Www.oncefallen.com



ICoN Newsletter Consolidated Version 2 (2016, Vols. 5-14)ABOUT ICoNThe Informational Corrlinks Newsletter (ICoN) provides a variety of legal, treatment, activism news & practical info for incarcerated SOs via CorrLinks email. Submissions, questions & requests to be added to the ICoN mailing list or previous editions of the ICoN can be sent via CorrLinks to iamthefallen1@ (provided there is no charge) or by mail to Once Fallen, c/o Derek Logue, 8258 Monon Ave. #3, Cincinnati OH 45216. Please allow up to 8 weeks for “snail mail” responses. Our focus is on SO laws; we don’t advise or assist on appeals, sentencing issues, or non-SO news or issues like people-finding/penpal services. This Consolidated newsletter contains the important articles from ICoN newsletters released in 2016. Due to Corrlink’s 13k character limit, abbreviations are used, so ICoN readers need to familiarize themselves with the following acronyms: SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States), RC (registered citizen, a “SO” currently forced to register), ARM (anti-registry movement, a term sometimes used to describe our reform movement), SOR (SO Registry), & AWA (Adam Walsh Act), in addition to the many abbreviations for states and court jurisdictions. For the sake of saving space, time dated announcements and resource info are not included in this version. LEGAL ROUNDUP 2016NC: State v. Packingham, No. 366PA13 (NC Sup Ct 2015): Reversed an appellate decision what had declared social media bans for SOs were unconstitutional. The Majority ruled NC’s ban on social networking did not violate Free Speech, but merely “regulated conduct,” which may have merely an “incidental effect” on speech, which therefore receives only the lightest judicial scrutiny, and is thus permitted under the Constitution. [NOTE: This was overturned by SCOTUS in Feb 2017]CA: A year after Caron City declared “war” on registered citizens and vowed to fight for the right to ban registrants from public places like city parks, Carson City repealed their anti-loitering ordinance. The state appeals court had already declared such laws invalid because state law preempts local ordinances. Earlier this year, members of the CA legislature attempted to pass a law allowing municipalities to make up their own rules for so-called “child safety zones” but was rejected.FL: Early in 2016, a federal district court has rejected arguments against Miami-Dade Co’s 2500 foot residency restriction law named after Lauren Book, daughter of powerful and corrupt lobbyist Ron Book. Miami was home to the homeless camp under the bridge, which made headlines from 2007-2010; the homeless SOs were simply moved from under the bridge to parking lots and empty warehouses. The ACLU appealed, and the 11th Circuit overturned that court’s decision.VA: The legislature is trying for a third time to pass a bill to remove state employer information from the registry. If VA's SB 11 passes, they will become the third state since 2012 (the other two being Kansas and Texas) to remove employer info from the registry. In 2010 it was SB635 which passed the Virginia Senate Committee and then the Full-Chamber 40-0 but was then “killed” by the House Militia, Police and Safety Sub-Committee of 6. Then in 2012 it was HB413 which made it onto a hearing docket for the House Courts of Justice Criminal Sub-committee where the 8 members “Laid it on the table” instead of casting an official vote, to “kill” it. As of December 2015, 2 states (HI, NV) list employer street name & zip code; 10 states (LA, MA, MI, NY, SC, MD, MI, MO, OH, TN) list employer address; 6 states (AK, IN, NM, DE, ME, VA) list employer name and address; 1 state (AL) lists employer city and occupation, 2 states (PA, WV) list employer city, county, and zip; and 29 states do not list employer information. [Update, passed Senate but died in House.]NC: Doe v. Cooper, No. 1:13CV711 (M.D.N.C. Dec. 7, 2015) The plaintiffs, all subject to G.S. 14-208.18, brought their claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the law is unconstitutionally overbroad, vague, and violative of their procedural due process rights. The crux of their complaint is that they aren’t sure where they can and can’t go. They have been told by various prosecutors, law enforcement officers, and probation officers that, among other things, they may not attend a G-rated movie, eat at a fast food restaurant that has an attached play area, go to an office supply store that is within 300 feet of a fast food restaurant that has a play area, or go to church. Judge Beaty wrote that the law gives no guidance as to how “regularly” a program must occur or how many minors must gather to trigger the prohibition. Concluding that the provision cannot stand, the court enjoined every prosecutor in the state from enforcing it against the plaintiffs and all other persons similarly situated. The court also ruled the law may be overbroad, not narrowly tailored. NJ: The NJ Appellate Ct ruled in Jan. the use of polygraphs in the treatment of SOs is legal, but they can’t use them as evidence for punishment hearings. The court called the tests a "therapeutic tool" when used to help treat sex offenders but "incompetent evidence" when used to punish them. In addition to barring New Jersey from using the test results to impose sanctions or increased restrictions on monitored sex offenders, the appeals court ordered the parole board to beef up regulations protecting offenders from incriminating themselves. The parole board's use of the tests to increase restrictions on monitored sex offenders - such as travel bans or restrictions on where a sex offender an live - "clashes with our judiciary's systemic aversion to the evidential use of polygraphs," Judge Jack Sabatino wrote for the court.MI: An SO suing over the state’s SO registry and residence restrictions will not be able to file as a “John Doe,” despite being harassed and assaulted by vigilantes. The man & his mother, evicted from their apartment after a neighbor apparently noted his registry status, found hot grease on their car while packing up to leave. He was also assaulted, and had "Bitch" written on the windshield, the lawsuit said. U.S. District Judge Robert Jonker rejected the motion, stating litigation is presumed to be a held in public, "especially when matters of public concern are at issue,” and, “the Court cannot guarantee any litigant freedom from expressions of opposing views – even strongly worded expressions of opposition.”CA: The state Assembly reintroduced AB 201, which would have reinstituted the power of municipalities to pass “presence restrictions” (also known as anti-loitering or “child safety zones”), but the bill died in committee, mostly the result of Anti-Registry activists. During the Committee hearing, a total of 16 people spoke in opposition to AB 201 and only three people spoke in its favor. Those speaking in opposition to the bill included representatives from the CA SO Management Board, the ACLU, and California Attorneys for Criminal Justice. Those speaking in favor of the bill were representatives from the Orange County District Attorney’s office, the Orange County Board of Supervisors and the City of Carson.Belleau v. Wall, No. 15‐3225 (7th Cir Jan. 29, 2016): Requiring an SO to wear a GPS monitoring anklet 24 hours a day for life does not violate the 4th Amdt, reversing a ruling from WI. The Court claims, “It is because of the need for such balancing that persons convicted of crimes, especially very serious crimes such as sexual offenses against minors, and especially very serious crimes that have high rates of recidivism such as sex crimes, have a diminished reasonable constitutionally protected expectation of privacy.”BOP: Recently it was reported to me that Otisville was planning a blanket proposal to prevent ALL SOs from accessing Corrlinks. It was now reported to me that thanks to the inmates who reported to me the Corrlinks policies in your institution, Otisville officials backed off the blanket proposal & will only block access on a case-by-case basis. One small victory for us!Feds: HR515, aka, International Megan’s Law, was passed unanimously into law. Under IML, passports of SOs with a minor victim with have a “unique identifier” (think 1930s Germany) placed on the passports, & failing to disclose full travel details (including flight plan, where you’ll be staying, who you are traveling with) within 21 days is punishable by 10 years in prison.WI- Gov. Scott Walker has signed a bill that creates uniform restrictions on where SOs can live. Municipalities currently use local ordinances to create zones where SOs can't live. The bill creates statewide regulations barring violent SOs from living within 1,500 feet of any school, day care, youth center, church or public park. SOs who committed crimes against children can't live next door to children. Sex offenders who committed crimes against an elderly or disabled person can't live within 1,500 feet of a nursing home or other assisted living facility. Local ordinances will generally remain enforceable.IN—The IN Sup Ct ruled that two men had to register as SOs after moving from other states, saying the requirement did not violate the Indiana Constitution’s prohibition against ex post facto laws [Sidney Lamour Tyson v State of Indiana, 45S03-1509-CR-528, and In State of Indiana v Scott Zerbe, 49S05-1509-MI-529] WA—The State Court of Appeals has determined that Steven Powell doesn't have to disclose his sexual history as part of SO treatment because doing so would violate the 5th Amdt. [State v. Powell, No. 46957-0-II (WA Ct. of Appls, Div II, March 29, 2016)]AL—A federal judge has ruled that Ricky Martin of Triumph Church in Clanton can proceed with a lawsuit against the state against a Chilton Co. anti-clustering law passed specifically to shut down his ministry, which provided one of the state’s only transitional homes. Fed—Nichols v. US, Docket # 15-5238: SORNA, which makes it a federal crime for certain SOs to “knowingly fai[l] to register or update a registration,” and requires sex offenders who move to another state to, “no later than 3 business days after each change of name, residence, employment, or student status,” inform in person at least one jurisdiction “where the offender resides, . . . is an employee, and . . . is a student,” did not require Lester Nichols to update his registration in KS once he left the state and moved to the Philippines. Note, SCOTUS ruled that “International Megan’s Law” had changed the registration requirements and had rendered this a moot point so this decision won’t impact the requirement to register when moving out of the USA.US v Von Behren (10th Cir, May 11, 2016): This Ct ruled that requiring one to answer specific questions during a polygraph examination violates the 5th Amdt protection against self-incrimination. “The Fifth Amendment is triggered when a statement would provide a ‘lead’ or ‘a link in the chain of evidenceneeded to prosecute the’ speaker, see, e.g., United States v. Powe, 591 F.2d 833, 845 n.36 (D.C. Cir. 1978), and affirmative answers to these questions would do just that. If there were presently an investigation looking into the commission of a sex crime, and if Mr. Von Behren were a suspect, an affirmative answer to these questions would allow the police to focus the investigation on him. Moreover, investigators would certainly look at Mr. Von Behren differently if they were made aware that he had physically forced someone to engage in sexual relations with him.”AZ: The AZ Court of Appeals ruled that accused SOs could not be automatically denied bail. In a split opinion, the majority said it may very well be appropriate to keep individuals who are charged with having sexual contact with minors behind bars until trial. But Judge Peter Swann said simply being charged with a crime — even if there is evidence of the person’s guilt — is legally insufficient. He said a judge can deny bail only if prosecutors can also show that no conditions of release can be imposed to ensure protection of others… Swann said the U.S. Supreme Court in 1987 ruled that said categorical denial of bail is unconstitutional. Instead, the high court said prosecutors must first prove by clear and convincing evidence that no release conditions will reasonably assure the safety of any other person and the community. By contrast, the judge said, the law and state constitutional provisions here require that defendants must be denied bail “upon nothing more than a sufficient showing that they likely committed the offense, without addressing the availability of release conditions that could assure the safety of victims and the community.” [Source: AZ Capitol Times]NV: An amended lawsuit was filed in Clark County District Court on behalf of unnamed plaintiffs identified as Does 1-17, arguing AB-579 is vague & overbroad in its application, & that the state is applying the law unequally & has no procedures for people to challenge their inclusion on the registry. The Nevada Legislative passed the law in 2007 to comply with the federal Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, but it has been on hold for years pending legal challenges. In January, the Nevada Supreme Court said implementation could proceed. [Source: Las Vegas Review Journal]FL: [Snow v. State, Fla: Dist. Court of Appeals, 1st Dist. 2016] A criminal defendant charged with “traveling to meet a minor” and “solicitation of a minor” will have one of his charges vacated after the state Supreme Court, [see State v. Shelly, 176 So. 3d 914 (Fla. 2015)] ruled double jeopardy applies when someone is convicted of separate charges arising out of the same conduct, and remanded the case back to the 1st Dist Ct of Appeals. WA: State v. KHH, No. 91934-8 (WA Sup Ct, Jun 23, 2016): The state’s highest court ruled that forcing a teen to write a letter of apology to his alleged victim does not violate the teen’s 1st Amendment rights. The Court stated, “One must face the consequences of a conviction, which often include the loss or lessening of constitutional rights. There is a whole range of constitutional rights that can be affected by a conviction, not the least of which is a loss of liberty. There may be a limitation on the degree to which First Amendment rights may be restricted for those convicted of crimes, but an apology letter condition does not approach that limit.”NY: Matter of State of New York v. Dennis K., No. 106 Anthony N., No. 107 Richard TT., No. 108 – The NY Court of Appeals, in a 5-1 decision, affirmed in two cases that the presence of a “borderline personality disorder” may be considered as enhancing the risk an offender will commit more SO crimes if treatment is not imposed by courts or, in more extreme cases, offenders are not held in secure mental facilities. Borderline personality disorder, both respondents argued, is not recognized as a condition inherent in sexual disorders and cannot be used as a civil confinement prerequisite. But Judge Eugene Pigott Jr. wrote that Article 10 allows for the recognition that a condition like borderline personality disorder, though not technically a "sexual disorder," may reflect a mental condition that "affects the emotional, cognitive, or volitional capacity of a person that predisposes him or her to the commission of conduct constituting a sex offense."IN: Richard J. McVey v. State of Indiana, 73A04-1601-CR-12 (IN Ct of Appeals, July 1, 2016) – The court ruled, “Richard J. McVey was convicted of Class C felony child molesting for molesting his half-sister in 2001. After the molestation, the legislature amended the Indiana Sex Offender Registration Act to require lifetime registration for offenders like McVey, as opposed to the previous requirement of ten years. It also enacted the unlawful-entry statute, which makes it a crime for a person who is required to register as a sex offender and who is convicted of child molesting to enter school property. McVey contends that both enactments, as applied to him, violate the Indiana Constitution’s prohibition against ex post facto laws. We agree with McVey as to the lifetime-registration requirement but not as to the unlawful-entry statute.” McVey was attempting to challenge the “unlawful entry” statute because his CDL training school is considered “school grounds” under this law, as well as reduce his lifetime registration to the original sentence of ten years. NV: McNeill v. State of Nevada, No. 66697 (132 Nev. Advance Op. 54, July 28, 2016): Appellant was a convicted SO on lifetime supervision. When Appellant had been on lifetime supervision for five years, the State Board of Parole Commissioners imposed additional conditions that were not enumerated in Nev. Rev. Stat. 213.1243. The State later filed a complaint charging Appellant with violation of conditions of lifetime supervision and prohibited acts by a SO. The jury found Appellant guilty of violating the conditions of his lifetime supervision. On appeal, Appellant argued that section 213.1243 does not delegate authority to the Board to impose additional supervision conditions not enumerated in the statute, and therefore, he did not violate the statute even if he violated the additional conditions imposed by the Board. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the plain language of section 213.1243 does not grant the Board authority to impose additional conditions, and this omission was intentional; and (2) because the Board-imposed conditions were unlawful and any Board violations cannot be separated from any section 213.1243 violations, the case must be remanded for a new trial. [Summary from ]OH: State v. Mole, Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-5124 : The court ruled 4-3 that the law arbitrarily added police to a ban on professionals having sex with minors that includes people with authority over children such as teachers or coaches. The government can't punish a class of professionals like police without making a connection between their job and the crime, Chief Justice Maureen O'Connor said, writing for the majority. The law overturned by the court prohibited police officers from having sex with minors if the offenders were more than two years older than the victim.IN: Brian Valenti v. Indiana Secretary of State, et al., 1:15-cv-1304 : A registered SO’s lawsuit against the Indiana Secretary of State and other parties will proceed, a federal judge ruled Thursday, denying the defendants’ motion to dismiss. Blackford County resident Brian Valenti filed the federal suit alleging his First and 14th Amendment rights were violated because he cannot vote at the local polling place located in the Blackford County High School auxiliary gym. Valenti’s suit challenges I.C. 35-42-4-14 that prohibits “serious SOs” from entering school property. The law took effect in 2015, and Valenti meets the definition of serious SO under the statute.PA: The PA Sup Ct has declared unconstitutional a requirement that all SOs who were juveniles at the time of their crimes must stay on the so-called Megans Law Registry for life, adding it was also unnecessary for public safety. In a 5-1 ruling hailed by juvenile justice advocates, the court upheld a 2013 decision by a York County judge striking down portions of the SO Registration and Notification Act, known as SORNA. We conclude that SORNAs registration requirements violate juvenile offenders due process rights, Justice Max Baer wrote in his opinion.NY: Gallagher v. Sullivan, 9:15-cv-01327-- A judge has declined to ease some restrictions placed on the activities of an SO in a secure psychiatric unit, which the plaintiff said are inhibiting his ability to prepare a suit challenging the terms of his confinement; 14 SOs are involved in a suit arguing their First, Fourth, Fifth and Fourteen Amendment rights are routinely violated through forced confinement in Central New York Psychiatric Center in Marcy, contending their activities are restricted more harshly than they were in state prison, despite their movement into a post-prison setting that theoretically is not supposed to continue or enhance punishment for their sex offenses. One plaintiff was denied the right to buy a computer and printer to use for the lawsuit. Assistant Attorney General Mark Mitchell said courts have long recognized that inmates in prisons and offenders confined in SO treatment program such as New York's give up many of their constitutional rights.AL: Martin v. Houston, CASE # 2:14-CV-905-WKW [WO] (M.D. Alabama 2016) – The Court has ruled that the plaintiff’s lawsuit can proceed under the “Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000” (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000cc, et seq., protect individuals, houses of worship, and other religious institutions from discrimination in zoning and landmarking laws (for information on RLUIPA's institutionalized persons provisions, please refer to the Civil Rights Division's Special Litigation Section). The case regards a Chilton Co. ordinance that prohibits SOs from living within 300 feet of each other. Pastor Ricky Martin was forced to shut down a transitional program as a result of this ordinance and has been suing the state since 2014. MN: State v. Moser, A15-2017 (MN Ct of Appeals, August 8, 2016): By eliminating a mistake-of-age defense and imposing strict liability, MN statutes Sec. 609.352, subdivisions 2 & 3(a) (2014), as applied to solicitation that occurs over the Internet, involves no face-to-face contact between the solicitor and the child, and where the child represents to the solicitor that he or she is 16 or older, violates substantive due process. Defendants charged with violating MN Statutes section 609.352, subdivision 2, solely over the Internet and without any face-to-face contact, must be given an opportunity to raise a mistake-of-age affirmative defense if the child represents to the defendant that he or she is 16 or older.PA: A.S. v. Pa. State Police, __ A.3d __ (Pa. 2016) and Commonwealth of Pennsylvania vs. Lutz-Morrison, _ A. 3d _ (Pa. 2016): In a pair of same-day decisions, the PA Sup Ct ruled offenders who commit some kinds of sex crimes, such as possessing child pornography, cannot be made to register with state police for life unless they commit at least one more sex crime after their initial convictions. In other words, they have to become recidivists to qualify for the lifetime registration. State police have been requiring such first-time offenders to register for life if they have multiple sex crime convictions stemming from just one criminal incident. The dispute before the Supreme Court hinged on the interpretation of the wording of a state law that requires lifetime registration for some sex offenders who receive "two or more convictions." A Supreme Court majority…concluded the wording means sex offenders in some cases must be convicted of such crimes for two separate incidents to trigger the lifetime registration mandate.MI: Does v. Snyder, No. 15-1536 (6th Cir. Aug. 25, 2016): MI's amendments to its SO Registration Act (SORA) "imposes punishment" and thus the state violates the US Constitution when applying these SORA provisions retroactively. “…[w]hat began in 1994 as a non-public registry maintained solely for law enforcement use . . . has grown into a byzantine code governing in minute detail the lives of the state’s sex offenders… In reaching this conclusion, we are mindful that, as Smith makes clear, states are free to pass retroactive sex-offender registry laws and that those challenging an ostensibly non-punitive civil law must show by the “clearest proof” that the statute in fact inflicts punishment. But difficult is not the same as impossible. Nor should Smith be understood as writing a blank check to states to do whatever they please in this arena.”AZ- Clark v. Ryan, No. 15-15531 (9th Cir. 2016): Affirming the district court’s denial of a habeas corpus petition, the panel held that the Arizona Court of Appeals’ decision that Arizona’s modern SO registration statute is not an ex post facto law is neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, the Supreme Court’s decision in Smith v. Doe I, 538 U.S. 84 (2003). This case involved a man failing to register. [note: in my opinion, this case doesn’t conflict with the recent 6th circuit case as this case challenged the registry itself, which is upheld by Smith v Doe, whereas the 6th ruled on HOW the registry was administered, not the registry itself.]NC- A new law takes effect on 9/1 “to offenders whose victims were under the age of 18 and to offenders who have been found to present a danger to minors” banning these SOs from places “children congregate,” like libraries, arcades, amusement parks, recreation areas, swimming pools and county fairs. Two people were already arrested for attending a fair under this law. A similar NC law was voided for vagueness under a previous court decision. FL- A Palm Beach Co court petition filed Aug. 31 claims a hospice patient with end-stage Alzheimer's disease has been threatened with arrest if he does not move out of Heartland of Boynton Beach, a nursing home near a local preschool. The City of Boynton Beach purportedly issued a notice to the SO and the hospice accusing them of violating an ordinance that prohibits SOs from living within 2,500 feet of a school, daycare center or playground. The pleading insists that a criminal prosecution of the SO would have to show he made a "purposeful decision" to maintain residency within the restricted area. His Alzheimer's disease renders him "completely incapable of having the requisite intent or mens rea necessary" to prove as much, the filing states. He was removed from the MA SO list in 2011, according to the recently filed petition.MN- State of Minnesota v. Moser, 2016 Minn. App. LEXIS 59 (Aug. 8, 2016): Court ruled that the “strict liability” approach could not be used for internet solicitation cases where there was no face-to-face contact between the solicitor and the child, and where the child had represented to the solicitor that she was 16 or older (i.e., above the age of consent). Mistake of age (a girl lying about her age) has traditionally not been allowed as a defense. DC, Congress: Rep. Ted Poe of Texas introduced H.R.5970 - To amend title 18, United States Code, to permit sentencing judges in child sex trafficking cases to order the Attorney General to publicize the name and photograph of the convicted defendants, and for other purposes. This is part of the text. SECTION 1. Short title. This Act may be cited as the “Shame Act of 2016”. SEC. 2. Publication of information pertaining to persons convicted in connection with child sex trafficking. Section 1591 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: “(f) The court may order the Attorney General to publish publicly the name and photograph of any person convicted under this section.” [Note: No action was taken on this bill]FL- Smith v FL (No. SC15-782, FL Sup Ct 2016): held that use of a file sharing program DOES constitute “transmission” of CP under Florida Statute 847.0137. Smith argued that because he never directly sent files to an individual, but instead someone took files from his computer through the use of a file sharing program, he should not be convicted of “transmission”. In his argument, he pointed out that the Fifth District Court of Appeals previously ruled that transmission by method of a file sharing program did not constitute “transmission”. Smith’s District (the Fourth) ruled otherwise and the conflict between the two districts brought the case to the Florida Supreme Court. The Florida Supreme Court reasoned that use of a file-sharing program is “the electronic equivalent of placing a locked box filled with pornographic photographs on his front porch, telling a “friend” that there is something on the front porch he might want to see, and sending the friend a spare key to the locked box.”OR- State of Oregon v Davidson, S063387 (OR Sup Ct 2016): Ruled sentencing a man to life in prison for public masturbation under the 3 strikes rule was disproportionate to his crime. CA- A lawsuit challenging a law that requires a marker to be placed in the passports of people convicted of SOs against children is premature because the marker provision is not yet in effect, a federal judge said in a ruling dismissing the suit. U.S. District Court Judge Phyllis Hamilton said Friday it was also not clear yet who would be subject to the passport identifier and what form the identifier would take. This just means we have to wait for the mark to be placed before a lawsuit could proceed. ID- Does v Wasden, (US Dist Ct ID, 1:16-CV-429), Complaint filed Sept. 22, 2016: 104 plaintiffs come from across the state and the country, convicted in the 1980s and 1990s and say amendments since then to Idaho’s SO registry laws amount to retroactive punishment, which is unconstitutional.AL: The state legislature quietly repealed the 2014 “anti-clustering” ordinance during the special session at the end of summer. The ordinance was created to shut down a halfway house in the area by forcing SOs to live at least 500 feet from each other, but the program sued the state, and after a recent court ruling allowing the suit to continue, the state backed down. PA: Commonwealth v. Martinez (PA Sup Ct, J-29A-2016), Grace (J-29B-2016), & Shower (J-29A-2016)- The three cases were consolidated into a single PA Sup Ct decision, ruling that registration requirements can’t be increased for people who entered into plea agreements before subsequent versions of the registry schemes were passed. The opinion, which can be found here says that the three plaintiffs who all plead guilty before the enactment of the State’s SORNA (in 2012) could not be held to its more stringent requirements. Two of the plaintiff’s had registration periods of 10 years (which were then changed to life) and one of the plaintiffs plead to an offense that didn’t even require registration (but the offense was added to the list of offenses requiring registration).IL: People v. Minnis, Case No. 119563 [IL Sup Ct, Oct. 2016]: Ruled a law requiring SOs to register “all e-mail addresses, instant messaging identities, chat room identities and other [i]nternet communications identities that the sex offender uses or plans to use, all Uniform Resource Locators (URLs) registered or used by the SO, all blogs and other [i]nternet sites maintained by the SO or to which the SO has uploaded any content or posted any messages or information” did not violate 1st Amdt right to free & anonymous speech.FL- Hughes v. State, Case No. 5D14-4516 (5th Dist Ct Appeals FL, Oct. 2016)- defendant was convicted & sentenced for “soliciting” and “traveling” to meet a minor arising from an incident where he received a response from a detective posing as a 14 yr old girl, to a “casual encounters” listing on Craigslist and then subsequently traveling to meet her; the Court found Appellant’s dual convictions for solicitation and traveling after solicitation violate the prohibition against double jeopardy, rejecting the govt’s argument that “solicitation” took place on one day and the “traveling” happened the next day & should therefore be separate events. TN- State of TN v. Thomas Whited, E2013-02523-SC-R11-CD (TN Sup Ct, Nov. 7, 2016)- Reversed and remanded conviction of a man who secretly videotaped teens undressing because “The language chosen by the General Assembly does not include any reference to the defendant's subjective purpose of sexual arousal or gratification…In other words, TN's Legislature did not make the offense of production of CP pornography turn on whether the maker or viewer of an image was sexually aroused." Thus, they could only judge on whether the images themselves were lascivious in nature, i.e., engaged in sexual activity, which they were not. UT: Bennett v Bigelow, Case No. 20140680 (UT Sup Ct., Nov. 25, 2016)- A registrant does not have to reveal his complete sexual history as a condition of his parole, the Utah Supreme Court has ruled. B.B. sued the Utah Department of Corrections after his parole was revoked when he was ordered to disclose his sexual history — including any uncharged sex crimes — as a part of sex offender treatment. The Court said in a ruling released Saturday night that it violates his Fifth Amendment constitutional right against self-incrimination. “We hold that a threat to revoke a defendant’s parole constitutes compulsion for purposes of the Fifth Amendment,” Utah Supreme Court Chief Justice Matthew Durrant wrote.4th Cir.: Doe v. Cooper, Case No. 16-6026 & 16-1596 (4th Cir., Nov. 30, 2016)- A federal appeals court has upheld lower court rulings that found portions of North Carolina law restricting where RSOs can gather are unconstitutional because they're overly broad or vague. A three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, on Wednesday affirmed the federal lower court decisions, which the state appealed. One provision successfully challenged by several SOsoffenders who sued in 2013 prohibited them from going to places where minors gather for educational, recreation or social programs. The other restriction prevented them from being within 300 feet of certain locations where children are cared for or supervised. The legislature last summer approved replacements for the challenged laws while on appeal. The appeals court didn't consider the amended laws.CIVIL COMMITMENT BLOWBACK by Derek W. Logue“There’s a little bit of confusion. What is this place? Is it a prison? Is it a mental health center? A residential treatment facility where people are clients? What is it? We ask that question sometimes too. We really don’t have a lot of guidance around what it is the state wants the facility to be, and we would encourage the state to look at that.” – Susan Keenan Nayda, VP of operations at Liberty Behavioral Health Corp., in a court deposition in Arcadia, FLJust when it seemed the courts were finally going to force states abusing civil commitment laws to illegally detain folks past their sentences, states are winning appeals to keep the Abu Ghraib-style detainment policies active. The Houston Chronicle reported the first man released from TX’s controversial program was ordered back to a detention center after an appeals court reversed an order to free him. This news came just days after the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals put a temporary stop order that would have forced the MN-MSOP to change its civil commitment program and release some residents. For nearly 5 yrs, I have run a blog on behalf of Chris Krych, one of the indefinitely detained American citizens at the Moose Lake facility in MN. His most recent blog post described his everyday routine, where he is pretty much sitting in his cell 23 hours a day while getting recreation for only a single hour. While the MN-MSOP claims that this is a treatment facility, it is run like a penitentiary. Amanda C. Pustilnik, Professor of Law at the University of Maryland School of Law, considers the current sex offender civil commitment regime is "a perversion – of facts, of medical ethics, and of justice." Pustilnik argues "genuine civil commitment...is a form of emergency medical treatment; that is strictly limited in duration; and must be for the patient’s benefit." Pustilnik rightfully states that the current practice of holding sex offenders beyond their criminal sentences is not "civil commitment" but "preventive detention" using vague criteria as justification for confinement. I agree, and that is why I likened Mn-MSOP to Abu Ghraib. The original intent of civil commitment was to offer treatment to individuals deemed to be an extremely high risk to society. Before the 1997 decision of Kansas v. Hendricks, the standards of civil commitment were more stringent. Before the changing of the laws, one had to be deemed to be uncontrollable beyond a reasonable doubt, civil commitment took the place of prison, and there was a definitive end to the commitment sentence; under the new standards, however, a person can be committed if it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the individual has a personality disorder or other illness that would make somebody likely to reoffend, civil commitment is an extension of a prison sentence ,and there is no end to the period of confinement. Let’s stop pretending that “civil commitment” is about treatment, because in reality, it is a euphemism for indefinite detention and a way to circumvent the US Constitution. The process for civil commitment must be returned to its former, more limited past. It is time to emphasize treatment rather than punishment.SPECIAL REPORT: The Job IssueAround the country, “Ban the Box” laws are gaining popularity, which will prevent employers from asking that dreaded question on initial applications. At least it gives ex-felons the opportunity to “get the foot in the door” (this does not stop questions about records on interviews or doing background checks). And recently, a PA Commonwealth court rejected a broad ban on ex-felons working in elderly care centers because it did not narrowly tailor the law to certain crimes. Despite the change in attitude about how we view jobs and ex-felons, SOs tend to be left out of the conversation about job reform. There aren’t any studies on SOs & employment, so hosted a Job & Welfare Survey of freed SOs to find out how the SOs are supporting themselves. A total of 307 registered citizens completed the survey, so the info from this survey should be quite helpful. Below are some of the preliminary findings:First, it should come as no surprise that a number of SOs have experienced significant unemployment and housing problems. Almost half of respondents are unemployed, though some are retired or on welfare. Only 31% had a full time job (4 respondents had 2 jobs). Only 26% reported making over $30,000 last year, and 31.6% reported living below the federal poverty line. Almost half answered they have lost a job due to their status; 82% reported being denied work due to status; half reported harassment at work. About 37.7% experienced homelessness at some point (though only 3.4% of respondents were currently homeless at the time the survey was taken); amazingly, one-third owned their own home; 23% lived rent-free with a relative or through a program; about 40% rent an apartment, with 15% sharing living expenses; only one respondent is receiving government housing (achieved through a lawsuit). This is interesting because 78% of respondents reported having at least some college, with 50% holding a college degree. (Also of note on demographics, 55% of survey takers were ages 41-65 and 8% were 65+; only a third reported being married and living with spouse; only half has children; only 17% have minor children living with them.)Despite so many college-educated SOs, respondents reported the jobs they held since their release are those most associated with low-pay and high stress – unskilled labor jobs (day labor, custodial, other manual labor), skilled labor (trades), restaurant jobs, manufacturing/ warehouse, and retail/sales jobs were the most common responses. Job types with a medium amount of reported jobs held by respondents were truck driving/ delivery, construction, and Customer Service (stores or call centers). I may be encouraging to know that a handful of individuals have held jobs in nearly every type of job category, including government, legal, non-profits, research, banking, and even the scientific categories, and 10% reported having incomes over $50,000 a year. Very few (almost 20% of those holding a job) reported working for a “franchise” business like McDonald’s or Walmart; twice as many reported being self-employed; another third worked for a small business; the rest either worked for a business run by a friend/ family member or worked as a contractor (that included day labor). Nearly half of these jobs did not conduct a background check, according to respondents. Because some SOs have certain computer-related restrictions, it was encouraging to know that “old-fashioned” ways of job hunting are still useful. Employment offices, networking, walk-ins, and want-ads were still utilized by over half of job-seekers. The bad news is that it took 28% of respondents over a year to find a new job, & about 20% have estimated having filled out over 100 applications before either landing a job or giving up. About 53.6% reported being on some kind of welfare program. The most common kind of public assistance used were food stamps/ SNAP (27%) and assistance from friends and family (29%); 13% used food and clothing charities,9% used other assistance programs like community action agencies or churches, and 8% were on disability/ SSI. Only 2% received any kind of housing/ rental assistance programs. It is important to point out that less than half of respondents identified themselves as members of any online SO activism groups, a third of the respondents were classified Tier 1/ “Low Risk,” a third were classified Tier 2 or higher, and another third were from states with no formal classification system. Many of the respondents were from FL, AL, AR, & OH. Since this was an online survey promoted primarily through SO activist & support groups, this may not completely reflect the true unemployment rates, since some are barred from the Internet per terms of supervision. What does all this mean? The short answer is that finding employment as a registered citizen is going to be a slog. It is difficult, but not impossible, to find work. Based on this study, it seems employed SOs are most likely to work a “dead end job” or be self-employed, making a low wage, and with a fair chance of harassment problems at work. Also, expect to fill out lots of applications and spend upwards of a year or more searching for a job. However, there is hope of having a better life even as a registered citizen. A notable minority of SOs have good jobs and own their own homes. If you cannot get a job, at least you can qualify for a number of assistance programs, with the notable exception of housing (SOs are banned from Sec8 IF the registration requirement is lifetime). Though this survey hasn’t discovered anything groundbreaking, the goal was to help you understand the job climate as an SO. It isn’t hopeless, but obviously harder. One final note—these results listed here are a preliminary summary; a full analysis of the results will be posted on Once Fallen’s main website once the results are fully analyzed.THAT BIPOLAR KS SUP CTThe KS Sup Ct ruled on 4 separate cases on the same day and made conflicting rulings on whether or not the registry is punishment. Three cases say yes, the final case said no, and it is the final case that stands. I will try my best to simplify this confusing sequence of events as best as I can. On Friday, April 22, the KS Sup Ct heard a total of 4 cases regarding the SOR. The first three cases here heard by a panel that ruled 4 to 3 that the registry is punishment. The KC Star reported, “The highly unusual circumstance appears to be the result of a one-justice change in the makeup of the court. The panel that decided the three cases concerning the 2011 changes included a senior dist ct judge, who sided with the majority in the 4-3 decisions. That interim judge was serving on the court while there was a vacancy. But for the fourth case, the newest Sup Ct justice, Caleb Stegall, replaced the dist ct judge. That case also was decided 4-3, with Stegall casting the deciding vote. The three justices who were part of the majority in the first 3 opinions became the minority in the 4th opinion.The upshot was a finding that the KS law requiring lifetime registration for convicted sex offenders did not constitute additional punishment for a crime. Therefore, the law does not violate federal or KS constitutional protections against cruel and unusual punishment, the court ruled in that fourth case. In the three other cases, the court ruled that the law did constitute an additional punishment and said offenders convicted of crimes before 2011 could not have their 10-year registration periods extended to 25 years because the 25-year law took effect after they committed their crimes. But those rulings apparently apply only to those three offenders. Others will be governed by the 4th ruling Friday.”The Topeka Capital-Journal reported that KS Sup Ct Justice Lee Johnson repeatedly compared the state’s SOR to “The Scarlet Letter.” “In 2011, state law was amended to require people convicted of sexually violent crimes to register for 25 years rather than 10 years. The new law applied to anyone convicted of such a crime prior to April 15, 1994. Several defendants challenged the new law as a violation of Art. 1, Sec. 10 of the U.S. Constitution, which bars states from passing a law that “makes more burdensome the punishment for a crime” after it is committed. Because that section of the Constitution only applies to criminal punishments, not civil punishments, the KS Sup Ct debate hinged on whether registration for SOs is a criminal punishment…Johnson compared sex offender registration to shaming tactics in colonial America, such as requiring adulterers to wear a scarlet “A” on their clothes. “(The KS Offender Reg Act) mimics that shaming of old by branding the driver’s license of a registrant with the designation, ‘RO,’ ” Johnson wrote. “While a driver’s license is not worn upon a person’s chest, it is required to be displayed for a variety of reasons unrelated to KORA’s public safety purpose.”STUDY: 1% OF BLACK MEN IN USA ARE ON THE REGISTRYALBANY, N.Y. (May 19, 2016) -- One percent of all black men in the U.S. are registered sex offenders, and black men enter the sex offender registry at nearly twice the rate of white men, a new University at Albany study finds. Researchers say these findings reveal how the uneven impact of America’s criminal justice system extends to sex crime policy, an area largely overlooked in the scientific literature."Our study reveals that a war on sex offenders appears to be gaining steam just as the war on drugs has lost its cultural legitimacy. The number of publicly registered sex offenders is on the rise and is disproportionately from the same group that is targeted by criminal justice authorities -- black men," U. of Albany Assistant Professor of Sociology and study author Trevor Hoppe said.In the study "Punishing Sex: Sex Offenders and the Missing Punitive Turn in Sexuality Studies" (Law & Social Inquiry, May 2016) researchers used public data sets to examine sex offender registration rates between 2005 and 2013, and analyzed databases of currently registered offenders to evaluate registration by race. The analysis surveyed 49 states; Maine and Washington, D.C., which do not publish race data, were not included. An initial finding revealed the need for the study itself: despite the fact that more than 750,000 Americans are currently registered as sex offenders, very little social science research has examined how registration policies are enforced and which communities are impacted by them.Exploring the DataRates of sex offender registration increased more than 24 percent in the U.S. between 2005 and 2013. Yet, that jump does not reflect broader trends in corrections; correctional supervision rates (including those in jail and prison as well as those on parole and probation) declined more than 10 percent during the same time period. However, state and federal policies enacted in the 1990s and 2000s vastly expanded the scope of sex offender registries. The study’s findings suggest that these policy shifts caused rates of sex offender registration to continue to grow even as rates in correctional supervision declined.Embedded in those increased registration rates, researchers find that in every state but Michigan, a higher sex offender registration rate was found for blacks than for whites. In nine states, black Americans were registered as sex offenders at three times the rate of whites, including Connecticut, Florida, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington, and Wisconsin. In Florida, South Dakota, Texas, and Utah, more than 2 percent of black men were publicly registered sex offenders.Nationwide, the sex offender registration rate for black Americans (501 sex offenders per 100,000 adults) was more than twice that of whites (238 sex offenders per 100,000 adults). In addition, roughly one out of every 119 black men living in the 49 states analyzed were registered sex offenders, encompassing nearly 1 percent of all black men.Concluded Hoppe, "Sex offenses are the only kind of crime that requires public registration. People convicted of murder are not required to share that information with their neighbors and community members after they serve their time. The idea behind these policies is that sex offenders are more likely to commit the same crime again and thus we ought to supervise them more closely, but countless studies have shown this to be false. These findings reveal that this irrational panic around sex is having troubling effects that ought to be considered by policymakers."ONCE FALLEN UPDATE (LIVE FROM THE BATTLEFIELD)I have been writing this newsletter for over a year now, and in this time I have not taken the time to talk about myself. For those who wonder who I am and what I do, my name is Derek Logue, and I’m an RSO/ activist for other RSOs. In addition to writing the ICoN and hosting the info site , I am engaged in a number of activist projects, such as organizing efforts to stop bad legislation, writing research papers, and even staging public demonstrations. So far this year, I have written a research paper on International Megan’s Law (the law that will place marks of infamy on our passports), released the results of the Job & Welfare Survey (covered in Issue 6), visited the homeless SO camp in Miami, and even made an appearance on the Dr. Drew, where I got to tell a self-righteous “judge” to stick it. (Amazingly enough, I won more fans than haters for that TV appearance.) I have also engaged in a public demonstration against a group called “Parents For Megan’s Law” (PFML, now known as “Crime Victims Center, Inc.”), run by a woman named Laura Ahearn. For those of you who don’t know this, Ahearn’s organization is the ONLY private organization in the US who has been given the authority to conduct address verifications, aka compliance checks, a function that is solely the responsibility of the police. This only applies to Suffolk County, in Long Island, NY. This group is using their position to intimidate those on the registry, and because they are a private business, they think they are immune from the laws that real law enforcement officers are expected to live by, such as ethics or constitutional law. However, they’ve been sued for harassment. In one ongoing suit, U.S. District Judge Joanna Seyber ( in her 2/16/16 ruling) said Suffolk police “created the appearance of joint action” with PFML by sending letters to sex offenders requiring them to provide information, such as identification to the nonprofit. In other words, the court determined that because PFML is a “state actor,” they could be brought up on civil rights violations. After all, PFML is acting as a law enforcement agent, and per the terms of the Suffolk Co. Contract, only individuals with years of LEO experience can apply for the job. As a state actor, they can’t do things like sue me for slander. You’ve heard this right—PFML is suing me for “disparaging remarks” I made about their organization online. You see, back on April 20, I hosted a public protest at the PFML office in Ronkonkoma, NY. They tried multiple tactics to scare me away, including calling the cops, filming me, and slapping me with a frivolous lawsuit. I made an off-color remark on an online forum that I believe the extra $25,000 PFML received from Suffolk County in addition to their $900,000 annual contract was used to curry favor with politicians in their quest to expend their program from the county to the state, as well as increasing Tier 1 registration times from 20 years to 30 years. (It was recently reported, however, that the money went towards extra insurance because their program is such a liability, the insurance company increased their annual fee from $4500 to $25000. Well, the truth isn’t any less damaging to their reputation than my earlier comment.) Of course, the REAL reason they are suing is to try to silence the anti-registry movement. On June 1, as I was finishing this newsletter, Suffolk County extended the contract despite all of the controversies, but while it was a behind-the-closed-doors deal, it was not unanimous. Some legislators were concerned about the liability this organization creates. But now the county has placed itself in position to be sued because they “indemnified” Ahearn’s organization. The Suffolk Co. legislature should have read Newsday (Suffolk Co’s newspaper) on May 6, 2016. Here is an OpEd by a former NY Supreme Court justice:The story “Group sues sex offender” [News, April 24] refers to a private organization, Parents for Megan’s Law, founded by Laura Ahearn. The group has brought a defamation lawsuit against a registered sex offender, Derek W. Logue, who runs a civil rights organization for sex offenders, on account of his public and critical comments about Parents for Megan’s Law. Several revelations in the article are deeply disturbing.First is the fact that Suffolk County Executive Steve Bellone is about to renew the contract with Ahearn’s organization. And for what? To carry out an exclusively public, governmental legal responsibility, which is seeing that New York’s Sex Offender Registration Act is obeyed. Parents for Megan’s Law is not the Suffolk County Police Department. As Newsday’s article points out, the group is already a defendant in a federal civil rights lawsuit for a home interrogation of another man, and now you report that it is hauling into court yet another of its critics. Is anybody minding the store? -- William M. Erlbaum, Forest Hills (Editor’s note: The writer is a retired justice of the New York State Supreme Court and an adjunct professor at Brooklyn Law School.)I will keep you informed of any further developments on the pending lawsuit. It is still in the introduction stage, but I expect such a frivolous suit to be tossed out. In the meantime, I’m working on a project in by residence state of Ohio to change the registry laws, as well as a plan to commemorate the upcoming 10 year anniversary of the federal Adam Walsh Act. -- Derek W. Logue of ]PEACEFUL PROTEST AGAINST IML IN OAKLAND ATTRACTS MORE THAN 40 PEOPLEAugust 2016: More than 40 people participated in a peaceful protest held outside the federal district court in Oakland. Participants included registrants and supporters from California as well as several other states, including Florida, Missouri, Ohio and Oregon. The protest included the burning of SO registration cards by six registrants led by CA RSOL Treasurer Frank Lindsay.Today’s protest was a tremendous success,” stated CA RSOL President Janice Bellucci. “We effectively communicated to the public and to the media our position that the International Megan’s Law (IML) violates the U.S. Constitution.”The protest immediately followed oral arguments made in support of, and in opposition to, the federal government’s motion to dismiss the case. During the court hearing, the government argued that the federal government needs to notify foreign countries when registrants intend to visit in order to prevent child sex tourism and child sex trafficking. The government also argued the need to add a “conspicuous unique identifier” to the passports of hundreds of thousands of registrants in order to stop them from visiting multiple countries during a single trip.Registrant attorney Bellucci argued that notifications sent to foreign countries have a “chilling effect” upon registrants, many of whom are now afraid to travel overseas. She also argued that notifications are harm registrants’ ability to travel overseas in order to meet with family members, conduct business and pursue cultural interests. She further argued that they place registrants and anyone who travels with them at risk of physical harms.During today’s hearing, Bellucci asked Judge Hamilton to deny the government’s motion to dismiss the case and instead to allow registrants to amend the complaint. The judge did not issue a decision today… (Note: it was later dismissed for not being “ripe” at the time of the lawsuit)Protesters held up signs that equated this measure to the laws of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. “We’re only the third nation in the history of the world that has ever stamped the passports,” said Derek Logue, who traveled by bus from Ohio to join the protest. “They may not care about us personally, but it’s going to affect all Americans at some point” said Logue. “Mexico is already turning away SOs at the border, Japan does it, South Korea does it.” [Note, a couple of weks after this demonstration, CA-RSOL changed their name to the Alliance for Constitutional SO Laws, or ACSOL, and broke away from RSOL to become a separate organization.]LEAVING THE USANo, I’m not leaving the USA, but after International Megan’s Law (IML) passed, I have been bombarded with questions regarding traveling outside of the US. At this time, the lawsuit against the “unique identifier in a conspicuous place” to be added to our passports is ongoing. Currently, there is still no plan presented to give us any indication what this identifying mark is going to look like. It is also worth noting that those living in states failing to adopt “Real ID” by next year may have to show passports even for domestic flights; thus, a passport identifier may cause interference even in domestic travel.However, before IML actually passed, the SMART Office had already added stipulations to international travel years ago. Currently, individuals in states that adhere to the federal “Adam Walsh Act” (AWA) are required to register their travel plans 21 days in advance. The local registry office forwards the information to federal agents, and the federal agents in turn forward the information to Interpol. Interpol then forwards the information to agents in the country you plan to visit, and you may or may not get turned away at the border. A new group known as the “Registrant Travel Action Group” (RTAG), a subsidiary of the National RSOL group, is attempting to compile the information from registrants who have already attempted or succeeded in traveling abroad to give individuals an idea as to which countries are routinely turning away registered citizens at the border.Keep in mind this is a new project and informational change as more data has been collected. (Much of this data comes from stories directly from registered citizens.) Below is a list of countries turning away registrants at the border, according to RTAG. Keep in mind that this information can always change, and also that not every country is turning 100% of SOs away at the border. For example, Mexico instituted “Operation Guardian Angel” to turn away SOs, but it only seems to be applying to individuals flying in, while those crossing the border by land are still able to cross into Mexico. This policy could quickly change, however. [NOTE: I updated this list in June 2017 to reflect update info from RTAG. As of June 2017, this list is accurate. Also, there has been no further action on the passport marks.]SOs turned away: Mexico, Canada, Costa Rica, Panama, Dominican Republic, Jamaica, Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Russia, UK, Australia, Cambodia, China, Laos, New Zealand, Vietnam, Dubai, Philippines, Indonesia, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, Ireland, Nicaragua, Chile, PeruLaws specifically banning SOs from entry: Mexico, Canada, Panama, Argentina, Brazil, Russia, UK, Australia, Cambodia, New Zealand, Philippines, Japan, IrelandLaws banning felons in general from entry: Canada, Panama, UK, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Costa Rica, Ireland, MexicoCruise Line travel for Registrants : RTAG states, “We can give definitive information as to Registrant travel as it pertains to cruise lines.”“RCL: To date, Royal Caribbean uses a “Security team” to review passenger data to determine who may be a registrant. When discovered, the resistant and their family are sent a letter requesting 1. Confirmation that the registrant has informed their reporting agency of intended travel. 2. Detailed description of charges and nature of registration. 3. Discussion as to plans while on cruise. So far, RCL has approved the plans of several registrants and their families.”“CARNIVAL. To date, Carnival cancels all cruises of Registrants when they become aware of registrant’s status. Many registrants have traveled with Carnival without issue. However, that is apparently true only for registrants whose status is not apparent to Carnival. Carnival has also parceled out their security to a third vendor. Once registrant status is determined, Carnival will black list that individual. This maybe an avenue for a lawsuit but that will be worked later.”So far no problems with other cruise lines.BROCK TURNER AND YOUI live just an hour away from Brock Turner’s Ohio home. As you’ve probably seen on the news, a dozen protesters, some wearing Guy Fawkes masks and toting Anonymous flags, a couple sporting assault rifles (Ohio is an “open carry” state), and holding signs suggesting raping and killing Turner. The protesters made very scary statements to the media. Perhaps some of you fear you will be threatened or protested the same way. Thankfully, the events of the Brock Turner release are atypical of the average experience of a newly released SO. You may not have armed protests, but the shock of registration, postcards in the mail, and the struggles you’ll face finding a home and job won’t be any less discouraging. Ultimately, all the hoopla surrounding the Brock Turner case will fade among the sea of media blitzes, and registration will become as mundane as it has become for me. Other famous people like Mike Tyson still register. No one gets special treatment—not Brock Turner, not Mike Tyson, and not me. Registration becomes routine over time, and the longer you register, the less likely you’ll be treated like crap, even by the police. (For the record, I’ve only had one problem with a badge, and it was a US Marshal, not a beat cop.)However, in the event someone in the neighborhood does take offense by your presence (knock on wood but I haven’t had an issue), my advice is to rise above it. Document every instance just in case you need to take this matter to the authorities but don’t appear to let it get to you. In time, most folks will see you NOT acting like a stereotypical SO (whatever that’s supposed to be) and folks will grow tired of trying to make your life miserable. There is no need to be paranoid. Just use your head, like you do now to survive your prison time. There are many resources out there for support and assistance as well. On the upside, the media has questioned the sanity of having even a high profile registrant like Brock Turner on the registry for life. Perhaps folks are starting to see the insanity of these laws. Pokemon No: How Mobile Games Can Be a Problem for RSOsRepublished from Wallin & Klarich Law Firm, CANo doubt you’ve seen them: scores of people with their smartphones out as they walk in parks, sidewalks and streets. Such is the world of Pokemon Go. The augmented reality game operates by taking real world locations and randomly stocking them with digital monsters and other items, which players can see on their smartphones. Players can “catch” these monsters and train them for combat at “gyms.” At designated “Pokestops,” players can collect valuable items for use in the game. This means your favorite restaurant, your local park or any place could potentially be sites where Pokemon Go players gather. While Pokemon Go and other games like it are typically harmless fun, they have unwittingly placed some bystanders in the crosshairs of law enforcement. This is especially true for RSOs, who are required to stay away from places where children gather.Beware: Pokestops Attract MinorsIn San Luis Obispo, a Pokestop was located at Sunny Acres, the sober-living facility where persons with addictions and RSO receive treatment. This meant a digital marker was placed in a location that would potentially attract children to the home of RSOs, many of whom have probation or parole conditions requiring them to live a certain distance from places where children gather. In 2006, California’s voters passed Jessica’s Law, an initiative restricting all RSOs from living within 2,000 feet of a school or park, regardless of whether their crime was against a minor. Recently, the California Supreme Court narrowed that law because suitable housing was virtually impossible to find for many SOs – now parole and probation officers can review housing situations for sex offenders on a case-by-case basis. However, with Pokestops appearing on a digital map of real-world locations, registered SO potentially face a threat to their liberty that is beyond their control. If you are a RSO, what can you do to prevent this from happening to you?Stay Away from Location-Based GamesIf you are an RSO, one thing that is within your control is whether you decide to play games like Pokemon Go. By avoiding playing these games, you lessen the chance of traveling to places where there are likely to be a lot of minors. There are also ways to find out where Pokestops and gyms are without playing the game. Pokemon Go is based on the maps that its creator, Niantic, used to create another popular augmented reality game, Ingress. The maps for Ingress are available on multiple websites. Checking those maps can help you find where potential Pokemon Go hotspots may be so that you can stay clear of those locations.REAL IDOkay, I’ve gotten questions about Real ID and what it means to you. I discussed Real ID briefly in discussions about traveling as a registrant and how the passport marks may impact even domestic travel. To review, The REAL ID Act was enacted by Congress in 2005 to increase security after 9/11. Real ID is a standard set by the feds for determining identity. I don’t need to go into the details about that since that’s an issue between states and the feds, but I can discuss how this impacts you in two ways—travel as an SO and prisoner visits. But first, let’s review which states are not Real ID compliant. The following states remain noncompliant and have not been granted a renewed extension and will be subject to REAL ID enforcement following a short grace period. Starting January 30, 2017, Federal agencies and nuclear power plants may not accept for official purposes driver’s licenses and state IDs from a noncompliant state/territory without an extension: KY, ME, OK, PA, SC.The following states did not receive an extension for 2016 or 2017. Therefore, they continue to be subject to current enforcement activities. Federal agencies may not accept driver’s licenses and identification cards from these states: MN+, MO, WA+ [+ Federal officials may continue to accept Enhanced Driver’s Licenses from these states.] Note that MT is currently “under review” & may not be considered compliant. For flying, here is the statement from the DHS. “What happens to travelers who show up without a compliant license? Will TSA turn them away?” DHS has been working with states for years around REAL ID compliance and have provided technical assistance, grants and other support to them. We are also providing more than two years advance notice of implementation with respect to domestic air travel to allow ample time for all states to achieve compliance, or for potential air travelers to acquire an alternate form of ID if their state does not comply with REAL ID. Starting January 22, 2018, travelers who do not have a license from a compliant state or a state that has been granted an extension (a complete list of non-compliant states/ territories can be found here) will be asked to provide alternate acceptable identification. If the traveler cannot provide an acceptable form of identification, they will not be permitted through the security checkpoint. Starting October 1, 2020, every traveler will need to present a REAL ID-compliant license or another acceptable form of identification for domestic air travel.Limitations: Access for activities directly relating to safety and health or life preserving services, to law enforcement, and to constitutionally protected activities, including legal and investigative proceedings will not be affected. Existing agency policies will still apply. The Act does not require individuals to present identification where it is not currently required to access a Federal facility (such as to enter the public areas of the Smithsonian) nor does it prohibit an agency from accepting other forms of identity documents other than documents from non-compliant states (such as a U.S. passport or passport card). The Act’s prohibitions do not affect other uses of driver’s licenses or identification cards – including licenses and cards from noncompliant states – unrelated to official purposes as defined in the Act. For example, the Act does not apply to voting, registering to vote, or for applying for or receiving Federal benefits.The media and the DHS website has only reported that those w/o Real ID would only be prohibited from places like military bases, nuclear power plants, and flights on airlines. I have not seen anything that includes federal prisons (which weren’t exactly targets of foreign terrorism), but to be sure, I contacted the DHS directly. They referred me to the BOP, and they responded that at this time there have been no proposed changes to their visiting policies. (As an aside, I had to explain to them just what the Real ID program was in the first place. Your tax dollars at work). The bottom line is for now, don’t expect your loved ones to be turned away at the gate.HALLOWEEN & HurricanesHappy Halloween! Halloween is special to be because I was born on Oct. 31, 1976. Yes, I turn 40 this year. I’m looking down the other side of the hill and I don’t like what I see on the other side. But anyways, Halloween is an annual tradition for SO reformists, because across the USA, the yearly tradition of Predator Panic (and advertising the public registry) for the sake of ratings. But that is only the tip of the iceberg. Some of you may have heard about Halloween restrictions. The bad news is they do exist, but the good news is they aren’t widespread. Here are some restrictions that have been proposed or passed in recent years: Do not answer the door to trick-or-treaters; No passing out of candy to children; No holiday decorations on homes; No visits to haunted houses, corn mazes, hay rides or other seasonal activities; Do not attend any party where children are gathered; No costumes; No trick-or-treating; Posting a sign stating No Candy at this Residence; and mandatory meeting at a designated location (like jail) during trick-or-treat hours.I don’t have a current list of states (in 2008, CA, MD, SC, TN, TX, VA, & WI had some kind of Halloween laws), but CA-RSOL at the least prevented the state from enforcing the No Candy sign rule last year. For more than 20 years, the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation has run “Operation Boo,” under which sex offender parolees adhere to special Halloween restrictions. CA Parolees must follow a 5 p.m. to 5 a.m. curfew, in which they remain indoors and turn off exterior lights of their home. They cannot offer Halloween candy or put up Halloween decorations and can open the door that night only to respond to law enforcement.Most of these rules only apply to those on supervision, but it is important to note these laws are arbitrarily enforced should you encounter them. As noted by the FAC website: In South Roxana, IL a Blind man was arrested for violating their Halloween Ordinance because he was present when his step-daughter was handing out candy on Halloween. What’s more disturbing than a blind man being arrested for being in the house when a family member was participating in the holiday (he’s blind – he couldn’t even see the children) or that this law exists in the first place, is the fact that the news reported that, “Police said they had set up surveillance and performed compliance checks on registered sex offenders’ homes during the Halloween period.” Because laws change frequently and many of these rules are local, not statewide, it is important that you do your own research upon release to not be blindsided by rules in which you aren’t aware. Now to the second part of my rant. The recent impact of Hurricane Matthew is a reminder that your status even affects the level of service you’ll receive during a natural disaster. I was aware that laws had passed nearly a decade ago in LA & FL that SOs cannot go to regular shelters in the midst of a hurricane; their only option is seek shelter in jail or prison. Thankfully, the homeless camp in Miami (of roughly 250 residents) hasn’t had to consider a major hurricane in years. When Matthew threatened Miami, the POs had told the residents of the camp that they could seek refuge in the visiting area of a nearby prison or stay at the camp but they couldn’t go to a regular shelter. Matthew only grazed Miami, so they didn’t receive the full impact of the storm and those who chose to weather the storm weren’t in much danger from a little wind and rain. Everyone is okay. From what I gather, those who chose prison shelter were treated okay. Still, the question I pose to you is what would choose, prison or hurricane? I know this is a somber way to end this month’s ICoN, but I’d choose to take my chances with Matthew. I’ve weathered a far bigger storm for the past 13.5 years of my 40 year life. Unless a few more of us weather this storm, we’ll continue to see these laws. I hope those of you on the verge of release strongly consider joining the fight. I’ll be here waiting when you do.YOUR BEST LIFE NOW by Derek LogueI have been writing this newsletter for you for nearly two years, and sadly, it is often bad news. We’re often told where to live, work, and even who to date. We are being banned from a growing number of places, and it seems there is little we can do about it. There is a small but growing movement against these laws, of course, but few of the 850k on the list are willing to fight. Many of you write to me asking questions about how to live a life under all of these conditions. How do we survive prison? We adapt. We find a way to endure the restrictions. However, despite all of these restrictions, it is still possible to succeed if you are willing to work or it. We have higher unemployment rates but not all of us are unemployed. Some of us are homeless, but most have a home. Some of us are harassed by neighbors, some are left alone. Success is a relative term. I haven’t been rearrested for a new crime since my release in 2003. I’m a success there. But I’ve also been homeless and I’m living off SSI and food stamps. Many might not see that as a success, but it also freed me to do this newsletter and run a website that helps thousands of registrants annually. When I was incarcerated, I tried to make the most of my time. Now, I understand many of you aren’t religious nor am I going to cram religion down your throats, but I found Joel Olsteen’s ‘Your Best Life Now” to be helpful. For those who can’t (don’t want to) read it, I’ll summarize the main points, modified slightly for the sake of our particular plight:1. “Enlarge your vision”: Olsteen says if you think you will be successful and expect success, it will happen. I say don’t expect things to be easy, but if you continue to work at it, you can bat he odds. I love proving people wrong, don’t you?2. “Develop a healthy self-image.” Look, there will be no shortage of “haters” out there. What matters is rising above it. It is easy to say “don’t let it get to you,” because we’re only human. I have gotten hate mail and a few threats over the years. You may get the same treatment. But you know you aren’t what they say you are. Focus on the good parts on you and accentuate that. You aren’t a bad person but a good person who had done a bad thing. You paid your debts and moved on. If you allow these folks to dictate your opinion to yourself, you could end up back in prison. 3. “Discover the power of your thoughts and words.” We are constantly told we are scum, monsters, pedos, etc., but if you start accepting that label, you behave as your label. A lot of folks end up in bad situations because they talked themselves into it. Just because society labels you a “sex offender” does not mean you are doomed to act like an SO. (And honestly, what does acting like an SO mean?) As a man thinks, so is he. 4. “Let go of the past.” When I give media interviews, I always say when a man’s time is up, it’s up. That should be the end of it. I feel the same way. Don’t let this label define your future. Again, many folks have overcome the label.5. “Find strength through adversity.” Trust me, you’ll face a fair amount of adversity out here, much like you do in prison, but if you survived prison, you’ll survive this. I was a quieter, more introverted person in my youth, but this experience broke me out of it. If there is one thing Americans love, it is someone who beats the odds. You being a success story will inspire those who someday will be in your current place. Strength comes from surviving whatever society throws at me. 6. “Live to give!” We all will share this label, no matter why you were given the label. I don’t care if you merely urinated behind a dumpster, had mutual relations with someone too young to consent, looked at illegal pics, or committed a hands-on offense. Society doesn’t differentiate. There are agencies out there, including mine, working to change the system. Make helping them a priority, whether by donating (money, manpower or support) to their causes or even starting your own program. For example, I am collecting donations for the registrant homeless camp in Miami for Christmas. I’m accepting money, new underclothes, and hygiene products for them. As registered citizens, we should remember we are the “least o these” as the Bible would say, so we should look out for our own when it comes to charity. 7. “Choose to be happy.” Happiness IS a choice for the most part. I can choose to lament the fact I’m living on $753/mo and $194/mo food stamps. But I have a roof over my head, foot to eat, and video games for entertainment (thank God for cheap used video games). Most of all, I enjoy receiving the letters and calls from people grateful for what little I offer. Also, the BEST REVENGE against your enemies is enjoying life even under the restrictions. They think we’re not supposed to be happy! I go out and take pictures, go to events, travel, go out on dates and to dinners, and buy video games when I have the money to do so, and it drives the haters crazy. They want you to be miserable, not happy. The bottom line is that you will decide how well you adjust to these restrictions, and my advice to you is to live your “best life” under these laws as possible as we work towards bettering the lives of all registered citizens. TREATMENT CORNER: DENIAL, A SNEAKY DISTORTION by David E.Denial isn't just a river in Egypt. It's also a cognitive distortion that resulted in many of my troubles. I denied the fact that my sexually deviant behavior was hurting anyone. I denied that I even had a problem and believed, erroneously, that I could stop anytime I wanted to and simply CHOSE not to stop. Was I a complete fool? In reality, my mind was playing one of its cleverest tricks to preserve its identity. The sneaky thing about Denial is that it imparted on me the illusion that I didn't even suffer from it. And, friends who cared enough to point it out to me were just fools or misinformed. Once I learned how Denial worked -- that my mind uses distortions such as Denial to protect my self-esteem by preventing me from seeing the impact of my harmful behavior on victims -- I began to recognize it when rearing its ugly head. After I was able to identify when and how I used Denial, I learned to challenge and squash it. (e.g. Using the self-talk, "My behavior does harm me & others, and I've had trouble stopping.") My successful recovery is in large part due to taking charge of this sneaky distortion known as Denial. By taking full responsibility for my deviant behavior and the true costs it has, I am finally making the positive change in my life that would otherwise have been impossible. Where is your Denial hiding?INMATE SOUNDOFF: TELLING IS HONESTY by David E.I used to justify my secretive, closed-off behavior. I told myself that whatever I was dealing with was not a big deal, not important enough to trouble myself or burden others with discussing it. For other issues, I was too ashamed to reveal my struggles, so I convinced myself that it was safer (and, conveniently, more comfortable) to keep it hidden inside.Now, I realize how damaging being secretive (i.e. dishonest) is and how beneficial being open and self-disclosing can be. Not only did being closed-off lead to my continued criminal behavior and not getting needed help, but this approach to living also damaged relationships as friends and family were kept at a distance. Today, I don't feel any topic is off limits, topics that in the past I might have thought of as trivial or uncomfortable. And, I am fortunate to have many loved ones who listen with compassion and interest. This new way of thinking -- seeing the virtue and benefits of being open and honest -- has led to deeper and more meaningful relationships with friends and especially family. Being transparent with others also strengthens my self-esteem as I feel I am doing right and living in a way I can be proud of. This emotional strength is a tremendous help in keeping me on the path of recovery.If I ever start saying to myself, "I can't tell anyone about this," then I know more than anything that 1) I have done something very wrong, and 2) I MUST tell someone about it PARTMENTALIZING by David E. All sorts of distorted beliefs filled by head, biasing how I saw situations and leading me to make choices to do certain things. These errors in thinking included minimizing, entitlement, justifying & denial, among others. They were based on faulty perceptions & provided permission for immoral behavior. Distorted thoughts were at the core of my criminal activity. One distortion in particular, "compartmentalizing," became so second nature that it was one of my defining attributes. I incorrectly believed that it was noble & sophisticated to be able to divide my life into categories, compartments if you will, and act and even think differently depending on the circumstance. I was able to be caring & generous one moment, then I could be selfish & manipulative the next. And, by hiding from the world the dark part of my life, I was able to live an otherwise productive existence. My righteous, successful side made a good screen for the life I wanted to hide. That level of compartmentalizing is duplicitous -- it's dishonest, disingenuous & deceptive. Today, I gain joy by being authentic to who I am & who I want to be in ALL situations -- the values I live by transcend my circumstances. For the first time in my life, I am true to myself & have nothing to hide. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download