- This topic has 14 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 1 year, 3 months ago by TS Rohnevarg.
June 5, 2019 at 10:00 am #56438
By Peter J. Wallison . . . Gundy v. United States is not listed in most media accounts of important matters now before the Supreme Court, yet this cas
[See the full post at: The importance of Gundy v. U.S.]
June 5, 2019 at 10:51 am #56439
Why is that sex offenders are preyed upon so heavily? I know of no other crimes that have continuous punishments and extra rules, stipulations and added laws after the fact. How is any of this even legal? I am so angry with all of this vigilante craziness. Now they’re trying to pass a law in Alabama for castration as an added bonus for release from prison. All of this is so sickening.
June 8, 2019 at 8:09 pm #56564
One of the primary reasons for the ubiquitous hate of sex offenders is the media. Also, years ago the lies perpetrated upon the courts with skewed sex crime statistics as well as Congress of the “frighteningly high” sex crime rates. The states have written sex offender registry laws based upon a “CONCLUSIVE PRESUMPTION” and deny them virtually almost all due process rights that ALL sex offender CANNOT be trusted. In effect, So, if a person has committed a sex crime or crimes, he/she will continue in that behavior as the state and federal governments see it – if not in the present, then in the future…. Further, sex offenders are easy targets for society, and the governments therefore, sex offenders are a ‘POLITICALLY UNCONTESTED” group and inherent to suspect criminal activities. This is the gist of it…. Except for a few small groups, such as NARSOL, how many other people do you see, read or hear coming to the defense and aid of a sex offender(s)?
June 5, 2019 at 5:20 pm #56449
The Substantive claim mentioned but not weighed in Connecticut DPS is actually the same claim. Those very few registrants, without plea waivers, and predating the Wetterling Act from 94, suffered a conflict of law. Those individuals were not given opportunity the constitution provides, state statutes promulgate those opportunities in black and white in trail & appeal codes. SCOTUS erred catastrophically and exacerbated the natural tendency of every administrator to act in capricious means that promote popular support but not the rule of law in the DOEs. To me it is as if some are purposefully dismantling constitutional protections.
June 8, 2019 at 6:03 pm #56558
Fact of FTR,
Like many ex post folks ( wetterling) in the system have JUDGMENTS that defy in black and white a LIFE TERM.
However state’s AGs upon instruction from FED AG Janet Reno promulgated the ” new factor” known as SOR. (See Omnibus94). The act had ” special instructions” not directly outlined upon passage. Therefore the criminal electronic database were bui!t ( coalated) with the already convicted. The initial stages database was completely without ALL BRANCHES apporoval.
The Fed AT alone was permitted to overthrow settled STATE judgment ( RES JUDICATA) 92 SCOTUS majority looked the other way.(97- 2003)
1. Determined I was to be on the list( w\o defense)
2. Has convicted me for not abiding. 2-1
3 NOW attempts to set ” registration compliance ” as a condition of bond!(1K, signature). I merely wrote “5th” along side the condition. I asked the courts commissioner for a contact ban on DOC. He claimed no authority, yet I’d seen him Grant it to the depAG, in two normal domestic violence cases not registry in the previous case.
All because an abhorrent ex post facto law was enacted 301.451g(b).WISTAT.
June 10, 2019 at 8:05 am #56601
While my hope is Gundy will (And should) prevail, I’m nearly certain he will not. Upon listening to the oral arguments, I found Justice Breyers comments very concerning. He basicly stated concern for ruling for Gundy could swamp the courts with cases having similar grounds. In addition, it was stated the concern that thousands of offenders might escape SORNA.
Seems to me the concern the judges should concern themselves with the constitutionality of the laws rather than the effects of enforcing the constitution. That is the primary function of the Supreme Court.
In any event, I expect a relatively close….but ultimately disappointing ruling with regards to Gundy. I do hope I’m wrong.
June 11, 2019 at 10:10 am #56663
Most of the added court traffic is due to congressional choices ALL 51 to embrace ex post language in law construction. The founders ratified the amendment prohibiting ex post law in criminal context Art 1 for several reasons most of which had to do with fairness and efficacy in settled claims. Langraff is the case that outlined the rational.
June 11, 2019 at 10:22 pm #56673
Ernest B Tucker
I don’t know if the moderator will pass this, but I am submitting it anyway.
Follow the bouncing buck folks. The prosecutors budget is based on the number of convictions obtained. The courts budget is based on the number of cases handled , and the BOPs budget is based on the number of beds that are filled. The budget for the parole or probation office is based on the number of parolees or those on probation.
The more people that are under the control of the government justifies more money from the Congressional budget.
The registry is another way of justifying money to administer this program. The more people, the more money.
If you notice, SORNA was mandated by the Federal Government, but is administered by the individual states. The more people affected the more money required.
The Federal Government coerced the states into enacting these laws by threatening to withhold federal funding if they didn’t. So with that the 10th amendment went right out the window.
If the financial factors could be removed from the equation then a good many of these ridiculous laws would be done away with.
So once again I say, follow the bouncing buck.
We are slaves to the government prison industry.
President Eisenhower stated that we needed to beware of the military industrial complex. I will say that we need to beware the prison industry.
June 18, 2019 at 7:24 pm #56952
Ryan J Layne
Gundy is such a huge case for the pre 2006 offenders. I am one and feel for the rest of people that are not pedophile or sexually violent that have had our liberties stomped on for the past 13 years by the USA. Sorna being placed on pre act offenders that were not charged as sexually violent or habitual offenders completely violates our constitution rights. I was sentenced as a youthful offender in 1997 for indecent assault. I was 18 and sex was consensual. What Sorna has turned into in 2019 and how it has continually added more and more restrictions every year is disgusting.
I have full custody of my 3 daughters and just last year I was told I could no longer go onto there school grounds for parent conference or to see a show without a chaperone. I have taken them to Disney and other parks many times but I know it’s a possibility I can be turned away. No more cruises. Many countries I know I can not travel too because of the new international sorna.
Basically this happening ex post facto is a violation of my constitutional rights. I never agreed or was sentenced to any of this. I am not nor ever was sexual deviant or violent in anyway. Yet any offense as minor or stupid and you are just considered a sex offender. For life with no due process.
Praying this changes…
June 20, 2019 at 2:13 pm #56994
Look forward to NARSOL’s take of the published opinion from today on the 5-3 affirmation of the lower court ruling of this case.
July 10, 2019 at 6:55 am #57905
Hello, hopefully you can answer my question, When and during the entire process of making laws from beginning to enactment do they have to have facts and evidence for the need to enact the laws. What i mean is to have said facts and evidence in hand or is all they have to do just state why they need these laws and if all involved agree then said law is enacted?
July 31, 2019 at 11:32 pm #58658
What is the legal reasoning for the decision being made against gunny?
September 23, 2019 at 11:06 am #60026
And NARSOL goes 100% silent on the topic…
October 14, 2019 at 6:59 am #60677
What this legal mess does is by blanket action against them, those directly affected must fight as if to the death from inside prison to regain the freedom that has been taken away from them under the color of law. And then what the courts will do is grant relief only in certain specialized cases, but they will do it in unpublished opinions that can’t be used to benefit anyone else. Because nothing gets decided that applies to similar cases under stare decisis it forces higher courts to decide matters that could have been decided years earlier if only the lower courts were actually fair and did their jobs the way they were supposed to. This is what the courts do. As example I monitor every appellate decision out of Arizona. This year there has only been one published opinion in an Arizona criminal case. Trust me I’ve been there, the lower courts are not that fair and not that good.
January 6, 2020 at 5:58 pm #66946
Great Case! Although, in the short term not favorable for the petitioner, the court, via Alito, was unequivocal that they would rule to the contrary should an appropriate case be presented. In short, they were begging to overturn Chevron deference and the whole swampy administrative state. A HUGE victory waiting to happen, perhaps the biggest of the century. Stay tuned.