COLUMBUS, Ohio, July 13 (UPI) -- A law on registration and community notification for released sex offenders cannot be applied retroactively, the Ohio Supreme Court said Wednesday.

The justices ruled 5-2 the 2007 Ohio Adam Walsh Law can only be applied to offenders who committed their crimes after it became effective, The Columbus (Ohio) Dispatch reported. The court reversed a decision by a state appeals court.

"The General Assembly has the authority, indeed the obligation, to protect the public from sex offenders," Justice Paul Pfeifer said. "It may not, however, consistent with the Ohio Constitution, 'impose new or additional burdens, duties, obligations, or liabilities as to a past transaction.'"

Justice Terrence O'Donnell in the minority opinion said the court has said in previous rulings that requiring sex offenders to register and providing community notification in some cases are civil sanctions, not criminal penalties.

Ohio Supremes Ban Retroactive Use of Sex Offender Law: Hundreds of previously-convicted sex offenders will be affected

The Ohio Supreme Court, in a ruling published today, has declared that imposing "enhanced" sex offender registration and community notification requirements on previously-convicted sex offenders, as required by the Ohio Adam Walsh Act (AWA) which was contained in 2007's Senate Bill (SB) 10 is a violation of the Ohio Constitution.

"When the General Assembly adopted the AWA by enacting 2007 S.B. 10," stated a Ohio Supreme Court press release, "it included statutory language requiring that, regardless of the date on which a defendant’s crime was committed, state courts sentencing sex offenders on or after July 1, 2007 must apply a new three-tiered AWA offender classification scheme and must include in the defendant’s sentence registration and community notification requirements set forth in the AWA that are more severe than similar provisions in the prior, Megan’s Law, version of the statute."

The decision was based on Article II, Sec. 28 of the Ohio Constitution, which states in part, "The general assembly shall have no power to pass retroactive laws." Similar wording can be found in the U.S. Constitution as well, where one clause in Article I, Sec. 9 reads, "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto ["after the fact"] Law shall be passed."

The case at issue was State v. George Williams, where the defendant had been convicted for engaging in sexual conduct with a minor—conduct which took place prior to July, 2007, although Williams was convicted on the charges in December, 2007, after SB 10 had been passed.

"Prior to his sentencing hearing," the Supreme Court's press release stated, "Williams entered a motion asking the trial court to sentence him under the Megan’s Law sex offender classification scheme that was in effect on the date of his offense, rather than under the AWA classification scheme. The trial court overruled Williams’ motion. Pursuant to the AWA he was classified as a Tier II offender, which required him to register with the sheriff in his county of residence, and in any other county in which he worked or attended school, every 180 days for the next 25 years." Under Megan's Law, his registration and reporting requirements would have been limited to 10 years.

Williams appealed that ruling under the ex post facto/retroactivity clauses of both the Ohio and U.S. Constitutions, as well as arguing violation of the U.S. Constitution's due process clauses and its ban on double jeopardy.

Another portion of the AWA, which would have allowed the Ohio Attorney General to reclassify sex offenders without the necessity of judicial approval, was overturned by the same court just over one year ago.

The Ohio Supreme Court's 5-2 decision, authored by Justice Paul E. Pfeifer, overturning the AWA was largely based on the fact that while several state decisions had held that the registration requirements of Megan's Law were considered remedial rather than punitive in nature, "Following the enactment of SB 10, all doubt has been removed: R.C. Chapter 2950 [the AWA] is punitive," Justice Pfeifer stated in the majority opinion. "The statutory scheme has changed dramatically since this court described (in [State v.] Cook) the registration process imposed on sex offenders as an inconvenience 'comparable to renewing a driver’s license.' ... And it has changed markedly since this court concluded in [State v.] Ferguson that R.C. Chapter 2950 was remedial...

"Based on these significant changes to the statutory scheme governing sex offenders, we are no longer convinced that R.C. Chapter 2950 is remedial, even though some elements of it remain remedial...," the high court concluded. "We conclude that SB 10, as applied to Williams and any other sex offender who committed an offense prior to the enactment of SB 10, violates Section 28, Article II of the Ohio Constitution, which prohibits the General Assembly from enacting retroactive laws."

"The Ohio Supreme Court decision in Williams does a really good job of explaining how in light of these internet websites that we now have, and community notification and criminal penalties attaching and more periodic registration in person with a sheriff there, all of these measures are looking more and more and more like punishment and less and less and less like a driver's license," one attorney analyzed, "and as that shift has happened, it's become more like criminal punishment, and really, the Ohio Supreme Court is the first top court in a state to characterize it that way."

Kinsley said that through her discovery motions in the case, it had been revealed that hundreds of people in Ohio will be affected by today's decision, and will now be able to get on with their lives without the stigma of appearing on sex offender websites.

Court: Law applied to convicted sex offenders violates constitution

The legislature's attempt four years ago to apply a new law to already-convicted sexual offenders violated the Ohio Constitution, the state Supreme Court ruled today.

Imposing enhanced registration and community notification requirements in the 2007 Ohio Adam Walsh Act against defendants whose crimes were committed before the effective date of that law violates a constitutional prohibition on the General Assembly enacting retroactive laws, the justices declared.

The 5-2 decision, which reversed a ruling by the 12th District Court of Appeals, was written by Justice Paul E. Pfeifer.

"The General Assembly has the authority, indeed the obligation, to protect the public from sex offenders," Pfeifer said. "It may not, however, consistent with the Ohio Constitution, 'impose new or additional burdens, duties, obligations, or liabilities as to a past transaction.' "

Joining the majority opinion were Chief Justice Maureen O'Connor and Justices Evelyn Lundberg Stratton, Judith Ann Lanzinger and Yvette McGee Brown.

Justice Terrence O'Donnell authored the dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justice Robert R. Cupp.

Today's decision came on the appeal of George Williams of Warren County, convicted in December 2007 for engaging in sexual conduct with a minor an offense that occurred before the Adam Walsh Act took effect. Williams asked the judge to sentence him under the previous sex offender classification setup, known as Megan's Law.

The judge rejected that motion and classified him under the more stringent Adam Walsh Act as a Tier II offender, which required him to register with the sheriff in his home county and in any other county in which he worked or attended school, every 180 days for the ensuing 25 years.

Williams appealed, but was turned down by the 12th District Court of Appeals.

Pfeifer noted that in earlier Supreme Court decisions on previous changes in the sex offender law, justices upheld the changes because they were more remedial than punitive, and thus the constitutional ban on retroactive laws did not apply. But the changes in the Adam Walsh Act made them punitive, and therefore unconstitutional.

New Ohio Sex Offenders Proposed Law

WTAP News

The Ohio Supreme Court could have new rules when it comes to registering sex offenders...unless the crime was committed before 2007.

Is Application of ‘Adam Walsh Act’ to Crime Committed Before Law Took Effect Unconstitutionally Retroactive?

2011-07-11T05:07:00.005-04:00

Is 'Adam Walsh' Classification of Sex Offender Who Was Never Classified Under Megan's Law Constitutional?

Case Also Asks If Offender Has Right to Counsel for Classification Hearing

State of Ohio v. Lambert Dehler, Case no. 2009-1974
11^th District Court of Appeals (Trumbull County)

ISSUES:

Does retroactive imposition of sex-offender registration requirements enacted in 2007 as part of the Ohio Adam Walsh Act (AWA) on an offender whose crime was committed before the effective date of the AWA violate the ex post facto and due process clauses of the U.S. Constitution, and/or the provision of the Ohio Constitution prohibiting retroactive laws?
Does the Supreme Court of Ohio’s 2010 decision in State v. Bodyke bar the attorney general from imposing AWA registration and community notification requirements on pre-1997 sex offenders who never received a sex offender classification by a court under the prior, Megan’s Law, version of Ohio’s sex offender statute?
Is an indigent sex offender who files a timely petition contesting his classification under the AWA entitled to the appointment of legal counsel to represent him?

BACKGROUND: Under Megan’s Law, which took effect Jan. 1, 1997, the cases of all prison inmates who were serving sentences for sexually-related crimes on that date were required to be reviewed by the trial court in which the offender was convicted prior to or within one year after the offender’s release from prison. The purpose of this review was for the court to determine, based on the circumstances of each offender’s crimes and his/her personal and social history, whether that person should be classified as a low-risk (sexually-oriented), medium risk (habitual) or high-risk (sexual predator) offender. After classifying the offender, the court was then required to impose post-release registration and community notification requirements set by law for the class of offenders into which he or she had been placed. From 1997 through June 2007, when an incarcerated pre-1997 sex offender approached the completion of his/her prison term, the Ohio Department of Corrections notified the trial court in which that person was convicted. The court then reviewed the offender’s case, assigned the offender to a Megan’s Law classification, and notified the offender of his/her statutory post-release registration and (where applicable) community notification requirements.

Effective July 1, 2007, Megan’s Law was repealed and replaced by the AWA. Under the provisions of the AWA, pre-release judicial review of the cases of pre-1997 offenders was eliminated and the attorney general was empowered to automatically assign all past offenders to one of three newly-created “tiers” based exclusively on the crime(s) for which that person was convicted and assign new, more restrictive registration and community notification requirements on each offender.

In a June 2010 decision, State v. Bodyke, the Supreme Court of Ohio severed (voided) the provisions of the AWA that authorized the attorney general to reclassify and impose more severe registration and community notification requirements on sex offenders who had previously been classified by a court under Megan’s Law. In this case, the Court is asked to decide whether its severance of the offending sections of law in Bodyke also bars the attorney general from imposing AWA registration and community notification requirements on pre-1997 sex offenders who did not become eligible for release from prison during the time Megan’s Law was in effect, and who therefore never came before a court for classification under the Megan’s Law version of the statute.

Lambert Dehler was convicted on two counts of rape and two counts of gross sexual imposition in 1992 and sentenced to long prison terms. Because he did not become eligible for release during the 1997-2007 period when Megan’s Law was in effect, the corrections department never referred Dehler’s case to the trial court for post-release sex offender classification. In January 2008, Dehler received a letter from the state attorney general’s office informing him that, pursuant to the AWA, the attorney general had classified Dehler as a Tier III (highest risk) offender based on his rape convictions, and that based on his classification, upon release from prison he would be subject to lifetime registration and community notification requirements.

Dehler filed a petition in the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas contesting his classification, and requested that legal counsel be appointed to represent him in pursuing that petition. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the state, noting that under prior Ohio Supreme Court decisions an order imposing registration or community notification requirements on a sex offender has been held to be a civil, remedial order that does not increase the “punishment” for a past crime. Applying that same analysis to Dehler’s claims, the trial court held that imposing AWA registration requirements on Dehler retroactively was not unconstitutional and Dehler had no right to appointed counsel in a civil proceeding that did not expose him to a threat of imprisonment. Dehler appealed. The 11^th District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s award of summary judgment in favor of the state.

Dehler sought and was granted Supreme Court review of the 11^th District’s holdings.

With regard to whether the AWA imposes “punishment,” and therefore may not be applied retroactively, Dehler’s attorneys advance arguments similar to those offered in the preceding case.
(See State v. Williams preview above). They also assert the state attorney general has no legal authority to impose or change a criminal sentence except under the provisions of the AWA that have been voided by this Court’s decision in State v. Bodyke, and therefore the attorney general acted without jurisdiction in imposing AWA registration and notification requirements on Dehler.

With regard to the right to counsel, Dehler’s attorneys argue that because AWA registration and community notification requirements are now part of the sentence imposed on a defendant by a trial court at the conclusion of a criminal trial, any proceeding to contest the imposition of those requirements on Dehler based on his 1992 convictions is criminal in nature and invokes his right to appointed legal counsel.

As in State v. Williams (see preceding case preview above), attorneys for the state cite prior Supreme Court of Ohio decisions holding that sex offender classification, registration and community notification requirements are civil rather than criminal in nature, and therefore are not subject to constitutional challenges under either the ex post facto clause of the U.S. Constitution or the retroactivity clause of the Ohio Constitution. For the same reason, they say, because imposition of the AWA’s registration and notification requirements is a remedial action intended to protect the public rather than to inflict “punishment” on the offender, court proceedings to contest an AWA classification are civil rather than criminal in nature, and offenders challenging their classifications are therefore not entitled to appointed counsel.

Contacts
Deena L. DeVico, 330.675.2916, for the state and Trumbull County prosecutor's office.

Jason A. Macke, 614.466.5394, for Lambert Dehler.

Ohio Channel Video

http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/PIO/oralArguments/11/0301/0301.asp

Ohio HB 77 Bill Summary - Sex Offender Reclassification

2011-02-10T18:48:00.004-05:00

http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/analysis.cfm?ID=129_HB_77&ACT=As%20Introduced&hf=analyses129/h0077-i-129.htm

Summary, and Content and Operation:

Excerpt:

Court reclassification or classification of pre-S.B. 10 offenders and delinquent children into S.B. 10 Tier classification

Conviction, guilty plea, or adjudication prior to January 31, 2011 -

The bill repeals the existing provisions that contain the reclassification mechanism enacted in S.B. 10 and that the Supreme Court in Bodyke, supra, held to be unconstitutional (repeal of R.C. 2950.031 and 2950.032). It also repeals two existing, related provisions enacted in S.B. 10. One of the related provisions extends the S.B. 10 reclassification mechanism to offenders and delinquent children whose registration and other duties under the SORN Law was scheduled to expire on or after July 1, 2007, and before January 1, 2008. The other requires a sheriff to notify the AG when an offender or delinquent child initially registers an address with the sheriff on or after December 1, 2007, based upon a duty imposed for an offense committed prior to that date (repeal of R.C. 2950.033 and 2950.043; these sections were not addressed in Bodyke, supra). The bill enacts a judicially based reclassification mechanism to replace the repealed, unconstitutional mechanism. It also enacts a provision that extends the new mechanism to offenders and delinquent children whose registration and other duties under the SORN Law were modified as a result of the operation of the S.B. 10 reclassification mechanism and, subsequently, were terminated or scheduled to be terminated as a result of the decision in Bodyke, supra (see "When SORN Law duties terminated or to be terminated under Bodyke," below).

Fighting Ohio House Bill 77 - Reclassification of Sex Offenders

2011-02-08T00:12:00.002-05:00

This is a letter we sent today to the Ohio Representatives on the eve of the Criminal Justice Committee hearing of Wed, Feb 9th, 2011. We urge all readers to write, email and call the Representatives listed on the previous posting to strongly oppose this House Bill 77:

Representative:

I lead an organization named ConstitutionalFights which strongly opposes House Bill 77, introduced by Rep. Hackett. This bill will come before the House Criminal Justice Committee on Wed. Feb, 9, 2011.

HR 77 is the Legislature's latest attempt to re-classify citizens who have a sex offense conviction in their past. We strongly urge you to oppose advancement of this bill.

The intent of HR 77 is very similar to that of Senate Bill 10, which was ruled as a constitutional violation on June 3, 2010 by the Ohio Supreme Court in Bodyke vs, Ohio ( R.C. Chapter 2950 — Sex offenders — R.C. 2950.031 and2950.032 violate separation of powers by requiring executive branch to reclassify sex offenders already classified by court order).

The difference with HR 77 is that it orders all affected citizens to appear in court for a second sex offender classification hearing.
This is an attempt to bypass the Separation of Powers violation.

But in the 2010 Ohio Supreme Court ruling, the challenges of Due Process, Double Jeopardy and Ex Post Facto violations were not
even addressed by the Court. Had these challenges been decided, they would certainly have resulted in similar nullification of the law.

HR 77 requires any citizen with a sex offense who had not matriculated off the sex offender registry by January 1, 2008 to appear before a Court for a second sex offender classification hearing. A majority of these individuals had fulfilled all requirements put upon them by the sex offender laws in place at the time of their conviction or plea. To haul them back into Court for a new classification hearing where a new set of registry requirements would be imposed is a violation of the Ohio and U.S. Constitutions. This bill violates the Due Process, Double Jeopardy and Ex Post Facto clauses of our Constitutional rights.

In addition to the constitutional violations of any law which attempts to retroactively reclassify offenders and to impose new and more stringent sex offender registry requirements, there are several other factors which our Legislature must consider when drafting sex offender legislation.

Firstly, there is no empirical or statistical data or evidence to support the contention that public sex offender registries have any
effect on recidivism or public safety. In fact, the only data correlating these two factors is in opposition to popular conception.
Publicly-accessible sex offender registries actually serve to isolate humiliate individuals to the point where they cannot build family and social support systems necessary to live productive and law-abiding lives. Along with residency restrictions, these public registries are no less than a Scarlet Letter which brands individuals, often
for a lifetime from normal social life and interaction.

Public sex offender registries do not prevent crimes. National media sensationalistic news reports of hideous sex offenses actually support this contention. In recent years, the highest profile news stories of sex offenses have involved men who were actively compliant registered sex offenders. These registries are simply a means for legislators to appear tough on sex crimes and an excuse for the public to feel better.
But the harm they do in the lives and families of tens of thousands of Ohio citizens caught up in the registry net is dramatic.

A popular myth is that sex offenders have a high recidivism rate. The statistical data proves this to be false. The U.S. Department of Justice statistics refute this myth. USDOJ data reports that "Recidivism Rates of Sexual Offenders (5.3% re-arrested, 3.3% of Child victimizers re-arrested)"
(http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=1136)

The Ohio Department of Rehabilitation study, "Ten-Year Recidivism Follow-Up Of 1989 Sex Offender Releases", concludes that the recidivism rate for child -victim sex offenders (outside family) for a new sex-related crime in Ohio is 8.7%. The recidivism rate for all sex offenders for a new sex-related crime in Ohio is 8.0%.
(http://www.drc.state.oh.us/web/Reports/Ten_Year_Recidivism.pdf)

Numerous other studies have reported similar data. I can provide official sources.

Finally, this is just morally unjust. Most of the individuals who would be affected by legislation such as HB 77 are those who made a terrible error in their lives many years ago (often times 10 -20 years ago).
They have been living law-abiding, productive lives in the years since they served their debt to society. All of us make mistakes in our lives, yet sex offenders are the only group to which we give no second chance. If the laws are in place at the time of conviction, we have no argument. But imposing new laws in order to recapture those who completed their obligations many years ago is simply immoral and wrong.

I could continue with supporting arguments but in an effort to be concise, I will conclude. I would welcome the opportunity to provide additional supporting information to the Committee members
for their consideration in these hearings. After the 2010 Ohio Supreme Court ruling (Bodyke vs, Ohio) which we fought for 3 years, we have extensive experience in studying sex offender laws, their effects, and the related empirical data within Ohio and throughout the nation.

We urge you to strongly oppose House Bill 77 and any future legislation which attempts to retroactively classify those who have long since satisfied all registration requirements of their offenses.

OH: House Trying to Retroactively Classify Past Offenders (Again)

2011-02-07T00:49:00.008-05:00

As we posted last week, The Ohio House of Representatives has proposed a new bill (HR 77)

If this bill passes, anyone who had not yet matriculated off of the sex offender registry by January 1, 2008 would be hauled back into court for a second sex offender classification hearing where a judge would instate a new sex offender classification. The result of this bill would be exactly what Senate Bill 10 did in 2008 (to reclassify those who should have graduated off of the registry and impose new registry requirements on them, often a life-long registration requirement).

HB 77 is to be debated in the House Criminal Justice Committee on Wed. Feb, 9, 2011 at 9 am. Everyone affected or concerned with this matter should attend this hearing at The Ohio Statehouse in Columbus Ohio. (update Feb 8: we are told by Rep. Slaby's assistant that only sponsors will participate in this first hearing, and that opponents will not be permitted to participate).

The hearing is open to the public and opposing opinions are allowed. Just fill out the witness form when you enter the statehouse. If you have any written information for the record, you should submit it as well.

If we act proactively and if we have a large number of people attend this hearing, we can avoid a repeat of the 2-1/2 year debacle which we experienced with the implementation of Senate Bill 10 from Jan 2008 through June 2010 when it was finally ruled to be illegal.

We have a good chance to defeat this bill before it advances to a vote. But only if we have others willing to join in the fight, appear at the hearing and communicate your opposition to the bill.

In the meantime, readers should contact the bill's sponsors and Committee members to clearly express their opposition to this House Bill 77, which would retroactively classify anyone with a sex offense who was not removed from the ESORN sex offender registry before January 1, 2008. This retroactive bill is a violation of the U.S. and Ohio Constitutions which expressly forbid any ex post facto law. It also violates constitutional rights of the Double Jeopardy clause of both Constitutions.

Bill Sponsors:

REPRESENTATIVES:
Hackett Garland Blessing Combs Grossman Hottinger Patmon

Bob D. Hackett, Representative
Phone: (614) 466-1470
Fax: (614) 719-6984
Email: district84@ohr.state.oh.us

Nancy J. Garland, Representative
Phone: (614) 644-6002
Fax: (614) 719-6959
Email: district20@ohr.state.oh.us

Louis W. Blessing, Jr., Speaker Pro Tempore
Phone: (614) 466-9091
Fax: (614) 719-3583
Email: district29@ohr.state.oh.us

Courtney Combs, Representative
Phone: (614) 644-6721
Fax: (614) 719-6954
Email: district54@ohr.state.oh.us

Cheryl L. Grossman, Assistant Majority Whip
Phone: (614) 466-9690
Fax: (614) 719-6962
Email: district23@ohr.state.oh.us

Jay Hottinger, Representative
Phone: (614) 466-1482
Fax: (614) 719-3971
Email: district71@ohr.state.oh.us

Bill Patmon, Representative
Phone: (614) 466-7954
Fax: (614) 719-0010
Email: district10@ohr.state.oh.us

Criminal Justice Committee:

Lynn Slaby R Chair
Phone: (614) 644-5085
Fax: (614) 719-6941
Email: district41@ohr.state.oh.us

Roland Winburn D Ranking Minority Member
Phone: (614) 466-2960
Fax: (614) 719-6940
Email: district40@ohr.state.oh.us

Bill Hayes R Vice Chair
Phone: (614) 466-2500
Fax: (614) 719-6991
Email: district91@ohr.state.oh.us

Nancy J. Garland D
Phone: (614) 644-6002
Fax: (614) 719-6959
Email: district20@ohr.state.oh.us

Louis W. Blessing, Jr. R
Phone: (614) 466-9091
Fax: (614) 719-3583
Email: district29@ohr.state.oh.us

Connie Pillich D
Phone: (614) 466-8120
Fax: (614) 719-3582
Email: district28@ohr.state.oh.us

Danny R. Bubp R
Phone: (614) 644-6034
Fax: (614) 719-6988
Email: district88@ohr.state.oh.us

W. Carlton Weddington D
Phone: (614) 466-5343
Fax: (614) 719-3581
Email: district27@ohr.state.oh.us

William P. Coley, II R
Phone: (614) 466-8550
Fax: (614) 719-6955
Email: district55@ohr.state.oh.us

Sandra Williams D
Phone: (614) 466-1414
Fax: (614) 719-0011
Email: district11@ohr.state.oh.us

Joseph W. Uecker R
Phone: (614) 466-8134
Fax: (614) 719-3966
Email: district66@ohr.state.oh.us

Ron Young R Member
Phone: (614) 644-6074
Fax: (614) 719-3963
Email: district63@ohr.state.oh.us

Call to Action : OH Legislature Going at it Again - Part 2

2011-02-03T23:55:00.009-05:00

It appears that a similar bill was introduced in the Ohio Senate in Nov. 2010. Senate Bill 316 was proposed by Senators: Seitz, Miller, D. Wagoner, Grendell, Turner, and Smith.

Senate Bill 316 is "to clarify for an offender or delinquent child who had SORN Law duties under the SORN Law in effect prior to January 1, 2008, the offender's or child's duties under the current SORN Law and the duration of those duties and to declare an emergency."

Those who are concerned about this attempt to retroactively re-capture (onto the sex offender registries) all offenders whose crimes pre-dated the 2008 law change, should immediately contact these Senators to voice your opposition.

SB 316 Sponsors:

Bill Seitz (R)
Phone: (614) 466-8068
Email: SD08@senate.state.oh.us

Mark Wagoner (R)
Phone: (614) 466-8060
Email: SD02@senate.state.oh.us

Tim Grendell (R)
Phone: (614) 644-7718
Email: SD18@senate.state.oh.us

Nina Turner (D)
Phone: (614) 466-4583
Email: SD25@maild.sen.state.oh.us

Shirley A. Smith (D)
Phone: (614) 466-4857
Email: SD21@maild.sen.state.oh.us

The intent of SB 316 and HB 77 is to:

"Create a list of all the sex offenders who were reclassified via the 2010 Bodyke ruling, notifying them all by mail, and forcing them into court one at a time to have a judge issue a new Adam Walsh Act sentencing order. It would re-reclassify all of these individuals into the AWA tier scheme, adding thousands to the registry, many for life."

Both of these bills will be debated within the respective House & Senate Criminal Justice Committees. Readers should contact the members of this committee in order to voice your opposition to these bills.

Senate Criminal Justice Committee (re: SB 316)

http://www.ohiosenate.gov/committees/standing/detail/judiciary-criminal-justice.html

Tim Grendell (R) Chair	Larry Obhof (R) Vice Chair	Nina Turner (D) Ranking Minority Member
Eric Kearney (D)	Frank LaRose (R)	Peggy Lehner (R)
Scott Oelslager (R)	Joe Schiavoni (D)	Mark Wagoner (R)

House Criminal Justice Committee ( re: HB77)

http://www.house.state.oh.us/index.php?option=com_displaycommittees&task=2&type=Regular&committeeId=98

Criminal Justice
Name	Party	Position	Name	Party	Position
Lynn Slaby	R	Chair	Roland Winburn	D	Ranking Minority Member
Bill Hayes	R	Vice Chair	Nancy J. Garland	D	Member
Louis W. Blessing, Jr.	R	Member	Connie Pillich	D	Member
Danny R. Bubp	R	Member	W. Carlton Weddington	D	Member
William P. Coley, II	R	Member	Sandra Williams	D	Member
Joseph W. Uecker	R	Member
Ron Young	R	Member

Call to Action : OH Legislature Going at it Again

2011-02-02T23:53:00.008-05:00

CALL TO ACTION:

Ohio Legislators are going at it again. Just six months after having been soundly defeated in the June 2010 Bodyke vs. Ohio Supreme Court ruling, seven Ohio House Representatives have proposed new legislation to retroactively revise Ohio's sex offender laws to re-capture all offenders who committed crimes before 2008 onto the rolls of the sex offender registry.

Those concerned about this proposed legislation must contact the seven Representatives immediately to express their opposition to this bill. If we are forced to do so, ConstitutionalFights will return to the battlefield to help defeat this latest attempt by the Ohio Legislature to violate the constitutional rights of 30,000 Ohio citizens.

The newly proposed bill, House Bill 77 of the 129th General Assembly would amend and repeal parts of the existing Ohio sex offender statutes to:

"clarify that SORN Law definitions of sexually oriented offenses, child-victim oriented offenses, tier classifications, public registry-qualified juvenile offender registrants, and related terms include the specified offenses regardless of when they were committed and to provide for court reclassification of offenders and delinquent children who committed their sexually oriented offense or child-victim oriented offense prior to January 1, 2008, and had SORN Law duties based on that offense into one of the tier classifications of the current SORN Law.

View proposed HB 77.

HB 77 Bill Sponsors:

REPRESENTATIVES:
Hackett Garland Blessing Combs Grossman Hottinger Patmon

Bob D. Hackett, Representative
State Representative (R)
District: 84
Term: 2nd
Term Limit: Eligible to run for another two-year term
Address:
77 S. High St
11th Floor
Columbus, OH 43215-6111
Phone: (614) 466-1470
Fax: (614) 719-6984
Email: district84@ohr.state.oh.us

Nancy J. Garland, Representative
State Representative (D)
District: 20
Term: 2nd
Term Limit: Eligible to run for another two-year term
Address:
77 S. High St
10th Floor
Columbus, OH 43215-6111
Phone: (614) 644-6002
Fax: (614) 719-6959
Email: district20@ohr.state.oh.us

Louis W. Blessing, Jr., Speaker Pro Tempore
State Representative (R)
District: 29
Term: 4th
Term Limit: Eligible to run for another two-year term
Address:
77 S. High St
14th Floor
Columbus, OH 43215-6111
Phone: (614) 466-9091
Fax: (614) 719-3583
Email: district29@ohr.state.oh.us

Courtney Combs, Representative
State Representative (R)
District: 54
Term: 5th (includes appointed and elected terms)
Term Limit: Not eligible to run for another two-year term
Address:
77 S. High St
13th Floor
Columbus, OH 43215-6111
Phone: (614) 644-6721
Fax: (614) 719-6954
Email: district54@ohr.state.oh.us

Cheryl L. Grossman, Assistant Majority Whip
State Representative (R)
District: 23
Term: 2nd
Term Limit: Eligible to run for another two-year term
Address:
77 S. High St
14th Floor
Columbus, OH 43215-6111
Phone: (614) 466-9690
Fax: (614) 719-6962
Email: district23@ohr.state.oh.us

Jay Hottinger, Representative
State Representative (R)
District: 71
Term: 3rd
Term Limit: Eligible to run for another two-year term
Address:
77 S. High St
12th Floor
Columbus, OH 43215-6111
Phone: (614) 466-1482
Fax: (614) 719-3971
Email: district71@ohr.state.oh.us

Bill Patmon, Representative
State Representative (D)
District: 10
Term: 1st
Term Limit: Eligible to run for another two-year term
Address:
77 S. High St
11th Floor
Columbus, OH 43215-6111
Phone: (614) 466-7954
Fax: (614) 719-0010
Email: district10@ohr.state.oh.us

We seek legal professionals who are willing to engage in a lawsuit against the State of Ohio should this legislation be put into law. We also still seek legal professionals who are willing to engage in a lawsuit against the State of Ohio regarding the Bodyke Supreme Court ruling of June 2010 for damages of those 30,000 former offenders who were maintained on the sex offender registry 2-1/2 years after they should legally have been removed.

We must collectively hit these legislators squarely in the "front teeth" this time to assure that we do not experience what we experienced between 2008 and 2010.

Online Files Transferred to Yahoo Group

2010-12-03T00:26:00.005-05:00

We have uploaded most of our online files on drop.io over the past three years. Drop.io will cease services on Dec,15, 2010. Therefore, I have decided to try to transfer all drop.io files to our Yahoo group. Readers can search in the Files Tab for the relevant document so that all may access these files after Dec. 15th.

Adam Walsh Act Guide

2010-09-22T16:46:00.002-04:00

The Adam Walsh Act and its effects on America By Randy English (SOSEN.org)
Download this paper here. (PDF)

Outline:
What is the AWA and how does it affect you?
Overview and History of the Jacob Wetterling Act
Brief Summary of Adam Walsh Act Provisions
The Cost of the AWA
Is the Public Registry needed?
Findings based on the research
Stranger Danger: the Facts
Is the AWA punitive, punishment?
Court victories against the AWA
Collateral Damage of the Adam Walsh Act
Other effects of the registry and the AWA

Ohio Sex Offender Law Unconstitutional

2010-09-21T02:39:00.000-04:00

Ohio Attorney General New Efforts to Track Sex Offenders

2010-09-01T13:37:00.002-04:00

ohioattorneygeneral.gov: Cordray Announces New Efforts to Track Sex Offenders (official announcement).
sexoffenderresearch.blogspot.com: Cordray Announces New Efforts to Track Sex Offenders (important analysis).

8/27/2010(COLUMBUS, Ohio) – Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray announced today that his office has received a federal grant that will help county sheriffs keep better track of registered sex offenders.

The $155,546 grant will pay for two new programs. (your tax dollars)

The first will allow the Attorney General’s Office to develop a phone and e-mail alert system that will send automated messages to offenders and sheriffs’ offices around Ohio, five days before offenders are supposed to re-register as part of their reporting requirements. The system also will track phone numbers or e-mail addresses that no longer are in operation, alerting sheriffs’ offices if the contact information provided by offenders is incorrect.

The second part of the grant will help county sheriffs’ offices fund extradition of offenders who moved to other states without notifying local authorities as required by law.

Analysis from sexoffenderresearch.blogspot.com:
"Of course this new system of tracking likely will catch offenders unaware and maybe arrested, when they are actually compliant. For instance, if a phone is shut off because one cannot pay a bill, that would cause the registrant to be arrested. If a registrant doesn't use his/her e-mail addresses frequently, the e-mail provider will tag that account for being dormant and eventually close the e-mail account, causing the registrant to be arrested. Next, if a registrant has many e-mail addresses each for different purposes, will s/he be arrested because he decides to no longer use one of them? There is a big difference in having a e-mail address and using it, this new system forces registrants to use ALL e-mail addresses regularly or face arrest."

Don't forget: The Ohio Attorney General has still not complied with the Bodyke Supreme Court ruling of June 3, 2010. While 2300 registrants are slated to be removed from the sex offender registry as a result of this ruling, only 1000 names have been removed from the list in three months' time. We must all continue to call and contact the Ohio AG office to force them to comply with the law. 90 days after Bodyke, the Ohio AG office is in violation with Ohio law. Click Watchdog icon below for contact information:

Help be a watchdog:

Sexual Offender Facts

2010-08-23T13:58:00.003-04:00

BLUESHIFT: The purpose and objective of this site is to distribute data on sexual offender registration laws focusing on Ohio. Including the history and status of proposed legislation and court opinions and ongoing litigation.

Sexual Offender Facts Graphs and Statistics with footnotes and references.

Excerpts:

"Today in Ohio nearly 25,000 (or 99.99%) of registered sexual offenders DID NOT re-offend. Only .75 RSOs in Ohio recidivate sexually each day. (.75/25000)*100 = 99.99%."

"The ten year recidivism rate for the group of sex offenders in this study was 11%. Eight percent of the offenders returned for a new crime. Another 3% were revoked for a parole violation that was sexual in nature (sex crime), or a relapse behavior (sex lapse)."

Ohio AG Petition for Clarification Denied by Ohio Supreme Court

2010-08-17T13:15:00.005-04:00

SLIP OPINION NO. 2010-OHIO-3737
The State of Ohio, Appellee v. Bodyke et al, Appellants.

"1. On June 3, 2010, the court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals in this case. State v. Bodyke,Ohio St.3d, 2010-Ohio-2424,N.E.2d.
2. Appellee, state of Ohio, and amicus curiae Ohio Attorney General
have filed a joint motion for reconsideration and/or clarification.
3. The motion for reconsideration and/or clarification is denied."

Therefore, there is no longer any excuse for the failure of the Ohio Attorney General's office to re-classify all affected former offenders. They have been dragging their feet for ten weeks now, refusing to abide by the Supreme Court's ruling.

See: UPDATES, Friday, July 23 : Failure of Ohio AG to Abide by Supreme Court Ruling

In just over 10 weeks, the Ohio AG office has removed only about 1000 registrants from their Sex Offender Registry. We are told by the Ohio Public Defender Office that approximately 2300 individuals are slated to be removed. But keep in mind that people are forced onto this corrupt registry every day, as well.

The AG office has refused to answer or return our calls. They have now blacklisted Constitutionalfights. And they have told us so, very directly and rudely. So we must rely on you, the readers, to help do the job of holding them accountable.

Keep contacting the Ohio Attorney General’s Office daily until they get these re-classifications completed and send official letters !

We are hearing from some (not many) readers who have told us of their removal from the registry. We are happy to see these people relieved of their illegal punishments but we urge all readers to remain vigilant until the Attorney General Office sends official letters to registrants informing them that they no longer have a duty to register. Having these letters in hand is very important. Law enforcement is just as corrupt and incompetent as other state authorities are. If a sheriff bangs on your door in the middle of the night because you did not register, you need to have that letter in hand !

Justin Hykes, Assistant Attorney General of Ohio
justin.hykes@ohioattorneygeneral.gov
614-387-4257
FAX 614-466-5087
E-fax 1 866 293 1021

Paula Armentrout ,AG Help Center Manager can be contacted here:
800-282-0515
Dan, Help Center Supervisor can be contacted here:
800-282-0515

Ohio Attorney General Office:
Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray, 30 E. Broad St., 17th Floor, Columbus, OH 43215
(800) 282-0515
Monday – Friday 8 a.m. – 7 p.m.
Email Ohio ESORN at OHLEGsupport@OhioAttorneyGeneral.gov

OHLEG Support
1-866-40-OHLEG (1-866-406-4534)
OHLEGsupport@OhioAttorneyGeneral.gov

Media Contacts:

Kim Kowalski: (614) 728-9692, cell: (614) 893-6018
Ted Hart: Deputy Director of Media Relations
Office of the Ohio Attorney General
PHONE 614-728-4127, cell: (614) 743-2286
EMAIL ted.hart@ohioattorneygeneral.gov (614) 728-4127

We are also now actively seeking advice from any legal professionals who read these blogs, regarding potential legal action against the Ohio Attorney General Office for their failure to abide by this Ohio Supreme Court ruling. Please contact us at constitutionalfights@yahoo.com with any advice or willingness to help. Thank you.

Canadians For A Just Society

2010-08-14T15:05:00.002-04:00

Canadians For A Just Society

The Canadian government’s policies and procedures for the management of sex offenders have been driven by public outcry over highly publicized sex offenses. Craig Jones, executive director of the John Howard Society of Canada, calls the changes typical of the Conservative government’s “opportunistic” justice reforms. “They are characterized by a kind of reactive emotionalism driven by populist sensationalism. This is tinkering gone crazy.”

Legislators must avoid such reactionary responses that are based on public fear of this population because the evidence has been unambiguous- many of the policies that have been devised to protect society from violent sexual offenders are ineffective. These failed policies must be eliminated and replaced with policies based on the best available and empirical evidence rather than a media driven national panic. Furthermore, every individual must speak out against these failed policies and demand reforms that work towards making our communities safer, protecting our children, and respecting the dignity of human beings. We will no longer accept ‘feel good’ policies that protect no one, lend a false sense of security, and help foster an environment that makes our children and communities less safe..

If journalists, child advocates, lawmakers and police services are serious about wanting to protect society, they should turn away from persecution as a means to an end, and demand laws and practices designed to actually prevent crime while protect the right of people to heal and move forward; this focus should be based upon prevention and rehabilitation. Much of this information exists. The money wasted on tracking ex-felons who are unlikely to re-offend could be much better spent on preventing child abuse in the home and by educational programs designed to teach children how to avoid abusive situations and potential threats. Educational programs designed to give our children information about how sexual predation is perpetrated would bring a far better result.

See related post: Sex Offenders Denied Entry to Canada

OH: Government Collecting Personal Information About Neighbors of Sex Offenders

2010-08-10T16:59:00.007-04:00

Google/AP: In turnabout, Ohio ex-con gets data on neighbors.

Columbus, Ohio — Neighbors routinely get a picture and a name when a sex offender moves next door. In a turnabout, an Ohio sex offender has received private information about his neighbors, including their Social Security numbers.

The material was shown to The Associated Press by convicted a sex offender XXX, who was mistakenly given the information by a prosecutor. The data also contain the names, addresses and birth dates of nine of XXX's one-time neighbors on Columbus' east side.

There was no indication XXX misused anything in the files. XXX, 80, says he came forward because he recognizes the irony of it falling into the hands of someone like him. "Someone with a criminal mind could really use that information the wrong way," he said.

The case also offers a view into a massive and controversial database designed to track criminals with the help of a raft of background information, including data on people whose only connection to a criminal is a similar address.

Franklin County Prosecutor Ron O'Brien took responsibility for the error, which he believes to be isolated.(yeah, right)

XXX's former neighbors, meanwhile, are wondering why the government has data about them at all.
"They don't need to be running my personal information," said Don Hickman, 47, who still lives on the street where XXX once worked as a live-in church groundskeeper. "I'm not a sex offender. I've done nothing wrong here."

Neighbor information is useful to police when serving warrants, making family connections and finding fugitives, said Shannon Crowther, who heads technology services for the Franklin County Sheriff's Office.

The information was released to XXX last summer, as prosecutors were grappling with more than 7,000 lawsuits that sex offenders had filed against Ohio's first-in-the-nation implementation of the federal Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act. The offenders' challenges contend the federal law's stricter classifications and longer reporting periods can't be applied retroactively. (see Bodyke vs. Ohio)

XXX's His obligation to stay on the registry expired in July. O'Brien said XXX had zealously sought records held in his county sex offender file. After XXX threatened to take the issue to federal court, an assistant prosecutor turned over the documents.

"They feared he'd say, 'See, you're still hiding stuff,' so they released everything in the file, lock, stock and barrel, and didn't properly review it," O'Brien said. "They gave him things they shouldn't have."

This is what you deserve when you allow government to post citizens on public registries. Once you allow the surveillance of one person, you give up your own privacy as well. You really didn't think it would stop at just sex offenders, did you?

This former offender should be applauded. He did the right thing; turning over the information to authorities without using it for his own gain, even as the state of Ohio was violating his constitutional rights by keeping him listed on the sex offender registry retro-actively, which has now been prohibited by the Ohio Supreme Court.

Kansas: Relief from Sex Offender Registration

2010-08-06T14:49:00.002-04:00

22-4912 - Chapter 22.--CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
KANSAS CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Article 49.--OFFENDER REGISTRATION

22-4912. Relief from requirement registration. (a) Any offender who was required to be registered pursuant to the Kansas offender registration act K.S.A. 22-4901 et seq. and amendments thereto, prior to July 1, 1999, and who would not have been required to be registered pursuant to the Kansas offender registration act on and after July 1, 1999, as a result of enactment of this act, shall be entitled to be relieved of the requirement to be registered. Such offender may apply to the sentencing court for an order relieving the offender of the duty of registration. The court shall hold a hearing on the application at which the applicant shall present evidence verifying that such applicant no longer satisfies the definition of offender pursuant to K.S.A. 22-4902 and amendments thereto. If the court finds that the person no longer satisfies the definition of offender pursuant to K.S.A. 22-4902 and amendments thereto, the court shall grant an order relieving the offender's duty to register if the offender no longer fulfills the definition of offender pursuant to K.S.A. 22-4902 and amendments thereto. Such court granting such an order shall forward a copy of such order to the sheriff of the county in which such person has registered and to the Kansas bureau of investigation. Upon receipt of such copy of the order, such sheriff and the Kansas bureau of investigation shall remove such person's name from the registry.

(b) This section shall be part of an supplemental to the Kansas offender registration act.
History: L. 1999, ch. 164, § 37; July 1.

International Megans Law Moves Forward in Congress

2010-08-02T16:08:00.003-04:00

H.R. 5138, The International Megan's Law of 2010

We have warned about this horrific legislation many times on our blogs. We have asked readers to contact their Representatives to tell them to kill this bill. Now, it has passed the House and will move on to the Senate.

If you are not aware, there is a bill pending in the US Congress which would expand the US Sex Offender Registry (SORNA) Worldwide. This bill must be killed: International Megan’s Law Must be Killed in Congress
Contact your Senators !

See related blog posts: International Megans law EXPOSED! Now, hear the truth ...
The International Megan’s Law of 2010
HR1623 International Megan’s Law
International Megans Law Moves Forward in US House
Sex Offender Law Could Go Global

International Travel for Ex Sex Offenders

2010-08-02T14:02:00.003-04:00

Constitutionalfights will be building a new page dealing with the topic of International Travel for Ex Sex Offenders. The intent of this new page is to provide information to former sex offenders who desire, like many other Americans, to travel overseas.

In our own research, we have been frustrated by just how little information about this subject can be found online. Furthermore, no embassy or country agency which we have contacted will ever give a firm answer on whether a specific ex sex offender can enter their country. It seems to be kind of an unspoken subject which no one wants to talk about. So we ask for your input if you have traveled overseas with a sex offense in your history. Please email us here if you have some valuable information to share with other readers. We thank those readers who have already contacted us with their experiences.

Please limit your email to hard facts about passports, visas, entry,exit and border checks.
State your past conviction category. This will help us to make sense of how different level offenders are treated.

1. Did you apply for an entry visa, or just travel on a US passport?
2. Did they scan your passport at entry?
3. Were you detained or questioned as a result of your past offense?
4. What nations have you entered (or attempted to visit)?
5. Have you found any reliable documentation about any of these policies which you can share with us?

http://constitutionalfights.wordpress.com/international-travel/

Messy Realities of Ohio's Adoption of AWA Sex Offender Registration Rules

2010-07-26T17:42:00.002-04:00

Sentencing Law & Policy: The messy realities of Ohio's adoption of AWA sex offender registration rules.
daytondailynews.com: Sex offender reclassifications will take months.

A helpful reader altered me to this local article which provides a window into just some of the many messy issues involved in Ohio's on-going effort to get conform its sex offender registration rules to comply with the federal Adam Walsh Act. The piece is headlined "Sex offender reclassifications will take months; One case shows how new ruling affects law on registration," and here are some highlights:

George Anderson, a rapist designed a Tier III sex offender, was convicted by a Montgomery County jury for failing to verify his address. On Friday, July 16, the Ohio 2nd District Court of Appeals voided his conviction, citing the June 3 Ohio Supreme Court decision that eliminated reclassifications under the Adam Walsh Act....

These types of decisions will likely continue during the coming months, said Margie Slagle, staff attorney with the Ohio Justice and Policy Center. “Thousands and thousands of petitions were filed across the state,” Slagle said.

Twenty-eight counties were awaiting the Supreme court’s ruling before taking any action on challenges to Walsh. Nine, including Montgomery, issued county-wide stays, according to a brief filed by the Ohio Public Defender.

Anderson was originally classified a “sexually oriented offender,” the lowest designation under the state’s Megan’s Law. He was required to register his place of residence annually for 10 years. Under the Adam Walsh Act, which replaced Megan, he was reclassified as a Tier III offender — the highest level — and required to report every 90 days for the rest of his life....

The high court’s ruling kept the Walsh system for new offenders, but ordered the 26,000 offenders who were reclassified to be returned to the old system and its requirements. “It’s going to make it confusing,” said Mercer County Sheriff Jeff Grey, who heads the Buckeye State Sheriff’s Association’s committee on sexual offender notification.

Under the old system, 77 percent of offenders were in the lowest category and 18 percent were in the highest as “sexual predators.” Under Walsh, the highest category, Tier III, contained 54 percent.

That tripled the workload for sheriff’s offices, with more offenders visiting four times a year instead of annually, Grey said. “That’s less time that we have a deputy out physically looking” to see if offenders live at the addresses they give, Grey said.

Attorney General Richard Cordray, whose office notified all affected offenders in 2008 that their designation had changed, has asked the Supreme Court to reconsider its decision. He also has included a request for clarification concerning those offenders who did not have court hearings to determine classification, such as those convicted in other states. Ted Hart, a spokesman for Cordray’s office, said staff was manually going through all records to determine which defendants had court hearings.

“If they did have a hearing, they will be reclassified,” Hart said “If they did not, the cases will remain pending until we receive further clarification from the court.”

Bills in Congress to Deny Loans and Mortgages to Sex Offenders

2010-07-26T14:56:00.001-04:00

sexoffender-reports.blogspot.com: Bills in Congress Will Deny Loans and Mortgages to Sex Offenders.

Small Business Jobs and Credit Act of 2010: HR-5297:

Source of offensive language: House Report 111-506, H.Res. 1436 "(2) LOAN RECIPIENTS.—With respect to funds received by an eligible institution under the Program, any business receiving a loan from the eligible institution using such funds after the date of the enactment of this title shall certify to such eligible institution that the principals of such business have not been convicted of a sex offense against a minor (as such terms are defined in section 111 of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (42 U.S.C. 16911)). "

FHA Reform Act of 2010: HR-5072:

Source of offensive language: House Floor Debate 6-10-2010 which says: ``(z) Required Certifications.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary may not insure any mortgage secured by a one- to four-family dwelling unless the mortgagor under such mortgage certifies, under penalty of perjury, that the mortgagor has not been convicted of a sex offense against a minor (as such terms are defined in section 111 of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (42 U.S.C. 16911)).''."

UPDATES, Friday, July 23 : Failure of Ohio AG to Abide by Supreme Court Ruling

2010-07-23T14:49:00.005-04:00

UPDATES, Friday, July 23 : Failure of the Ohio Attorney General Office to Abide by Supreme Court Ruling, which invalidated Ohio's Senate Bill 10 Adam Walsh Act Re-classification system.

We have been monitoring the ESORN web site since the Bodyke decision on June 3rd. Here is our weekly tracking of the ESORN website numbers.

As of 6-06-2010- Total Number of Offenders: 19,361
As of 6-16-2010- Total Number of Offenders: 19,298
As of 6-21-2010- Total Number of Offenders: 19,206
As of 6-28-2010- Total Number of Offenders: 18,964
As of 7-05-2010- Total Number of Offenders: 18,723
As of 7-12-2010- Total Number of Offenders: 18,617
As of 7-21-2010- Total Number of Offenders: 18,529
As of 7-23-2010- Total Number of Offenders: 18,493

In just over 7 weeks, the Ohio AG office has removed fewer than 900 registrants from their Sex Offender Registry. We are told by the Ohio Public Defender Office that approximately 2300 individuals are slated to be removed. But keep in mind that people are forced onto this corrupt registry every day, as well. So the number removed is probably above 900.

The AG office has refused to answer or return our calls. They have now blacklisted Constitutionalfights. And they have told us so, very directly and rudely. So we must rely on you, the readers, to help do the job of holding them accountable.

Keep contacting the Ohio Attorney General’s Office daily until they get these re-classifications completed and send official letters !

We are hearing from some (not many) readers who have told us of their removal from the registry. We are happy to see these people relieved of their illegal punishments but we urge all readers to remain vigilant until the Attorney General Office sends official letters to registrants informing them that they no longer have a duty to register. Having these letters in hand is very important. Law enforcement is just as corrupt and incompetent as other state authorities are. If a sheriff bangs on your door in the middle of the night because you did not register, you need to have that letter in hand !

Justin Hykes, Assistant Attorney General of Ohio
justin.hykes@ohioattorneygeneral.gov
614-387-4257
FAX 614-466-5087
E-fax 1 866 293 1021

Paula Armentrout ,AG Help Center Manager can be contacted here:
800-282-0515
Dan, Help Center Supervisor can be contacted here:
800-282-0515

Ohio Attorney General Office:
Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray, 30 E. Broad St., 17th Floor, Columbus, OH 43215
(800) 282-0515
Monday – Friday 8 a.m. – 7 p.m.
Email Ohio ESORN at OHLEGsupport@OhioAttorneyGeneral.gov

OHLEG Support
1-866-40-OHLEG (1-866-406-4534)
OHLEGsupport@OhioAttorneyGeneral.gov

Media Contacts:

Kim Kowalski: (614) 728-9692, cell: (614) 893-6018
Ted Hart: Deputy Director of Media Relations
Office of the Ohio Attorney General
PHONE 614-728-4127, cell: (614) 743-2286
EMAIL ted.hart@ohioattorneygeneral.gov (614) 728-4127

We are also now actively seeking advice from any legal professionals who read these blogs, regarding potential legal action against the Ohio Attorney General Office for their failure to abide by this Ohio Supreme Court ruling. Please contact us at constitutionalfights@yahoo.com with any advice or willingness to help. Thank you.

Sex Offenders Receive U.S. Passports

2010-07-15T14:16:00.004-04:00

See related post : Sex Offenders Denied Entry to Canada.

sdp123a.com: Sex Offenders Receive U.S. Passports (includes video report).

(CNN) -- Thousands of registered sex offenders have received U.S. passports, including at least 30 federal employees, according to a Government Accountability Office report obtained by CNN.

The GAO report said the Department of State cannot legally deny passports to registered sex offenders, except those specifically convicted of sex tourism.

The report concluded that about 4,500 U.S. passports of the more than 16 million issued in fiscal year 2008 were issued to registered sex offenders.

"Federal statutes authorize the Secretary of State to deny issuance of a passport in certain circumstances, such as while an individual is imprisoned or on parole or supervised release for a conviction for international drug trafficking or sex tourism or is in arrearages for child support," the report states. "However, there is currently no comprehensive program to deny passports to applicants who are registered sex offenders."

The State Department called the report "very misleading" and adding it "conveys more 'shock value' than factual accuracy." (Of course, this report is intended to shock and outrage the public)

In a written response, the department pointed out that only a fraction of 1 percent of the 16 million passports issued in fiscal year 2008 went to registered sex offenders. In addition, the title of the report "fails to convey that GAO found no lawful reasons for the department to deny or revoke the passports of the case study sex offenders based on their status as sex offenders."

"The report appears to suggest, without any foundation, that the Department's issuance of passports to certain Americans facilitated their commission of sex crimes abroad," the department's response said. "There are no facts in the report which show that any of the thirty individuals included in the case studies used his passport to travel to a foreign country to commit a sex crime."

The original title of the report, "Passports Issued to Thousands of Registered Sex Offenders," was later changed to "Current Situation Results in Thousands of Passports Issued to Registered Sex Offenders." The GAO report was requested by Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, and Sen. Max Baucus, D-Montana.

The GAO studied data from the National Sex Offender Registry (NSOR). However, the approximately 4,500 sex offenders who received passports in fiscal year 2008 "is likely understated because many of the records in the passport database and the NSOR lacked valid Social Security numbers ... In addition, the NSOR does not currently contain a comprehensive listing of all sex offenders from the states."

The GAO found cases that include a sex offender from Texas who received a passport while in prison, a Delaware man with multiple sex convictions who traveled to the Philippines, Germany and France since receiving his passport, and a Georgia man who has traveled to the Philippines, Ireland and Panama.

Among the federal employees who received passports was an aerospace engineer with NASA, an employee of the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, and a Postal Service carrier who traveled to Taiwan and Japan after receiving his passport.

About 50 of those who received passports either lived outside the United States or "their whereabouts were unknown," the report said.

A new law took effect in December 2008 that prohibits anyone convicted of sex tourism from receiving a U.S. passport. However, the report said, the Department of State was not even aware of the law until April of this year after the GAO "brought this statute to its attention."

"When Congress passes a law and the president signs it, then the Executive Branch needs to execute it," Grassley said in a statement. "I'm shocked that GAO had to inform the State Department that Congress made individuals convicted of sex tourism ineligible for passports back in December 2008. It's inexcusable that the State Department did nothing to enforce that provision for 14 months. Since someone who is late on child support payments cannot receive a passport, then surely these criminals should also be stopped from traveling internationally."

"It also is disturbing that the GAO found examples prior to that new law where the State Department issued passports to convicted sex offenders who fled law enforcement, received government housing subsidies, and work for the Post Office. This report raises a lot of serious questions about how effectively the government protects us from child predators," Grassley said. (Grassley doesn't know the difference between a Predator and a Sex Offender)

The report also studied a group of registered sex offenders -- many who held positions of public trust, including a school teacher, religious layman, and health care provider.

"Other cases involve registered sex offenders who owe child support or are currently in prison or whose whereabouts are unknown," the report said. "... Several of our cases showed that sex offenders left the country and moved to Mexico. According to State officials, Mexico does not have a sex offense registration system, so these offenders are likely unknown to authorities and their neighbors."

The Department of State "has indicated that it would like to study any proposed legislation to provide additional authority to deny passports to sex offenders, including constitutional, policy and practical issues that may arise in its application and use," the report said. "A State official said that the department recently began working with [the Department of Justice] to develop a procedure for tracking these convictions and a procedure to notify State of those convictions."

This report answers a few of the questions we have had regarding travel with a passport as a former sex offender. As the post noted above details, we have first hand knowledge that Canada border agents deny anyone with a sex offense entry into Canada. We believe this is related to how the U.S. and Canada computer databases are so well connected. This may not be the case with other countries. We would like to hear from anyone with knowledge about international travel of persons with a sex offense in their history. We would like to report on this topic.

Please send any information you have regarding international travel to constitutionalfights@yahoo.com.

If you have a sex offense history and have traveled overseas, please tell us how it went for you.
Did you obtain a visa beforehand? Did you declare this felony? Was your history (or passport bar code) checked at the Entry Point before you were permitted entry? If you have official information about this topic, please provide sources.

Sex Offender Scam Letter

2010-07-14T13:55:00.003-04:00

Margie Slagle of the Ohio Justice Policy Center has forwarded the attached document and is asking us to warn everyone that this is a terrible scam. This message was sent from the Cuyahoga County Public Defender's office. Please aid in spreading the word that this is simply someone's crazy attempt at making some money off the backs of others. Obviously, you should ever pay money to have yourself removed from the registry as a result of the Ohio Supreme Court ruling, unless you are hiring an attorney whom you seek out on your own.

View scam letter here.

Contacting Constitutionalfights.org

2010-07-12T14:27:00.008-04:00

Once we see that the Ohio Attorney General Office has finally reclassified the vast majority of those affected by the Bodyke decision, and once we see the AG Office sending letters to most of these people, Constitutionalfights.org will then no longer be responding to emails or blog comments.

So.. if you need or want to contact us, you may have only a few weeks or a month to do so. Make sure to use a subject line related to our blog topic, or it could go unread in the "spam" folder. Anyone who has us on their email address book, or mailing list, please remove us as soon as possible. After we close these blogs, we will no longer receive your messages and will sent up an auto-response just to annoy until you remove us.

Thanks,
constitutionalfights@yahoo.com

Important:
Keep contacting the Ohio Attorney General's Office daily until they get these re-classifications completed and send official letters !
We are hearing from some readers who have told us of their removal from the registry. We are happy to see these people relieved of their illegal punishments but we urge all readers to remain vigilant until the Attorney General Office sends official letters to registrants informing them that they no longer have a duty to register. Having these letters in hand is very important. Law enforcement is just as corrupt and incompetent as other state authorities are. If a sheriff bangs on your door in the middle of the night because you did not register, you need to have that letter in hand !

UPDATES, Friday, July 9 : New Info from Ohio Public Defender

2010-07-09T14:56:00.002-04:00

From our contact at the Ohio Public Defender Office:

Someone in our SB 10 litigation group was able to get some information from the AG’s office today. Here’s the excerpt from that email:

The AG’s office has reclassified all of the Predators and are now working on the Habitual Offenders (those whose original classifications were either Predator or Habitual before Senate Bill 10). They are reclassifying those two groups first because all of those people clearly have a prior judicial registration order (the court order given near time of conviction which originally classified the offender). The Bodyke decision requires that these original court orders shall now go back into effect.

For the originally-classified Sexually Oriented Offenders, they are pulling the final court order to confirm there was a hearing and reclassifying them.

Out of state offenders will not be changed pending the Motion for Clarification, and neither will anyone without a court order.

They believe approximately 2300 offenders will be released from the sex offender registry. They are checking each one individually to make certain there were no tolling events. They are then notifying the Local Sheriff’s Office of whom should be removed from the registry. Notices will be sent to all but the Predators.

They also believe that all the other provisions of SB 10 still apply to the reclassified offenders.

They are reclassifying people whose original classifications (before SB 10) were either Predator or Habitual, because all of those people clearly have a prior judicial order. If you were originally classified as a Sexually Oriented Offender, you probably won’t be getting an official letter from the AG until they start reclassifying people who were originally SOO's. And, it looks like they’ll only reclassify SOO's who have a prior court order labeling them as such. (If you’ve seen the Motion for Clarification that the AG filed last month, they’re unsure of how to classify people who don’t have prior court orders.)

Note: Attorneys for Bodyke have filed a Motion in Opposition to the AG's Motion for Clarification, which was filed immediately after the decision by the Ohio Attorney General office. We said at the time that this was a stalling tactic by the AG to buy time. Let us hope the Ohio Supreme Court quickly denies the AG motion.

UPDATES, Tuesday, July 6 : Arrogant Ohio Attorney General Office

2010-07-06T16:46:00.003-04:00

We have experienced increasing snotty , arrogant attitudes from the Ohio Attorney General office employees.

Remember that these people are public servants, which means that they work for YOU and me. This attitude they are displaying is totally unacceptable for State Public Servants to demonstrate to the people who pay their salaries.

Do not allow them to intimidate , interrupt or act arrogantly towards you on the phone.
Fight back.

Today, we received an e-fax number for Assistant Attorney General Justin Hykes, who now refuses to return our calls. I encourage all readers ( even those who have received their reclassification letters) to call , email and fax him daily to ask why the AG office has been so slow to act on the Ohio Supreme Court ruling of June 3, 2010. Even those of you who have received your reclassification letters can help others who are still waiting. We are all in this fight together and need to help each other.

Justin Hykes, Assistant Attorney General of Ohio
justin.hykes@ohioattorneygeneral.gov
614-387-4257
FAX 614-466-5087
E-fax 1 866 293 1021

Paula Armentrout ,AG Help Center Manager can be contacted here:
800-282-0515
Dan, Help Center Supervisor can be contacted here:
800-282-0515

Both of these two Help Center lackeys have been exceptionally snotty and arrogant on the phone.

From the Ohio AG website:
“We know about state government and the resources that are available to help Ohioans. We help people navigate those resources. And at the end of the day, it’s a good feeling to know you’ve helped someone with a problem.”

Paula Armentrout
Help Center supervisor
Constituent Services Section"

I guess she lost her affection for helping citizens.

It has now been over a month since the Supreme Court decision which overturned sex offender reclassifications by Ohio Senate Bill 10, and we have seen only about 600 registrants removed. At this rate of approximately 150 removals per week, the reclassification process will take 10 years !

It is time to stop being nice about this. Contact the Ohio AG office daily to ask why they are not acting in a timely manner to reclassify registrants. Insist they get the reclassification letters sent out immediately. Ask when they will devote more resources to this job and when it will be completed. Only when we keep pressure on these corrupt public servants will we see any real substantive progress.

Ohio Attorney General Office:
Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray, 30 E. Broad St., 17th Floor, Columbus, OH 43215
(800) 282-0515
Monday – Friday 8 a.m. – 7 p.m.
Email Ohio ESORN at OHLEGsupport@OhioAttorneyGeneral.gov

OHLEG Support
1-866-40-OHLEG (1-866-406-4534)
OHLEGsupport@OhioAttorneyGeneral.gov

Media Contacts:

Kim Kowalski: (614) 728-9692, cell: (614) 893-6018
Ted Hart: Deputy Director of Media Relations
Office of the Ohio Attorney General
PHONE 614-728-4127, cell: (614) 743-2286
EMAIL ted.hart@ohioattorneygeneral.gov (614) 728-4127

The only good part of the snotty attitude of these people is that through it, we see that the pressure is starting to work. We must all continue to keep the pressure on these public servants.

The more pressure we can keep on them, the faster these reclassifications will be completed.

Contact them daily !

2nd Annual Conference of Reform Sex Offender Laws (RSOL)

2010-07-05T14:57:00.003-04:00

Newsvine.com: Sex Offenders Meet Media.

A group of former sex offenders and experts in the field of sexual offense met with members of the press Monday, following the 2nd Annual Conference of Reform Sex Offender Laws (RSOL). RSOL seeks to reform or repeal legislation like the Adam Walsh Act, which has a current deadline for implementation of July 1st but has only been completely adopted by 4 states (3 states and an Indian Tribe, as far as we know).

Surprisingly RSOL does not seek for the immediate abolishment of the Sex Offender Registry but for a more directed approach to Registration and other sex offender related laws. According to Dr. Chrysandi Leon, University of Delaware, Professor of Sociology and an Expert on Sex Offender recidivism who presented at the conference, “the limited resources of law enforcement are being diluted by the blanket registration of all sex offenders.” “Credible statistical studies over the last 15 years “since the registry was implemented show that “it has had no impact of the recidivism rate.” We can go back to studies from the 1940’s on, long before the registry was implemented, and show that the rate of offenses has remained remarkably consistent over the intervening years.

RSOL advocates a more directed and individualized approach to registration using scientifically based data to identify those offenders who pose a significant treat to society and who are truly “dangerous.” Right now it is impossible for parents or even law enforcement to accurately determine an offender’s potential risk because of labels such as “sexually violently predator” which are blanketedly applied to all offenders who have committed a specific set of offenses rather that using individualized assessment to apply that designation. Having over 700,000 people on the registry nation-wide makes it difficult for law enforcement to narrow the field quickly when a child goes missing.

“We are as concerned about the safety of children as anyone else” says Kelly Piercy, a former offender, and chairman of Georgians for Reform, but “we don’t believe that the current legislation is effective in doing so, it wastes resources and punishes those who are trying to reintegrate as productive citizens.”

Interestingly several children both of non-offender presenters and children of former offenders attended and roamed freely about the conference seemingly without fear of any kind.

Besides Dr. Leon, and Piercy other presenters at the conference included: Lloyd Swartz, New Mexico Registrant and Reform Advocate, J.Tom Morgan, former prosecutor and sex offender registry sponsor from Georgia who now states that “the registry no longer serves the purposes for which it was created;” Norman A. Pattis, Connecticut defense attorney, Nancy M. Steele, PhD, a Clinical Psychologist and sex offender treatment specialist, and Rev. James L. Powell, PhD, DD, a Methodist Minister whose Atlanta- based church welcomes sex offenders but under strict perimeters. Powell is also a licensed clinical psychologist and regularly counsels with former sex offenders. “There is much that the church and other community based organizations can do to mentor and help former sex offenders who want to reform,” thus increasing the net of safety that we all seek when dealing with those who have previously offended, particularly when the offense involves children.” Another presenter Mary Duval of Oklahoma, CEO of SOSEN, another sex offender advocacy group, became vehement in her fight for change, when her teenaged son Ricky was convicted of having sex with a younger teenaged girl. At that time there were no “Romeo and Juliet” laws which exempt consensual teenage sex from prosecution. Duval’s lobbying efforts help create these laws. Though completely blind, Duval actively lectures and campaigns throughout the United States, she also co-hosts weekly radio shows on ARC Talk Radio which focus on human rights and sex offender issues.

The conference concluded Monday after concentrated lobbying efforts on Capitol Hill. Portions of the Conference were recorded and links will soon be available online. These and other information about RSOL are available at their national website www.reformsexoffenderlaws.org .

International Megan’s Law Must be Killed in Congress

2010-07-05T14:26:00.008-04:00

See related posts:
The International Megan's Law of 2010
HR1623 International Megan’s Law
International Megans Law Moves Forward in US House
Sex Offender Law Could Go Global

The proposed International Megan’s Law must be defeated in Congress.

It has undergone several revisions and it's bill number has changed. But this International Megan’s Law bill (if passed) would virtually ban any registered sex offender from traveling outside the United States. You need to read and learn about this bill and fight vigilantly to kill it.

Bill Summary:
"H.R. 5138 would protect children from sexual exploitation by mandating reporting requirements for convicted sex traffickers and other registered sex offenders against minors intending to engage in international travel, providing advance notice of intended travel by high interest registered sex offenders outside the United States to the government of the country of destination, requesting foreign governments to notify the United States when a known child sex offender is seeking to enter the United States."

We at ConstitutionalFights.org abhor sexual exploitation and abuse of any kind. But we similarly abhor laws such as this, which singles out one group of offenders for extreme punishments and restrictions which amount to constitutional infringements upon their liberty in this great country. Former offenders have the same dreams and desires others have of traveling to other parts of the world. What would you think if the government told YOU that you could never travel outside the US without restrictions, and government monitoring?

From Terry at JusticeinJersey.org:

When I met with Rep. Chris Smith's office (they had 2 attorneys) I was handed a new copy of bill H.R. 5138 and told that they had revised it. We talked about the revisions and since then I have been reading it line by line for intent and objections. I have sent them three pages so far and am 1/2 way through the bill. I just came across another hidden point which is disturbing and I believe we all should be writing to our Senators and all of the representatives on The Congressional Appropriations Committee.

A Fee, not to exceed the amount of $25 will be charged by ICE to all sex offenders as a processing fee. However, this fee can be increased thereafter, not earlier than 30 days after consultation with the appropriate congressional committees.

This is an unlimited pool of money from hardworking sex offenders to pay for the additional resources and to other counties. They are also asking for 250,000 (a quarter mil) as start up money from the our taxpayers in addition to providing resources, money, and technology to other countries.
While they also state that this fee shall be waved if the sex offender demonstrates to the satisfaction of ICE, pursuant to a fee waiver process established by ICE, that the payment of such fee would impose and undue financial hardship on the sex offender. (how could one prove hardship when planing to travel internationally? Most SOs fall just above the income line to be able to qualify.)

When I spoke to the Representatives of Congressman Chris Smith's office, I was assured that the bill was changed to go after the worst of the worst based on risk based evaluations performed by ICE. If that were true this bill would not constantly say just "sex offender" instead of saying "high risk sex offender as identified by ICE through risk based evaluation testing."

Of course, this bill applies to all registered sex offenders (as written) whose offense involved a minor. And this fee is just one objectionable point in this legislation. The restriction and monitoring of any ex offender who desires to travel internationally is the main point of objection.

Please write your Senator(s) and the Congressional Appropriations Committee

Appropriations Committee Members

Democratic Members

	DANIEL K. INOUYE Hawaii, Chairman Defense (Chairman), Commerce, Justice, Science, Homeland Security, Labor, HHS, and Education, Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, State, Foreign Operations Visit website Financial Disclosure Letters
	PATRICK J. LEAHY Vermont State, Foreign Operations (Chairman), Commerce, Justice, Science, Defense, Homeland Security, Interior, Transportation/HUD Visit website Financial Disclosure Letters
	TOM HARKIN Iowa Labor, HHS, Education (Chairman), Agriculture, Rural Development, Defense, State, Foreign Operations, Transportation/HUD Visit website Financial Disclosure Letters
	BARBARA A. MIKULSKI Maryland Commerce, Justice, Science (Chairman), Defense, Homeland Security, Interior, State, Foreign Operations, Transportation/HUD Visit website Financial Disclosure Letters
	HERB KOHL Wisconsin Agriculture, Rural Development (Chairman), Commerce, Justice, Science, Defense, Interior, Labor, HHS and Education, Transportation /HUD Visit website Financial Disclosure Letters
	PATTY MURRAY Washington Transportation/HUD (Chairman), Defense, Energy and Water Development, Homeland Security, Labor, HHS and Education, Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Visit website Financial Disclosure Letters
	BYRON DORGAN North Dakota Energy and Water Development (Chairman), Agriculture, Rural Development, Commerce, Justice, Science, Defense, Interior, Transportation/HUD Visit website Financial Disclosure Letters
	DIANNE FEINSTEIN California Interior (Chairman), Agriculture and Rural Development, Commerce, Justice, Science, Defense, Energy and Water Development, Transportation/HUD Visit website Financial Disclosure Letters
	RICHARD J. DURBIN Illinois Financial Services and General Government (Chairman), Agriculture and Rural Development, Defense, Labor, HHS and Education, State, Foreign Operations, Transportation/HUD Visit website Financial Disclosure Letters
	TIM JOHNSON South Dakota Military Construction and Veterans Affairs (Chairman), Agriculture, Rural Development, Energy and Water Development, Interior, State, Foreign Operations, Transportation/HUD Visit website Financial Disclosure Letters
	MARY L. LANDRIEU Louisiana Energy and Water Development, Financial Services and General Government, Homeland Security, Labor, HHS and Education, Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, State, Foreign Operations Visit website Financial Disclosure Letters
	JACK REED Rhode Island Agriculture and Rural Development, Commerce, Justice, Science, Energy and Water Development, Interior, Labor, HHS, Education, Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Visit website Financial Disclosure Letters
	FRANK R. LAUTENBERG New Jersey Homeland Security (Interim Chairman),Commerce, Justice, Science, Transportation/HUD, Energy and Water Development, Financial Services and General Government, Labor, HHS and Education, State, Foreign Operations Visit website Financial Disclosure Letters
	BEN NELSON Nebraska Legislative Branch (Chairman), Agriculture and Rural Development, Financial Services and General Government, Interior, Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, Commerce, Justice, Science Visit website Financial Disclosure Letters
	MARK PRYOR Arkansas Agriculture, Commerce, Justice, Science, Labor, HHS and Education, Legislative Branch, Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Visit website Financial Disclosure Letters
	JON TESTER Montana Energy and Water Development, Financial Services and General Government, Homeland Security, Legislative Branch Visit website Financial Disclosure Letters
	ARLEN SPECTER Pennsylvania Labor, HHS and Education, Agriculture and Rural Development, Defense, Homeland Security, State, Foreign Operations, Transportation/HUD Visit website Financial Disclosure Letters

Republican Members

	THAD COCHRAN Mississippi, Vice Chairman Defense (Ranking), Homeland Security, Agriculture and Rural Development, Energy and Water Development, Interior, Labor, HHS and Education Visit website Financial Disclosure Letters
	CHRISTOPHER S. BOND Missouri Transportation/HUD (Ranking), Agriculture and Rural Development, Defense, State, Foreign Operations, Energy and Water Development, Financial Services and General Government Visit website Financial Disclosure Letters
	MITCH MCCONNELL Kentucky Agriculture and Rural Development, State, Foreign Operations, Commerce, Justice, Science, Defense, Energy and Water Development, Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Visit website Financial Disclosure Letters
	RICHARD C. SHELBY Alabama Commerce, Justice, Science (Ranking), Energy and Water Development, Defense, Homeland Security, Labor, HHS, Education, Transportation/ HUD Visit website Financial Disclosure Letters
	JUDD GREGG New Hampshire State, Foreign Operations (Ranking), Commerce, Justice, Science, Defense, Homeland Security, Interior, Labor, HHS and Education Visit website Financial Disclosure Letters
	ROBERT F. BENNETT Utah Energy and Water Development (Ranking), Agriculture and Rural Development, Defense, Interior, State, Foreign Operations, Transportation/HUD Visit website Financial Disclosure Letters
	KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON Texas Military Construction and Veterans Affairs (Ranking), Commerce, Justice, Science, Defense, Energy and Water Development, Labor, HHS and Education, Transportation/HUD Visit website Financial Disclosure Letters
	SAM BROWNBACK Kansas Agriculture and Rural Development (Ranking), Homeland Security, State, Foreign Operations, Commerce, Justice, Science, Transportation/HUD, Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Visit website Financial Disclosure Letters
	LAMAR ALEXANDER Tennessee Interior (Ranking), Commerce, Justice, Science, Energy and Water Development, Labor, HHS, and Education, Financial Services and General Government, Transportation/HUD Visit website Financial Disclosure Letters
	SUSAN COLLINS Maine Financial Services and General Government (Ranking), Agriculture, Interior, Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, Transportation/HUD Visit website Financial Disclosure Letters
	GEORGE VOINOVICH Ohio Homeland Security (Ranking), Commerce, Justice, Science, Energy and Water Development, State, Foreign Operations, Transportation/HUD Visit website Financial Disclosure Letters
	LISA MURKOWSKI Alaska Legislative Branch (Ranking), Commerce, Justice, Science, Homeland Security, Interior, Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Visit website Financial Disclosure Letters

Please let us know once you have called, emailed or written to the committee and your senator. You should also write to Representative Chris Smith, 2375 Rayburn HOB, Washington, DC 20515.

Thank you so much for your time and attention to this important matter.

Terry
www.JusticeInJersey.org
RSOL State Coordinator
NowJustice4All@gmail.com

Sex Offenders and Civil Rights

2010-07-04T01:04:00.001-04:00

Defending Sex Crimes: Sex Offenders and Civil Rights

A law student I admire sent me a note not long ago asking, in effect, whether those calling for the reform of sex offender legislation were opposed to punishment for those engaged in real acts of sexual misconduct. The hypothetical case she used as an example was that of a 50-year-old man who abused a six-year-old girl. Such conduct, of course, calls for a response by the law; child abuse is wrong. No one is asking that it be legalized.

But the current regime of sex offender legislation does far more than target such offenses. It encompasses an ever-widening course of conduct, and it imposes ever-more draconian consequences. Reform efforts are focused on a sense of proportion between offense and consequence. These efforts also ask that lawmakers and the courts give ample consideration to whether some offenses ought to carry criminal consequences at all.

I spoke a week ago at a conference on the reform of sex offender legislation and was moved almost to tears by what I saw: Adults living almost in fear of government and others. Attendees at the conference wore name badges that simply gave their first name and their state of origin. When I questioned why this was so, one participant told me they were afraid of retaliation by government actors. That struck me as almost paranoid, but the paranoia has its source in laws at once so savage and harsh that I understand the fear. It is, after all, a criminal offense is 13 states to urinate in public: doing so will land you a place on the sex offender registry, and the communal scorn that comes of this. No wonder people are afraid.

While at the conference, one man asked whether the treatment of sex offenders was a civil rights issue. Had the time not come for concerted legal efforts to challenge laws that are overbroad in application and often cruel and unusual in application.

I am not sure how much relief the courts are prepared to offer. My sense is that reform of these laws is primarily a legislative effort, and that nothing will be as successful in promoting change as grassroots efforts by those harmed by these laws. Judges, for example, are afraid, often reluctant to act when they must face re-election or retention hearings. Even in the federal courts, where judges have lifetime appointments, political pressure can be keen: Public hysteria is focused now on United States District Court Judge Robert N. Chatigny, a nominee to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit: Muckrakers claim the judge is soft on sex offenders and therefore unworthy of confirmation. This is scary stuff. Who wants to stand next to a sex offender?

But lawyers can play a role. We can litigate cases or controversies arising under state and federal constitutions. Ohio's Jeff Gamso just won a spectacular victory under the Ohio constitution, persuading the state's Supreme Court that it's sex offender classification system involved a violation of the state's separation of powers clause. Other states have similar doctrines and practices. Lawyers need a clearing house to share this information.

What's needed are lawyers willing to give of their time to help push reform. Needed even more is an organization to provide administrative support for the lawyers.

Someone asked a question from the floor of the Washington conference last week about what it would take to form a committee of lawyers willing to support the reform. Here's the answer: Your question has prompted one lawyer, me, to declare a willingness to serve. I'll be reaching out to other lawyers with an aim of finding folks in each of the 50 states. But now I have a question: When we've lined up all these lawyers, we'll need help moving paper and gathering information. Where will we find that support?

Re-classification Letters from Ohio AG

2010-07-01T15:35:00.005-04:00

Thanks to Jay, a reader, we have obtained a copy of the reclassification letters to be sent to those registrants who are affected by the Ohio Bodyke Supreme Court ruling.

The letter is sent from Mr. Steve Raubenolt
Deputy Superintendent of Identification, Ohio Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation
Post Office Box 365
London, OH 43140-0365
(740) 845-2105
(740) 845-2020 Fax
sraubenolt@ag.state.oh.us

It may be worth trying to contact him if you still have not received your letter. Today marks one month since the Bodyke decision. Yet we have heard of only a couple of people who have received re-classification letters. Readers are encouraged to keep contacting these officials until they do what they are legally required to do, in accordance with the Ohio Supreme Court ruling.

Also contact:
Justin Hykes, Assistant Attorney General of Ohio
justin.hykes@ohioattorneygeneral.gov
614-387-4257

Changes To Georgia Sex Offender Registry

2010-06-30T15:44:00.006-04:00

See related post : Shh…Georgia’s Sex Offender Law Changed Last Week

HB 571 makes significant changes to Georgia law governing persons on the sex offender registry. Some key changes are described below.

If you have questions about how the new law applies to you, we encourage you to check with your local sheriff's office, with your parole or probation officer, or with a legal professional. We also encourage you to read the text of the new law. HB 571 became effective on May 21, 2010.

A Summary of key provisions of HB 571

Read text of HB 571 here.

UPDATES, Monday, June 28 : Ohio Esorn Re-Classifications

2010-06-28T13:54:00.005-04:00

Today's updated number of registered offenders according to the Ohio ESORN web site:

Total Number of Offenders: 18,964 (as of 2pm on 6-28-2010)
Last update: (6-21-2010): 19,206

Readers should continue to contact the Ohio Attorney General's offices. In particular, we are told that Assistant AG Justin Hykes is the main person of responsibility here. He seems to be increasingly refusing to answer or return calls so be persistent.

Justin Hykes, Assistant Attorney General of Ohio
justin.hykes@ohioattorneygeneral.gov
614-387-4257

While a trickle of registrants are being removed, it is nearly a month after the Supreme Court ruling and we have seen just over 300 registrants removed from the sex offender registry, overall. We have heard of only one person receiving a letter from the AG office. Click the Watchdog logo below for more contact info:

Help be a watchdog:

A Readers' Email

2010-06-25T00:26:00.004-04:00

This keeps things in perspective:

"I am one of the few offenders, whose original Megan’s Law status “Predator with Community Notification” (based on three GSI’s with minors), had actually been lowered to “Tier-2 Level with No Community Notification” by the Adam Walsh Act. Even though the reclassification law was ruled unconstitutional by the Ohio Supreme Court, Senate Bill 10/AWA had actually benefited me. However, I am glad that it was ruled unconstitutional for all of the other offenders’ sake and for our constitutional rights’ sake.

I had served nearly 6 years in prison (Jan. 17th, 2003- Nov. 26th, 2008). While in prison I received news from the Ohio Attorney General’s Office that my status had been lowered. When I had gotten released, I went to the Lorain County Sheriff and started my twice annually reporting with “No” community notification (every June and December). I have been completely compliant with all reporting and restrictions. When I went to the sheriff’s office for my June reporting (June 9th, 2010) they said they couldn’t register me that day because (unbeknownst) to me, the retroactivity portion of the AWA had been ruled unconstitutional by the Ohio Supreme Court. They said they would call me once they got confirmation from the Ohio Attorney General’s Office and the local Lorain County Prosecutor’s office to look into my court file to see what the judge had deemed me under Megan’s Law. They called me on June 12th to let me know that I was being reclassified to “Predator Status with Community Notification” and that I had to come back and register so that “post cards” could be sent out (1000 feet around my address) after the sheriffs verify my address and that I will have to report every 90 days for life. I have lived in the same place since I was released from prison (a little room above a bar with no kitchen, with 3 neighbors in the other rooms above the bar; we share one bathroom). At least under the Megan’s Law, I can ask my judge for a reclassification hearing!

I have contacted an attorney. I have completed my sex offense counseling and have been deemed “least likely to re-offend” by my counselor and the Static 99 Test. I have stayed trouble-free this whole time, but have not been able to get hired by any employers. I fortunately receive help from my sister and food stamps. I used to make over $40k a year. As you can see here, the Ohio Attorney General’s Office doesn’t drag their feet when it comes to “raising” somebody’s status.

Unfortunately, all of us sex offenders (even us who have served our time) keep getting kicked in the head like a dog. Thank you for your relentless fighting and determination to keep us from losing all of our constitutional rights. I am a 4-year honorably-discharged US Navy veteran (1981-1985) and almost all I have left in this life are some constitutional rights. Enough is Enough."

-from Roy

Help be a watchdog:

A Reader's Suggestion

2010-06-22T16:22:00.004-04:00

I plan to write the Justices on the Ohio Supreme Court, each one individual letters, thanking them for their sage insight in making the June 3rd decision. I want to show them that my life is profoundly impacted in a positive way by their ruling, even if the purpose of the ruling was not directly intended to alleviate the retroactive application of an expansion of registration laws, but was solely intended to protect the Judicial Powers and the Constitutional principles that guaranty them. If you decide to do likewise, and write, I recommend a brief couple of sentences, and staying on the positive side with your comments.

I think this ruling is a small opportunity to remind the Justices that we are decent, grateful people, who merely want an opportunity to live our lives, and to let them know how profoundly their decision has improved the lives of many. Maybe these ideas will lay in their memory, and come to the fore when future sex offender legislation challenges come before them.

from Chris

....This is a good suggestion...

Chief Justice Eric Brown/ Justice Paul E. Pfeifer/Justice Evelyn Lundberg Stratton/ Justice Maureen O’Connor/ Justice Terrence O’Donnell/ Justice Judith Ann Lanzinger/ Justice Robert R. Cupp
Supreme Court of Ohio
65 South Front Street
Columbus, Ohio 43215-3431

UPDATES, Monday, June 21 : Ohio Esorn Re-Classifications

2010-06-22T00:27:00.003-04:00

Update: 6-21-2010

ESORN Total Number of Offenders: 19,206
Number of removed registrants as of 6-21-2010 (4:30PM) = 92

Last update (6-16-2010) : Total number of registrants was: 19,298
Todays total (6-21-2010): 19,206

Info is all according to the eSORN site.

[Posted by our friend, Kevin at ARC radio. Thanks Kevin !]

The Ohio Attorney General Office could not possibly move any slower than this !
Help pressure them to take more timely action by being a Watchdog:

Help be a watchdog:

UPDATES, Friday June 18 : Ohio Esorn and Ohio Attorney General

2010-06-17T23:24:00.012-04:00

We have received more information from the office of Ohio Assistant Attorney General, Justin Hykes (614-387-4257 ):

He is saying that the AG office is going through these registered sex offenders manually to determine if their registry entries are correct. Mr. Hykes believes this manual process will take 4 – 6 weeks to complete. ( This is an unacceptable time frame !)

They are waiting for the OH Supreme Court to rule on the clarification motion before reclassifying everyone at once. (This is a stalling tactic by the AG. By filing this motion for clarification, they have a flimsy excuse for not reclassifying everyone in a timely manner). He has "no idea" when the Supreme Court will rule on the Clarification Motion.

Mr. Hykes is advising offenders to comply with their registrations even if they should now be expired. He said the Sheriffs’ may arrest out of compliance offenders, leaving offenders to prove they have judicial orders before they could be released. The offender would be found not guilty of failure to register but not until after being arrested. (Then they can file a lawsuit for this false arrest.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Email or Fax Your Judicial Order to the Ohio Attorney General:

In light of these discoveries, we suggest all readers who are now improperly classified sex offenders fax or email their "judicial order" papers to the Attorney General's office. When you were convicted and sentenced, you should have had a separate judicial hearing where a judge determined your classification ( Sexually Oriented Offender, Habitual Offender, or Predator). If you can find this paper, you should fax or email it to the AG Office with "Attention: Justin Hykes" on the subject line.

Justin Hykes, Assistant Attorney General of Ohio
justin.hykes@ohioattorneygeneral.gov
614-387-4257
FAX 614-466-5087 (main AG fax)
(This is the best Fax number we can find at this time. We do not know yet to what division this fax number goes to. Readers can try to call various numbers within the AG Department and ask for a fax number. If anyone can obtain or confirm a Fax number, please let us know here)

They are, of course, refusing to give out an appropriate Fax number. I did also get an e-Fax number which will go to Paula Armantrout at 866-721-2283 ( Managing Supervisor for Help Center), who "promised" to forward faxes to Justin Hykes. We shall see if that actually happens.

It is very disturbing that Mr. Hykes is stating that invalidated ex offenders are "required to register", even though they are illegally classified by the Ohio Attorney General Office, which is failing to take action to remove these offenders from their registry list.

We have also been told by another AG Official that Sheriffs cannot arrest an ex offender who is now not legally required to register due to the June 3rd Supreme Court ruling. Despite the fact that this demonstrates how incompetent the Office of the AG is in giving out contradictory information, it opens a wide gate for lawsuits should any ex offender be arrested for not registering when they are no longer legally required to do so.

Widespread and massive lawsuits against the State should follow if anyone is arrested after the Supreme Court has ruled that they have been unconstitutionally classified and are no longer required to register.

To Public Defenders:

We know that some County and State Public Defenders read our blogs. If you have any information for us about this threat to arrest those who do not register when they are no longer required to register, please send us an email here. Please also let us know what type of legal recourse or protection is appropriate should any of these invalidated registrants be arrested falsely. We would like to post this information for our readers. Thank you.

Help be a watchdog:

Sex Crimes Can Never Be Eradicated

2010-06-17T14:17:00.005-04:00

As much as we, as a society, would like to see the end of all sex crimes in this nation, it will never happen. To believe or suggest otherwise is simply naivete and foolishness.

If you disagree, let's look at the facts of our society. Don't most people in our society abhor the taking of another human life? Don't we want murder to stop? Haven't we had laws to deter murder for hundreds of years in this country? Of course, we have tried futiley since the inception of our nation to eradicate murder.

Have we ever, over the course of humanity, been able to end all murders? The answer is, obviously: no.

Our laws become deterrents for most people to commit such horrific crimes, but not for all. This truth holds true for all crimes: drunk driving, abuse, theft, fraud, speeding, racism, etc.. None of these can ever be erased from our society regardless of the punishments associated with them. No matter what laws these legislators can dream up, there will always be some who commit sex offenses.

Once we understand this simple truth, we can come to rational approaches to drafting logical sex offender laws. Sex offenses are no worse, nor no better, than any other type of crime. Crime is crime. Right is right, Wrong is wrong.

But as long as we have "sky-is-falling" irrational maniacs driving our legislators to continue this broad-brush, punching-bag style legislative fight against sex offenders, we will never come to effective, constitutional and balanced sex offender legislation in this country.

The Ohio vs. Bodyke Supreme Court ruling is just one step in the right direction. We still have a huge battle before us to step away from all of these emotion-driven sex offender laws across the nation. We, as the people, are to blame. Legislators only act when they see it in their own political self-interest to do so.

If we can ever educate the panic-driven people who want to throw sex offenders off bridges, or castrate them, or worse....we can finally see some rational and logical legislation dealing with this crime. Just as we do with all other crimes. Until then, the hysterical sex offender laws will continue to cause devastation to the families of nearly one million Americans and to threaten the stability of our society.

US House Votes to Ban Mortgages to Sex Offenders

2010-06-17T00:10:00.003-04:00

Sex Offenders Flagged for FHA Mortgages — The House passed an amendment, sponsored by Rep. Chet Edwards, D-Texas, to the FHA Reform Act that will require individuals applying for mortgage from the Federal Housing Administration to certify that they have not been convicted of a sex offense against a minor.

http://www.buffalonews.com/2010/06/14/1081703/last-week-in-congress-how-our.html

What About All Those Fees County Sheriffs Extort From Sex Offenders on Registries?

2010-06-16T18:27:00.007-04:00

We first reported in April 2009 of Ohio County Sheriff Departments charging fees to registered sex offenders when they register on site. See: Ohio County Sheriffs Rape Sex Offenders

We then began hearing that Sheriff Departments were charging such fees in more than 20 Ohio Counties. See: More Ohio Counties Charge Sex Offenders

This allowance was written into the Ohio Revised Code:
311.171 Fees for sex offender registration and notification.(Maximum fee =$100 per year)

We have suggested all along that ex sex offenders refuse to pay these extortion fees. The law says that Sheriffs cannot refuse to register those who do not pay (see C 5). And any unpaid fees can only be pursued through civil debt collection (see C 6): "The county may recover those fees in a civil action in the same manner as other money due the county."

Now the question arises: What do we do about all the fees which were paid to Sheriff Departments across the state by ex offenders who are now affected by the Bodyke Supreme Court ruling?

Those who are now expunged from the sex offender registries have every right to sue the County, State, Ohio Attorney General and County Sheriff Department to reclaim this money. We suggest that any ex offender who is now removed from the registries file suit to reclaim these fees. This can be done through small claims court, where citizens can sue for amounts less than $3000. Citizens can sue without an attorney and a small filing fee will be required. Check your local courts for instructions on how to file such lawsuits. We are not legal professionals and cannot give specific legal advice, so you should consult your own legal professional or do your own research. It is probably a good idea to include all of those agencies to be sure you include the ultimate party of responsibility (Your County, The State of Ohio, Ohio Attorney General and County Sheriff Department).

Even if this money does not mean much to you (or if you would rather just let it go and get on with your life) you should consider doing this. Putting more pressure on the Sheriff Departments and State will further the cause against such punitive sex offender laws. Right now, in this nation and state, sex offenders are the easy punching bag. Only by fighting back in these types of battles will we ever see significant changes in sex offender laws.

Emails from Ohio Attorney General

2010-06-16T14:44:00.003-04:00

We have received some emails from a reader who contacts the Ohio Attorney General regularly (We thank him and we should all be doing this).

"According to our Attorney, on Friday we'll give them a list of offenders who we expired. On Monday they will be sending out a letter. It would probably take several days to a week before the letter will get to you. So I would hope that by the 25th you should have something."

Stephen R. Brown ,Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray,Ohio BCI&I
Supervisor OHLEG/eSorn Technical Support Group, 866.406.4534, 740.845.2229

"After reviewing your record, we have determined that under Megan's Law your registration duties have been fulfilled. Please contact your County Sheriff Office regarding the expiration of your sex offender record and the subsequent duties to register."

Stephen R. Brown ,Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray,Ohio BCI&I
Supervisor OHLEG/eSorn Technical Support Group, 866.406.4534, 740.845.2229

We also recieved this , from another reader (Thank you):

"Spoke to Bob Hastings, Hamilton County Appellate Public Defender today. He had the following to say:

* He believes the Ohio Supreme Court will reclassify those in groups a and b (see AG motion to Supreme Court I sent out yesterday and attached here again). He feels those in group C may not be reclassified. He said it is around 50 offenders in group C.

* Bob said he believes the AG office will move forward soon to reclassify those in group A, especially those who will fall off the registry due to the Bodyke decision. He says it is expensive to keep these SOs in the system and that the AG knows that.

* If the AG stops moving forward his office will take legal action.

* Any independent motion by a single SO will take up to 6 months to be resolved. So it is not very prudent at this time to take court action.

* He is meeting tomorrow with the Hamilton County prosecutor's office and will keep me updated. "

Update Reports from Readers About Re-Classifications

2010-06-15T21:44:00.002-04:00

Update Reports from Readers About Re-Classifications:

We have created a new page on our blogs where we will post updates from readers who are monitoring whether their re-classifications were updated or not. If you have contacted the Ohio AG, your County Sheriff, or other state authorities and have valuable information to share with other readers, send an email to us here.

If you have seen your registration updated (re-classified or removed), let us know, as well:

Ohio Attorney General Files Motion for Clarification

2010-06-15T18:49:00.005-04:00

The Ohio Attorney General Filed yesterday a Motion for Reconsideration in the Ohio Supreme Court in response to the Bodyke vs, Ohio decision of June 3, 2010.

JOINT MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND/OR CLARIFICATION BY
APPELLEE STATE OF OHIO AND AMICUS CURIAE OHIO ATTORNEY GENERAL
RICHARD CORDRAY (view PDF file)

INTRODUCTION
In accordance with Supreme Court Practice Rules 11.2 and 14.4, the State of Ohio and the Ohio Attorney General respectfully move this Court for clarification of its June 3; 2010 decision in State v. Bodyke, 2010 Ohio Lexis 1271, 2010-Ohio-2424.

Neither the State nor the Attorney General is asking the Court to reverse its holding that two provisions in the Ohio Adam Walsh Act ("the Walsh Act"), which required the Attorney General to reclassify sex offenders who had been judicially classified under the old Megan's Law, violate the separation-of-powers doctrine. Id. at ¶¶ 60-61. Rather, the State and the Attorney General seek clarification of the Court's remedy-specifically, whether the Court facially invalidated R.C. 2950.031 and R.C. 2950.032, and thereby struck the provisions entirely, or whether the Court only invalidated those provisions as applied to sex offenders who had been judicially classified under Megan's Law.

The Attorney General's Office is moving quickly (No, they are not) to update the State's sex-offender registry (e-SORN) to comply with the Bodyke decision. For offenders who received Megan's Law classifications by court order before the effective date of the Walsh Act, the Office will update e-SORN to reflect the original Megan's Law classifications and notify these offenders of the reclassification (When? ). Absent clarification from this Court, however, the Attorney General does not know what classifications to input for a significant segment of sex offenders who did not receive a Megan's Law classification by court order.

All parties-the State and the offenders themselves-will benefit from clarification. Such a pronouncement will ensure that the Attorney General, the county prosecutors, and the county sheriffs properly implement the Court's directive; it will provide clear notice to individual offenders as to which framework-Megan's Law or the Walsh Act-applies to them; and it will accord the Bodyke decision the finality this Court intended.

I am told by the Ohio Public Defender's office that this request for clarification is with regard to those who went to prison before Megan’s Law was effective (so, before July 1, 1997) and were released after Senate Bill 10 went into effect (so, after July 1, 2007). Those people would never have been classified under Megan’s Law, so they didn’t have a prior judicial order classifying them under the Megan’s Law, risk-based system. Since the language in Bodyke talks about prior judicial orders, the AG’s office is asking the Court to clarify how the Bodyke decision should affect this group of people.

To understand this motion, know the following sub-groups discussed in this motion (pages 6-8):

Group A: "Offenders who were sentenced between July 1, 1997 and July 1, 2007. Bodyke unquestionably applies to this first class of offenders. These individuals received a Megan's Law classification "by court order," and had their status under Megan's
Law "adjudicated by a court and made the subject of a final order." Under Bodyke, this group of offenders may not be reclassified under the Walsh Act. Rather, their Megan's Law classifications remain in effect."

Group B: "Offenders who were incarcerated before July 1, 1997, and who were released
before July 1, 2007. These individuals may not have received a formal order from a court specifying their Megan's Law classification."

Group C: "C. Offenders who were incarcerated before July 1, 1997, and who were released after July 1, 2007. These are offenders who were incarcerated before July 1, 1997 and therefore did not receive a Megan's Law classification at the time of sentencing"

Ex Sex Offenders Want Restrictions Lifted

2010-06-15T18:18:00.002-04:00

dispatch.com: Sex offenders want restrictions lifted- Sheriffs not reacting yet to court’s ruling.

Some sex offenders are calling sheriff's offices and demanding that their pictures and addresses be removed from online listings.

But sheriffs are being told not to alter anything (by the Ohio Attorney General's office, we are told) while lawyers and prosecutors work to determine the fallout from a recent Ohio Supreme Court decision.

The justices ruled that six tiers of sex offenders sentenced before Jan. 1, 2008, improperly were reclassified into three federally mandated tiers that have tougher reporting and registration requirements.

The court's mandate to Ohio's attorney general to reclassify the affected sex offenders means some offenders no longer will need to register or report to sheriff's offices.

For example, under the state's Megan's Law classifications, the lowest-level offenders - sexually oriented and child-victim oriented - were required to register their addresses annually for 10 years.

The adoption of the federal Adam Walsh Act guidelines beginning in 2008 then required many of those same sex criminals to report their addresses for 15 years and to report in-person to a sheriff's office once a year.

Now, thousands of Ohio's 26,000 sex offenders will be shifted back to the 10-year registration, meaning an undetermined number no longer will have to register and are to be removed from offender listings.

There currently are about 3,600 sex offenders registered in Franklin and surrounding counties. No sheriffs yet had good guesses on how many will be freed from reporting requirements.

"We're going to lose some people, and there will be decreased community notification," said Steve Martin, chief deputy of the Franklin County sheriff's office. The office has seven employees keeping an eye on 2,591 offenders.

Fairfield County Sheriff Dave Phalen has heard public concern about the coming impact of the court ruling, but he reminded the public that the worst offenders, those classified as sexual predators and child-victim predators, will be unaffected.

Under both Megan's Law and the Adam Walsh Act, those offenders are under lifetime registration requirements and are required to report in-person to a sheriff's office every 90 days.

Bob Cornwell, executive director of the Buckeye State Sheriffs' Association, has been fielding calls from sheriffs who say that some sex offenders are citing the court ruling and insisting they be freed from reporting requirements.

Cornwell has advised the sheriffs to do nothing until they hear from their county prosecutors. The attorney general's office has no estimate of when its reclassification work will be complete and offenders notified.

"I'd rather have the offender mad at the sheriff than the public," Cornwell said.

This final statement should make every affected registrant very angry. Mr. Cornwell, you should be very afraid of these offenders, as they are the ones who will be filing lawsuits against you and the Ohio Attorney General for failure to comply with the Supreme Court decision.

Contact Bob Cornwell, executive director of the Buckeye State Sheriffs' Association:
6230 Busch Blvd Suite 260
Columbus, OH 43229
614-431-5500 , Fax 614-431-5665

Contact the Ohio Attorney General Office here:
Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray, 30 E. Broad St., 17th Floor, Columbus, OH 43215
(800) 282-0515 ….. or….. 1-866-40-OHLEG (1-866-406-4534)
OHLEGsupport@OhioAttorneyGeneral.gov
Call Justin Hykes Assistant Attorney General directly at:
614-387-4257

Ohio Attorney General Office Media Contacts:
Kim Kowalski: (614) 728-9692, cell: (614) 893-6018
Ted Hart: Deputy Director of Media Relations
PHONE 614-728-4127, cell: (614) 743-2286
EMAIL ted.hart@ohioattorneygeneral.gov

UPDATES, Monday June 14 : Ohio Esorn and Ohio Public Defender

2010-06-14T17:39:00.009-04:00

ConstitutionalFights.org spoke to our source at the office of the Ohio Public Defender regarding ESORN and County Sheriff Departments in their refusal to comply with the Ohio Supreme Court ruling (Bodyke vs. Ohio).

Conference Call
Our contact person at the Ohio Public Defender (OPD's) office told us that there was a conference call held on the day after the Court ruling (Friday, June 4, 2010) with the Attorney General (AG's) Office and the Ohio Justice Policy Institute (OJPI). During that conference call, the AG office was asked when the updates would be make to come into compliance with the Court ruling. The AG office said that they were trying to create a software program to change the classification of all 26,000 invalidated registrants back to their previous classifications collectively, rather than changing each person individually. The AG suggested that this would be done within a week's time. One week later, our OPD source called the AG office to ask if this had been completed. The AG office asked for another week. So our OPD source will contact the AG office once again on Friday, June 18. The fact remains that the Ohio AG office has had over two weeks to make some progress on updating the ESORN sex offender registry to comply with the Ohio Supreme Court decision and has failed to do so. ConstitutionalFights.org has spoken to two computer IT professionals (one of whom does contract work for the US Department of Defense). Both of these IT professionals told us the same thing; that this simple database change could be completed in one hour.

AG Ordering Sheriffs Not to Act
We also learned today that there is some suspicion that the AG office has ordered local County Sheriff Departments to NOT change any registrants classification at this time. This has not been validated but we do have some reason to believe this may be happening. We were told today that although ESORN falls under the organization of the Ohio AG Office, each County Sheriff Department is responsible for updating and correcting all sex offender registry data. We did not know that the AG has no direct responsibility to update the registry data. But this fact does not dissolve them from responsibility in their failure to direct the County Sheriff Departments to make these updates.

Legal Options
The OPD has considered some options of what they might pursue if the AG Office does not properly act to comply with the Court order. One option is to bring some sort of "contempt of court" litigation unto the AG Office. We have also heard from others that some sort of "judicial order" might be sought if the AG Office refuses to comply in a timely manner. This litigation would be taken only after some time has passed, however, as a judge would likely allow the AG office at least 30-60 days to comply. Judges would not understand that this simple database update could be done in an hour's time, unless we can bring in a computer professional to testify to this fact. Any IT professionals who might be interested in testifying in such a matter, are asked to contact us here.

FAQ and Guidelines
We are still awaiting information about when and if the "FAQ and Guidelines" have been sent from the AG Office to the County Sheriff Departments. We were told by Steve Brown's office ( at Ohio AG ) that these "FAQ and Guidelines" were being drafted last Monday and would be sent soon. That was a week ago. To our knowledge, these documents have still not been sent to the County Sheriff Departments. We have also been told for the past two weeks that letters would be sent from the AG Office to each of the 26,000 reclassified registrants who were affected by the Supreme Court decision. Those letters have not been sent two weeks after the decision came down.

More Challenges on Senate Bill 10
Finally, we talked about the remaining cases which are still pending before the Ohio Supreme Court. Two of the three are juvenile cases and the Chojnacki case deals with reclassification hearings (whether they are criminal or civil). But since the Bodyke case invalidated reclassification, there is little likely to come out of this decision. Since the Supreme Court refused to rule on the Ex Post Facto and other challenges in the Bodyke case, these issues may be brought back up to the Court in other cases. One group of registrants who have not gotten much attention are those who were convicted and given classification hearings between the time Ohio Senate Bill 10 passed the Ohio Legislature ( June 2007) and when Senate Bill 10 was enacted (Jan 2008). Those cases will likely go to the Ohio Supreme Court, as well. So there are new challenges to Ohio Senate Bill 10 in the pipeline.

Please tell us if you see updates
We need to hear from you. If you are directly affected by this Bodyke decision, please check to see if you are still listed here on the ESORN page. We need to hear from you. Please drop us a short email telling us if you 1.) are still improperly listed 2.) have been removed properly, or 3.) have seen your classification changed back properly. Or just send your answer in the Poll at the top right sidebar of this page.

Please email us so we can know how many are seeing their status updated:
ConstitutionalFights@yahoo.com

If you have not seen your status updated, please continue to contact the Ohio AG Offices daily at:

Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray, 30 E. Broad St., 17th Floor, Columbus, OH 43215
(800) 282-0515 ..... or..... 1-866-40-OHLEG (1-866-406-4534)
OHLEGsupport@OhioAttorneyGeneral.gov
Call Justin Hykes Assistant Attorney General directly at:
614-387-4257

Media Contacts:
Kim Kowalski: (614) 728-9692, cell: (614) 893-6018
Ted Hart: Deputy Director of Media Relations
PHONE 614-728-4127, cell: (614) 743-2286
EMAIL ted.hart@ohioattorneygeneral.gov

Help be a watchdog:

Calls for Texas to Drop Out of Federal Adam Walsh Act

2010-06-13T16:55:00.004-04:00

KXAN - Austin, Texas: Sex Offender Registries

The fight continues...we have still seen no movement by the Ohio Attorney General's office in complying with the Ohio Supreme Court ruling, of June 3, 2010, which invalidated the retroactive application of Ohio's reclassification of ex sex offenders. The Attorney General's continued refusal to abide by this Supreme Court decision is an illegal act. Every reader must contact the Attorney General Office of Ohio to insist that they stop enforcing this illegal law:

Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray, 30 E. Broad St., 17th Floor, Columbus, OH 43215
(800) 282-0515
1-866-40-OHLEG (1-866-406-4534)
OHLEGsupport@OhioAttorneyGeneral.gov

Media Contacts:
Kim Kowalski: (614) 728-9692, cell: (614) 893-6018
Ted Hart: Deputy Director of Media Relations
Office of the Ohio Attorney General
PHONE 614-728-4127, cell: (614) 743-2286
EMAIL ted.hart@ohioattorneygeneral.gov (614) 728-4127

Help be a watchdog:

Do Sex Offender Registration Laws Actually Make Us Safer?

2010-06-13T16:40:00.002-04:00

Cleveland.com: Do sex offender registration laws actually make us safer?

Within weeks of the disturbing discovery of 11 decomposing women at the home of convicted sex offender Anthony Sowell -- the suspected serial killer had inspired new statewide legislation. A law, proposed by State Sen. Nina Turner, called for stepped-up registration and monitoring of sex offenders convicted of committing the most serious crimes. At least four other proposed laws already were being considered to tweak aspects of Ohio's sex offender registration and notification laws.

But many now question whether the piling on of laws -- which cost taxpayers millions of dollars each year -- make communities any safer, or just lull them into feeling so. And they wonder whether real predators become lost in the swelling ranks of registering offenders.

Attorney General Richard Cordray said he understands why people use tragedies, such as the Sowell case, as springboards for lawmaking. "People want to have the satisfaction of responding to things," he said. "There is always pressure to have Joe Smith's Law or Becky Jones' law to help make sense out of a tragedy."

Is that a useful approach? "The answer is, sometimes," Cordray said.

However, when it comes to sex crimes, recent long-range studies have concluded that the costly registration and monitoring laws do not reduce the number of new crimes or new victims.

A separate Plain Dealer analysis found many local sex offenders ignore residency restrictions or lie about where they are living. And sex offenders on the registry convicted of new sex crimes during the time period reviewed most often did not re-offend near where they were registered as living.

Those types of revelations and concerns about the overall impact of sex offender laws have spurred a divergent coalition of sexual assault victim advocates, public defenders and local officials to call for Ohio to rethink its approach to the complicated issue.

"We think that these type of laws are well intended, but they are misguided and very limiting," Cleveland Rape Crisis Center President and CEO Megan O'Bryan said.

O'Bryan said laws create a false sense of security for the public and concentrate a vast amount of resources and attention toward a small number of offenders -- the very few who are caught and prosecuted.

The concept also capitalizes on the fear of stranger attacks, when family members, friends or acquaintances commit most sex crimes.

"Just like the public needs to be educated about these issues, so do the lawmakers," O'Bryan said.

Lawmakers need to support prevention, education and treatment for both victims and perpetrators of sexual assault, she said.

Policy driven by anger

It has been more than 15 years since vivid details of the rape and strangulation of a 7-year-old New Jersey girl ignited a much-publicized national crusade to protect the public from sex offenders living among us.

Megan Kanka's parent's anguish turned to anger when they became aware that Megan's killer -- a man who moved in 30 yards from their doorstep -- already had been convicted of sexually assaulting another child.

The emotion fueled a wave of state and federal legislation in the mid-1990s aimed at convicted sex offenders.

The laws were intended to make the public safer by forcing those convicted of sex crimes to register their addresses with local police and, in cases of serious or repeat offenders, to notify their neighbors.

At the time, many states and localities -- including Ohio -- already had laws on the books forcing certain sex criminals to register with the police.

Ohio's law, originally passed in 1963, called for "habitual sex offenders" to register their addresses for a decade. Those registries included fingerprints and photographs.

But the information was not public, and enforcement was haphazard. And the cost and effectiveness of the sweeping laws were a secondary consideration.

Program costs become burden

A year ago, a federally funded study by the New Jersey Department of Corrections and Rutgers University examined the impact of "Megan's Law" in the state.

The study found the registries and notification did not reduce the number of new offenses or new victims. Numbers of reported sex offenses have dropped nationwide in recent years. But that decline started before the laws were in place.

The researchers concluded that "given the lack of demonstrated effect of Megan's law on sexual offenses, the growing costs may not be justifiable." They estimated the statewide cost in New Jersey to be at least $5.1 million a year.

Cuyahoga County Sheriff Reid, whose office is required to register, verify and publish where sex offenders live, said he could not say how much the department pays for the efforts.

But he said to comply with the laws, he has to pay salaries for deputies to register offenders, cars for them to drive and verify addresses, to update the office's website identifying offenders, and postage for sending out notification. The entire cost falls to the department.

In 2008, Ohio trumpeted its accomplishment of becoming the first state to comply with a sweeping set of federal laws that sought to standardize how sex offenders are categorized and registered across the country, called the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act.

Only two other states have complied with the federal mandate so far and some have declined to do so even though they stand to lose some federal funding.

Before 2008, Ohio had a system that judged the risk of sex offenders to the community on a case-by-case basis, through psychological assessments and a hearing in front of a judge.

Now offenders are classified based solely on their offense. The majority of offenders are in the "most-serious" category, which forces them into more rigorous registration for life.

The Ohio Supreme Court last week pushed slightly back on the Adam Walsh system in a decision that erased the retroactive nature of the law. So thousands of sex offenders who were reclassified for crimes committed before 2008 will go back to their previous court-ordered sex offender classifications. Those convicted of sex crimes in 2008 or after will register with the new system.

Some think the new, more stringent rules work. Others think slapping the same label on people based on their offense and not the likelihood to re-offend is a waste of resources.

"I think we took a huge step backward when we threw out our risk-based system and implemented this offense system," said Amy Borror, spokeswoman for the state public defender's office.

It makes more sense to center attention on offenders that mental health experts deemed most likely to commit new crimes, she said.

"The folks that are more likely to re-offend will now get lost in the masses," she said.

Falling through the cracks

Anthony Sowell still awaits trial on charges that he killed the 11 women found in his home on Imperial Avenue and raped or attacked several others. He has pleaded not guilty.

Sowell's trial may answer some questions for the community.

But what it probably won't reveal is whether any specific laws would have prevented the tragedy.

Sowell was a registered sex offender from the time he stepped out of prison in 2005, where he had been for attempted rape. At the time, he was seen as a low risk to re-offend, and his neighbors weren't notified when he moved in.

Even when the law changed in 2008 and he was classified as a higher-risk offender, his neighbors still weren't notified because he hadn't moved to a new address.

But sheriff's deputies knocked on his door periodically, and he chatted them up as the women's bodies were in his home and buried in his yard.

Deputies, in fact, paid a surprise visit to his home on the same day he is accused of raping one woman.

Cordray said he thinks law enforcement still needs more leeway in monitoring sex offenders considered the most serious, such as allowing officers to enter the offenders' homes.

"Nobody went into the Sowell house because they didn't have the authority to," Cordray said.

But will continuing to change the laws make a difference?

"We just have to be realistic," Borror said. "We are never going to create a completely air-tight system. I would just hope that at some point Ohio would be willing to pull back from this reactionary way of making sex offender policy and go about it in a more deliberate way."

Ohio Jail Deputy Allowed Inmates to Assault Alleged Sex Offender

2010-06-12T12:46:00.002-04:00

Fox8.com: Authorities say deputy at Ohio jail allowed inmates to assault alleged sex offender.

Ohio (AP) — Authorities say a former sheriff's deputy who worked at a northeast Ohio jail is accused of felonious assault and other crimes because he turned a blind eye while four inmates attacked an accused sex offender.

Twenty-nine-year-old Brian Young also faces charges of abduction, dereliction of duty and unauthorized use of property in the alleged assault at the Medina County jail in December.

Young is accused of sharing with the four inmates booking information on the alleged sex offender, who was accused of raping a child. A prosecutor says Young then did nothing when the inmates attacked the man.

You think this is an isolated incident? Think again!

Young has posted a $10,000 bond and faces a Monday arraignment. A sheriff's official says he retired on a disability pension.

See Medina County Sheriff Staff and contact information here.

Help be a watchdog:

More on Bodyke vs Ohio

2010-06-10T23:40:00.002-04:00

daytondailynews.com: Ohio court: Give sex offenders old classifications.
The Briefcase: What Bodyke means.

In State v. Bodyke, by a 5-1 vote, the Ohio Supreme Court yesterday struck down the portion of the Adam Walsh Act allowing the attorney general to change the registrations of offenders convicted before the Act’s passage in 2007. The way that it arrived at that decision, and some parts of the opinion, proves most interesting.

Bodyke demonstrated the salient unfairness of the new law. Back in 1999, Bodyke had entered a no contest plea to a count of sexual battery. The judge gave him two years in prison and classified him as sexually oriented offender. That was the lowest classification of sex offenders under the current law, and required him to register with the county sheriff every year for ten years. After the AWA was passed in 2007, Bodyke got a letter from the Ohio Attorney General telling him that under the new act he’d been reclassified as a Tier III offender — the highest classification — and would now be required to register every 90 days for life, and was subject to the notification provisions as well: everyone who resided within 1,000 feet of his residence would be told that a sex offender was living in their midst.

In my post about the oral argument in the case, I’d mentioned that the separation of powers issue was the one most troubling for some of the justices: you have the legislative branch giving the executive branch the power to modify orders made by the judicial branch. You needn’t have aced 12th grade civics to see the problems with that, and and after a dutiful exposition on the history and development of that Madisonian concept, the court strikes down the provisions of AWA allowing for reclassification of offenders. That’s reclassification: if a person wasn’t classified before, but is now subject to classification by the AWA, Bodyke doesn’t prevent that.

But this is where it gets interesting. The opinion devotes two pages to a discussion of stare decisis. That’s understandable in the context of the arguments raised in Bodyke: in addition to the separation of powers issue, Bodyke contended that the AWA violated ex post facto and retroactivity principles, and violated double jeopardy as well. Those arguments had been raised in challenges to previous changes in sex offender registration laws, and in each case the court had rejected them. But the discussion of stare decisis is less understandable in the context of the result here. Although one of the previous cases had raised a separation of powers argument, without going into detail, the argument in that case was not remotely close to the one Bodyke was making, and the court wouldn’t have had to overrule the earlier case in order to come up with the result it did in Bodyke.

Justice O’Donnell concurs in the separation of powers holding, but dissents from the majority’s discussion of stare decisis, finding it wholly unnecessay, and using a cute quote from then-judge, now US Supreme Court Justice John Roberts, that “the cardinal principle of judicial restraint [is that] if it is not necessary to decide more, it is necessary not to decide more.” (One could make a fair showing that in Roberts’ career on the High Court, he has observed this principle mainly in the breach, but that’s another story.) But what’s more disturbing to O’Donnell than that the majority discusses stare decisis at all is what it says about it.

I’ve discussed before the problems with the Ohio Supreme Court’s decision in Westfield v. Galatis, where the court laid down a three-part test for determining whether it should overrule a prior case. As I’ve pointed out, the test is so restrictive that since Galatis was handed down in 2003, the court hasn’t overruled a single case, going through all kinds of gyrations to avoid doing so. In Bodyke, the majority goes completely off the reservation, deciding that stare decisis is “inapplicable” to constitutional claims, and “is not controlling in cases presenting a constitutional question.” That’s too much for O’Donnell, who rightly notes that Galatis’ tri-partite test was derived in part from US Supreme Court decisions concerning the value of precedent in cases involving — you guessed it — constitutional questions.

And what’s involved here is more than just an abstract debate. The heart of the argument over sex offender laws is whether they’re “punitive” or “remedial.” When the court first confronted the issue in 1998 in State v. Cook, the court unanimously held that the provisions of Megan’s Law fell into the latter category. The court reached the same result ten years later in State v. Ferguson, but in that case, three members of the court concluded that the amendments to Megan’s Law had made the registration and notification requirements sufficiently onerous that they tipped over into “punitive” territory. And those provisions were much less Draconian than those contained in the AWA, discomfiting the justices even more, as was evident two weeks ago in the oral argument on another case involving that statute (discussed here).

So what’s all this mean? Let’s say the court is unshackled from the stare decisis effects of Cook and Ferguson, and thus is free to conclude that the AWA is indeed punitive. If sex offender registration and notification requirements are deemed punitive, you get into some due process issues. Remember, AWA classification is offense-base, as opposed to offender-based: you commit a certain crime, you get a certain classification. Couldn’t you argue that you’re entitled to a hearing, as you were under the old law, to determine whether your actual characteristics — your history, the facts of the offense, and so forth — showed you were really a threat to society? And doesn’t the separation of powers issue appear in this context? After all, punishment is the sole prerogative of the judicial branch.

So the immediate effect of Bodyke is that the 26,000 offenders who were reclassified under the AWA now have their previous classifications restored. But the language of the opinion portends the possibility that it may be raised to attack any future classifications as well.

Help be a watchdog:

UPDATES, Wednesday June 9 : Ohio Esorn and Public Defender

2010-06-09T16:00:00.009-04:00

UPDATE, Wednesday June 9, (4:00 pm):

Constitutionalfights.org spoke with an Ohio County Public Defender, Steve Brown of the Ohio Attorney General's office and Ted Hart (Ohio AG Esorn Deputy Director of Media Relations) today.

The unnamed Ohio County Public Defender had no new information about when we can expect to see compliance action from the Attorney General and Sheriff Departments, but did talk to us about the Ohio Supreme Court decision (Bodyke vs, Ohio). As we had expected, he agrees that the Supreme Court basically bypassed looking at any of the Ex Post Facto, Double Jeopardy or other constitutional challenges in the Bodyke decision. He feels that this 'Separation of Powers' issue really got under the skin of the Court, as was clear from watching the oral arguments. Courts do not like when Legislatures try to bypass their constitutional role. Therefore, these other constitutional arguments are still undecided at the Ohio Supreme Court level and could be brought back in other challenges.

As for the idea of pursuing some judicial order from the courts in order to force the hand of the local Sheriff Departments, he suggested that we wait 14-21 days before we pursue such course. As we all know, government is always slow and usually incompetent. This is why they have taken absolutely no action since last Thursday June 3rd. If we do not see any concrete action by the last week of June, he suggests that we contact our local Public Defender's Offices and ask them about pursuing such legal action.

Steve Brown , of the Ohio Attorney General's office still had "no time line" for when action will be taken by the A.G. office. This is the same story we got from Ted Hart, A.G.Deputy Director of Media Relations. I asked both why we cannot see at least some action being taken. Steve Brown's office told me on Monday June 7th that he was in the process of sending out "Guidelines and FAQ's to the county Sheriff Departments", directing them as to what to do when invalidated registrants contact their offices.

I asked him today if they had been sent to Sheriff Departments. He said "no".
I asked him when they would be sent. He replied that they "have no time line for anything".

Shouldn't the Ohio Attorney General's office, at the very least, have a time line formulated a week after the Supreme Court ruling? Both of these two bureaucrats have told me repeatedly that letters will be sent to all those registrants who are affected by the ruling. When asked when these letters will be sent, neither would give us a date range. Steve Brown told me that his office is receiving many calls from citizens. Ted Hart said that his office was receiving very few calls from citizens about this re-classification process

Look ...we all know that if the Supreme Court or Ohio Legislature had somehow instated some new registration requirement for sex offenders, they would miraculously be able to start the process immediately of updating their computer database and adding all the new registered sex offenders virtually overnight. But because they are not happy about this Court decision, they are acting like spoiled little children and dragging their feet on this, refusing to comply until forced to do so.

We spoke to two computer IT professionals (one of whom consults for the U.S. Federal Government) to ask them how long the process of updating such a database would take. Both gave the same answer: " it can be done easily in an hour".

This is why we all must call them daily to force them to take action and comply with the Ohio Supreme Court ruling. Anyone concerned about reforming sex offender laws must call, email or write to the Ohio Attorney General' office daily until they agree to comply with the law.

Help be a watchdog:

Lesson: Separation of Powers

2010-06-09T13:33:00.003-04:00

basicallylaw.com (Legal Information and Discussion For Students and Lay People):

Separation of Powers? Ohio Supreme Court Will Not Allow State Attorney General To Reclassify Sex Offenders Already Classified By Court Order.

In law school, I took a class involving issues of federalism and separation of powers. On my exam, the professor asked about constitutional ways one branch can infringe on the other branches even though it breaks the spirit of the Constitution. For example, what is to stop the President of the United States, as commander in chief, from marching the army on Congress? In any event, the judicial branch has little at its disposal to check the other branches. Granted, the judiciary can declare a law unconstitutional, but what if the other branches ignore the judiciary. What if the judiciary claims that the separation of powers prevents the other branches from infringing on the judiciary’s domain? That is what happened in the following case. Should the judiciary dictate to other branches that it is infringing on its area of power?

Read the opinion Ohio v. Bodyke

Like every state, Ohio passed a sex offender registration law in the wake of the death of Megan Kanka in New Jersey. Under that law, Ohio classified sex offenders into three different categories, and the offender’s requirements with respect to registration and related issue depends on the classification. Later, the Federal government, in order to unify sex offender registration law, required states, in order to receive federal funds to fight crime, to pass a uniform registration and classification law.

Ohio complied and passed its own Adam Walsh law. The law also had three different classifications of sex offenders. The requirements with respect to each classification differed from what the previous law required. Additionally, the law designated the Ohio Attorney General to reclassify sex offenders who had been classified after the adjudication under the previous law. Reclassified individuals, who are now subject to more stringent laws, sued and claimed that the reclassification violated the ex post facto clause of the Ohio Constitution. Instead of addressing the ex post facto argument (since courts have continuously upheld sex offender registration laws against ex post facto challenges), the Ohio Supreme Court invalidated those sections of the law reclassifying sex offenders because it violated principles of separation of powers.

Even though the Ohio Constitution does not specifically address the separation of powers, the doctrine is implicitly embedded in the framework of the Constitution. The essential principle underlying the policy of the division of powers of government into three departments is that powers properly belonging to one of the departments ought not to be directly and completely administered by either of the other departments, and further that none of them ought to possess directly or indirectly an overruling influence over the others.

When the judiciary is going to assert that another branch is infringing on its power, it must do so sparingly. Still, the courts must guard against the other branches from reviewing judicial decisions or reopening final judgments. The Ohio law infringes this basic tenet of the separation of powers.

Individuals had already been classified as sex offenders through court actions. These classifications result in different registration requirements for these individuals. It also allows for how long one must register as a sex offender. The reclassification puts a greater burden on these individuals, and all contrary to a court order. As the Court notes:

The legislative attempt to reopen journalized final judgments imposing registration and community notification requirements on offenders so that new requirements may be imposed suffers the same constitutional infirmity. It does not matter that the legislature has the authority to enact or amend laws requiring sex offenders to register or that the current Sex Offender Act does not order the courts to reopen final judgments. The fact remains that the General Assembly cannot annul, reverse, or modify a judgment of a court already rendered.

Instead of declaring the entire Adam Walsh law unconstitutional, the Court just severed those provisions giving the Attorney General the power to reclassify sex offenders from the bill and invalidate them as unconstitutional. Thus, sex offenders classified under the old law will be classified as such.

Action Item: We Need Watchdogs in Ohio (and from outside Ohio)

2010-06-07T23:40:00.009-04:00

We have seen absolutely no action on the part of the Ohio Attorney General or Ohio County Sheriff Departments in complying with the Ohio Supreme Court ruling last week, which invalidated the reclassification of Senate Bill 10 (Ohio's sex offender law /Adam Walsh Act law). Each day which passes, allows the illegal enforcement of a law which has been invalidated and ruled unconstitutional by the Ohio Supreme Court. Make no mistake: the state's failure, or refusal, to comply with this ruling is indeed, an illegal act.

Months ago, we saw the Kentucky Attorney General refuse to comply by the Kentucky Supreme Court ruling which struck down the retroactive residency restrictions in that state. He dragged his feet as long as possible before being denied by the U.S. Supreme Court.

For this reason, we need all readers to be WatchDogs. Wherever you reside, if you are concerned about unconstitutional sex offender laws in this country we need you to call and write the following agencies daily until they agree to abide by the law. We have been doing this but they are showing anger against us now. So we need everyone's help.

Ohio Attorney General Office:
Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray, 30 E. Broad St., 17th Floor, Columbus, OH 43215
(800) 282-0515
Monday – Friday 8 a.m. – 7 p.m.
Email Ohio ESORN at OHLEGsupport@OhioAttorneyGeneral.gov

Justin Hykes, Assistant Attorney General of Ohio
justin.hykes@ohioattorneygeneral.gov
614-387-4257
FAX 614-466-5087

OHLEG Support
1-866-40-OHLEG (1-866-406-4534)
OHLEGsupport@OhioAttorneyGeneral.gov

Media Contacts:

Kim Kowalski: (614) 728-9692, cell: (614) 893-6018

Ted Hart: Deputy Director of Media Relations
Office of the Ohio Attorney General
PHONE 614-728-4127, cell: (614) 743-2286
EMAIL ted.hart@ohioattorneygeneral.gov (614) 728-4127

Contact list for Ohio County Sheriff Departments (Ask to speak with the SORN or Sex Offender Office):

Sheriff name	Phone number	Web site	eSORN Site	County
Kermit Howard	(937) 544-2314	view	view	Adams
Samuel A. Crish	(419) 993-1435	view	view	Allen
Estel Risner	(419) 289-3911	view	view	Ashland
William Johnson	(440) 576-3540	view	view	Ashtabula
Patrick Kelly	(740) 593-6633	view	view	Athens
Allen F. Solomon	(419) 739-6565	view	view	Auglaize
Fred Thompson	(740) 695-7933	view	view	Belmont
Dwayne Wenninger	(937) 378-4435	view	view	Brown
Richard K. Jones	(513) 785-1246	view	view	Butler
Dale R. Williams	(330) 627-2141	view	view	Carroll
Brent A. Emmons	(937) 652-1311	view	view	Champaign
Gene Kelly	(937) 328-2537	view	view	Clark
A.J. Tim Rodenberg	(513) 732-7500	view	view	Clermont
Ralph D. Fizer Jr.	(937) 382-1611	view	view	Clinton
Raymond L. Stone	(330) 424-4065	view	view	Columbiana
Timothy Rogers	(740) 622-2411	view	view	Coshocton
Ronny J. Shawber	(419) 562-7906	view	view	Crawford
Gerald T. McFaul	(216) 443-5567	view	view	Cuyahoga
Toby L. Spencer	(937) 547-7337	view	view	Darke
David J. Westrick	(419) 784-1155	view	view	Defiance
Walter L. Davis III	(740) 833-2845	view	view	Delaware
Terry M. Lyons	(419) 625-7951	view	view	Erie
David Phalen	(740) 681-7239	view	view	Fairfield
Vernon Stanforth	(740) 333-3504	view	view	Fayette
James Karnes	(614) 462-3351	view	view	Franklin
Darell Merillat	(419) 335-4010	view	view	Fulton
Joseph R Browning	(740) 446-4614	view	view	Gallia
Daniel C McClelland	(440) 279-2009	view	view	Geauga
Gene Fischer	(937) 562-4820	view	view	Greene
Michael R. McCauley	(740) 439-4455	view	view	Guernsey
Simon L. Leis, Jr.	(513) 946-6230	view	view	Hamilton
Michael E. Heldman	(419) 424-7235	view	view	Hancock
Keith Everhart	(419) 673-1268	view	view	Hardin
Mark Miller	(740) 942-2197	view	view	Harrison
John J. Nye	(419) 592-8010	view	view	Henry
Ronald D Ward	(937) 840-6240	view	view	Highland
Lanny E. North	(740) 385-2131	view	view	Hocking
Timothy W. Zimmerly	(330) 674-1936	view	view	Holmes
Dane Howard	(419) 668-1996		view	Huron
John Shasteen	(740) 286-6464	view	view	Jackson
Fred J. Abdalla	(740) 283-8600	view	view	Jefferson
David Barber	(740) 393-6800	view	view	Knox
Daniel A. Dunlap	(440) 350-5676	view	view	Lake
Timothy Sexton	(740) 532-3525	view	view	Lawrence
Randy Thorp	(740) 670-5525	view	view	Licking
Andrew J Smith	(937) 599-3247	view	view	Logan
Phil Stammitti	(440) 329-3709	view	view	Lorain
James A Telb	(419) 213-4269	view	view	Lucas
James P. Sabin	(740) 852-1332	view	view	Madison
Randall Wellington	(330) 480-5055	view	view	Mahoning
Tim Bailey	(740) 382-8244	view	view	Marion
Neil Hassinger	(330) 725-9116	view	view	Medina
Robert E. Beegle	(740) 992-3371		view	Meigs
Jeff Grey	(419) 586-5770	view	view	Mercer
Charles Cox	(937) 440-6085	view	view	Miami
Charles R. Black	(740) 472-1612	view	view	Monroe
Phil Plummer	(937) 224-3995	view	view	Montgomery
Thomas Jenkins Sr.	(740) 962-4044		view	Morgan
Steven Brenneman	(419) 947-1151	view	view	Morrow
Matthew J Lutz	(740) 452-3637	view	view	Muskingum
Stephen S Hannum	(740) 732-5631	view	view	Noble
Robert L. Bratton	(419) 734-6826	view	view	Ottawa
David Harrow	(419) 399-3791	view	view	Paulding
William Randall Barker	(740) 342-4123	view	view	Perry
Dwight E. Radcliff	(800) 472-5245	view	view	Pickaway
RICHARD N HENDERSON	(740) 947-2111	view	view	Pike
David W. Doak	(330) 297-3890	view	view	Portage
Michael Simpson	(937) 456-6314	view	view	Preble
James Beutler	(419) 523-3208	view	view	Putnam
J. Steve Sheldon	(419) 774-3550	view	view	Richland
George W. Lavender	(740) 773-1186	view	view	Ross
David Gangwer	(419) 332-2613	view	view	Sandusky
Marty V. Donini	(740) 355-8261	view	view	Scioto
Thomas Steyer	(419) 447-3456	view	view	Seneca
Doug Schlagetter	(937) 494-2119	view	view	Shelby
Timothy Swanson	(330) 430-3800	view	view	Stark
Drew Alexander	(330) 643-2164	view	view	Summit
Thomas L. Altiere	(330) 675-2440	view	view	Trumbull
Walter R. Wilson	(330) 308-6637	view	view	Tuscarawas
Rocky Nelson	(937) 645-4131	view	view	Union
Stan D. Owens	(419) 238-3866	view	view	Van Wert
David N. Hickey	(740) 596-5242		view	Vinton
Larry Sims	(513) 695-1522	view	view	Warren
Larry R. Mincks SR.	(740) 376-7070	view	view	Washington
Thomas G. Maurer	(330) 287-5749	view	view	Wayne
Kevin A. Beck	(419) 636-3151	view	view	Williams
Mark Wasylyshyn	(419) 354-1412	view	view	Wood
Michael R. Hetzel	(419) 294-2362		view	Wyandot

From Three Back to Five : Ohio Sex Offender Re- Re- Classification

2010-06-07T18:43:00.005-04:00

wtap.com: From Three Back to Five: Tens of thousands of sex offenders in the state of Ohio will be reclassified...as the result of a state supreme court ruling.

Right now, Ohio has three different categories in which registered sex offenders are placed. It used to have five. Now, with a ruling by the state high court on the constitutionality of a tough new law approved a few years ago, the classification list will go back to five.

"We have, I believe, three individuals in our county, who went from one category under the five (tier system) to the three (tier system), and they were due to drop off of being required to register," says one Ohio county Sheriff Larry Mincks. "Now, we have those three individuals who are going to go back to the old category, and they're not going to be required to register at all."

What may be more of a problem is the administration of these changes. When the law was approved, there was no money allocated for its oversight by local law enforcement officials. And the offenders must be notified of the changes.

"The attorney general will send out letters to all these people," Sheriff Mincks says. "If these letters came back as undeliverable, or are no longer at that address, then, it is mandated by the sheriff's office to find where those people are, and to notify them of that change in their registrations."

The court ruling does not affect any offenders who were convicted after the law went into effect at the beginning of 2008.

More challenges to Ohio's Sex Offender laws are still under review by the Ohio Supreme Court.

UPDATES, Monday June 7 : Ohio E-sorn Public Registry and County Sheriffs

2010-06-07T14:28:00.005-04:00

This page is updated throughout the day:

UPDATE, Monday June 7, (2:00 pm):

Constitutionalfights.org called the Ohio Attorney General's OHLEG office today and spoke with the office of Steve Brown again. His office representative told us that Steve Brown was drafting guidelines and an FAQ to be sent to County Sheriff Departments instructing them as to what to do in order to remove invalid registrants from the Sex Offender Registry in their counties as a result of Thursday's Ohio Supreme Court ruling in Bodyke vs, Ohio.

Readers should contact their County Sheriff Office to ask about these guidelines as soon as possible. We are still awaiting a return call from our County Sheriff office. You must help to keep the pressure on these state and local authorities to assure they do what they are legally required to do to comply with the Ohio Supreme Court decision.

UPDATE, Monday June 7, (3:30 pm):

We received a return call from Montgomery County Sheriff Office which denied receiving any guidelines yet from the Ohio Attorney General OHLEG office. We were assured that action would be taken as soon as they receive these guidelines but that the Attorney General Office was still meeting to discuss what the Ohio Supreme Court ruling actually meant ! What? They still don't know what the ruling means??

In the meantime, readers must be vigilant and aware that some Ohio legislators are still planning to skirt the Ohio Supreme Court ruling and introduce new sex offender legislation:

Ohio Senators Tim Shaffer and Tim Grendell have both made public statements regarding the Bodyke decision implying they will propose new sex offender legislation.

Contact them at:

Senate Building
1 Capitol Square, 1st Floor
Columbus, OH 43215
Tim Grendell: Phone: 614) 644-7718 Email: SD18@senate.state.oh.us
Tim Schaffer: Phone: (614) 466-5838 Email: SD31@senate.state.oh.us

UPDATE, Monday June 7,
Check back later for more updates...

UPDATES, Friday June 4 : Ohio E-sorn Public Registry Attorney

2010-06-04T10:13:00.017-04:00

This page is updated throughout the day:

UPDATE, Friday June 4, (10:00 am):

Constitutionalfights.org called the Ohio Attorney General's office and waited on hold for over 15 minutes. After asking to speak to the person in charge of the updating of the registry database, we were eventually forwarded to an ATTORNEY, Justin Hykes ! This is humorous, as they must know they are on legal thin ice here. I asked when we can expect the database to be corrected. He said "we have no idea when it will get done". I pressed him on this at least three times and he refused to give any estimate of a time table for when we can expect these people's names and photos to be removed from their public registry. He said that they are "working on it", but we all know updating a computer database is a simple job and does not take long to edit. I then asked if they are concerned about lawsuits if they fail to remove these people from the registry promptly now that these listings are in violation of the law. His response was "no, we are not concerned and we have an immunity disclaimer built into the esorn website" When you call, perhaps you can ask for Justin Hykes and not have to wait so long on hold.

Any readers who are legal professional are asked to stand by on this. We may need to pursue this legally if they are negligent in removing these people from the Ohio Public Sex Offender Registry. Please forward any legal advice on this matter to constitutionalfights@yahoo.com

UPDATE , Friday June 4, (5:00pm) :

Constitutionalfights.org received a return call from Steve Brown with the Ohio Attorney General's office. While he again said that the AG office can give no estimate of when these invalidated registrants will be removed from the State Sex Offender Registry, he did suggest we call our local county sheriff offices. He said they are responsible for updating registry entries and therefore may be able to remove the invalidated registrants from the list sooner than the Ohio AG offices can do so.

So we did call the Montgomery County Sheriff Department office. Detective Julie Stephens , in responding to our informing her of this information from Steve Brown, said "Oh, then we will start working on that on Monday ( June 7)". We informed her that we would be checking back in on this matter as next week comes.

Ohio Attorney General Office:
Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray, 30 E. Broad St., 17th Floor, Columbus, OH 43215
(800) 282-0515
Monday - Friday 8 a.m. - 7 p.m.
Email Ohio ESORN at OHLEGsupport@OhioAttorneyGeneral.gov

Click here to contact your local Ohio County Sheriff Department

Late this afternoon, we received the following email from Ohio AG Office:

"While I can't yet provide a timetable - I can confirm that staff members, including IT specialists and attorneys, are working diligently to make the necessary changes to eSORN in order to comply with the court's ruling."

Ted Hart
Deputy Director of Media Relations
Office of the Ohio Attorney General
PHONE 614-728-4127
EMAIL ted.hart@ohioattorneygeneral.gov

Attorney General Statement in Response to Ohio Supreme Court Decision in State v. Bodyke

2010-06-04T02:53:00.003-04:00

ohioattorneygeneral.gov: Attorney General Statement in Response to Ohio Supreme Court Decision in State v. Bodyke.

6/3/2010 (Columbus, Ohio) – In a narrowly tailored decision today, the Ohio Supreme Court invalidated two provisions of the Ohio Adam Walsh Act on separation-of-powers grounds. The act was passed by the General Assembly in July 2007 and became effective on Jan. 1, 2008. In response to the court’s decision in the case of State v. Bodyke, Attorney General Richard Cordray released the following statement:

“We are digesting the Supreme Court’s decision, which appears to be limited in scope. The broad provisions of Ohio’s Adam Walsh Act remain in place. In striking down a narrow portion of the act, the court has reinstated the classifications and community notification and registration orders imposed by judges under prior state law for certain offenders who had been sentenced before Jan. 1, 2008,” said Cordray. “Offenders who were classified on or after Jan. 1, 2008 are unaffected by today’s ruling. Those 26,000 offenders who had been reclassified under Ohio’s Adam Walsh Act will now revert to their prior classifications before the act was passed. To comply with the court’s order, my office will work to reclassify these offenders through Ohio’s Electronic Sex Offender Registration and Notification database (eSORN) and will notify offenders of their new classification. We will also continue to support local law enforcement agencies as they work to provide families with the information they need to keep their children safe.”

Ohio’s Adam Walsh Act was enacted to bring Ohio’s offender notification laws into conformity with the federal Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA). Ohio was the first state to reach substantial implementation of the federal standards, as certified by the U.S. Department of Justice. Nothing in today’s decision affects Ohio’s status in regard to maintaining this designation. Other provisions of the act have been challenged in separate cases that remain pending before the Ohio Supreme Court.

Media Contacts:
Kim Kowalski: (614) 728-9692
cell: (614) 893-6018
Ted Hart: (614) 728-4127
cell: (614) 743-2286

Important! See Ohio: Next Step – What We Must Do

Attorney Margie Slagle from the Ohio Justice Policy Center on TalkShoe Radio

2010-06-03T23:46:00.002-04:00

ARC Talk Radio - Thursday, June 3, 2010 (9 p.m. EST)

Tonight , TalkShoe Radio featured a very special show regarding the Ohio Supreme Court decision today, June 3, 2010 which ruled the Adam Walsh Child Protection Act (AWA) “invalid” for those individuals registered and convicted prior to its effect on January 1, 2008 when it became law. Attorney Margie Slagle from the Ohio Justice Policy Center joined ARC Talk Radio to discuss the decision and what this all means for those effected by this courts decision.

It is available to listen to and download at:
http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkCast.jsp?masterId=29521&cmd=tc

To read the courts decision,click here.

Ohio: Next Step - What We Must Do

2010-06-03T20:41:00.005-04:00

Today the Ohio Supreme Court invalidated the Ohio Senate Bill 10 (Adam Walsh Act) reclassification of sex offenders for those who pre-dated the 2008 law.

What's next for you if you are affected by this ruling?

Well... as of now, Constitutionalfights.org has confirmed that some of those who are to be removed from the Ohio Sex Offender Registry are still posted online. So anyone who falls into the category of those who shall now be removed from the Ohio Sex Offender Registry must call or contact the Ohio Attorney General to insist that they abide by the Ohio Supreme Court's ruling. Today's ruling now makes these registry postings an illegal act by the State of Ohio. If they refuse to remove these people from the registry immediately, lawsuits will follow.

Contact the Ohio Attorney General Office at:
Help Center
(800) 282-0515
Monday - Friday 8 a.m. - 7 p.m.

Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray
30 E. Broad St., 17th Floor
Columbus, OH 43215

OHLEG Support
1-866-40-OHLEG (1-866-406-4534)
OHLEGsupport@OhioAttorneyGeneral.gov

You can search to find if you are still improperly listed here. If you are listed improperly, also click the "Correction" button and insist that your listing be removed immediately. But we ask that you also call the offices as well. Look folks, the Ohio AG does not want to remove your name from this registry so we must keep the pressure on them to make sure they follow the law. The moment the Ohio Supreme Court released its decision today, it immediately made the continued listing of those affected into an illegal activity by the Ohio AG office. All those Ohio citizens who were positively affected by today's ruling must contact the Ohio AG Office on Friday June 4 !

UPDATE, Friday June 4: Constitutionalfights.org called the Ohio Attorney General's office and waited on hold for over 15 minutes. After asking to speak to the person in charge of the updating of the registry database, we were eventually forwarded to an ATTORNEY, Justin Hykes ! This is humorous, as they must know they are on legal thin ice here. I asked when we can expect the database to be corrected. He said "we have no idea when it will get done". I pressed him on this at least three times and he refused to give any estimate of a time table for when we can expect these people's names and photos to be removed from their public registry. He said that they are "working on it", but we all know updating a computer database is a simple job and does not take long to edit. I then asked if they are concerned about lawsuits if they fail to remove these people from the registry promptly now that these listings are in violation of the law. His response was "no, we are not concerned and we have an immunity disclaimer built into the esorn website" If you call, perhaps you can ask for Justin Hykes and not have to wait so long on hold.

Ohio : State v. Bodyke Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-2424

2010-06-03T12:37:00.003-04:00

State v. Bodyke, Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-2424
Ohio Supreme Court Rules Senate Bill 10 to be unconstitutional on Separation of Powers violation.

R.C. Chapter 2950 — Sex offenders — R.C. 2950.031 and 2950.032 violate separation of powers by requiring executive branch to reclassify sex offenders already classified by court order — Only appellate courts are constitutionally permitted to review or modify court judgments — Executive branch may not reopen final judgments — Stare decisis — Doctrine not controlling in cases presenting constitutional question —
R.C. 2950.031 and 2950.032 severed.

Case No. 2008-2502 — Submitted November 4, 2009 — Decided June 3, 2010.
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Huron County, Nos. H-07-040, H-07-041, and H-07-042, 2008-Ohio-6387.

1. The power to review and affirm, modify, or reverse other courts’ judgments is strictly limited to appellate courts. (Section 3(B)(2), Article IV, Ohio Constitution, applied.)

2. R.C. 2950.031 and 2950.032, which require the attorney general to reclassify sex offenders who have already been classified by court order under former law, impermissibly instruct the executive branch to review past decisions of the judicial branch and thereby violate the separation-ofpowers doctrine.

3. R.C. 2950.031 and 2950.032, which require the attorney general to reclassify sex offenders whose classifications have already been adjudicated by a court and made the subject of a final order, violate the separation-ofpowers doctrine by requiring the opening of final judgments.

Although we discharge our duty with great respect for the role of the legislature, Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez (1963), 372 U.S. 144, 159, 83 S.Ct. 554, 9 L.Ed.2d 644, for the reasons that follow we are compelled to find that R.C. 2950.031 and 2950.032, the reclassification provisions in the AWA, are unconstitutional because they violate the separation-of-powers doctrine. As a remedy, we strike R.C. 2950.031 and 2950.032, hold that the reclassifications of sex offenders by the attorney general are invalid, and reinstate the prior judicial classifications of sex offenders.

We will have more on this very important ruling later today.
See previous post: Ohio Supreme Court Says State May Not Reclassify Convicted Sex Offenders

Ohio Supreme Court Says State May Not Reclassify Convicted Sex Offenders

2010-06-03T12:20:00.006-04:00

NEWS ALERT !
Dispatch.com: Ohio Supreme Court Says State May Not Reclassify Convicted Sex Offenders.
Cleveland.com: Ohio Supreme Court strikes down part of sex offender law.
nbc4i.com: Ohio Court: Revert To Old Sex Offender Classes.

Ohio Supreme Court Ruling here (PDF)

The Ohio Supreme Court today struck down a provision of the state's 2007 sex-offender law, saying it is unconstitutional for the state to reclassify sexual offenders convicted under a previous statute.

The ruling means additional reporting requirements imposed on thousands of sex offenders in Ohio are rescinded, and their requirements return to what they were before the Adam Walsh Act was passed.

Attorney General Richard Cordray’s office couldn’t immediately say how many people would be affected by the ruling, but Jeffrey M. Gamso, a Toledo lawyer who argued the case, estimated it was about 28,000.

Gamso hailed the 5-1 ruling, which held that it was a violation of the separation-of-powers doctrine to allow the legislature and attorney general to take action to change past decisions of trial courts.

He argued that the courts previously had decided which sex offenders were most dangerous and required maximum scrutiny, and that adding additional requirements to others was unfair and a waste of resources.

“This ruling will allow law enforcement to focus its efforts on people who are dangerous,” he said. “The truth is, we’re going back to the restrictions we had before.”

The state and other groups argued it was appropriate for the state to take action against the offenders to protect the public and especially children, and that the new restrictions can be applied retroactively.

The dispute stems from changes in state law after Congress passed the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act in 2006 “to protect the public from sex offenders and offenders against children.”

The Ohio Legislature then passed a bill in June 2007 to align Megen’s Law and the state’s other sex-offender laws with the new federal law. It required the attorney general to identify each offender's classification under the new law and provide written notice of the new obligations.

Under the old Megan's Law, sex offenders were divided into three categories: sexually oriented offenders, habitual sex offenders and sexual predators. All sex offenders had to register with their address and other details with their county sheriff, as well as register each year going forward ranging from 10 years to life, depending on their classification.

The 2007 law set three levels of offenders. Those in Tier 1 had to register and each year for 15 years; Tier 2 offenders had to report twice a year for 25 years; and Tier 3 offenders had to register every 90 days for life.

Today’s court ruling involved three adult sex offenders from Huron County who were reclassified as sexual predators under the 2007 law.Christian N. Bodyke, for example, was convicted in October 1999 on one count of breaking and entering and one county of sexual battery. He was classified under the old Megan’s Law as a sexually oriented offender, requiring him to report every year for 10 years, court records say.

In November 2007, Bodyke was reclassified as a Tier 3 offender, meaning he had to register every 90 days for life. He lost an appeal that today’s Ohio Supreme Court ruling reverses.

Justice Robert R. Cupp dissented, saying the reclassification doesn’t change the previous court decisions and thus is not unconstitutional. Justice Terrence O'Donnell concurred with the ruling and dissented in part.
--------------------------------------------------------------

Columbus, Ohio -- The Ohio Supreme Court on Thursday threw out sections of the state's new sex offender law after ruling the provisions unconstitutionally altered previous judges' decisions.

In a 5-1 decision, the high court said Thursday that classification provisions of the sex offender law passed in 2008 violate the separation of powers among branches of government.

The state must now revisit cases of sex offenders who were reclassified after the Legislature passed the law and place them back in categories judges chose under more flexible guidelines in an earlier law. That could subject the sex offenders to less stringent community notification and registration guidelines than the new law envisioned.

The court left the tougher oversight scheme in place for offenders convicted since the new law has been in effect.

Classifications such as "sexually-oriented criminal" or "sexual predator" under the old Megan's Law were replaced with a tiered classification system under the new Adam Walsh Law. Offenders were moved into the tiers based solely on the offense they had committed, whereas Megan's Law had allowed judges to hold a hearing and use some discretion in assigning offenders a category.

The case before the Supreme Court involved three men convicted of sex-related crimes in 2007. The three - Christian Bodyke, David Schwab and Gerald Phillips - underwent formal hearings called for under the old law and were assigned categories that required postrelease registration with the sheriff in the county where they live.

In November 2007, they received letters from the attorney general saying the law had been changed and, as of Jan. 1, 2008, they would considered Tier III offenders. The change meant they were subject to more stringent registration and community-notification requirements.

Writing for the majority, Justice Maureen O'Connor said the earlier judges' decisions in the three cases were binding. Only courts can change the decisions of courts.

"It is well settled that a legislature cannot enact laws that revisit a final judgment," she wrote. "We have held for over a century that 'the Legislature cannot annul, reverse, or modify a judgment of a court already rendered."'

Justices Evelyn Lundberg Stratton, Judith Ann Lanzinger, Paul Pfeifer and Terrence O'Donnell agreed with the majority on the separation-of-powers issue. Chief Justice Eric Brown, appointed to replace the late Thomas Moyer, did not participate in the case.

In his dissent, Justice Robert Cupp said lawmakers didn't interfere with court decisions in the Adam Walsh Act, but simply ordered the attorney general to transfer offenders from one classification to another based on a set of fixed criteria.

"Rather than burden the courts with sifting the hundreds or thousands of sex offenders to which new and different requirements apply, the General Assembly assigned that administrative task to an executive officer, the attorney general," Cupp wrote.

He said the task "neither requires nor permits the attorney general to open, overturn, or otherwise disturb the final judgments of conviction and sentence of any offender."

DOJ Challenges Sex Offender's Effort to Renounce Citizenship

2010-06-02T23:41:00.002-04:00

legaltimes.typepad.com: Department of Justice Challenges Sex Offender's Effort to Renounce Citizenship.

James Kaufman has been trying for six years to renounce his citizenship, pressing Justice Department officials and other government agencies to let him cut his ties to the United States.

Kaufman, a 36-year registered sex offender who is locked up in state prison in Wisconsin, says in court papers in Washington that he is entitled to renounce his citizenship inside the United States during a state of war. Typically, a person can only renounce citizenship outside of the United States.

Ever since Kaufman filed a pro se suit (.pdf) in August 2005 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, the Justice Department has fought Kaufman’s effort to shed his citizenship while still in the country. And now that fight has gone to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, where DOJ is challenging a ruling that favored Kaufman.

DOJ lawyers make one main point: that the United States is not in a “state of war,” as it is used in the Immigration and Nationality Act (1952), and therefore Kaufman fails to meet the requirements of the federal law.

Earlier this year, Judge Richard Roberts of Washington federal court rejected the government’s argument, saying the Justice Department’s position in the case is “contrary to both law and common sense.” He granted summary judgment in favor of Kaufman. Click here for the ruling.

The “precise question here is whether the United States was in a state of war in 2004 or 2008 when Kaufman made his renunciation requests,” Roberts wrote. “There can be no genuine debate about that.”

The appeal, filed April 21, marks the second time that Kaufman’s suit—which names Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, among other defendants—has reached the D.C. Circuit.

The appeals court ruled in Kaufman’s favor in late 2008—after his suit was dismissed—remanding the case back to the trial court for further review. (In the D.C. Circuit, Kaufman got help from the Georgetown University Law Center, which filed an amicus brief on Kaufman’s behalf. A Georgetown 3L, Brendan Quigley, who now clerks for a federal judge in the Eastern District of New York, argued for Kaufman.)

The appeals court noted in the opinion (.pdf) that Kaufman had written numerous letters, starting in 2004, to government officials requesting that he be allowed to renounce his citizenship. At least several letters were ignored. In other letters, Kaufman was directed by one government agency to another.

“[W]e do not understand the government to suggest that a congressionally created right can be nullified by government inaction,” Judge Judith Rogers wrote in the panel opinion, joined by Judges A. Raymond Randolph and Harry Edwards. (Randolph and Edwards are both now senior judges.)

On remand, DOJ attorneys continued the fight to get the suit dismissed. The government attorneys in the case say in court papers that the term “state of war” in the statute is ambiguous and that the Department of Homeland Security, which has jurisdiction, was right to reject Kaufman’s request to renounce his citizenship.

A trial attorney in the Office of Immigration Litigation, Derek Julius, said the statute at issue uses another term in a different subsection—“engaged in hostilities”—to describe armed conflict short of a Congressionally declared war. Julius urged Roberts, the presiding trial judge, to allow DHS to interpret the statute in order to administer it.

DOJ attorneys also point to a ruling in October 2008 in federal district court in West Virginia where a judge rejected a prisoner’s request to renounce his citizenship.

Senior Judge James Turk said in a four-page ruling that the wartime exception is “not currently applicable.” Turk noted that government officials told Duncan that the country is not at war. Turk dismissed the complaint about two weeks after it was filed. Duncan did not appeal.

Roberts rejected the government’s argument that the term “state of war” is ambiguous. The government’s “conclusion would require that every term in every statute be specially defined or else be deemed ambiguous,” Roberts wrote in the opinion. “That is not the law.”

Kaufman said in court papers that he has no intention to remain in the United States. Kaufman was imprisoned in 1998 for sex crimes and released in 2008. But he was returned to prison after a parole violation last April, according to a Wisconsin prison official. Kaufman is eligible for parole in July 2011.

Questions:
1.) What interest does the federal government have in forcing a convicted sex offender to remain in the country as a citizen? Surely, sex offender laws across this nation are doing all they can to banish them from society.
2.) If he prevails in this challenge, to what country can be move? Which nations allow sex offenders to immigrate? The U.S. denies any sex offender from immigrating into USA.

Ohio Supreme Court SORNA Update: June 2010

2010-06-02T01:13:00.007-04:00

Update to Nov. 2009 post, and April 2010 update regarding Ohio Supreme Court four consolidated cases (Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, Ohio Senate Bill 10):

Call to Action:

Constitutionalfights.org spoke to the Ohio Supreme Court Clerk of Courts again today to ask when decisions will be released for the four pending challenges which were heard by the Court on Nov. 4, 2009. Decisions are normally published within six months of the oral arguments, but we are now 7 months out and still waiting.

We were told that "no one knows" when these decisions will be released and that "there is no time limit" for releasing the decisions. Further, we were told that it is not known if the rulings have been made yet, or if arguments might be re-heard following the death of the Chief Justice in April 2010.

All readers who have an interest in the outcome of these crucial cases before the Ohio Supreme Court are asked to call the Ohio Supreme Court Clerk of Courts to inquire when these rulings will be made. The hope is that with increasing pressure on the Court to issue their decisions, we may see movement sooner than political elections might allow. It would be quite unfortunate and unethical if they are awaiting the November Elections before they release these rulings.

Call (or write) the Court from any state - not just Ohio - to demonstrate to them that there are tens of thousands of citizens across the nation whose lives and families are adversely affected by their delays. They will not ask where you are calling from. But if hundreds of calls come to the Clerk's office, it is likely that the Justices will hear about it.

Office of the Clerk
Supreme Court of Ohio
65 South Front Street, 8^th Floor
Columbus, Ohio 43215-3431

Phone: 614.387.9530
Fax: 614.387.9539
E-mail: Office of the Clerk

Refer to: Senate Bill 10 Sex Offender Law challenges
Or you can use case names and numbers:

08-0991/ 08-0992 - Roman Chojnacki v. Ohio Atty. General
08-1624 Darian J. Smith, Alleged Delinquent Child
08-2502 State of Ohio v. Christian N. Bodyke, David A. Schwab [and] Gerald E. Phillips
09-0189 In re: Adrian R., Delinquent Child – Licking County

Supreme Court: No Backdating Sex Offender Registry

2010-06-01T17:07:00.005-04:00

UPI.com: Court: No backdating sex offender registry.
CSmonitor.com: Registry law doesn't apply to all sex offenders, Supreme Court rules.
sexcrimes.typepad.com: Carr v. United States - Initial Thoughts

Washington, DC, June 1 (UPI) -- The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 Tuesday a sex offender moving to another state didn't have to update his registration if he moved before a law took effect.

The 2006 Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act requires sex offenders to register, and makes it a crime for any person required to register to fail to update his registration when moving to another state.

Thomas Carr pleaded guilty in Alabama to first-degree sexual abuse and was sentenced to 15 years, with all but two years suspended. Receiving credit for time previously served, Carr was released on probation July 3, 2004, and registered as a sex offender as required by Alabama law.

In late 2004 or early 2005, prior to SORNA's enactment, Carr relocated from Alabama to Indiana, court records say. He did not comply with Indiana's sex-offender registration requirements. In July 2007, Carr became involved in a fight in Fort Wayne, Ind., drawing the attention of police, and federal prosecutors charged Carr in Indiana with failing to register after moving in violation of the federal law.

A federal appeals court in Chicago affirmed his conviction, but the Supreme Court reversed today.

Writing for the majority, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said charging Carr with a SORNA violation for activity occurring before the law came into effect violated the ex post facto clause of the Constitution, which bans after the fact prosecutions.

From our understanding of this ruling, the US Supreme Court did not invalidate this SORNA provision on Ex Post Facto grounds, but rather the majority justices found that the statute, as written by Congress, did not authorize retroactive enforcement in its construction. They therefore left the Ex Post Facto (retro-active) challenge to be decided at another time.

She said the key was that an offender had to become subject to SORNA in the first place before going to another state and failing to register.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corey Rayburn Yung at sexcrimes.typepad.com writes:

" In a bit of a surprise, Carr won on a 6-3 vote. Although, as I thought, the likely way Carr would be victorious would be on the statutory interpretation issue and not the Ex Post Facto Clause claim. The outcome will have an effect on very few prosecutions and Congress can "correct" the outcome whenever it wants. So, it isn't much of a decision against SORNA or the AWA in any meaningful way. There is plenty of coverage around the legal blogosphere and I should have more later."

While we greatly respect Yung's credentials and are completely unqualified to challenge his professional opinions..... I would like to posit a slightly different stance on the value of this SCOTUS decision. We are not legal professionals in any way, but it seems that this decision could be more meaningful than Yung suggests. It does appear that the ruling will affect very few sex offenders, whose travel and registration brought federal charges. But it does further erode SORNA, as written.

To be clear, as far as we can decipher, this ruling affects only cases where ex offenders traveled to other states and were prosecuted for their failure to register in the new states. The legislative text to which the Justices refer is in relation to Interstate Travel, and not related to other parts of SORNA.

In many states - and in Ohio foremost - SORNA as applied through Ohio Senate Bill 10 has been barraged with lawsuits in every county of the state. Four consolidated cases have been argued before the Ohio Supreme Court with another couple cases being heard since then. In lower courts, the only means by which the Ohio law has been permitted to stand is by judges ruling that SORNA is a civil remedy and not punitive in nature. Therefore, its retroactive implementation has never been properly addressed by the courts.

In today's ruling, SCOTUS ruled that the Interstate Travel portion (at least) of SORNA was not written to be retroactive. Is it too much of a stretch to imagine that other portions of SORNA may similarly be ruled to be written to be non- retroactive? Or that SORNA could be re-written to exclude its retroactivity requirements?

We know that the US Department of Justice recently came out with new revised guidelines for SORNA implementation directed to states which are reluctant to implement SORNA (Adam Walsh Act). One of the main points of contention is the retro-activity requirement. The Revised Guidelines erase the retroactive requirement for states, allowing them a way our of this constitutional obstacle. Having seen today's ruling, along with the revised guidelines, it seems that Carr vs. US could be more meaningful that Yung suggests.

See previous two postings for more information on this ruling.

SCOTUS: Carr v. United States Decision Against SORNA

2010-06-01T13:51:00.003-04:00

scotusblog.com: Carr v. United States (08-1301)
blogs.villagevoice.com: A Users Guide to the U.S. Supreme Court Rulings Handed Down Today.
Sentencing Law & Policy: Some intriguing who and how dynamics in the Carr ruling reversing sex offender's SORNA conviction.
Sentencing Law & Policy: Sex offender prevails with challenge to SORNA conviction in Carr.

In Carr v. United States (08-1301), the Court, on a 6-3 vote, reverses and remands in an opinion by Justice Sotomayor. Justice Scalia concurs in part and in the judgment, but joins most of Justice Sotomayor’s opinion. Justice Alito dissents, joined by Justices Thomas and Ginsburg.

* Holding: The Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, a 2007 law that requires sex offenders to register, does not apply to sex offenders whose interstate travel occurred before the Act went into effect.
--------------------------------------------------------------
First,it is interesting and notable that the two former prosecutors on SCOTUS, Justices Sotomayor and Alito, wrote the majority and dissenting opinions. It is likewise interesting and notable that the two female Justices also split in this case. I cannot help but suspect that the sex offender context may have prompted Justice Ginsburg to be less sympathetic than usual to the appealing defendant here.

Both the majority and dissent note lots of circuit splits and lots of potential constitutional concerns with aspects of SORNA that are not directly addressed in the Carr opinion. I think this means we can and should expect a docket filled with at least a SORNA case or two in many future SCOTUS Terms.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Case: 08-1301, Carr v. United States
Decision: Reversal
Opinion By: Sotamayor.

Who It Matters To: Sex Offenders, Potential Sex Offenders, Especially Sex Offenders Who Sex Offended Before February 2007.

Law Geeks Will Geek Out Over: The ex post facto clause, due process challenges.

Ruling: "The Court rules that a 2007 law (SORNA) that requires sex offenders to register does not apply to sex offenders whose interstate travel occurred before the Act went into effect."

What it means: Carr involved a guy who didn't register for SORNA, or the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, after he moved from Alabama to Indiana. This guy, Thomas Carr, had already registered as a sex offender in Alabama in 2004, but when he moved to Indiana, failed to register as one there, which law enforcement officials found out when he was busted for an unrelated crime in July 2007. Earlier that year, in February 2007, the Attorney General ruled that SORNA applied to all sex offenders, even those who were convicted before SORNA went into effect. Carr argued a defense of the constitution's ex post facto clause, wherin, he's protected because you can't be retroactively punished by new laws. And the court ruled in his favor!

Who Wins: Those whose crimes aren't actually crimes until after they've committed them.

US Supreme Court: Sex Offender Law Can't Be Applied Retroactively

2010-06-01T13:22:00.003-04:00

courthousenews.com: US Supreme Court: Sex Offender Law Can't Be Applied Retroactively.
Cornell University Law School: CARR v. UNITED STATES ( No. 08-1301 ).

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to retroactively apply a 2006 law that makes it a crime for sex offenders to cross state lines and knowingly fail to register or update a registration.

After being convicted of first-degree sexual abuse in 2004, Thomas Carr was released on probation and moved from Alabama to Indiana without registering as a sex offender in Indiana. Congress passed the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) in 2006. Among its provisions, the law bars sex offenders from moving across state lines without registering or updating their registrations.

Carr was charged with violating SORNA in 2007, and he entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving the right to appeal. He claimed the indictment against him should be dismissed, because he traveled to Indiana before the sex offender registration law went into effect.

A federal judge in Indiana refused to dismiss the indictment and sentenced Carr to 30 months in prison.
The 7th Circuit upheld the conviction and sentencing, saying SORNA "does not require that the defendant's travel postdate the Act." At oral argument, Carr insisted that the provision criminalizing the failure to register after moving across state lines can only apply after SORNA took effect.

The government argued that the provision is triggered by a sex-offense conviction, followed by interstate travel and a failure to register. In the government's view, only the failure to register had to occur after SORNA took effect.

"Carr's interpretation better accords with the statutory text," Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote for the 6-3 majority, reversing the 7th Circuit's ruling. She said the law specifically states that the provision only applies when a person "is required to register under the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act."
Sotomayor rejected the government's claim that this language was merely a "shorthand way" of identifying those with sex-offense convictions.

She pointed out that, as the government would have it, Congress used 12 words and two implied cross-references to establish that sex offenders were the law's targeted group. "Such contortions can scarcely be called 'shorthand,'" Sotomayor wrote.

"Once a person becomes subject to SORNA's registration requirements, which can occur only after the statute's effective date, that person can be convicted under [the travel provision] if he thereafter travels and then fails to register."

Justice Samuel Alito dissented, saying the majority "misinterprets and hobbles" the travel provision, designed "to punish and deter interstate movement that seriously undermines the enforcement of sex-offender-registration laws." He said the majority's conclusion "makes no sense," as it would allow the conviction of a sex offender who moved and failed to register after SORNA's enactment, but not someone like Carr, who moved before the law took effect.

"Is there any reason why Congress might have wanted to treat the second case any differently from the first?" he asked. "In both cases, a sex offender's interstate movement frustrates enforcement of SORNA's registration requirements." Justices Clarence Thomas and Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined Alito in dissent.

CA: Public Park Cruisers Registered as Sex Offenders

2010-06-01T00:00:00.003-04:00

queerty.com: The Ridiculous Attempt By Palm Springs Police to Get Public Park Cruisers Registered as Sex Offenders.
mydesert.com: Report: Police sought harsh penalties off sting

Palm Springs police, preparing to conduct a gay sex sting last summer, pushed the district attorney's office to agree in advance to pursue more severe penalties than in prior stings, court documents show.

All 24 men arrested in the 2009 Warm Sands neighborhood sting, which police say stemmed from complaints of sex in public, now face charges that would require them to register for life as sex offenders.

Some in the community — including a former Riverside County deputy D.A. familiar with the case — believe those charges are too heavy-handed.

Prior to the Warm Sands sting, Palm Springs police made it clear to the Riverside County D.A.'s Office they were dissatisfied with the “disturbing the peace” pleas that came from previous stings, according to sworn testimony from Palm Springs police Sgt. Bryan Anderson, who helped supervise the Warm Sands sting.
Jeandron said all 24 men, if convicted on the charges, would register on a sex offender list available only to authorities, not the public. They wouldn't appear in databases such as the Megan's Law Web site, he said.

Lawyers defending several of the men allege Palm Springs police singled out gay man in enforcing the city's laws against public sex, while ignoring the same behavior by straight people.

TX: Sex Offender Label Requires Court Hearing

2010-05-31T23:51:00.002-04:00

chron.com(TX): Sex offender label requires hearing, court rules.

Austin, TX — Texas has been unconstitutionally designating some prison inmates as sexual criminals without giving them an appropriate hearing, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Friday.

The ruling could affect as many as 6,900 prison inmates who have never been convicted of a sex offense although they may be sexual predators.

The lawsuit was brought by Raul Meza, who was convicted in the 1982 murder of a 9-year old girl. He was released from prison in 1993 under the state’s mandatory supervision law and then re-incarcerated until 2002.

At that time the Board of Pardon’s and Paroles listed Meza as a sex offender, a condition that was rescinded in 2005. Meza was not allowed to see the evidence against him or have a hearing before the board. "Meza is no longer required to register as a sex offender," the court said.

The 5th Circuit noted that in previous cases it has ruled that inmates cannot be designated as a sex offender without a due process hearing.

The 5th Circuit said the state has an interest in rehabilitating sex offenders before they re-enter society, but it said inmates also have a legitimate interest in making certain the record against them is free of errors. But the state at present does not allow inmates to review the record that is used to designate them as sex offenders or to put additional provisions on their parole.

"We conclude that the current procedure provided to parolees who have never been convicted of a sex offense and who face possible sex offender registration and therapy is constitutionally insufficient," the court said.

"In compiling 6,900 parolee packets, human error will inevitably occur and parolees may be falsely accused of sexually deviant behavior," the court said. "By simply granting the parolees the right to review his packet, such human errors could be avoided."

Texas Department of Criminal Justice spokeswoman Michelle Lyons said the agency plans to review the ruling next week with the Texas Attorney General’s Office to see what step to take next.

Government Confiscates 19 Acres of Land from Man Convicted of Child Porn

2010-05-28T17:13:00.003-04:00

Sentencing Law & Policy: Eighth Circuit affirms big real property forfeiture for child porn offense.

I wonder if any of the usual suspects who get riled up about property rights will have any complaints about the intriguing forfeiture ruling from the Eighth Circuit today in US v. Hull, No. 08-4015 (8th Cir. May 26, 2010) (available here). Here is how the decision in Hull starts:

Larry Richard Hull was convicted of two counts of distribution of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(1). The district court ordered forfeiture of Hull’s real property, which consisted of approximately nineteen acres in rural Iowa, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2253(a)(3). Hull appeals the forfeiture order, contending that the evidence was insufficient to support forfeiture of the property under § 2253(a)(3). He also asserts that the district court erred by failing to make adequate findings of fact to determine whether forfeiture was a grossly disproportionate penalty in violation of the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment. We affirm.

Anyone concerned with U.S. property rights and the government's growing power to confiscate property from citizens should be outraged by this ruling.

States Struggle To Control Sex Offender Costs

2010-05-28T11:55:00.003-04:00

NPR.org: States Struggle To Control Sex Offender Costs.

Nationwide, more than 700,000 convicted sex offenders have registered their whereabouts with local police (..and growing each day). Every state has a sex offender registry of some kind.

But as many states face persistent budget shortfalls, it's become a real question how well law enforcement can keep track of such a large caseload.

"Sometimes federal mandates and state laws get passed without a real sense of what the lingering costs are," says Suzanne Brown-McBride, deputy director of the Council of State Governments Justice Center.

Earlier this month, the Justice Department proposed significant changes to the registration requirements states must meet under the Adam Walsh Act, a 2006 law that was meant to ensure that offender registries across the country adhere to similar standards. Only three states — Ohio, Delaware and Florida — are in compliance. Many of the rest say it imposes costs that are too high for them to bear.

Even some advocates for harsher penalties for sex crimes worry that states will not devote the resources needed to keep track of so many offenders, often for life.

"It's the worst it's ever been because of the economic crisis," says Ernie Allen, president and CEO of the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, which estimates 100,000 sex offenders are not even currently registered with states. "Our argument lies not in throwing up your hands and saying we can't do this. The answer lies in triage — deciding who represents the greatest risk."

Incarceration's High Cost

The greatest expense, of course, is incarceration. Sex criminals, along with drug offenders, are the fastest-growing part of prison populations, Allen says. Last week, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress had not overstepped its authority in the Adam Walsh Act by allowing federal prisons to hold "sexually dangerous" inmates after their sentences are completed.

The California legislature is currently considering a bill, known as Chelsea's Law, which would allow for life sentences for more categories of sex offenders and lifetime parole for others. The bill has the backing of Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and could pass the State Assembly as early as next week.

But state officials have warned that the cost of implementing Chelsea's Law will be high as the lengthier sentences play out. An analysis by the state corrections department found the law would cost $1 million in 2015 but $54 million by 2030. The California Legislative Analyst's Office says costs will run much higher, "at least a few tens of millions of dollars annually within the next decade" and hundreds of millions annually in decades to come.

California's budget shortfall currently stands at $19 billion and the corrections budget is already under deep stress. The state is releasing 6,500 prisoners early this year in part to save money. California is under court order to release 40,000 prisoners over the next two years, and perhaps many more over three years, because of overcrowding.

An Expanding List

At the same time, states have come under some criticism for requiring registration and community notification for an ever-expanding list of offenses — including public urination, "sexting" (minors sending nude pictures to each other via cell phones) and "Romeo and Juliet" cases involving older teens who had consensual sex with younger ones.

The argument from some advocacy groups holds that there are twin dangers associated with registration lists that contain thousands of petty criminals: The registry lists are too long to track effectively and can allow the worst offenders to slip through the cracks.

But purging the lists of minor offenders would not necessarily make them more manageable, says Roxanne Lieb, director of the Washington State Institute for Public Policy. "Sometimes there's discussion about sexting and Romeo and Juliet, but you're talking about tiny numbers," she says. "It would still be a huge number to monitor. It's not going to solve the problem of too many people to watch and keep track of in any way."

Can States Bear The Cost?

Still, even proponents of harsher penalties increasingly say there's value in laws that recognize some sex offenders require more oversight than others. Yet the trend in most states has been to differentiate less between various categories of offenders — moving away from "tiered" systems that imposed different notification requirements depending on the severity of the crime.

And it's the very fact that the Adam Walsh Act puts offenders into three different tiers that has contributed to states' fear about the cost, suggests Alisa Klein, a public policy consultant with the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers. The practical effect of the federal law (AWA) would be to force states to put more offenders into the highest-risk category — leading to much greater administrative and enforcement costs.

If states do not comply by July 26 — itself an extension of last year's deadline – they stand to lose 10 percent of their funding under a congressional grant program for law enforcement. But with only a couple of months left and few states on board, it appears that most are deciding the cost of compliance will be higher than the penalty.

The question now is what sort of calculations states will make moving forward. Congress and state legislatures may have made bigger promises in protecting against sex offenders than they're willing to pay for, or that agencies may be able to deliver.

"What happens is the legislature has basically made a commitment to the citizens regarding how sex offenders will be managed and kept track of," says Lieb of the Washington State Institute for Public Policy. "To the extent they're not able to fulfill those expectations, then it becomes grounds for disappointment and lawsuits and other financial consequences."

Map: Sex Offenders By State

Click on map to see how many sex offenders have been registered in each state, and which states have the highest rates of registered sex offenders per capita.

OH: Abduction and Sex Assault was a Hoax

2010-05-27T17:03:00.002-04:00

whiotv.com: College Student Recants Abduction Report.

Lebanon, Ohio -- Police in Lebanon said the abduction and sex assault of a 21-year-old college student has been ruled a hoax. Investigators said Kristen Lamb admitted Thursday during an interview that the alleged abduction and sexual assault was a hoax. They said they attribute Lamb's actions over her family's attention to her brother's recent wedding.

Police said the University of Cincinnati nursing student admitted that she went to the location in a wooded area where she sat for more than 15 hours. She told police that she used zip ties from her father's toolbox to bound her wrists. Lamb also told police that she used a pillow case from her own room to cover her head. Police said Lamb took officers to the wooded area north of her home, where they found the pillow case and one zip tie.

According to police, Lamb said she had no other help in the alleged abduction and sexual assault. Police are now talking with prosecutors about possible criminal charges against Lamb.

This woman must be charged severely as anyone should be after making a false accusation of sex abuse. Her family should be ashamed of her for her inexcusable actions.

TN: More Sex Offender Compliance Checks Under Way

2010-05-27T16:47:00.002-04:00

clevelandbanner.com(TN): Sex Offender Compliance Checks Under Way.

See previous posts for important information about this topic.

The Bradley County Sheriff’s Office and U.S. Marshal’s Service is in the process of contacting sex offenders to verify the information they provided for the state’s sex offender registry is accurate and up-to-date.

Five teams of two people each consisting of personnel from the BCSO and U.S. Marshal’s Service started Tuesday verifying offenders live at the address where they are registered and are abiding by any applicable restrictions regarding minor children living in the same home.

The Tennessee Sex Offender Act requires offenders report changes in residence, employment, or enrollment in an educational facility within 48 hours. Offenders on registries in other states are required to register in Tennessee within 48 hours after they establish residence.

Two NH Sex Offender Bills Killed

2010-05-27T16:35:00.002-04:00

corrections.com: Two NH sex offender bills killed.

The New Hampshire State Senate last week tabled and thus killed HB 1628, a bill to encourage police to actively notify the neighbors whenever a sex offender is released into their midst. A dozen opponents, including several sex offenders, had packed the senate public hearing on the legislation.

In response, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted 3-1 to kill the bill politely by sending it to interim study in an election year. A co-sponsor of the bill, Sen. Sheila Roberge (R-Bedford), voted to effectively defeat her own legislation after hearing the evidence against it.

There was no debate on the later Senate floor motion to table. Whatever infighting led to that outcome happened behind closed doors. After the vote, one senator said people were worried about the consequences to the families of sex offenders if neighbors got into the habit of welcoming every sex offender harshly.

I certainly expected an emotional floor fight in the senate chambers. Sen. Robert Letourneau (R-Derry) missed the committee vote, but he co-sponsored the bill and would have voted for it. Close split decisions are rare in senate committees and often lead to donnybrooks on the senate floor. All 24 senators received an email from me the night before the final vote with a copy of an op ed I had just published in the Laconia Citizen. The full text appears at the bottom of this update.

I’m sorry to say the Senate killed HB 1484 the same way, a bill to bar towns from imposing residency restrictions against sex offenders. I heard conflicting reasons from senators and sources close to the governor for the surprising vote to table this fine legislation. It had sailed through the House and left Senate Judiciary Committee with a 5-0 ought-to-pass endorsement. The sponsors tentatively plan to resubmit the bill for next year. (contact your senators !)

Losing this favorable legislation was palatable in an election year. Only five towns have adopted these residency restrictions, and several have chosen not to enforce them in light of a district court decision last August. It shot down the Dover residency restriction against sex offenders as a violation of fundamental property rights.