Regulatory Laws on Personal Statutes

Regulatory Laws are known as Administrative Laws.

Statutory Laws are laws established by an act of Legislature.

The most interesting form of statutes are those called Personal Statutes.

A personal statute is something that one is assumed to "carry with him wherever he goes." Being a sex offender creates that personal statute. Sex offenders are told where they can live, who gets to know their personal business, if they can congregate, and if they have any rights. These statutes are all based off of a crime committed.

Sex Offender Laws are also considered "regulatory" in Smith v. Doe. The argument here was that the statutes were not illegal because they were "regulatory" and not "punitive." They merely wanted (their intent) to control the sex offenders and not punish them. Punishing them would have been Double Jeopardy. But, regulating their lives wasn't considered to be punishment. If they broke from the statute, then they were brought up on new charges.

The punishment only comes from the deviation from the regulation, and not from the regulation itself.

But, there is a problem with their thinking. Putting a personal statute on someone based on their criminal history creates a Bill of Pains and Penalties. Not only that, but the Supreme Court ruled that "...the constitutional prohibition may not be evaded by giving a civil form to a measure that is essentially criminal."

Creating a "regulatory" statute that has a punitive effect (even if the intent is to merely regulate) based off of a crime committed is wholly unconstitutional. Creating a regulation of a "personal statute" nature creates a "cruel and unusual" punishment aspect, as well as violating Double Jeopardy issues.

Sex Offender Laws, whether seen as Regulatory or Punitive, are still Unconstitutional.

And there are other Registries being made every day off of the success of the Sex Offender Registry.

Time Served. Or Is It?

Time Served. Or Is It?

Recently, I was reading an article titled "Paying a Debt to Society - Then What?" and couldn't help but wonder about the difference between Michael Vick and a sex offender.

Vick was convicted of a crime that touches peoples hearts and minds. So do sex offenses.

Michael Vick was making upwards of 100 million dollars a year. Now, he's pushed into bankruptcy, and making $10 an hour.

But, because he has undeniable talent at the game of football, people are talking about rethinking his ban. They might let him play again.

They (the people) are using the philosophy of "If you server your time and pay your debt to society, then you can rejoin us."

But, that philosophy is only used at select times.

What about the talents of the people that have paid their debt to society, served their time, but can no longer be let back into what they were doing.

Here are two people whom prove my point (names have been changed):

Joe was an IT Tech for about 20 years. He was making over $100,000 a year. He moves to another state, and is forced to register in the public's eye for a crime he had committed back in 1989. Now, he can't pay his bills, and is in forclosure. He can't get ANY job that utilizes his skill sets.

Jim was a highly successful businessman. He had 2 entire floors in a highrise in downtown for his financial services company. After his ordeal was made public, he had to give up both floors, and fire his entire staff. He went from ungodly amount of money each year to making barely enough to live off of.

But, these two men will not be given the same courtesy that Michael Vick was.

The question is, "If a person serves their time, pays their debts, and live a good life, WHEN is enough enough?"

Video of the March 10th 2009 AWA Committee Meeting

As An Offender

I found this while going through my old files. I'm not sure who the author is, but I felt it worth of a post...

As An Offender

My crime, though not a child rapist/murderer, has landed me on the Sex Offender Registry. Throughout the process of my court trials, I attempted to maintain my integrity and the other views instilled in me as a child. Never once did I deny my crime. Never once did I shirk my responsibility to my victim.

Treatment was ordered, as well as a few other things. In my treatment, I learned about something called the "Abuse Cycle." It taught me to recognize what situations and feelings "triggered" me into my cycle. It also taught me the different stages of the cycle. As I gained a greater understanding of myself, I was soon taught about a Relapse Prevention Plan. This teaches you how to use a support network to keep yourself out of those situations that raise your risk to reoffend.

After gaining a strong understanding of that and a good time worth of demonstrating it, my treatment provider felt I was ready to venture back into society.

Boy what a rude awakening I had coming to me. The skills that I had learned as a young man prior to my incarceration were no longer good enough to get me a job.

My real barrier: The Sex Offender Registry. No one wanted to hire me. Finally, I found some jobs that were under the table. I was able to scrape up enough money get get a small hole in the wall apartment. I was also able to find a cheap car that I could drive around in. But that life that seemed to come so easy to others, was far beyond my grasp.

Eventually, people started to find out who I was as the Registry Laws changed. Even though my conviction was prior to these new laws, they were deemed "regulatory" and therefore acceptable by the Courts.

As more and more people saw my face on the Registry, my ability to find work stopped all together. I was kicked out of the apartment I had been living in trouble free for 4 years. Threats were made against me as I held my head down while walking the streets. I even had someone come across the street and threaten to hit me with a large stick as I was walking from a job interview. And using my relapse prevention plan was getting harder to do as my support network was drying up.

After a while, I discovered what was wrong with this picture.

I learned that there was an acceptable amount of harassment proscribed to me by the general public.

Knowing my responsibility for my crime, and the responsibility to my victim to never attempted to diminish my guilt for my crime.

So I learned to:

• Duck my head when confronted
• Walk on the other side of the street (no matter which side that had to be)
• Learn to keep myself from any situation that I might be accused of something
• Stay to myself
• Take the harassment and abuse of those who didn't know my crime

But, what I also realized was what I had not given up when I was sentenced:

• The right to live
• The right to breathe
• The right to warmth
• The right to see
• The right to think
• The right to question
• The right to be around friends
• The right to believe in God
• The right to property
• The right to defend my home
• The right to be heard in Court
• The right to be Innocent until proven Guilty
• The right to seek forgiveness

I learned that in our Constitution, All Men were Created Equal. If you committed a crime, even a heinous one like a sex offense, you were still free when your sentence was up. I learned of a word called Liberty.

Liberty taught me to hold my head up as I walked down the street. Liberty taught me to look people in the eyes. Liberty taught me that I am not an animal!

As I write my thoughts down, I humbly pray that anyone who may read this later, will think. Sex Offenders, albeit the "scum of the Earth" in the eyes of the public, still have rights within the Constitution.

The Courts may try to take that away, but everything comes full circle. One day, people will see that the laws are becoming increasingly more "punitive." One day, someone will stand up and make a difference. I hope I'm around to see that day.

I hope I don't end up like some of the offenders on the Registry, dead!

May God speed this to those that can use it for good. May God have mercy on my Soul.

Amen.

Recreating Segregation

"We hold these truths to be self-evident..."

Self Evident: evident in itself without proof or demonstration; axiomatic

"...that all men are created equal..."

All men: regardless of origin, faith, political alignment, age, race, sex, sexual preference, and even regardless of past crimes.

"...that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

God (I'm sorry if you don't believe in Him, but I do) gave us these rights, not man, nor a government created by man.

Unalienable: not to be separated, given away, or taken away; inalienable

"...that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Life and Happiness are somewhat obvious, so I won't take the time to spell them out. But Liberty on the other hand, now that is a subject that few people truly understand. If you care to read about some of the ideas behind Liberty, read this, and this.

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

Despotism:

1.	the rule of a despot; the exercise of absolute authority.

2.	absolute power or control; tyranny.

3.	an absolute or autocratic government.

4.	a country ruled by a despot.

When a government, under the guise of protecting it's citizens, actively removes and abolishes the rights of others, it creates a scenario similar to that of when the pilgrims left England. That little shift in peoples perception of government led to the creation of the United States of America. The quotes from above are taken directly from the text of the Declaration of Independence.

In today's society, we are still recovering from the Civil Rights movements, Woman's Rights movement, and more recently, Gay and Lesbian Rights movements. What people forget, or sometimes were not aware of, is that when the government loses control over a previously subdued and segregated entity, they go and find another one to pick on.

Having a common enemy gives the government purpose. It helps the general public feel justified in giving the government it's money. Without a common enemy, the people would cease to bend to the wishes of the government.

The latest common enemy is criminals. And much more specifically, sex offenders. (I would like to clarify that I am not supporting the behavior of any sex offender, or the abolition of the sex offender laws by any means) Sex offenders have become the latest and greatest common enemy the government has seen.

Sex Offender legislation is reaching a fervor the likes of which I doubt this country has ever seen. Every single legislative season is crammed with S.O. bills. Bills that restrict how far an offender can live from another offender, or bills that put large bold type on a S.O.'s drivers license, or legislative bills that uniformly categorize and offender regardless of when it happened or the details, and lets not forget about legislative bills that speak of offenders getting their rights back and allowing them to become contributing members of society, except for S.O.'s.

Everyone loves to hate sex offenders. But, they are still human. In spite of what the government tries to preach about them being sub-human and worthless. Sex offenders have Civil Rights too. They were created equal, and they also have the same unalienable rights as those that never committed a crime.

Unfortunately, sex offenders are considered to be so sub-human, that even after they have served their time in jail, completed their treatment, and payed their debt to society, they continuously get shoved farther and farther down the ladder of society.

So far as to almost rival that of the slaves back in the 1800's. How could I possible say that you ask? Let me explain.

"Slavery", as defined by the Slavery Convention of 1926, is (1)the status or condition of a person over whom any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership are exercised, and "slave" means a person in such condition or status, (2) the slave trade includes all acts involved in the capture, acquisition or disposal of a person with intent to reduce him to slavery; all acts involved in the acquisition of a slave with a view to selling or exchanging him; all acts of disposal by sale or exchange of a slave acquired with a view to being sold or exchanged, and, in general, every act of trade or transport in slaves.

The government uses the "right of ownership" (via the DOC) to tell an offender where he can live, with whom he can live, how close he can live to another offender, how close that offender can live to a daycare, nursing home, park, school, bus stop, etc.

And good ol' Uncle Sam uses that "ownership" to come up with new ways to further suppress sex offenders every year.

Sex Offenders are being segregated out of society, for life! And all under the guise of "Regulatory". But, Liberty being an unalienable right, creates a Constitutionality issue with Uncle Sam's ideas of late.

I believe it was the thirteenth amendment that abolished slavery. And, I believe that there is a law about segregation as well.

In the thirteenth amendment, it talks about "except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted". When a criminal is "convicted", there is a sentence attached. If you continuously add to that sentence, you are going outside of the courts to attach punishment for a crime that is already ruled on. That creates another issue that we'll have to discuss at another time.

Here is a quote from a man I've quoted many times before:

"The right of voting for representatives is the primary right by which other rights are protected. To take away this right is to reduce a man to slavery, for slavery consists in being subject to the will of another, and he that has not a vote in the election of representatives is in this case.
- Thomas Paine."

Criminals lose their right to vote, and according to law, they get it back when their time is served. Except for Sex Offenders.

When will this country learn that segregation will only lead to hardship? Not only for the person being segregated, but also by the very government itself when it has to fight it out in court at a later time.

Segregation will ultimately lead to the destruction of this country as we know it. The very methods that help to create these laws will be used to separate and compartmentalize the very citizens that it's supposed to protect.

Few people realise that 93% of all sex offenders were known (either relatives, or close friend of the family) to the victim.

What if that was your son, your daughter, your wife, or your husband? Would you be able to watch them get treated like that? Would you feel that the system was just then?

Or would you come back and reread this post looking for ideas to fight it?

Stare Decisis's Role in Today's Political Climate

STARE DECISIS is "to stand by that which is decided." The principle that the precedent decisions are to be followed by the courts.

The concept of Stare Decisis is fairly simple. If you have a defined set of laws, and a court ruling tries to define one of those laws to a more finite level, it sets a precedence outside of the original definition of the Law. It is easily understood if you check out these diagrams, and can visually see the progression that takes place.

When you understand how Stare Decisis can pervert the Judicial system, one then asks the question of how to fix it? The only way to truly set things “right” would be to find one of the more controversial laws from the past that helped to create a precedence setting ruling, and fight it on a Due Process and Stare Decisis basis.

The other question that can be asked is “How did this happen?” The answer to that question lies in the people elected to office that set these laws up. In my article “Adjournment Sine Die” I discuss this briefly. Not to mention that when Congress passes 10's upon thousands of new Legislation every year, The Supreme Court can't keep up with the caseload of deciding Constitutionality. So, until someone comes alone to challenge it, Congress gets to pass it as law. And, if no one challenges it, it sets precedence for the creation of new laws that are even more erroneous.

This has come about most strongly in the 20^th century. There has been a major push to create precedence for setting the Government up as the ONLY ruling body in the country.

This of course goes against everything the Constitution was created for. It is “For the people, by the people” and through the people that this Government is given it's power. The Constitution, and even the Federalist Papers talk about the power being the peoples and not the Government. There is even mention that the Government is null and void if the citizens rights are ever taken away. This too was discussed previously.

So, I ask: if our Rights are continuously being removed, if Congress is continuously creating legislation that is outside of it's authority, if the Judicial branch isn't ruling against these injustices, how are we supposed to set things right? How do we as citizens get the Government to pay attention to our wishes?

The only way left to us. We stand up and tell them that no longer are we going to sit idly by. No longer are we going to take the abuse. Each of us needs to educate our neighbor. We need the people to cry out long and hard. And only then will the Government listen. Only then can we effect the “change” that we have been asking for for so many years now.

Ask your Congress person to stick to the Constitution. Ask them to stop the insanity that plagues our Political Climate. Ask them to stop the use of Stare Decisis. Ask them to uphold the Constitution that they are sworn to protect.

How much longer must we suffer these injustices before we stand up and fight? How much longer do we have before we no longer have a way to turn it around? How much longer are you willing to wait?

Guilty Until Proven Innocent

In the days of our Founding Fathers, it was considered to be the one of the most important aspects of the Constitution. That was the notion that every man was considered to be "Innocent until proven Guilty" by a Court of Law.

Through a series of small changes over the years, it feels more like we have become a Nation of "Guilty until proven Innocent" by a Court of Law. And that is only if you make it to the trial.

The general consensus by the Law Enforcement seems to have swung to "Everyone is suspicious and therefore guilty of some crime. It's my job to find out what it is." No longer are they trying to "protect" society, but are trying to find out what society did to break the law. And with "One in Every Thirty-One Adults", that makes for a lot of citizens in trouble with the law.

The Justice system is focused more of a political career and less on upholding the law. More and more "plea bargains" are being used to get the cases out of Court and create a "win-win" for the prosecutor and the defense attorney. (I doubt that many people realise that a plea deal is counted as a win for both parties.) And with more and more people "pleading" out, less and less are our rights being protected by the Court systems. This loss of defense of the Constitution is leading to the idea that citizens are guilty and therefore, it's only a matter of time before they get caught.

Anymore, the idea of being a free citizen, and being innocent until proven guilty is becoming a fallacy.

Where is our Due Process? Where is our Freedom from Persecution? Where is our Right to a Speedy Trial (oh, I forgot, that's given away with your "plea deal")? How can the Judicial system claim to uphold the Law when they are actively perverting it? How can our Legislature continue to create legislation that continually removes our rights and separates the classes? How can our Law Enforcement enforce the Law if they themselves are not held to the same if not higher standard?

What happened to "All Men were created equal"?