You are here

NARSOL streamlines original lawsuit; NCRSOL files new lawsuit

By Robin Vander Wall . . . On April 16, 2018, NARSOL’s attorney, Paul Dubbeling, represented NARSOL, NCRSOL, and two Doe plaintiffs before federal District Court Judge Loretta Biggs at a hearing to defend NARSOL v. Stein against the state of North Carolina’s Motion to Dismiss.

Then on May 30, Judge Biggs entered an order seeking “a more definite statement” of the original complaint which was understood as a request for clarification of the lawsuit. The suit being already more than 18-months-old, and frustrated by the Court’s apparent apprehension regarding the complexities of the case, discussions about the appropriate remedy ensued.

After careful consideration, the decision was made to narrow the lawsuit by filing an amended complaint limited to claims seeking relief under an ex post facto theory of constitutional law (similar to the Does v. Snyder case out of the Sixth Circuit).

NARSOL, et alia’s amended complaint was filed on June 20. The state of North Carolina now has a new opportunity to move for the dismissal of the revised lawsuit (which means that the plaintiffs will also have an opportunity to defend against its dismissal at a hearing that is not yet scheduled).

On July 5, NCRSOL and the two Does from the original lawsuit filed a separate complaint against NCGS § 14-208.18 (NC’s revised premises statute) advancing First Amendment claims of vagueness and overbreadth and seeking injunctive and declaratory relief. The new lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina.

Judge Biggs appears to have been persuaded by the state’s arguments against the complexity of the original complaint. However, I don’t believe that’s the real issue here. In my opinion (and I need to emphasize that this is strictly my own opinion), Judge Biggs simply doesn’t want to be the judge who puts the dagger into the heart of North Carolina’s most deliberate attempt since the Civil Rights era at resurrecting Jim Crow styled laws.

Restricting where American citizens can be and where they can go is not a new practice for Southern legislatures. But it IS a practice that one may believe was well settled as bad public policy a long time ago. However, it’s possible Judge Biggs doesn’t share the same sentiment. She may think that it’s perfectly reasonable (and rational) for the state to discriminate against its citizens on the basis of conditions that are unrelated to race. Who can know?

NCRSOL also plans to file an additional lawsuit in the coming weeks challenging NCGS § 14-208.18 on grounds that it violates religious freedom by restricting registered citizens’ access to and participation in worship services.

The North Carolina Constitution very clearly states that [a]ll persons have a natural and inalienable right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences, and no human authority shall, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience (NC Const., Art. I, Sec. 13).

So, what was once a solitary case has now become two separate federal actions and will likely be supplemented with a third state-level action very soon. The NC Attorney General’s Office (already under tremendous stress from budget cuts) might want to rethink its strategy for opposing future cases related to the sex offender registry. While it once had only one case to defend against, now it’s facing the possibility of three.

Help us reach more people by Sharing or Liking this post.
EMAIL
Facebook
Google+
https://narsol.org/2018/07/narsol-streamlines-original-lawsuit-ncrsol-files-new-lawsuit/
PINTEREST
LINKEDIN
YOUTUBE
RSS

Robin Vander Wall

As vice chair of NARSOL, Robin is the managing editor of the Digest, director of marketing, and provides assistance to the webmaster in keeping our websites running smoothly. He also serves as founder and president of Vivante Espero, NARSOL's 501(c)(3) foundation and legal fund.

This topic contains 41 replies, has 4 voices, and was last updated by  Joseph R Park Jr 1 month, 1 week ago.

  • Author
    Posts
  • #43127 Reply
    Robin Vander Wall
    Robin Vander Wall
    Admin

    By Robin Vander Wall . . . On April 16, 2018, NARSOL’s attorney, Paul Dubbeling, represented NARSOL, NCRSOL, and two Doe plaintiffs before federal Dis
    [See the full post at: NARSOL streamlines original lawsuit; NCRSOL files new lawsuit]

  • #43130 Reply

    David

    Excellent! If one lawsuit is good, then two or three are even better! And that quote from NC’s State Constitution is unequivocal: “no human authority shall, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience”.

    • #48587 Reply

      Joseph R Park Jr

      <The NC Attorney General’s Office (already under tremendous stress from budget cuts) might want to rethink its strategy for opposing future cases related to the sex offender registry. While it once had only one case to defend against, now it’s facing the possibility of three.>

      C’mon Robin, you know as well as anyone that the state’s attorneys are on salary and are paid the same regardless of what they’re working on, whether it’s one case or three. The only consideration in this matter is filing fees which are a pittance to the state. Besides, the filing fees merely go from one state account into another. It’s so unfair that when you wish to assert your rights under the constitution it costs you tens of thousands in legal fees and filing fees and copying costs, etc. which has to be paid by actual people, whereas the state’s costs are paid out of the general fund.

      Since you’ve narrowed your case down to the ex post facto aspect of it, you’ll be happy to know, which I’m sure you already do, that Bethea v North Carolina has you covered on that, and it’s already before the Supreme Court with a petition for cert. What more can you ask?

      I think it would have been much better if you had elected to challenge the state’s practice of compelling persons who have completed their sentences to do something, ie, report to designated law enforcement officers and update their databases with private information which is none of the government’s business, to publicize online for access by people whose business it is none of.

      It may be an abstract concept, but in this country, by its own constitution (I think it’s the 10th where anything NOT prohibited is rightfully the citizen’s to do or not do), citizens have the right to be let alone by the government. The government may prohibit and proscribe, but it cannot compel you to do something. For example, it may prohibit a convicted felon from possessing firearms. The way I see it, the government has tried, and so far succeeded, to turn the words “failure to” into an action, a verb if you will. A failure to do something is, in fact, to do nothing. So, a failure to register as a sex offender makes it a felony to do nothing. You have literally done nothing, yet you can and will be charged with a felony whose penalty is often more serious than the one for the original crime which makes you have to register. This from the Georgia state constitution:

      Paragraph XXII. Involuntary servitude. There shall be no involuntary servitude
      within the State of Georgia except as a punishment for crime after legal conviction
      thereof or for contempt of court.

      I saw somewhere that someone was challenging the sex offender registry on grounds that compelling a person to do something after his sentence was served in its entirety was the same as involuntary servitude. At least once per year I have to take time that rightfully belongs to me and travel to the sheriff’s office at my own expense just to suffer the indigency of reporting in person to do something so unnecessary as to comply with their procedures. I get absolutely no benefit from this.

      Yeah, it’s an abstract concept, but it’s worth considering.

      • #48593 Reply
        Jann
        Jann
        Moderator

        Hi Joseph,
        Your comment has some valuable information and is on point for our readers. We hope that you will be a regular contributor. We do however have a rule that prohibits excessively long comments and hope that in the future you can be a bit more concise. I am publishing your comment this time. Thank you.
        Jann – Volunteer Moderator

  • #43132 Reply

    Matthew Arnold

    North Carolina and as far as I’m concerned the rest of the country needs to pull their heads out of their own butts and need to imply rational sex offender laws that would let people worship Jesus in church’s instead of restricting the offender from entering a place of worship because this types of laws go against the constitution of the United States of America. Utah as far I know doesn’t do that but other states take away the sex offenders right to worship in a church. In Utah their are only five protected places that a sex offender cannot go into or be near daycares, public playgrounds, community parks, schools and public pools. Other states are much more restrictive to include malls, churchs, and librarys. This country needs to turn to God again

    • #43147 Reply

      Concerned citizen

      Even the term sex offender is preposterous. It’s designed to humiliate and shame. The rest of the world laughs at America with their laws that regulate certain types of sexual relations as crimes. Serious crimes need to be addressed but we have now added public urination, throwing young men in jail for relations with 17 year olds that have lied about their age, etc. In Europe age of consent is 15-16. I know NARSOL does not advocate or lobby for the changing of the age of consent but seriously you can be tried as an adult for murder at 16, 15, 14 but you can’t consent to sex? Ridiculous.

      We are still the Puritan nation of the pilgrims. Why not focus our resources on rehabilitation, and restorative justice? Stop the witch hunt.

      I-am a concerned female citizen in a loving relationship with someone who has been crushed by these laws and this list because someone used the press and lied but was never held accountable for their acts.

      Disgusted.

    • #44950 Reply

      Tim L

      Matt,
      You maybe onto something there. Most seem to forget JC was known for washing the feet of whores. He made it a point to do so in public and the act drove the establishment nuts. The act of washing feet had a strong connotation. It was the behavior of servants and NOT Kings! To be sure, our founders were seeped in Greek , Roman culture and the good book. This is a reason they instituted and insisted on official duty being done in plain view of the public.

  • #43133 Reply

    gene kliewer

    Thank for you guys for standing in for us , these laws are just plan outrageous and criminal on the part of the state of N.C. and all the other states. great work keep it up . Gene

    • #43136 Reply

      Matthew Arnold

      Thank you Gene

  • #43138 Reply

    Brian

    That is so unethical, sounds to me the judge is more worried about their own reputation then upholding the constitutional rights of US citizens, hey if they want their economy to go to the dump because their worried about their reputation then maybe they will impeach the judge and put someone in place who’s not scared to uphold the constitution.

  • #43140 Reply

    Walter

    I still think albertson should work, i do NOT understand why no one will even try it in an argument.

    382 us 70

    https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/382/70/case.html

    • #43143 Reply
      Robin Vander Wall
      Robin Vander Wall
      Admin

      Walter,
      The Albertson case concerned a narrow question about an individual’s right against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment. The facts of that case were pretty simple. The Communist Party was, at that time, an illegal organization by federal statute. The Party was required to register its existence with the Subversive Activities Control Board and provide detailed information about its members. Those members would then be liable to prosecution for being members of an illegal political party. Consequently, the Party refused to “register” its information under the theory that by doing so the Fifth Amendment rights of its members would be violated. In 1965, the Supreme Court agreed.

      The registration of people who have been previously convicted of a sexually-based offense does not violate their right against self-incrimination since that is a right related to possible prosecution and more commonly thought of as a “trial right.” The publication of one’s prior criminal conviction is constitutionally permissible because it’s the disclosure of a public fact. (See https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/01-1231P.ZO)

      • #43161 Reply

        Tim Lawver

        Robin,

        Being a member of a party is not a crime thereby registration has no legitimate safety value. Registering offenders does, at least in theory. Registration forms however indeed act as an agent demanding information. Whether the information demanded IS reasonably related to the goal is very much in doubt. As example: An Amazon gift card is a form of internet identifier. It’s use may technically trigger notification onus upon the registrant and includes an element of interstate commerce.

        Judge Biggs in this case seems troubled as to the exact nature of the complaint. What is it that concretely describes the liberty deprivation experienced? Accuratelycomuccinctly couching the problem proves difficult given the apparent, “at liberty offender” is not under direct scrutiny by actual live state agents. Registrants are free to come and go as they please as long as they report. They are also free to move without reporting but risk felony for doing so. For my money, the most apt framing revolves around the following:
        MACHINE NEED > HUMAN NEED

        SOR REGISTRATION is more accurately indentured servitude to state’s machine. Agents update the machine daily by whatever means necessary. In their minds eye, resistance is futile you must comply. By God with IML, we’ve got gov’t protecting -via notice – foreign nationals. Hmmm to what effect?

        Lastly at no point and time did my state post the actual “notice of conviction” on line. If that were their actual intent? Instead they created an entire internet domain. Slander will be proven. Unfortunately, information on databases are vulnerable to exploitation, as if they did not create the market. Congress didn’t pass ethics rules against insider trading among their own for nothing. Now as then the data use is for sale with FBIs database now unveiled for facial recognition. I know that is why they drug me in 2011, to get me in front of the kiosk they force one to use. The surveillance saints benefit from unfettered use of the database. Computers and databases have made efficiencies yet the size of gov’t grows exponentially as with our debt. One can form their own opinion about NSAs facilities in Saratoga, where Project Angel Watch is housed. https://www.eff.org. BTW did you catch the story on MSN about Orin Hatch letting the cat out of the bag. Is it fake news?
        https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/orrin-hatch-may-have-given-a-clue-about-trump-s-supreme-court-pick/ar-AAzIazl?ocid=AMZN

        Why do the people spend so much time protecting innocents calling wolf whe
        nhttps://www.guttmacher.org/journals/psrh/2014/02/abortion-incidence-and-service-availability-united-states-2011

  • #43144 Reply

    Tom

    I am off the registry thanks to the PA Muniz case. I feel bad for the individuals still on. Any current or new RSO legislation will not have a prayer with the new Supreme Court. The judicial phase of protest for the foreseeable future has(will) be eliminated. Getting elected legislators to repeal these laws also seems an impossible task.

    • #43191 Reply

      Tim

      Tom,

      Very difficult proposition indeed considering the current state of public opinions concerning the sex offender. Bombarded with misinformation the people merely stereotype the group into a one size fits all civil regulatory regime. All to easy for the surveillance saints to capitalize, but there is a reason why the ex post prohibition was installed. Our founders understood some completely innocent men had been convicted and sometimes executed by British & French Aristocracy. Are there any completely innocent men in U.S. prisons and jails today? Damn right there is. Are there innocent on the state registies? What about the FBIs database?

      While this org tends to ask the courts for review and declarations with some good success, see Packingham, I say opting for trial in registration cases is another proactive way to address the issue. No faster way to the court of appeals than this option on the state level. If NARSOL could get behind that sort of approach (opposed running to fed) I would be honored to play the fall guy.

      • #44013 Reply
        Robin Vander Wall
        Robin Vander Wall
        Admin

        Tim, the problem is Connecticut Dep’t of Public Safety v. Doe. How do you get around that elephant? That’s the first case the state’s going to drop. What do you say then? The Supreme Court is wrong? That the public doesn’t have right to know about the outcome of public trials? This seems a strategy that would fall flat very quickly.

        • #44186 Reply

          Timothy D.A. Lawver

          Robin,

          I n Connecticut V Doe the court ruled on process due or not due. Those “similarly situated” were who exactly? Them who waived via plea, knowingly in advance of plea, and were by their own admissions guilty. That waiver does not exist in my case or others similarly situated. This is a fact and so some, “concretely relevant” fact must be at play according to Connecticut V Doe court. Simply put, this is a different question then asked in DOE, because contesting civil action remained an open option right along with direct and indirect appeal for this set of defendants ( presumably). Admittedly there are very few, but a due process win would be BIG!

          The court also placed a path of crumbs to follow. I do nothing more than that.

          You follow? I demanded trial! Know why?
          When a boat from the ivory coast landed in America full of slaves even they were placed upon the block and knowing indentured IN THE PUBLIC SQUARE. Quite different than what happened here as the indentured were made outside of the square and public eye.

          Thank you for asking.

        • #44191 Reply
          Robin Vander Wall
          Robin Vander Wall
          Admin

          Definitely a different question than asked in Doe. The Court in the Connecticut case presumed that all the Due Process necessary to afford a registered citizen had already been provided in his/her trial. The Court disallowed the argument that one should receive additional process before publishing the fact of his/her conviction. This is why the Connecticut case is the most debilitating for our ultimate objective (to confront the fact that state publication is, in and of itself, unconstitutional). That’s a long hill to climb and is going to require a tectonic shift in our cultural underpinnings. Meaning, we’re going to have to see Americans start talking seriously about the European concept of a “right to be forgotten” before we can expect to make much headway. I think we can definitely strive for that. And I believe that it’s a winnable argument. But I don’t believe it’s one we will win in my lifetime. Unfortunately. Americans (as evidenced by our present leaders) are not ready for such a progressive march towards a “more perfect union.”

        • #44287 Reply

          Tim d.a. Lawver

          Robin,

          The court specifically left open door to substantive based claims. I am truly disappointed that no such approach inter alia due process has occured. IMHO, Connecticut V Doe had no business making it that far as evidenced by the 9-0. That the Rehnquist court put it on the agenda makes me very suspicious as it did judge Stevens. I have studied the constitution for some time and have yet to find the word re-deprivation therein! I am astounded the appeals court would insert it into their opinion. Maybe the real reason for GRANTING CERT was a chance for the superior court to admonish the lessor for their extraneous addition of right.

          Ms. Ackerman of MI-ACLU recently warned of such cases in a web caste. I’d post a link but I am sure you listened to it. The moral of the Connecticut DPS v Doe case, if one exists, is this; Do not go complaining to the courts about process – civil or criminal – when it was knowing and intelligently waived.

          Going forward one might ask for what proof I have that those whom waived are treated differently by the courts than those who refused to waive. Here is an example:

          https://www.indystar.com/story/news/2017/10/17/sex-offender-class-prisoners-violates-u-s-constitution-federal-judge-rules/743593001/

          Interests in the link also named and involved the current Vice President of U.S. Mike Pence.
          I also happen to reside in Rock County, WI. HOME of the Current Speaker, Paul Ryan.

  • #43146 Reply

    Jeremy from Indiana

    Within the last year I think, Indiana had a very similar type of law struck down on religious grounds out of Boone County (I think). Three registrants fought and won the right to go to church against a law that tried to ban them due to “children congregating”. This might be effective case law for this case.

    • #43157 Reply

      Barbara Wright

      In response to Tom from Pa., I’m glad the Muniz ruling helped you. You are right that the new Supreme Court will not be friendly to sexual offense reform and relief. That is why we must frame our constitutional challenges in a way that SCOTUS will not grant certiorari to hear the case. One way to do this can be to challenge the state constitution, not the Constitution of the United States. Every case is a little different, and we can continue to win well-framed arguments.

      • #43572 Reply

        Tim

        Barb,
        Attacking registration on state level is an excellent approach!
        Unfortunately, the best way to attack regime is after conviction via direct appeal.

        All this means a bench trial must come first!
        Opting for trial gives you opportunity to introduce evidence as to intent \effects.
        I have done so twice, but it takes sacrifices! I am 1-1.The fact is I can win, because of what I know. Getting others to follow that path is completely uphill.

        I was actually threatened by DA with 980 commitment during pretrial!
        That is how bad he wanted me to plea!

        All registrants have the right to trial but too many plea!

  • #43148 Reply

    aurelius

    Not to steer too far offtopic, but I hope they will do something similar for Michigan’s utter failure to uphold the court’s ruling a few years back, seems they have no regard for their own Justice system.

    also: TAKING 10 MINITES TO SOLVE CAPTCHA JUST TO POST A 15 SECOND REPLY IS RIDICULOUS, DO YOU NOT WANT ANYONE TO POST THEIR OPINIONS OR WHAT?

    • #43156 Reply
      Fred
      Fred
      Admin

      If you are following the recaptcha’s instructions, it will not take ten minutes. It is there to stay. Kindly refrain from using caps like that in future replies. Thank you.

      • #43192 Reply

        Tim

        Fred,

        Does NARSOL suffer bot attacks often?
        What purpose does the CAP serve?
        Why the need?

        • #43202 Reply
          Fred
          Fred
          Admin

          Yes we do suffer bot attacks all the time. They have crashed our site many times. Until we installed this recaptcha, we were weeding out 10 spam comments for every 1 real comment. I am not exaggerating. I hope that answers your question.

        • #43328 Reply

          Tim

          The interface is easy to use, Since it abated the bot attacks, It is a form of recognition of they respect they have for your traffic because it means your getting clicks! Americans must now purchase IDENTITY theft protection. I feel like mine was stolen via SOR. Good job.

  • #43149 Reply

    SW

    Well done! I’m glad we’ve got great representation.

  • #43160 Reply

    R Bishop

    I’m not sure I see much in the way of good news in this article. If I am reading this correctly the original case was killed… right? From that case two or three cases have been filed, starting the average of two to three years of battles with nonsense like requests from the state to dismiss due to the plaintiffs misspelled a word (forgive the sarcasm). I don’t mean to imply the plaintiffs are unable to spell only that the State seems to want to fight dirty to win. What ever happened to the idea that the State are servants of the governed, and are there to protect our rights? Has the original case survived and just been forced to reword and been stretched out even longer?

    I have mixed feeling about forcing the government spend even more tax dollars on cases like these. In my opinion this is a pretty simple case. Does the states have the right to create laws that violate the US Constitutionally protected rights of it’s citizens? Simple answer is No. Case over. It is not a complicated subject.

    Hey NARSOL, you people have taken up a fight that is unpopular and likely been the cause of more than a few bad days. I have seen less brave men in the US Army and most of them are made of some very strong material. Just in case you haven’t heard it today, Thank you for taking up this fight, you are appreciated.

  • #43166 Reply

    Brian

    The likelihood that SCOTUS would grant cert is only 1% and if you look at the last couple cases that went to cert like Michigan and Pennsylvania, cert was denied, Pa kept delaying in order to make a so called fix witch they did come up with a fix but it is still an expostfacto law, it’s still in violation of putting more time on registrants who’s time have long expired and for out of state offenders, they are trying to apply what the person previous state requires for registration for their crime , Pa is finding that this will not work as well because a suit was just won for an out of state citizen who they required to register for life but a judge said no were not letting that happen.
    You can’t just rewrite the law and reapply it and say it’s not punitive when it’s the same law as before but now it has a mask on and they call it something else.

  • #43171 Reply

    Bev

    This is great 3 lawsuits is better than one. I’m so tired of young girls being able to lie and tell there older and then the young guy gets put on some immoral unethical list. Given a title they do not deserve! Humiliation,fear,labeled as something there not makes me sick to my stomach! And of course I like most only thought child predators was the people who was enlisted on the List Titled Sex Offender but, now with the realization that most people on this list is a male that was under age 21 (legal age to consume alcohol) that had dated or been manipulated by a young girl age 14-18 and in a lot of cases these girls lied about there age. But, in the laws eyes this has no bearing on the case. I’m a girl and I know that me and every girl from age 14 up had raging hormones and always wanted to date older guys. Well if you look back how many of our parents and grandparents entered marriage and gave birth at these ages. We are destroying our youth with such a thing as a Sex Registry! How many young boys 21 and under life has been ruined by this Title (Sex Offender) ? Why as a society would we want to destroy there lives. I know why because people are ignorant to what this Sex Registry really consist of this list does nothing to help anyone you can’t stop a drug deal or a murder or a larceny by putting these people on a list just the same as you can’t stop a sex crime by putting someone on a list. It’s like making a grocery list you just know what you want to get when you go to store.

  • #43174 Reply

    Saddles

    All of this seems a bit complex to this simple of rights one wants to seek. I have to appreciate the lawyer for Narsol that is fightening this and I also have to appreciate the opportunity that was given. Right their is one of the key words “opportunity”. Now seeking justice seems one sided but the point is who’s justice are we talking about. Sure the plainiff’s have go the right to speak up. The lawyer is just there to make sure things are fair and truth and honor prevale, course its him against the district Attorney. Court can either turn out to be the battle of the wits or the battle of a cat fight. Plea bargains or deals we dont’ even want to go there as that is a bit satanic.

    Sure Robin’s post is a good update and the opportunity is there to try and rectify the matter as some of these sex offender issues are wrong. Even the whole opportunity is wrong in some of these ordeals. I don’t like to say sex offender or call anyone that. Being caught up in a sex entanglement or ordeal isn’t too bad but an “offender” could be anyone and it doesn’t even have to involve sex. Wasn’t the series “Three’s Company” sort of like ever mans dream fantasy. Come on lets get real on all this.

    I hope everybody learned something from the to catch a predator show on NBC a while back, of how they set those up and than bust them. Sort of tacky and devilish. Is that our justice system today? Now the young girl thats underage and the guy thats over age. well rules are rules and she should be just as guilty as him if one wants to play true justice. Being taken advantage of, well anyone could take advantage of you even in court decisions if you don’t use some principals. I know you all talk about don’t use religon, and lets certainly not use human ethics but how about moral principals in court. Sure some of these sex cases are difficult because they don’t want to use the guidelines written in forgive me for saying this “the bible” So were are the Ten Commandments today. When man wants to justify man’s action they need to look in the mirror first and get the beam out of their own eye.

  • #43352 Reply

    LARRY Evans

    i just wanted to say thank you to Narsol/ the attorney’s/ who have chosen to fight for the thousands to are on the registries around the country, because you can see in every state the machinery in place to continue to manufacture laws to restrict and restrict all of us, but thanks are appreciated for those who fight this fight
    on our behalf. we have to stay in the fight but locally we need to call out the legislature members on their stand with the needs of a whole state the amount of time they spend to concentrate on more Laws regarding
    offenders we should be madder to speakup to their use of us for their election and re-election ehetoric, and every tv news reporter who seems to need to reenforce the word “Convicted ” offender everytime in their report or to Capitalize the word Sex-offender to them the subject of the report can be about anything else but
    the referance becomes about one of them offenders .remember the Congressmen who were caught paying off harassment settlements with taxpayer dollars that should be prosecuted for the harassment and theft of tax payer dollars but they let them retire ( what the HEll ) but that story got dropped quick enough. we all have a voice and justice in america has a double standard ( i dont care what they try to say

  • #43952 Reply

    Glen

    Hi Robin,

    I’m Glen. I’m a registered citizen and I’m new to this site and forum. I’m especially interested in these cases. I currently reside in NC, however my charge occurred 16 years ago in South Carolina. Long story short; I plead guilty to a first offense misdemeanor peeping Tom charge without ever retaining an attorney. I know…it was stupid. I was 32 years old, an honorably discharged Air Force Veteran, and had never been in trouble with the law. I was going through a difficult divorce at the time my wife made the allegation. We later reconciled for a brief time, but ultimately divorced. In any event….16 years later…

    My question is:

    1) Considering the Colorado case out west before the 10 Circuit, what are your thoughts about the potential it will ultimately reach SCOTUS and what likely impact could we reasonably expect should SCOTUS side with Judge Matsch’s decision?

    2) Does the NC case, now that it’s been trimmed down per the judges instruction, simply address religious freedom with regards to where a RSO may go? Or, will it also include other locations that are currently prohibited?

    Thank you for all your efforts.

    Respectfully,

    Glen

  • #43975 Reply

    Glen

    Robin,

    Disregard my second question. I was finally able to find a copy of the ammended complaint last night. It appears to me that most of the points remain. I look forward Thank you.

    • #44012 Reply
      Robin Vander Wall
      Robin Vander Wall
      Admin

      Glen,
      In response to your first question, it’s uncertain. The Colorado District Court decision was an “as applied” ruling that only concerns the named plaintiffs. In addition to that, the record below is exceptionally weak (meaning that the case was not well developed on the facts). NARSOL has filed an amicus brief in that appeal and we are obviously hopeful for a positive outcome, but we are not expecting one. So, IF the state of Colorado’s appeal is successful, then there is a possibility for petition to SCOTUS (as always). But, this may not be the sort of case we would want to put before SCOTUS right now (if even it were possible that SCOTUS granted cert, which is dubious).

      On your second question, our attorney is meeting with clergy in preparation for filing a third lawsuit in NC dealing specifically with the language of the premises statute which effectively bars church attendance by registered citizens. That case should be a “no brainer” especially since the plaintiffs will be pastors rather than registered citizens and the NC Constitution is explicit about the right of people to fully participate in the religious practices of their faiths.

      • #44033 Reply

        Glen

        Thank you for your response Robin, and all of your efforts.

        Wow, that’s an interesting and unique approach; and one I had not considered. So….taking the idea deeper…Having Pastors also listed as the plaintiff, opens up the idea that their (The Pastors) religious rights may also be hindered by the government because the current law against offenders also greatly affects a Pastors ability to exercise their freedom of religion? In other words, the current law prevents a pastor from reaching a segment of society, that their beliefs would require them to reach out to? Am I understanding that correctly?

        If so, I think that’s a unique, and great argument to make.

      • #44727 Reply

        Tim L

        Not an attack upon the Mormon ⛪gowers I presume?
        Just wondering if denomination is an issue in this case?
        Can we imagine a law outlawing religious ceremony, but not the religion itself?
        Is there a list of plaintiffs or is it a DOE case?

  • #44493 Reply

    Jerry

    Just need some help understanding this.

    Moreover, under Plaintiffs’ “whole law” theory, John Does 1 and 2 do not have
    standing to pursue an ex post facto claim because the “whole law” is not retroactive to
    them. See Defendant’s Memorandum ECF #16 at 12-13. Retroactivity is required for an
    ex post facto challenge, see ECF #16 at 7, and Plaintiffs’ “whole law” theory is not
    sustainable. Based on the face of the Complaint, only the 2016 amendments to N.C.G.S.
    §14-208.18(a)(2) and (3), which post-date the Does’ conviction dates of 2009 and 2011,
    would be retroactive.

    Does this mean the state has good ground to ask for this to be dismissed? Seems like it would have been a great idea to have at least one of the plaintiffs to have been on the registry during all the amendment’s from 2006, 2008, 2009, and 2016.

    • #44728 Reply

      Tim L

      Jerry,

      Whole law presumes the ORIGINAL ACT OF CONGRESS is in question, lawyers call it a facial challenge. On its face means “as written”.
      That requires & limits the inspection by the court to that and only that (words from the beginning) of the coded law. Facial ex post challenges require the defense to attack the root of the regime and not the middle ( amendments). It also permits congressional material like committee minutes, floor speeches, etc.

      The failed because they attacked the middle. A common error among pro se suits.

      Hope this helps.

      • #48021 Reply

        Joseph Park

        All is not lost, my friends. The case to watch is Bethea vs. North Carolina. It is the ex post facto case to end all this bullshit about Regulatory vs Punitive, and it is up for Cert as we speak. If there’s any justice in the world this case will be won by Bethea and life as we know it will be forever changed for the better. Here’s a link where you can watch its progress through the Cert process:

        Bethea v. North Carolina

        Read the amicus brief submitted by the Cato Institute and you will see that there is every reason to be optimistic about this case.

        • #48241 Reply

          Joseph Park

          Bethea v North Carolina: DISTRIBUTED for Conference November 9, 2018. If all goes well for Bethea, Cert could be granted the following week. Cross your fingers…

Reply To: NARSOL streamlines original lawsuit; NCRSOL files new lawsuit
We welcome a lively discussion with all view points provided that they stay on topic - keeping in mind...

  • *You must check the "I am not a robot" box and follow the recaptcha instructions.
  • *Your submission must be approved by a NARSOL moderator.
  • *Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • *Excessively long replies will be rejected, without explanation.
  • *Be polite and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • *Do not post in ALL CAPS.
  • *Stay on topic.
  • *Do not post links or email addresses..
  • *Please enter a name that does not contain links to other websites.
Your information:





<a href="" title="" rel="" target=""> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <pre> <em> <strong> <del datetime=""> <ul> <ol start=""> <li> <img src="" border="" alt="" height="" width="">