Reply To: “Sex offenders should be shot”

Tim lawver

Did you note J.P. Stevens position in the analysis? For me the question is: Is an email address “a key to the locked box” or “the combination to a wall safe.”
Given the WIDOCSOR expressed no intention to use the demanded email addresses to communicate with registrants, then begs another question? If not to communicate…. what purpose or use is derived from informing them of it? State wants to know but for what purpose? There’s only a dark answer.

Wisconsin registration form demand specifically Facebook account information. On the stand I put the following line to state’s Agent.
Me: Agent, look at the reg. form in front of you (def.2b). The SOR form demands info concerning any F.B. Accounts I have correct?
Agent: Yes
Me: Agent are you aware that Facebook TOS prohibits or bans sex offenders from having an account on FB?
Agent: Yes I know that is true.
Me: So agent you already know sex offenders cannot have FB account?
Agent: Yes I know their TOS prohibits it.
Me: Agent can you tell the Jury panel why State is demanding from me information about FB accounts that State already knows I cannot possibly provide?
Agent: I’m uncertain. I did not make the form up, I just mail them out.
Me: Agent do you understand I’m under felony indictment, right here now, for failing to provide information and that I’m possibility facing up to six years of prison and a fine…. for not providing what the state demands…?(DA objects to line, judge let’s me continue)
Agent: Well yes. but you could have left that part blank and mailed it back.

See what I mean d, opt for trial!