Reply To: Supreme Court: Definition of “crime of violence” unconstitutionally vague

#39213
Avatar
Tim

Nancy,
It is God’s work that you, a person of reason, realizes the onerous nature of states use or words. State cements for all-time a cover upon your boy from which other citizens will use to disqualify him from opportunity! Clearly a violation of the natural law & Liberty. In short, unstomachable! Here is why.
1) States position presumes humans do not learn.
2) States definition of “normal human sexual behavior” is ambiguous and ungrounded in fact. Therefore, “deviant human sexual behavior” is as well.
(See, Cultural texts)
3) The f***my Federal government has no business in the day to day lives of freemen. Separation of powers.
4) Making felons out of those who are not is occurring in a measurable way.
5) Forging felons from those not proven to present a threat greater than the average citizen to life of other citizens has no utility for safety. It’s busi-work. Ask any registrant answering questions from THE FBI because they happen to live near a kid whom is missing or presumed abducted.

Lastly ma’am tell your people to be very aware of their use of the internet. One should be free to refrain from its use. Data collected by both public and private parties including corporations is being exploited. FB currently denies its accessibility to registrants yet gathers information identifying them. This is reflective of states and people’s intent to impose restriction and\or affirmative disability. Without SORNA no such could be imposed.

This is important because we have proof of unlawful collusion between the FED and Big Data to impose disability to individual free speech. No such could exist without unfettered use of a database that was provided under SmithVDoe.

IF A STATE CAN INDENTURE A CITIZEN TO THE MAINTENANCE OF A DATABASE
then a state can do just about anything with it. Thank you Mr. Roberts.