- This topic has 0 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 2 weeks, 1 day ago by admin.
April 2, 2021 at 10:38 am #82603
By Patty Dexter . . . The city of Apple Valley has agreed to settle a class action federal lawsuit filed in 2020 that challenges the constitutionality
[See the full post at: Residency restrictions lawsuit settled in favor of three registrants]
April 3, 2021 at 5:55 am #82621
Tim in WI
“…does not resemble incarceration….” (Smith v Alaska, 2003)
What part of residence restrictions doesn’t keep a person out of the environment, be it a neighborhood, township, commonwealth, burrough, or city. Affirmative restraint in intent therefore proven even when weighting public interest in public notification. No honest person could imagine a time when an Attorneys Genera,l or King George for that matter, wouldn’t always insist ” the necessities ” when including the already criminally disposed?
In fact every bill or edict ever authored by anyone in the history of mankind have such proponent authorities insisted upon “the good and necessities ” of bill proposed! Which politician or third party would publicly admit to authoring a law NOT in the public intere?
Therefore we may not rely on any notion of “need” when confronted with easily identified prohibited use of language in codified statute that applies to findings of criminal guilt as a prerequisite for both inclusions ( kept on property~jail) AND precautions ( residency restrictions). Janice over at ACSOL has made many a case to the same facts, I’ve stated here, but she’s in CA. Others have made headway in other states too. Wisconsin local jurisdictions too has been confronted with state law supremacy, but that doesn’t change the fact that residency restrictions of the sort were unimaginable before the advent of the internet. No way could any such conflicts would have occurred without the advent of the registration regime and worldwide broadcast. Proof the database can be used to impose affirmative restraint.
April 4, 2021 at 6:02 am #82638
i dont think most slaves could live any where they wanted either. so good thing the city conceded the obvious here for they may have faced a more serious compounded problem.