« If you have an interest in prisoners' interest in earning interest... | Main | "Denmark, Britain Seek to Halt Use of Drugs on U.S. Death-Row Prisoners" »

April 14, 2011

"U.S. sex offender claiming refugee status in Saskatchewan"

The title of this post is the headline of this interesting article from north of the border.  Here is how the story starts:

For the past year, residents of Pike Lake, Sask., have come to know Denise Harvey as just another neighbour, an ordinary woman in a tightly knit community. But for residents of Vero Beach, Fla., Harvey is a fugitive, a sex offender and — to many — a victim of an unjust justice system.

Harvey, an American, fled to Canada with her husband last year after being sentenced to 30 years in prison for having sex with her son’s 16-year-old friend. But the system caught up with her last week, when she was arrested by RCMP in Pike Lake. She made an appearance before an Immigration and Refugee Board adjudicator Monday and was released on a $5,000 bond.

She is claiming refugee status to avoid being forced back to Florida, arguing the 30-year-sentence she received was too severe. Many others who have been following her case agree. “She didn’t get any justice down here,” said Vero Beach flight trainer George Sigler, one of Harvey’s supporters.

In a town of 18.000 residents, Sigler gathered 2,000 signatures for a petition demanding the Florida governor give Harvey a pardon. Sigler says many people believe Harvey doesn’t deserve a jail sentence that should be reserved for killers. “She’s a nice, soft-spoken woman who I believe made a mistake but that doesn’t mean she should go to jail for 30 years,” said Sigler. “No one in their right mind believes a 16-year-old wasn’t a willing participant.”

Chris Veeman, a Saskatoon immigration lawyer now representing Harvey, said a 30-year jail sentence was too high and provides some merit for her claim that returning to the United States would be cruel and unusual.

She never testified at her trial in Florida and denied any wrongdoing. The age of consent in Florida is 18. In Canada, the age of consent is 16 years old although it is 18 if the two people are in a situation defined as a power dynamic such as teacher and student.

April 14, 2011 at 06:32 PM | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451574769e2014e87cdba4e970d

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference "U.S. sex offender claiming refugee status in Saskatchewan":

Comments

good for her. suprised we dont' see a lot more of this including 1000's of petitons to the world court!

Since the U.S. Is in FACT as well as LAW violating it's own constution on these laws.

Posted by: rodsmith | Apr 15, 2011 1:00:40 AM

The validity of this case hinges on what this teacher looks like, dream come true or waking nightmare.

Neither really applies.

http://www.tcpalm.com/photos/galleries/2011/apr/13/denise-harvey/

Here is what does.

This sentence is the vile feminist lawyer seeking the appearance of virtue by landing hard on a female teacher. The prosecutor, the judge, and this jury need to be driven from the state, put on a boycott list and shunned until they cry uncle.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Apr 15, 2011 1:16:56 AM

rodsmith --

Do you think Al Capone would have been justified in fleeing to Canada if (as was certainly the case), he viewed his sentence as excessive?

If you do, OK, I don't know where we go from there, except to complete self-help lawlessness.

If you do not, what are the criteria for determining when a convicted defendant may properly decide on his own that he has been treated too harshly and resort to self-help rather than pursue legal process?

Posted by: Bill Otis | Apr 15, 2011 5:52:50 AM

Bill: When the process and outcomes result from bad faith, self help is not only justified, but a patriotic duty to the constitution.

For example, black folks are lynched by the KKK in 1911, with absolute immunity for the 100's of people participating, sending travel post cards of the event, followed by seizure of the assets of the wealthy lynching victims. This KKK is the terror arm of the Democratic Party, the party of the lawyer.


http://withoutsanctuary.org/main.html

There is an absolute patriotic duty to kill 10 judges and 100 prosecutors for every productive black male murdered and plundered. You have the productive black male, now dead. You have destructive KKK member and leader lawyers, still alive. Each of their death would have added $1 million to the economy by ending their violence and criminality. To deter.

Tell us how pursue legal process in 1911 if you are a relative to the lynching victim.

You may reply, things have changed. Yes, they have. They are far worse, and the rigging is now airtight.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Apr 15, 2011 7:00:20 AM

Supremacy Claus: You are right.

I think the U.S. SEX OFFENDER Witch Hunt of today correlates exactly to your example. This country has a very, very long history of letting a minority of scumbags convince a tyrannical majority of citizens that it is acceptable to do immoral, idiotic, worthless things to some hated group. The people who do that are simply terrorists.

The people today who drive the SEX OFFENDER Witch Hunt and participate in it are scumbag terrorists. Politicians who drive it are nothing but common criminals. Americans who simply stand by and observe are not Americans.

I completely believe that every single person who is listed on a Registry in the U.S. should be retaliating against it on a daily basis. I prefer to keep the retaliation legal but it would not bother me in the slightest if anyone else didn’t.

The lists of legal things that can be done is very long. People need to work at it. It is a no-brainer that everyone listed on a Registry should spend as much time around children as possible. Although that is something I definitely believe should only be done in legal situations, because it really doesn’t do much anyway. It is simply the right thing to do – to spend as much time as possible around children just and only because of the immoral SEX OFFENDER laws.

But people should do much, much more beyond things which don’t really matter (such as spending time around children). They should identify and target specific terrorists and harm them. A person can work within the law and do great harm to someone else. Never forget what these scumbags have done to you, your spouses, and your children. Without remorse and without punishment. Make them pay.

Posted by: FRegistryTerrorists | Apr 15, 2011 8:32:41 AM

Thirty years certainly seems vastly disproportionate to the offense. If she can find a way in the Canadian legal system to avoid it, good for her.

Posted by: Marc Shepherd | Apr 15, 2011 8:57:47 AM

For this "offense," 30 minutes would have been too much. I worry about folks like Bill Otis who apparently don't believe the authorities can ever go too far when it comes to punishing citizens.

Posted by: John K | Apr 15, 2011 10:53:05 AM

Marc and John K --

Let me ask you the same question I asked rodsmith: Do you think Al Capone would have been justified in fleeing to Canada if (as was certainly the case), he viewed his sentence as excessive? If not, what are the criteria for determining when a convicted defendant may properly decide on his own that he has been treated too harshly and resort to self-help rather than pursue legal process?

Posted by: Bill Otis | Apr 15, 2011 11:34:23 AM

Bill, I take your point, but in this case, where she apparently has the support of a large portion of her community, she is not "deciding on her own" that she has been treated too harshly. There is a difference between knee-jerk whining about not wanting to go to jail and a principled objection to a sentence that is disproportionate to the seriousness of the offense. As for the criteria you mention, perhaps a convicted defendant may *ethically* (though illegally) decide such things when there is a persuasive argument, grounded in law, that the sentence was illegal in some way (here, disporportionate), and a fair amount of backing from the public who our laws are intended to protect. I tend to believe that the most effective and lasting change comes from fighting the system from within the system, as opposed to self-help remedies, but I am sure I am not the only one who might think twice if I were looking at 30 years in jail for this offense (note: not for *any* offense). See Supremacy Claus's post above re: black Americans in the South during the heyday of lynching.

Posted by: def atty | Apr 15, 2011 11:50:02 AM

John K --

You say you worry about me, since I "apparently" don't believe the authorities can "ever" go too far.

First, you know that is not true. In posts addressed to you, I said that the authorities had gone way too far in the Duke lacrosse rape hoax case (motivated by race-baiting politics in the Democratic primary for Durham DA), and in the Blackwater prosecution. In each case, incidentally, the defendants pursued legal process and won. No one fled.

But that's not my main point. The poster (SC) who wrote immediately after me said, "There is an absolute patriotic duty to kill 10 judges and 100 prosecutors for every productive black male murdered and plundered." And the poster immediately after that said, "Supremacy Claus: You are right." He followed up by saying (emphasis added), "I completely believe that EVERY SINGLE PERSON who is listed on a [sex offender] Registry in the U.S. should be retaliating against it on a daily basis. I prefer to keep the retaliation legal but it would not bother me in the slightest if anyone else didn’t."

You furrow your brow when I suggest that the rule of law means something, to wit, that parties must pursue legal (and thus non-violent) avenues of redress, but express not a whisper of disagreement with more emphatic suggestions that the proper recourse, when disagreeing with the outcome in a case, is multiple murder.

Translation: When the outcome satisfies you, OK. When it doesn't, start shooting.

The "humane" and "civilized" approach to law finally shows itself in bold relief.

Posted by: Bill Otis | Apr 15, 2011 12:01:06 PM

def atty --

It is said often and wisely that no man can be the judge in his own case, which is the full rebuttal to your suggested criteria.

Thus:

"[P]erhaps a convicted defendant may *ethically* (though illegally) decide such things when there is a persuasive argument..."

Who decides what is "persuasive?" And can that decision be made by a self-interested party?

"...grounded in law,"

Who presents the opposing brief?

"...that the sentence was illegal in some way (here, disporportionate)..."

But disporportionality cannot possibly be judged by the affected person. This is like saying the plaintiff in a civil suit may BY HIMSELF decide the size of the judgment. I don't know a single person who believes anything like that.

"...and a fair amount of backing from the public who our laws are intended to protect."

What is a "fair amount?" And does it work the other way? That is, where a "fair amount" of the townsfolk decide that the town bully beat the latest rap on a techincallity, do they get to burn down his house?

Anything recognizable as law has to have structural neutrality at its core, and neutrality is exactly what's absent in the scenario you suggest.

Posted by: Bill Otis | Apr 15, 2011 12:35:49 PM

Bill Otis--

Let me ask you the same question I asked rodsmith: Do you think Al Capone would have been justified in fleeing to Canada if (as was certainly the case), he viewed his sentence as excessive? If not, what are the criteria for determining when a convicted defendant may properly decide on his own that he has been treated too harshly and resort to self-help rather than pursue legal process?

No defendant has the right to make that decision. It so happens she did, and she’s a sympathetic case, so I’m hoping she succeeds. It’s like jury nullification, in a way.

Had I been around when Al Capone was convicted, I doubt I would have had much sympathy for him.

Posted by: Marc Shepherd | Apr 15, 2011 1:20:59 PM

first bill there is a big diff between al capone you know the original chicago mob boss who was guility though never proven to have comitted god knows how many MUERDERS not to mention extortion robbery and so on. And a woman who was doing something that up to the stupidity age of america 30-40 years ago WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN A CRIME in the first place.

But as far as this age goes. Sorry bill but once the u.s federal govt and it's deritivie state goves DELIBERITLY violated the only real u.s. supreme court decision on the registry and instituted a reign of opression and terror on it's own citizens it LOST ALL legal right to have any say in anything about sex offences!

Anyone facing it has every legal right to exercise their god given right to liberty and happiness to resist anyway they can.

if you dont' think they have in fact violated it just read it!

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/01-729.ZS.html

"Contrary to the Ninth Circuit’s assertion, the record contains no evidence that the Act has led to substantial occupational or housing disadvantages for former sex offenders that would not have otherwise occurred. Also unavailing is that court’s assertion that the periodic update requirement imposed an affirmative disability. The Act, on its face, does not require these updates to be made in person. The holding that the registration system is parallel to probation or supervised release is rejected because, in contrast to probationers and supervised releasees, offenders subject to the Act are free to move where they wish and to live and work as other citizens, with no supervision."

Want to explain how what we have now AFTER this decision that has manditory and MULTIPLE visits a year to the local police station for rebooking, living restrictions, working restrictions, hell WALKING restriction could POSSIBLY be legal.

Heck even alaska the one in this case that took it all the way to to u.s supreme court to make it legal...Has now went back and looked at it and said what we have now IS IN FACT AND IN LAW an retroactive punishment and therefore ILLEGAL when applied to anyone before it's passage...NO MATTER what the u.s. supreme court has to say about it being "civil"

Posted by: rodsmith | Apr 15, 2011 1:45:59 PM

Marc --

The problem, as I tried to explain to def atty, is that there is no principled and neutral way of deciding who is a sufficiently "sympathetic case" that he/she is entitled to self-help.

And it's not just, as you correctly say, that there is no "right" to self-help. It's that there SHOULD BE no right to self-help, because such a "right" is the death knell to the rule of law.

The whole idea of democratically established law entails the surrender of the option of extra-legal remedies, no matter how "sympathetic" or tempting, in exchange for the far more important benefits of the rule of law. There was plenty of self-help in the jungle; the main reason human beings developed civilization was to get beyond it (mainly so that commerce and productivity could replace theft and plunder). When law becomes optional, it is no longer law, and we are on the road back to where we started.

Posted by: Bill Otis | Apr 15, 2011 1:46:24 PM

Bill Otis: I understand your point completely and I would have to even say that I tend to agree with it. It is certainly very problematic when individuals or groups decide that the laws/punishments are unjust and they can start reacting to them however they wish.

Having said that, there are certainly instances and even time periods where particular governments are simply criminal regimes and deserving of disrespect and revolt. After all, governments are made up of people and those people have proven time and time again that they can be immoral, evil scumbags. There is a point where particular governments without question cross the line against particular people. So, what is to be done? Those people should just accept that they are a casualty for the greater good? Even when there is no good to be had? Even when there is no doubt at all that the “people” whom have created the situation are more evil than the people they are targeting?

The problem with the SEX OFFENDER laws is that they are immoral and unjust. The main reasons for that are 1) many, many of the laws should undoubtedly be applied to literally millions of other people (i.e. if they are good for “SEX OFFENDERS”, there are no defensible reasons that they are not good for a bunch of other people), 2) the laws are often in direct opposition to facts that are well known and understood, and 3) the laws have no hope of doing anything useful beyond harassing/punishing “SEX OFFENDERS” (in fact, it is easy to KNOW that many of the laws are even counterproductive).

I believe that the SEX OFFENDER laws crossed the line of good intentions and being decent, Americans laws into a criminal, immoral, witch hunt, a long, long time ago. Today, “public safety” and “protecting children” are just lies used for the witch hunt. So, yes, I believe nearly every single person who is Registered is justified to retaliate. That doesn’t mean every one of them is justified to kill people. Obviously, there is a continuum and it depends on the specific criminal governments and terrorists and what they have done to a specific person.

You know, the SEX OFFENDER Witch Hunt started out so people could be “informed”. Obviously, today that is BS. But if the governments today compiled whatever information they liked about “SEX OFFENDERS” and simply made that information available to the public, without requiring anything at all of the people targeted (they aren’t even responsible for getting that info to the governments), that would seem pretty fair. And hey, they could even do that for murderers, drunk drivers who have killed people, manslaughters, people who have killed children because they didn’t restrain them in vehicles, and all sorts of other people who aren’t even as dangerous as the dreaded “SEX OFFENDERS”. Then the governments could stop their inaccurate, irresponsible propaganda campaigns as well. It would be a lot harder to complain about a system like that.

I think I could live with that system. But, no, if governments ALL OVER THIS COUNTRY, are going to pass law after law that force my family from homes that we own, force me to live in certain towns, say that their INTENT is to force me from certain states, keep me out of parks and beaches that I pay far more for than 95% of the rest of the people in the country, require me to go to their offices within a specific 3 day period over and over and over (to give them the exact same information that I gave them two weeks ago), to tell them when I am going on vacation and where, to not allow me to use many simple tools which millions of other people are using, for which I have many legitimate uses, and which they are actually promoting to be used, and for which all of that I am continually facing the prospect of being convicted of a serious crime (for which the punishment would be surely be greater than the crime that originally got me promoted into the grand “SEX OFFENDER” class), etc., etc., etc., literally ad nauseam …. then there are going to be serious problems. I am going to retaliate.

But, I am going to retaliate legally. I’m going to ensure that the laws are in fact counterproductive. I am going to ensure that they cause more harm than good. And I am going to disrupt the terrorists’ lives much worse than they disrupt mine and cause them problems. And even though today I have great means, don’t even think about asking me to help anyone.

I do think this is a war and the terrorists are enemies not only to me, but also to the U.S. It is a war that the terrorists have already lost but they are too stupid to realize it. Now they are just adding to their casualties.

Posted by: FRegistryTerrorists | Apr 15, 2011 1:47:07 PM

Never mind that the ENTIRE body of law from that decision on is BASED ON A LIE!

from the same opinion!

"Here, the statutory text states the legislature’s finding that sex offenders pose a high risk of reoffending, identifies protecting the public from sex offenders as the law’s primary interest, and declares that release of certain information about sex offenders to public agencies and the public will assist in protecting the public safety."

1,000's of studies from the federal govt's own agencies and AROUND THE WORLD prove this statement is a LIE and FRAUD when presented as EVIDENCE to the court!

last time i looked the criminal laws says NO one may profit from a crime. Here the crime was FRAUD and lies. The profit the sex offender registry sytem and it's entire body of follow on laws!

Therefore under that same document they are all illegal and any american has every legal right to resist anyway and with whatever FORCE they deem necessary!

Posted by: rodsmith | Apr 15, 2011 1:50:23 PM

FRegistry: I would appreciate any data or study showing registries have reduced child sexual abuse. I appreciate the detail of your response, but facts are most persuasive.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Apr 15, 2011 1:57:11 PM

Bill: It's 1911, you are a rich black man. They are coming for you, to lynch and seize your property, the KKK lawyers. What will you do?

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Apr 15, 2011 1:59:50 PM

Supremacy Claus: I wasn't really trying to give any facts.

I've only heard of a handful of studies about whether or not SEX OFFENDER Registries reduce recidivism. All the ones I've seen have shown no effect. But honestly, I'm not terribly interested in trying to educate anyone about it all. I feel that the terrorists who support these laws aren't particularly interested in facts anyway. I think it's a waste of time speaking with most of them.

Personally, I fully believe that there are more sexual crimes being committed because the Registries exist than would be if they did not exist. I think they are counterproductive. And I've seen enough that even if I saw a study that showed otherwise, I would be very, very inclined to believe it was flawed (and look for the flaws).

Posted by: FRegistryTerrorists | Apr 15, 2011 4:16:13 PM

SC --

I would do what the law -- LAW, that is -- entitles me to do, to wit, use deadly force in self defense in light of my objectively reasonable fear of imminent grave bodily harm or death.

Posted by: Bill Otis | Apr 15, 2011 4:16:48 PM

Marc --

I don't mean to pester you about this, but I just thought of a good way of illustrating my point.

You say you think 30 years was way out of line and that you hope she makes good her flight from her sentence.

Suppose it were 20 years? Same feeling?

How about ten? Five? Two? One?

You see the problem. It becomes subjective, intuitive and individualized to the point of solipsism. When one adds to that the inherent problems of self-evaluation and self-interest, it's clear -- to me at least -- that rooting on this behavior, no matter how sympathetic in an individual instance, is the road to chaos. The very heart of what law means -- neutrality, consistency and predictability across the body politic -- cannot survive if this sort of behavior is tolerated, much less encouraged.

Posted by: Bill Otis | Apr 15, 2011 4:35:50 PM

Bill,

As a private citizen with no direct stake in the outcome, I’m simply exercising my right to root for the side I believe should “win” in this particular case. Because her prosecution and sentence are SO far beyond what I believe is justified, I don’t feel the need to decide precisely where the line ought to be drawn.

I am not really worried about injury to the body politic. Canada has an extradition treaty with the U.S., which is usually honored. If this woman manages to avoid that fate, it would be the very rare exception.

It’s a bit like Bobby Fischer (a far less sympathetic character) evading extradition by becoming a citizen of Iceland. There hasn’t been a parade of criminals to Reykjavik. It was a one-time thing.

(As an aside: it’s somewhat surprising that she was allowed bail without electronic monitoring, when her sentence was the functional equivalent of life in prison. Usually, there are stricter conditions in such cases, given that the defendant has practically zero incentive to report to prison.)

Posted by: Marc Shepherd | Apr 15, 2011 5:20:38 PM

how true marc which is considering her ORIGINAL 150,000 bail she skipped on to go to canada in the first place...a very good indication of how the canadian govt feels in this speical case!

unless something very unusual happens i have a feeling she's gonna be one of the speical cases where the us gets told to kiss off!

Posted by: rodsmith | Apr 15, 2011 8:19:49 PM

Bill:

Is there a higher moral authority than the law.

My God is not Congress, the judiciary, the DOJ, DHS, the FBI or any government authority.

They have been damaged, I believe, by a thousand minor cuts of internal dishonesty (wink! wink), by those who know how to use and misuse the system.

Everyday voters continue to be dumber, because the indoctrination (not education) of the population was taken over by the people who should be watched like a hawk. (I believe liberals are the greater evil, but you do not address these core issues)

Even Thomas Jefferson said that liberty had to be renewed periodically by the blood of patriots.

Posted by: albeed | Apr 15, 2011 10:29:44 PM

Bill: You would act in accordance with the written law, and would be quite correct.

However, the legal realism from the Free Law Movement was the philosophy, then, and today. Judges and prosecutors believed the South had been robbed of property worth $5 billion in the dollars of that day. That justified lynchings, seizing property of wealthy black folks, and terrorism. So you would have expected to have been prosecuted for defending yourself properly, the lynch mob would have been immunized.

You might say, those presumptions of 1911 are no longer true. You would be right, but we have our own, today. Feminism is assumed to be correct, to the detriment of abortion of millions of viable babies over the years, the destruction of the black family, the devaluation of the black murder victim, and the total denial that judicial review does not really violate Article I Section 1 of the constitution giving the legislative power to the Congress.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Apr 15, 2011 10:46:57 PM

rodsmith --

Let me ask once more: What are the criteria for determining when a convicted defendant may properly decide on his own that he has been treated too harshly and resort to self-help rather than pursue legal process?

Posted by: Bill Otis | Apr 15, 2011 10:56:50 PM

rodsmith --

Let me ask once more: What are the criteria for determining when a convicted defendant may properly decide on his own that he has been treated too harshly and resort to self-help rather than pursue legal process.

To a just, moral, man: the answers are self-evident.

When the harm of the sentence is more of a crime than the harm of the crime.

Posted by: albeed | Apr 15, 2011 11:06:22 PM

I wonder if the Canadian judge who will decide whether she can stay in Canada or not can be written to by concerned parties here in the U.S.? I would love to see a letter-writing campaign FLOOD that judge's office in support of letting her stay in Canada. Would they even care about what we have to say? Anyone have any thoughts on this?

Posted by: G4Change | Apr 16, 2011 2:07:14 AM

rodsmith --

I asked: What are the criteria for determining when a convicted defendant may properly decide on his own that he has been treated too harshly and resort to self-help rather than pursue legal process.

Albeed suggests an answer: "When the harm of the sentence is more of a crime than the harm of the crime."

But that answer misses the heart of the question, which sought standards for when THE DEFENDANT gets to make the call. As I noted from the getgo, there is a reason for the rule that no man may be the judge in his own case. The reason is that self-interest is certain to produce a skewed result.

Albeed's idea makes just as much sense as the notion that, if I sue you for running into my car, I -- and not a court -- get to decide by myself the amount of the judgment. Merely to state the proposition is to understand its absurdity.

The reason that the court rather than the defendant decides the sentence is that the court is structurally neutral and the defendant isn't (to say the least).

Under albeed's formulation, if the defendant here thought three months' home confinement did more harm than the crime, she would have the same right to flee as she is said to have now.

The whole point of law is to displace the necessarily biased viewpoints of the parties with the more dispassionate viewpoint of the court. This is so elementary it's hard to believe it needs explaining.

The court is capable of error, and might have made one here. But the errors of courts are certain to be less numerous and less egregious than the errors of parties. This is why the rule of law requires parties to surrender self-help and accept the results of legal process instead. The alternative is chaos and the war of all against all.

Again, it's just astounding that I should have to spell this out on a blog mostly populated by lawyers.


Posted by: Bill Otis | Apr 16, 2011 8:30:23 AM

Bill:

"The court is capable of error, and might have made one here. But the errors of courts are certain to be less numerous and less egregious than the errors of parties. This is why the rule of law requires parties to surrender self-help and accept the results of legal process instead. The alternative is chaos and the war of all against all."

Somewhere along the way, the law lost its last traces of honesty and conformity to the Constitution, by subverting individual rights with collective rights.
There is no check on the current government and they can do anything to anyone, guilty or innocent. The "law" is NOT a neutral third party to be arbiter of events anymore.

When we replace every judge on USSC and the Appellate level who had previously been a prosecutor, we might see a return to real arbiters of justice, instead of disingenuously subverting the Constitition to mean what the government wants it to mean.

Posted by: albeed | Apr 16, 2011 10:25:04 AM

albeed --

"The 'law' is NOT a neutral third party to be arbiter of events anymore....When we replace every judge on USSC and the Appellate level who had previously been a prosecutor, we might see a return to real arbiters of justice, instead of disingenuously subverting the Constitition to mean what the government wants it to mean."

Since such replacement should not happen, has not happened, and as you know is not going to happen, you are left with choosing between (1) a judicial system as flawed as you take it to be, and (2) unlimited self-help, as each party holding your view sees himself as justified in imposing his will by stealth or force, as Ms. Harvey did.

With all respect, albeed, the idea that the judicial system in this country, though flawed (as all civil institutions are flawed), should take a back seat to the pre-civilization, do-whatever-you-want-if-you're-strong-enough law of the jungle, is not just erroneous but insane.

Posted by: Bill Otis | Apr 16, 2011 11:29:26 AM

sorry bill but we are not saying the entire judicial sytem and legslative system is dead....of couse a good argumetn could be made there.

What we are saying is that in this one major area thanks to govt stupidity and ever continuing search of votes and pandering to the masses and in collusion either accidental or knowiong with the media they have with malice aforthough created a system of persecurtion and oppression in the area of sex crimes legislation and control.

Therefore they have abrogated the contract between those individuals caught up in it and the people who control it.

It is not the individuals job to suggest a replacment all they need to know is the present system in that area is WRONG and is in FACT ILLEGAL!

at that point the u.s supreme court itself said back in the late 1800's no american is required to obey an illegal law!

Posted by: rodsmith | Apr 16, 2011 4:06:18 PM

rodsmith --

Your analysis does not solve the problem but simply pushes it back one step.

The question under your theory becomes: What are the criteria for determining when a convicted defendant may properly decide on his own that a given class of crimes has been created out of ignorance and prejudice; that the social contract has thus been breached; and that as a consequence, he is entitled to resort to self-help rather than pursue legal process?

As you can see, we are right back to the whole problem here, which is that a person cannot be the judge of his own case.

If that is true, and it is, there is simply no viable alternative to living within the rule of law rather than doing self-help. As I have noted, accepting the latter is the quick road to the war of all against all.

Posted by: Bill Otis | Apr 16, 2011 6:21:00 PM

Bill, the lady up in Canada is a far less important threat to the rule of law than any of the hundreds (thousands?) of jaded, power-corrupt prosecutors who routinely put their W-L records ahead of any latent concerns about simple justice.

She's less important than the fraternity of post-Warren Court era judges (most of them former prosecutors themselves) who routinely send the signal through their rulings that they're with law enforcement (no matter how lawlessly cops and agents do their jobs), and not so much with citizen-suspects hoping for a fair shake.

And she's a lot less important to the rule of law than the soulless sociopaths in Congress who habitually bend, stretch and ultimately trash the Constitution by playing to the cheap seats with get-tough legislation that further skew the system in favor of cops, prosecutors and former prosecutors in black robes.

Citizens who believe they'll be treated fairly and evenhandedly by the system have no need to flee to Canada. So if you want to bolster faith and confidence in the system and the rule of law, worry more about all the above-mentioned folks who've worked tirelessly to undermine it by making it looked rigged and overly harsh.

Posted by: John K | Apr 16, 2011 6:29:02 PM

well bill in this case of law we have a 2001 U.S. SUPREME COURT decision that bsically says almost every law covering sex offences in the last decade is illegal on it's face!

not sure what more you would need. It's not the individuals fault that courts are either too scared to too retarded to read that decision when caees hit them

usualy what happens is they smimply announce the supreme court said the registry was legal in 2001 BUT they fail to ACTUALLY READ IT!

If they had there is no way in hell they could render the decisions they do!

Unless of course they are bought and paid for by the govt....which of course since it's the one paying their salarys THEY ARE!

Posted by: rodsmith | Apr 16, 2011 7:57:59 PM

As a layman in the law but well read in the matter, I cannot criticize her actions. The separation doctrine and due process demand the jurist to be fair and unbiased. How can a 30-year prison sentence be just that for a first-time offender who apparently had consensual sex with a 16-year old? As others have noted in this post, SCOTUS is primarily to blame. The buck stops with them, but apparently they've turned a blind eye to the DOJ reports others referred to and have accepted at face value the baseless and untenable declaration that sex offenders are highly likely to reoffend. The lawmakers know this is bullshit, and they have a political license to that. But SCOTUS? As jurists, aren't they supposed to check exceedances on jurisdiction and abuse of discretion? IMHO, this boogeyman, witch hunt approach is to fuel revenue, power and influence for Mr. witch hunt citizen, AKA John Walsh, Mr. witch hunt paparazzi, AKA Chris Hansen, and Mr. witch hunt mob, AKA Perverted Justice. It's absolutely nauseating to see these people profit and benefit from dead children. I don't see a difference between them and the criminals who commit these heinous crimes against children.

Posted by: GilbertsHumptyDumpty | Apr 16, 2011 10:08:03 PM

Bill:

"With all respect, albeed, the idea that the judicial system in this country, though flawed (as all civil institutions are flawed), should take a back seat to the pre-civilization, do-whatever-you-want-if-you're-strong-enough law of the jungle, is not just erroneous but insane."

Sorry Bill, but I was busy most of today doing more pleasureable things than responding to your ideas, yes, you apologist you!

The legal example of a car accident that you provide (civil law), should not be juxtaposed with the case at hand (criminal law).

You know, maybe starting from scratch would begin a better system? How wise are you to know otherwise? The road we are heading down is simply utter brainlessness. Some of the most damaging words ever muttered on screen were by John Huston stating that the most important thing that his law students would be studying is "the law" as if it cannot be bastardized by any administration in power.

Well as I have said before, I am an engineer by education and consider the law to be for those who could not master the true sciences and could do nothing better in their life. It was mostly scientists, industrialists and engineers that led to the prosperity of the 20th Century.

That is why we (union, civil service, special interest run government) is corrupt.

Who is John Galt?

Posted by: albeed | Apr 16, 2011 10:18:36 PM

Bill:

I apologize. I forgot to respond to this comment:

"But that answer misses the heart of the question, which sought standards for when THE DEFENDANT gets to make the call. As I noted from the getgo, there is a reason for the rule that no man may be the judge in his own case. The reason is that self-interest is certain to produce a skewed result."

Bill:

I provided the standards previously and they will not be repeated here.

There is always self-interest present. Unfortunately, the self interest of LE, prosecutors , judges and any other government cretin to obscure facts, evidence and the Constitution to the self-interest of the the defendent (usually by insane laws) occurs everyday.

Posted by: albeed | Apr 16, 2011 10:46:43 PM

John K --

Do you believe the rule of law can survive if a litigant gets to be the judge of his own case?

Posted by: Bill Otis | Apr 16, 2011 10:47:22 PM

albeed --

1. You are under absolutely no requirement to respond to my ideas. Your time does not belong to me.

2. I take it you saw the opening today of "Atlas Shrugged"? The dialog is somewhat stilted, but it's pretty faithful to the book.

Posted by: Bill Otis | Apr 16, 2011 10:52:53 PM

The better question is whether the rule of law can survive the people charged with applying it.

Posted by: John K | Apr 16, 2011 11:27:56 PM

Rodsmith:

"well bill in this case of law we have a 2001 U.S. SUPREME COURT decision that bsically says almost every law covering sex offences in the last decade is illegal on it's face!"

Rodsmith, can you cite the name of this case/decision? I'm not asking you in haste. Instead, I'm personally interested in possibly using this case in future plans that I have in dealing with this madness. Anything you can provide would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks.

PS: I'm not a lawyer. I'm just trying to gather as much legal research as I can for now.

Posted by: G4Change | Apr 17, 2011 2:49:01 AM

John K --

"The better question is whether the rule of law can survive the people charged with applying it."

Actually, that is not the better question, but it's a fair question, so I will answer.

Yes.

The "people applying it" are, to name some of the most prominent, the SCOTUS (featuring most recently Justices Sotomayor and Kagan, and with Kennedy (author of Kennedy v. Louisiana) holding the deciding vote); Eric Holder; Chairman Patrick Leahy; CA Gov. Jerry "Moonbeam" Brown; and the liberal Democrat who narrowly won for CA Attorney General in November. Not exactly a bunch of fascists. Indeed they're too liberal for my tastes, but the law will survive them, sure.

Now that I have answered your question, I will ask again the one you dodged: Do you believe the rule of law can survive if a litigant gets to be the judge of his own case?

If so, you'll be the only person I ever heard of to think so, but I'm open to argument.

Posted by: Bill Otis | Apr 17, 2011 6:03:23 AM

G4Change it's in one of the posts above yours. but here it is again.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/01-729.ZS.html

what the u.s. supreme court said was legal was this!

"The fact that Alaska posts offender information on the Internet does not alter this conclusion. Second, the Act does not subject respondents to an affirmative disability or restraint. It imposes no physical restraint, and so does not resemble imprisonment, the paradigmatic affirmative disability or restraint."

and farther in

"Contrary to the Ninth Circuit’s assertion, the record contains no evidence that the Act has led to substantial occupational or housing disadvantages for former sex offenders that would not have otherwise occurred. Also unavailing is that court’s assertion that the periodic update requirement imposed an affirmative disability. The Act, on its face, does not require these updates to be made in person. The holding that the registration system is parallel to probation or supervised release is rejected because, in contrast to probationers and supervised releasees, offenders subject to the Act are free to move where they wish and to live and work as other citizens, with no supervision."

so what they said was legal was the state could keep a list. They could requre the individiuials to update that list via what was at the time the RETURN OF A POST CARD!

There were no restrictions on where they lived, where they worked, where they even WALKED. There was no requirement to REPORT in PERSON like while on probation or parole!

Now of course You are required to report in PERSON upward of 12 times a year EVEN IF NOTHING HAS CHAGED. Your required to report in PERSON if you plan to be away from your registerd residence more than a few days in a row.

Your required to report in PERSON within just a few days if even the tinniest detail of what is know changes EVERY TIME IT CHANGES.

Then of course they now tell you WHERE YOU CAN LIVE, WHERE YOU CAN WORK, even WHERE YOU CAN WALK! OR WATCH THE SKY for that matter!

sounds a HELL OF A LOT LIKE PROBATION/PAROLE to me!

which is a DIRECT VIOLATION of this opinion!

plus of couse even absent that order when applied AFTER THE FACT is ILLEGAL and UNCONSTUTIONIAL under our law!

Posted by: rodsmith | Apr 17, 2011 1:46:02 PM

another thing you might like to know g4 is that is the original case that made the registry legal coming from two combined casses in conn and alaska. Since then one of the individuals in it kept fighting and it went back to the alaska state suprme court that ruled this time that it had in fact become an after the fact punishment and tossed it for anyone convicted BEFORE the laws passage no matter what the fed's had to say about it.

one place with a lot of links to cases is here

http://sexoffenderissues.blogspot.com/

check em out!

Posted by: rodsmith | Apr 17, 2011 1:50:40 PM

lord bill you killed your own argument with this statement!

"(featuring most recently Justices Sotomayor and Kagan,)"

Since they are two of the recent little nazi's who have helped destroy the bill of rights in this country over after the fact confinment absent a cime in the case of sex offenders...and the never ending enprisonment and torture of those caught up in the other modern american witch hunt...terrorism in cuba!

Posted by: rodsmith | Apr 17, 2011 4:34:49 PM

Generally as to the discussion upthread concerning the tension between the Rule of Law and "self-help":

I practice in two adjoining states, one with the DP and the other without. In the non-DP state there has been pressure for a number of years to enact the DP but without success.

There are a variety of reasons for this. The single most important reason is that collectively prosecutors and the police are perceived by the public as being fundamentally corrupt. They protect their friends and persecute their enemies.

This reputation is unfair for the vast majority of prosecutors and police. However, with regularity unexplainable charging (or non-noncharging) decisions and plea bargains are made that feed this reputation. This sometimes seems to be expressed in jury verdicts, where a LWP verdict is imposed instead of an available LWOP verdict in a case where the facts would justify the DP.

If the DP were ever enacted, the first and perhaps only argument that would be made during an election for prosecutor would be "You can't trust that bozo to administer the DP fairly."

Posted by: Fred | Apr 17, 2011 4:45:59 PM

Fred --

"...collectively prosecutors and the police are perceived by the public as being fundamentally corrupt."

Could you produce some objective evidence, e.g., polling or something similar, to support that statement?

Posted by: Bill Otis | Apr 17, 2011 7:22:50 PM

lol the 50% rise in attacks and shooting of law enforcment agents might be a good clue! that the public is getting a little tired of the govt's games!

Posted by: rodsmith | Apr 17, 2011 9:18:10 PM

By the way, This woman pulled a Polanski.

Posted by: GilbertsHumptyDumpty | Apr 17, 2011 10:38:04 PM

Mr. Otis at 7:22 P.M.:

"'...collectively prosecutors and the police are perceived by the public as being fundamentally corrupt.' Could you produce some objective evidence, e.g., polling or something similar, to support that statement?"

I made this comment at 4:45 P.M. to riff on some of the comments upthread about "the tension between the Rule of Law and 'self-help'". Respect for the Rule of Law has to be earned and zealously protected. It cannot be taken for granted. When it falls into disrepute, self-help and jury nullification become more likely. My reference to the DP was only to illustrate why just talking about the Rule of Law is not good enough to protect it. So I will answer your question within the context of my first comment.

My comment is my opinion and is based solely on anecdotal evidence.
I grew up there. It's a rural state where gossip is the bread and butter of daily life. The courts are covered statewide by local media. I have practiced law in this state for 33 years and for 5 of those years as an assistant prosecutor.

My opinion is based on factors any lawyer in any state has to take into account in trying a case to a jury. I have had to deal with this perception in every jury trial I have ever tried there, whether prosecuting or defending.

This reputation developed incrementally over years and is red meat for local media. The slightest whiff of overreaching or favoritism can be amplified by the local media into a full blown scandal which, if juicy enough, will then be spread all over the state.

This reputation is undeserved. But regretfully there have been some legitimate scandals. I am sure somewhere along the line someone thought I was corrupt when I was a prosecutor.

However, the existence of this reputation, undeserved or not, right or wrong, is a fact that has to be taken into account in trying a criminal case. A criminal lawyer who ignores it is not competently representing his client.

Posted by: Fred | Apr 17, 2011 11:04:55 PM

Fred --

I appreciate the promptness and detail of your response. Nonetheless, anecdotal evidence is widely and correctly regarded as less than fully reliable, and still less so in this instance, where your original claim was that "...collectively prosecutors and the police are perceived by the public as being fundamentally corrupt."

To say that they are perceived by the public as being corrupt goes well beyond saying merely that such a perception has grown in recent years. It could have grown from 10% to 20%; you provide no way of knowing (and probably have no way of knowing). But your original claim was that the public sees the police in this way, which in context must mean, at the minimum, A MAJORITY of the public. What you say by way of explanation falls short of justifying that.

There have been media stories forever about police and public corruption, so I am hardly surprised to hear that the press feeds on them in your neck of the woods too. But, as ever with the media, what does NOT get covered is the famous "silent majority." That is why polling, rather than anecdotal evidence, is needed here.

I might add that in my neck of the woods, juries in criminal cases find overwhelmingly in favor of the prosecution. If they think police witnesses are corrupt or dishonest, they are hiding that thought awfully well.

Posted by: Bill Otis | Apr 17, 2011 11:34:52 PM

Rodsmith:

Thank you very much for your information above.

This desperately needs to go back to the US Supreme Court because what they ruled on then does not exist any longer. It is not just a list. It is all you described. So, therefore, the US Supreme Court can't deny it by saying they've already ruled on it.

I hope this can happen. In some states like Missouri, the State Supreme Court has thrown out retrospective laws. I hope that this entire mess can be brought before the US Supreme Court again soon so it ALL can be tossed.

Posted by: G4Change | Apr 18, 2011 12:45:25 AM

Mr. Otis:

I was speaking about one particular jurisdiction where respect for the Rule of Law has probably been damaged beyond repair to illustrate why homilies about the Rule of Law are insufficient to maintain its vitality. Respect for the Rule of Law can only be maintained by the actions and conduct of all criminal law practioners. Mere words are not enough.

The fact that there is no polling data for this jurisdiction does not detract from my point. So I don't care if you agree with me or not.

As I stated at 11:04 P.M. "... the existence of this reputation, undeserved or not, right or wrong, is a fact that has to be taken into account in trying a criminal case. A criminal lawyer who ignores it is not competently representing his client."

However, don't get me wrong. I don't approve of the way things are there. I am pleased that the juries in your neck of the woods still respect the Rule of Law. This benefits everyone and is the foundation of a civilized society. I wish it were so everywhere.

Posted by: Fred | Apr 18, 2011 1:02:02 AM

i'm with youi g4 but infortunately the u.s court isn't. the u.s supreme court just ruled it was legal for the federal govt to lock up those convicted of a sex crime even AFTER their legal court ordered sentence is finished.

Sorry in my book that makes them traitors to the constution and liable for removal by any american who wants to do it.

no hope there!

as for the states that have ruled the registry is illegal when applied retroactivly well one has now said they can still make them register since it's just being taken to update the FEDERAL registry which is RETROACTIVE! plus 2 others are busy trying to figure out how to REWRITE their constituions so it would now be legal to pass retroactive laws for sex offenders only!

sorry i'm afaid it's pretty much reached the point where only VIOLENCE against the govt and it's agents is gonna stop it and i doublt that will happen unless the country's economy crashes completly!

Posted by: rodsmith | Apr 18, 2011 1:16:38 AM

rodsmith --

This thread started out with a story about a woman in her early forties who had sex with a high school boy.

She received a sentence that many, many people would view as excessive. I'm sure she's going to wind up on some sex registry, too (if she is extradited to the USA). But the idea that there is going to be a revolution about this case or sex offender registration in general is, ummmm, far-fetched.

The reason it's far-fetched is not merely that only a miniscule fraction of the populace is affected by such laws. The main reason is that the rest of the populace understands that a person has it fully within his or her power to avoid any entanglement with them.

Here's how: If you're in your forties, you have no business fooling around with high schoolers. So don't do it. Rocket science this is not.

Posted by: Bill Otis | Apr 18, 2011 8:14:08 AM

Bill r u into domination n s&m or some sexual deviance? Cuz ur obsession with the rule of law and respect my authority r astounding n a bit inexperienced n sophomoric unlike Fred who I can tell knows what he's talking about.

Posted by: GilbertsHumptyDumpty | Apr 18, 2011 11:05:37 AM

Btw bill, I'd love to latex u up n whip u if ur into such things.

Posted by: GilbertsHumptyDumpty | Apr 18, 2011 11:09:51 AM

bill you might have been right a few years ago. but the sex offender registry is increasing by 1,000's of individuals EVERY DAY should be close to a million on it now. Plus of course thier families!

But you also have all the other new registrys our find upstanding politicians keep erecting!

domestic abuse
gun registry
drug user registry
dui regisry

the list keeps going

then you add in the fact that the % of the population who is an ex-con and now considered a second class citizen or a bastard stepchild keeps incresing

down to like 1 out of every 40 individuals....sooner or later it's gonna hit them they out number all the goodie-goodie idiots in this country....

at that point all hell is gonna break.

of course if the govt continues on it present course and manages to destroy itself becasue it spends itself into oblivion all bets will be off!


as for all out revolution by the sex offenders. i doubt that will happen anytime soon. BUT it does't have to be all out. If only 10% of them decide the state will never leave them alone and is only trying every dirty trick to do a gotch! and toss em into concentration camps....and decide they might has well go out with a bang....this country will be looking back and only wishing all they had was osama to deal with

Posted by: rodsmith | Apr 18, 2011 2:21:33 PM

as for this statement bill!

"Here's how: If you're in your forties, you have no business fooling around with high schoolers. So don't do it. Rocket science this is not."

Might want to look again.

A large number of the individuals on the registry have never touched anyone let alone a highschooler.....sorry photo's dont' count as highschoolers and neither do 50 year old cops pretending to be teenagers

Posted by: rodsmith | Apr 18, 2011 2:30:19 PM

rodsmith --

I don't know all that much about registries, to be honest. I haven't been in the US Attorney's Office for 12 years, and when I was there, I tended not to be all that interested in sex cases.

Some people obsess on them, but I just never saw the point. There were enough meth dealers to worry about.

I followed the path many people do. When I was in my 20's, it was about sex, yup. In my 30's, about learning. In my 40's, about money. In my 50's, about power. Now it's about bringing along the younger generation to take over when I can't do it anymore.

BTW, the idea that you should be banned from the site -- while people like GilbertsHumptyDumpty have what I guess they view as fun -- is beyond preposterous.

Posted by: Bill Otis | Apr 18, 2011 3:11:18 PM

lol 12 years ago it wasn't this bad! that was in fact about the time the internet registry became legal via the 2002 u.s. supreme court decision.

None of the follow on illegal stupidty had hit yet!

as for your path i think most of us followed it. i know i did! A big part of our problem is most don't want to ADMIT IT! nor do they want to think back to their teenage years in highschool when as a senior they went out with others in school from lower grades then them. Gues what all those who did and even TOUCHED the other person is legally under these laws one of the evil SEX OFFENDERS! they just haven't been caught yet! just give em time they are moving the actionable date back all the time. think calif goes back to 1942!


as for those who want someone ANYONE banned i just consider the sorce and move on! There will never be any consensis as to what we need to do with all these major problems facing this country if we don't talk to each other SOMEWHERE and i'd think here on line rather than face to face is a lot safer for a lot of people!

Posted by: rodsmith | Apr 18, 2011 6:51:03 PM

as for why the sex offender stuff get's my goat so much. well almost 20 years ago i had a relative who comitted 10 mins of stupdity. no violence no rape. didnt' even try to hide it. They are a sex offender and have been for almost 20 years.

did 36 months in prison and sucessfully completed the court ordered sexoffender treatment program. had 7 years probation. did it all. even after all that still got a good job paying 12-13 dollars an hr. till in early 2007 state walked in and told them they had two choices. stand up and walk out of the office and never come back or go to jail. Seems the state had passed a NEW law and it was now illegal for them to work there!

that was almost 5 years ago and now they get by with odd jobs and has ever since.


so yes if i could collect every hate filled you know what who had ever voted for or written a sex offender bill or plugged one in the media..

I'd NUKE them all and never shed a tear!

Posted by: rodsmith | Apr 18, 2011 6:56:52 PM

Bill:

Rodsmith's admission at 6:56 PM is how I see it also.

The retroactive SO laws (non-punative?) as determined by the USSC show how out of touch with reality they are.

How can the government keep throwing obstacle after obstacle in front of 3/4 of a million people (are we shooting for 6 million to break a record?), of which maybe 10,000 (at most) pose a problem.

Playing with numbers (which I like to do) demonstrates the absurdites of SO laws. Just remeber that Mark Foley (ughh), John Walsh (his voice is like chalk on a chalkboard) and Ernie Allen (look at his eyes in a good photograph) benefit from this financially (maybe not Foley).

Now every POL wants to jump on the bandwagon.

Human Rights Watch, the Wetterling Foundation, The Economist, the NACDL, etc have many well researched articles that found that current SO laws "do much more harm than good".

Posted by: albeed | Apr 18, 2011 11:09:19 PM

thanks albeed but it wasnt' an admission. the sex offender stupidity is just what i think was the first step on the long road into death for this country. Since it's started with it's continual retroactive laws and conditions. Once the public sucked it up and did nothing...then it was moved to terrorists and again the public did NOTHING....Now of couse the registry's are expanding every day and in every type of crime. Give those registry's a few years and i'm sure you will see the addition of working and living and even proximity laws that apply to them as well just as the sex offenders.

they were simply the first test case from the control freeks....see i can use a diff word than nazi! to see just how gullible the public was and how willing to give up the freebdoms 100's of thousands have died in the last 200+ years to buy!

i also fight about a lot of other illegal things our govt does.

Illegal searches at the border and beyond!
no-knock assaults by swat teams supposedly serving minor warrants!
the massive hiding of 100's of thousands of documents that were never hidden before the last two presidents got ahold of them and more!


this one just really pisses me off since we do in fact have a supreme court decision that specifically states WHAT IS LEGAL and what we have is so far from that list that it's somewhere over the rainbow!

Posted by: rodsmith | Apr 19, 2011 1:36:16 AM

Oh c'mon bill, lighten up. U know u like it up the butt sometimes. U need ur soapbox to preach ur rule of law blah blah blah online cuz no one in the real world would listen to u. So all this online rule of law mumbo jumbo is just venting of ur own frustration for lack of receiving much attention. U should re-read ur posts cuz all I see is an old broken man who has nothing better to do in life than sit behind a pc screen ranting n raving all day about the rule of law. Ur not even a fucking lawyer cuz if u were, I'd think u'd have better things to do than discussing the finer points of Bill's law. Ur full of shit n even a legal novice like me can tell lol. But the reason y I respond is not cuz I think u have a point. It's cuz I'm being entertained by legal newbs like u.

As far as rodsmith goes, I can tell he's keeping it real. Maybe a little overdoing on the venting n violence but then again, that only shows his passion.

Actually Bill, u remind me of that senator, Craig was it, that was an outspoken critic of gays, the typical family, Xian values Republican, who got caught soliciting sex in the men's bathroom inside an airport. I surmise that he's ur role model, so I figured to proposition u on some s&m n domination. My offer is still good Bill :)

Posted by: GilbertsHumptyDumpty | Apr 19, 2011 3:37:03 PM

lol

"As far as rodsmith goes, I can tell he's keeping it real. Maybe a little overdoing on the venting n violence but then again, that only shows his passion."

Thanks gilberts

i am pasionate about this country i know it's got problems but overall it's still 1000% better than most of the others out there.

as for my overdoing on the venting n violence. seems to me must better to get out out of your sytem via works on a computer screen then in real life. My family and friends and neighbrs will all tell you the same thing. as long as i'm just talking about it. your good. If i stop talking to you and get real quiet...its LONG past time to run for your life!

Posted by: rodsmith | Apr 19, 2011 9:42:54 PM

So people think that there isn’t going to be a “revolution” about SEX OFFENDER Registration? Well, at just what point does something become a revolution?

I don’t expect there will ever even be mass demonstrating, let alone outright mass violence regarding the immoral Registries. But I don’t think there has to be in order to call something a revolution. I think we can call something a revolution if most of the people being harmed by the criminal governments revolt against it. Revolt is a revolution.

I think that revolution has already started and it must grow. The beginning of the revolution is complete when every single person who is listed on a Registry decides that it is unequivocally unacceptable. It is that simple.

A Registered person should concede nothing. It does not matter what the terrorists say to try to justify their crimes, the Registries are unacceptable. Period. Each Registered person should take it upon him or herself to ensure that at least for themselves, Registration is worse-than-worthless. They should ensure that it is even counterproductive. When all 700 thousand plus Registered people do that, I would call that a pretty effective revolution. If the thing that is being revolted against is completely neutralized and negated, I would call that a successful revolt.

Someone also mentioned that people on the Registries could not effectively revolt because there are so many millions of people who “support” the Registries. But that thinking is flawed. The millions of people who support the Registries are not motivated whereas the people on the Registries should revolt every day.

Personally, I do pay attention to it every day. I reward people who are anti-government/anti-Registries and punish people who are not. I also used to waste quite a bit of time and money helping charities. Now, I don’t do that ever. Any Registered person who does is a fool. Instead, I direct those resources at harming people who support the Registries.

Also, I know for a fact that at least two innocent children have been murdered as revolt against the Registries. I expect that the number of people murdered and serioulsly harmed because of the Registries is actually quite high. When Bill Otis said that he didn’t think a revolt was a possibility, I was wondering exactly how many murdered children he thinks are acceptable to be murdered in the SEX OFFENDER War.

Lastly, I don’t think people really appreciate how damaging it is to try to marginalize and harm a large segment of the U.S. population, including millions of people around them. I know that all of the people near me have a very healthy disrespect of governments and law enforcement. I have raised over five children. All of them are advanced college graduates or will be. They are business people, doctors, and other professionals. Their anti-government, anti-law enforcement beliefs will matter. As does mine.

So the Registry Terrorists can keep passing as many worse-than-worthless laws as they want. The laws are not going to do anything useful and they are going to continue to harm the U.S.

Posted by: FRegistryTerrorists | Apr 20, 2011 7:58:28 AM

@ rodsmith

Indiana also ruled that the effect of Indiana’s civil regulatory scheme is punitive and violates the Ex Post Facto clause of the Indiana Constitution.

Posted by: Huh? | Apr 20, 2011 10:37:57 PM

Bill Otis ~

"Since such replacement should not happen, has not happened, and as you know is not going to happen, you are left with choosing between (1) a judicial system as flawed as you take it to be, and (2) unlimited self-help, as each party holding your view sees himself as justified in imposing his will by stealth or force, as Ms. Harvey did.

With all respect, albeed, the idea that the judicial system in this country, though flawed (as all civil institutions are flawed), should take a back seat to the pre-civilization, do-whatever-you-want-if-you're-strong-enough law of the jungle, is not just erroneous but insane. "

We have the best government money can buy, which is every reason to believe our justice system is as flawed as many believe it is.

In the past, most cases were were won or lost on hard evidence - a body... a witness. Today, prosecutors take bets on whether or not a defendant will be convicted - right before said prosecutors waltz into the court room acting out their Hollywood screen play theory for a naive jury.

Had this case happened 45 years ago, and my father was the defendant, I would most likely never would have been born - my mother was 17, my father 3 years old, when the oldest of my three brothers was conceived.

The judicial system jumped into the back seat years ago.

Posted by: Huh? | Apr 20, 2011 10:59:40 PM

err... I meant to say my father 3 years older. :-)

Posted by: Huh? | Apr 20, 2011 11:02:12 PM

@ FRegistryTerrorists

Just need to get the narrow-minded politicians out of state legislatures - replacing them with people who disagree with the SO laws. It would be easy to raise the money... last I checked there were over 700,000 registered sex offenders. How much could be raised if every sex offender, their family and their friends donated $$$ to a fund to accomplish political revolt?

Posted by: Huh? | Apr 20, 2011 11:28:16 PM

yea huh! a lot of that going around. A big part of the idiots who push these illegal laws have never stopped to think that if th ey had existed when thier parents were young they too would be listed! and their lives destroyed!

Posted by: rodsmith | Apr 20, 2011 11:32:27 PM

Huh? (Apr 20, 2011 11:28:16 PM): Well, I don’t think it is that easy to raise money for state legislature races. It takes a PILE of cash.

And I when I get involved in political races, I never talk about SEX OFFENDER laws. I think that is almost always a non-starter issue. No, when I target someone, I simply find their most powerful opponent and align myself with their supporters and whatever issues they are using.

I never let anyone know I am trying to defeat a specific person because of their stance regarding the SEX OFFENDER Witch Hunt. But usually, after the person is defeated, I do tell people why I helped defeat them. I do it all pretty anonymously not because I am afraid but because I do not want people to know me or the true issues that drive what I do. I want to be able to continue to function effectively.

When the SEX OFFENDER Banishment virus was starting to spread around the state where I live, I got involved in many local races. The locals were the criminal morons who were driving the problem. I got quite a few of those idiots defeated and a number of them are out of politics today. It was very successful. And it takes a lot less time, money, and effort to defeat the local criminals.

You will hear politicians say over and over again (I heard one recently) that a person will never lose a vote supporting SEX OFFENDER laws. But they are very wrong. One of the local criminals that I helped defeat lost by only 19 votes! It was a very close race. I wrote him afterward and told him that I was certain I had influenced several thousand at least (heck, I put enough money in alone to do just that much). I showed him the exact actions and quotes that he had made about the SEX OFFENDER Witch Hunt that prompted me to get involved. He knows it cost him the election.

Lastly, I would just like to say that I do believe a good way to control the Witch Hunt is for any and all Registered people to become wealthy. I don’t want to worship money or anything (like most Americans do) but I really do believe that it puts a person in control, especially a Registered person. Don’t count on other people for anything.

Luckily, America is a good place to get wealthy. People who are Registered should forget about getting jobs and an employer. Make your own job. You be the employer, the landlord, etc. You be in control. Then use your power to reward people who retaliate against the Witch Hunt and punish people who support it.

Posted by: FRegistryTerrorists | Apr 21, 2011 9:04:11 AM

The strongest magnets available nowadays are the Neodymium magnets, made of a combination of neodymium, iron, and boron. They are called rare earth because their composition elements are found in the "Rare Earth Magnets" or Lanthanides portion of the Periodic Table of Elements. Neodymium magnet are character rised by exceptionally strong magnetic properties by even better resistance to demagnetization. Ndfeb magnet are extremely powerful by volume and will retain magnet properties for decades.The discovery was brought about by the increasing cost of permanent magnets used by SMCO.

Posted by: Neodymium magnets | May 13, 2011 5:04:14 AM

I THINK WE ALL NEED TO REVOLT AGAINST THE CRIMINALS THAT ARE POLITICIANS. THE PEOPLE ON THE SEX OFFENDER LISTS NATION WIDE NEED TO PICK UP ARMS AGAINST THIS SHIT HOLE OF A COUNTRY THAT SPITS ON YOU. VIVA REVOLUTION!! WE NEED TO GET THE VIOLENCE STARTED AND SHOW THE POLITICIANS THEY CAN'T DO WHAT EVER THEY WANT!! I THINK SEX OFFENDERS NATIONWIDE NEED TO FIGHT BACK BY ALL MEANS THEY CAN GUNS HAND GRENADES WHATEVER YOU CAN GET USE IT TO FIGHT FOR YOUR FREEDOM!!

Posted by: FUCK AMERICA!! | Jun 19, 2011 12:02:54 AM

Post a comment

In the body of your email, please indicate if you are a professor, student, prosecutor, defense attorney, etc. so I can gain a sense of who is reading my blog. Thank you, DAB