- This topic has 10 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 10 months, 4 weeks ago by CP@TX.
August 1, 2019 at 12:23 pm #58686
By Sandy . . . On July 31, a district court in North Carolina ruled that a suit brought against the state, a suit challenging the constitutionality of
[See the full post at: NARSOL, NC suit given okay to move forward]
August 2, 2019 at 11:07 am #58697
Somebody owes the good judge an appology. Clearly her delays were not in vain for Plaintiffs.
I still find it hard to accept ” stated legislative intent” inoculated congressional ” choices” use of certain ex post wording in statutes that begin ” A person who was in prison for…a crime” in constitutional judicial interpretation.
It seems to me illogical to grant deference first to congressional regulatory intent when faced with statute obviously worded that way by volition. Prohibition was ratified upon ex post punishment precisely because King George (and many authoritarian tyrants) had a penchant for doing it thereby disturbing settled agreements, assessment or claims. The result manifest unfairness.- Langraff, Hudson
IMHO once the words ” was in prison for a crime” are intentionally written into an Act the burden of proof of non punitive intent must fall in the lap of those advancing the bill as a legitimate public interest.
To presume the use of ” was in prison for a crime” by Congress is owed “considerable deference” defies the underlying legit public’s interest in not adding punishments as ordained in the prohibition in Art 1, sec. 10 , cl.1 itself.
August 2, 2019 at 11:07 am #58693
Awesome!!! So what happens next?
August 2, 2019 at 4:35 pm #58713
What’s next ? Same path as the state of Michigan. Federal judicial power has severe limitation. Congress is responsible for making or ummaking (repealing) law. I believe we may see a Writ of Mandamus.
August 2, 2019 at 11:07 am #58696
I just read the order, and I am impressed with the job of all involved on the plaintiff side in this case convincing the judge to deny the defendant’s motion to dismiss.
The judge shot down every argument by the state as to why the case should be dismissed.
I pray that the success continues in this case.
August 2, 2019 at 4:35 pm #58709
There is something beautiful about a judge following the constitution to the letter and reading it in an opinion.
August 3, 2019 at 3:19 pm #58718
There are two good things any good lawyer wants to address in a court of law in many of these ordeals and I think Robin and these lawyers know that. In a lot of these internet sex ordeal and other ordeals there is the burden of truth and the burden of proof. In the burden of proof the facts at times tend to overide the means. Sure one’s mouth can get one in a lot of trouble but still the burden is there. This expo facto law is a game changer but only should apply to criminal, so whats civil about it.
One’s burden of proof should be the game change or are we are all created equal in different respects. Burden of proof could mean we are all sinners which we all inheritted. So do two sins make up the burden of truth or who lie’s on the wittness stand today. Burden of truth is a monoply type play on the conscience or do the ends actually justify the means? One wonders if we still have kangeroo courts today. Sure injustice anywhere is injustice everwhere. It is no different in sex offender laws. One should also understand the enticing factor. Sure I am glad NARSOL was given the Ok to proceed.
While man wants to wrestle with flesh and blood and use their principals to overthrow others in many of these internet sex of ordeals that are orchestrated by many law enforcements today, it just seems that if a judge only listens to the facts from a DA, in a plea deal, they miss the truth as to Why. Where is the reasoning in all this. While our president said “It takes two to tango” being fair in a true court of justice is what a court of law is all about.
Shameful, justice is not what Chief Justice John Marshall was about One wonders why he was the longest serving Justice in the land at that time. Even morals don’t seem to hold Justice today in a lot of this sex offender ordeal and facts are more of a unjustifable cause of indentured intent to harm who .If a lot of these ordeals prevent or protect than who are they protecting in this pretend senerio. Sure public safety is good but the ends don’t justify the means.
Something doesn’t sound right in this double standard. I would hope a lot of this sex entanglement is not some Catcher in the Rye. Where is the sympathy in this depressing tactic of man overcoming others with this inducement.
Sure nobody liked the novel and it was banned for a while, call it rasist or discriminatory but it does have meaning and so does standing up for justice and truth. While courtroom opinions vary to a we fine you guilty, who is the guilty party. To be honest when one is presented with an I want you to talk dirty to me story. One can either be induced or seduced or should we put the blame on mame.
Is the who, what, when, where, and why concept missing something in this sexual scandle of blantent protection of inverse reasoning. We all have a right for true justice.
August 5, 2019 at 1:00 am #58738
Game changer! That is the perfect description of the electronic database’s impact upon and to societal norms. For political party security the advantages are many. SOR is but one use, but the first used to work anti-liberty. So yes, history will continue to be made concerning their use in that vein. To date we’ve seen Carr, Williamson, Packingham, Grundy, Grady, Snyder, and yet the benevolent saints cling desperately to it.
When SCOTUS upheld the words ” was in prison for” used by congress, and did it openly the people inherently knew the constitution was ignored Again! Essentially blatantly tossing the courts credible authority out with the bathwater. While many applauded they also still knew in their hearts that their leadership does not follow their own virtues. I will be explain all this to a jury and right soon.
August 4, 2019 at 11:17 am #58736
What is the exact times for the NARSOL pod cast and the magazine.
August 6, 2019 at 9:48 pm #58788
A NC John Doe
Thank you so much for all of your hard work to this cause! Oh God, please let there come an end to this madness in our legal system. I’m a father of two and a husband. I’m a good man that made a mistake in 2003 and here I am, almost twenty years later, I’m told that I cannot attend my son’s kindergarten graduation for a choice I made when I was 20, in 2003! I was barely more than a child myself! I’ve been married for fifteen years. I wish that I could do more to help, but I’m so afraid to speak up and do something to loose what little rights I do still have. I’m so proud and grateful for all of you that are trying to help.
August 11, 2019 at 10:43 pm #58917
Excellent ruling by this court; however, I believe just as in “Synder”, and “Muniz”, that this case will won at the lower federal court; and thereafter, the state will appeal (Cert) the decision to SCOTUS who, just as in Synder and Muniz, will deny the appeal leaving, once again all other states to file separate applications/law suits attacking their particular state registration laws. Whereas in my opinion, SCOTUS should quit being cowards, go ahead and address these issues (ex post facto, due process) once and for all and then strike down ‘ALL’ registration laws nationwide. Also, a question I have about a registry is this, if people are just hell bent on being able to have access to a data base of this type, why aren’t they clamming for a data base with ALL criminal classes on it? A murderer’s registry, a burglar’s registry, a robber’s registry and so on and so forth. Why single out this one class of crime? Aren’t all criminals dangerous?