NARSOL files amicus brief in Ninth Circuit case

Viewing 6 reply threads
  • Author
    • #38704 Reply
      Sandy Rozek
      Sandy Rozek

      Innocent until proven guilty is one of our most cherished constitutional protections. Laws in Arizona have demolished that protection for those accuse
      [See the full post at: NARSOL files amicus brief in Ninth Circuit case]

    • #38713 Reply

      I don’t care what the crime is or how heinous it may be. The foundational underpinning of American jurisprudence from the birth of this great democratic republic is the idea that a man is innocent until proven guilty. That should apply across the board regardless of how heinous an alleged crime may be.

      If this conviction is reinstated, it shows that even the courts are infected with what should be by any standard an impermissible bias. The burden of proof for a sex offense or any other crime should never be simply the pointing of a finger and the voicing of an accusation.

      Sex offense convictions are the hot order of the day and any prosecutor with blind, mindless ambition can often get unilateral slam-dunks with sex offense cases, especially ones that involve teens or young children.

      I hope the 9th Circuit upholds the overturning of this conviction. No doubt the state will appeal to the SCOTUS if the accused wins. Hopefully SCOTUS will uphold “innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt”. If they do not then we need a whole new set of justices that aren’t weak-kneed yes men in the face of a politically popular witch hunt.

      • #38749 Reply
        Paul A Cain

        Look the facts are simple, child molestation is a horrific crime and there are men who have done some really horrible things. My issue is that as a convicted sex offender I am linked to these monsters and there is nothing I can do to change that. My po believes I am a danger to every man woman and child. I try to earn a living and companies fear the bad publicity as well as liability. My crime does not involve the internet but I am forbidden to use it. My crime involved a seventeen year old. I work exclusively with the elderly but yet I still pose a threat to them. (I am referred by word of mouth only) I cannot travel out of the county. As strict as these restrictions are they mean nothing if I can’t get out of prison. There are men sitting in prison simply because they have no suitable housing to people to. Address the housing situation then we can deal with everything else.

        • #38755 Reply

          Are the retrictions you mentioned; forbidden to use the internet and forbidden to leave the county, terms of your probation or parole? Or are they registry retrictions?

    • #38714 Reply

      Its all about the FREE money in grants the states get. They will never give that up w/o a fight!!!

    • #38726 Reply

      You’re referring to Berne Law Enforcement Grants. Some states opted out of complying with the Adam Walsh Act because the cost of coming into compliance would cost more than would be lost in Berne Law Enforcement Grants.

    • #39428 Reply
      Tom gilardoni

      Good day,

      I believe you should look at arizona HB2300 (central registry) that was recently voted down. It simply wished to revised a single line which stated that, pending acceptance or majority vote. That a decision of unsubstantiation by an Adlaw judge or higher court, cannot be overturned by any outside party, i.e., the dcs directors committee. Due to a no vote to revise, dcs still retains the right to ignore a not guilty decision and still enter the innocent into the registry….regardless.

      The law as its currently written denies due process in itself and makes the option to appeal or to defend, meaningless.

      How can this be law?

      Thank you and look forward to your thoughts.


    • #39635 Reply
      Seti IIII

      If some would care to offer feedback on my inquiry/comment, I would sure appreciate it. We all know the case case that basically started it all—the rape and murder of that poor little girl Megan Kanka in NJ by that sick F%$k Jesse Timmenduqa [sic]. Anyway, it occurred to me that if these laws are stem from this particular crime: Questions: 1) if it was this guy who did this then why are everyone else being subject to Megan’s law? I did not violate Megan, this guy Timmenduqa did so 2) why am I [and every body else not connected to this crime] being made to pay for this guy’s crime? 3) Shouldn’t all this hatred be directed toward him? 3) Why should anyone be punished for something they had nothing to do with? 4) should you only be subject to the punishment of the crime you committed it and at the time you committed it? I’m just saying. For me, my crime came a full decade BEFORE this terrible crime occurred—so why reach back and punish me? Any answers out there? I would welcome any answer(s) from NARSOL too. Thanks

      • #39896 Reply

        Here’s my best answer to your question:

        Because there has not been a case make it to the Supreme Court or past the Supreme Court where the retroactive application of the S.O.R. has been ruled a violation of the ex post facto clause. Until the S.O.R.’s retroactive application is overturned on ex post facto grounds by the Supreme Court, there will be no authoritative ruling to force the hand of those who support, write, and enforce the S.O.R. All the lower court rulings present what is referred to as a CONVINCING ARGUMENT, while U.S. Supreme Court rulings are referred to as AUTHORITATIVE. Judges can totally ignore CONVINCING RULINGS, but must rule in harmony with AUTHORITATIVE RULINGS.

    • #40539 Reply
      James Coghill

      WC_TN is on target. In order to prevail on the ex-post facto issue you have to get a ruling from the US Supreme Court. Good luck getting there because the lower courts are experts at adjusting their rulings to prevent people from being heard in the highest court of the land. They did in my case. The 9th Circuit ruled that I filed my habeas corpus untimely, completely disregarding the fact that prior to filing I was granted 30 days to file by 3 other judges in my motion to reconsider and I still had 17 days left to file when my habeas corpus was filed. Numerous registered letters, motions and a letter to Justice Kozinski asking for information were totally ignored. Not only is Justice blind she’s deaf too. God I want out of this chicken **** country!

Viewing 6 reply threads
Reply To: NARSOL files amicus brief in Ninth Circuit case
We welcome a lively discussion with all view points provided that they stay on topic - keeping in mind...

  • *You must be 18 or older to comment.
  • *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.
  • *Comments arguing about political or religious preferences will be deleted.
  • *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 contact information for yourself or another person.
  • *Please enter a name that does not contain links to other websites.

Your information:

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