- This topic has 3 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 2 years, 7 months ago by Timothy DA Lawver.
September 20, 2018 at 8:32 am #46727
By Larry . . . This is a rather fascinating situation because it illustrates the chaos that can occur when two different courts interpret the same sta
[See the full post at: Nebraska Supreme Court rules adjudicated juveniles must register]
September 20, 2018 at 10:23 am #46732
This case simply illustrates the byzantine nature of sex offense and registration laws in the United States. When the Congress initiated registration, it left the details to the states, which have widely varying and conflicting requirements. It is nearly impossible for a registered citizen (RC) to understand all, potentially painful, nuances. Apparently even the courts can’t agree. How could an RC be expected to? This is the only genre of crime I am aware of where a citizen’s mere presence can lead to criminal liability.
An RC’s only viable options are to hunker down and never travel, or to preemptively register wherever one goes. Either option represents an undue burden on the RC. I wonder if there is not some legal principle, akin to “void for vagueness” or an “as applied” argument, that could be used as the basis for a class action lawsuit against the government; the stated intent of which would be to homogenize registration laws across the country,
I realize the ultimate goal is to eliminate registration, and that this would only be an incremental step. However, such a lawsuit would raise the issue’s profile, and stimulate public awareness. This would be a vehicle with which to undo ignorance of many issues involving sex offenses.
Any lawyers out there with creative ideas?
September 21, 2018 at 9:31 am #46756
Timothy DA Lawver
The plain electronic indenturing regime is a state right recognized in the Doe cases. Alaska tho was used by Mr. Roberts in ex post review and test in Smith V , was in fact immediately rejected by Alaska’s own Supreme Court itself namely portions of the Wetterling act in OMINBUS94 and passed initially at state level. He used creative consolidation of the cases, Alaska’s case was deceptively unique from the other 49! He has to go.
If a state can indenture man to machine’s upkeep a vastly more powerful FED can go how far?? Far enough to eavesdrop on your emails, gather metadata, and maintain two party security. Private firms truly free ride the market, and are the bigger problem.
Schmeeeer! schmeeeeer! schmeeer! said the corporal, what merry men are weee?
The courts follow their leadership by definition. To impede states USE OF A DATABASE impacts the federal Surveillance Saints. We will all be heading more about that soon. Prepare for DON2.0.
Two years and counting in Michigan. Opt for trial.
September 21, 2018 at 9:31 am #46757
Timothy DA Lawver
@the bench was used to redefine marriage! FUBAR!