UPDATES: None..5-30-2010 National:
What is different between these NEW Supplemental Guidelines(SG) and the Final Guidelines(FG) which were posted a few years ago? The FG published years ago addressed the entire Adam Walsh Act, including the registration portion [SORNA -- Title I in AWA], while the NEW SG address only portions of SORNA.Some folks have not understood how the Adam Walsh Act is constructed, so think of it like this: It is a book titled the Adam Walsh Act, and in that book are different chapters, one being SORNA (Chapter 1 = TITLE I—SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION AND NOTIFICATION ACT).
The intent of the NEW SG is to amend -not replace- portions of the FINAL Guidelines issued years ago. Accordingly, it is critically important that all comments ONLY address issues raised by the NEW Supplemental Guidelines.
PLEASE DO NOT USE THIS CHANCE TO COMMENT TO EXPRESS YOUR GENERAL DISCONTENT WITH THE OVERALL Adam Walsh Act. General comments about the harmfulness of the Adam Walsh Act, will fall on deaf ears and be ignored, as not relevant to the NEW SG.When a government agency, such as the Dep't of Justice and/or the SMART Office post something asking for public comments, then they expect folks to comment ONLY about what they post (Supplemental Guidelines this time). Unfortunately this is the way government works. Remember, it is their ball game and either folks play using their rules, or they will ignore those comments. Just like football, baseball, hockey, etc. rules govern how the game is played.
Also remember, that when the comment period is over (7-13-2010), the SMART Office and the USAG, will take PUBLIC comments and their posted Supplemental Guidelines, and decide if what they posted should be changed, at all or in part or deleted, before issuing final supplemental guidelines.
Then the final supplemental guidelines will be phased in with the original final guidelines issued years ago, and sent to all state legislatures for them to work into their state registration laws. Yes, a state can accept them, or reject them, or do something similar, that state decision will be based on "substantial compliance" standards and if a state will lose funding.
So, in a trickle-down sense, whatever is decided (by SMART Office and State Legislatures) will ultimately affect every RSO in the nation somehow. This is why it is critically important to FOCUS ONLY what is in the NEW Supplemental Guidelines and how the SG will affect RSOs or their families, or even the public.As an example, in my commentary "Action Alert: RE: Supplemental Guidelines - Section II (A International Travel) REVISED" I focused on how the SG violates the Adam Walsh Act -as written- and very likely the U.S. Constitution. Accordingly, an appropriate comment, considering the 2,000 character limits, may go something like this:OAG Docket No. 134
To Whom It May Concern:
The Supplemental Guide states: "SG Section II Interjurisdictional Tracking and Information Sharing-- A. International Travel: Certain features of SORNA and the SORNA Guidelines require the Department of Justice, in conjunction with other Federal agencies, to develop reliable means for identifying and tracking sex offenders who enter or leave the United States. See 42 U.S.C. 16928; 73 FR at 38066–67."
42 USC 16928 states: "REGISTRATION OF SEX OFFENDERS ENTERING THE UNITED STATES. The Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall establish and maintain a system for informing the relevant jurisdictions about persons entering the United States ..."
42 USC 16928 does not permit preventing or controlling registered sex offenders who chose to LEAVE the United States.
Thank you.
And this second comment on another issue there:OAG Docket No. 134
To Whom It May Concern:
Given that, 42 USC 16928 imposes a duty on the USAG (and other federal agencies) to inform relevant jurisdictions of persons -entering the United States- who are required to register, 42 USC 16928 -in no way- permits restrictions on DOMESTIC travel (movement within the United States) of ALL registrants in every state registry.
To construe 42 USC 16928 as the Supplemental Guideline does, is overreaching and extending it to do things, it simply, is not authorized to do.
Finally, it cannot be forgotten that many RSOs are part of a family unit, and short of eradicating these family units, these overreaching controls impermissibly affect the entire family unit.
Thank you.
Short concise and to the point, no personal "blips," just like the old Dragnet show "Just the facts ma'am." Cold with no wiggle room, never good to get off on tangents when dealing with the government or politicians. If you wish to use the above example comment, which does identify an actual problem in the SG, then go ahead, or write your own from what you see in the NEW SG.
Next, when we originally learned of these NEW SG, eight issues were identified by the Juvenile Justice website, they were:1) Gives jurisdictions discretion to exempt juvenile offenders from public website posting.
2) Provides information concerning the review process for determining that jurisdictions have substantially implemented.
3) Gives jurisdictions discretion to modify the retroactive registration requirement to apply to new felony convictions only.
4) Provides mechanisms for newly recognized tribes to elect whether to become SORNA registration jurisdictions and to implement SORNA.
5) Expands required registration information to include the forms signed by sex offenders acknowledging that they were advised of their registration obligations.
6) Requires jurisdictions to exempt sex offenders’ e-mail addresses and other Internet identifiers from public website posting.
7) Requires jurisdictions to have sex offenders report international travel 21 days in advance.
8) Clarifies mechanism for interjurisdictional information sharing and tracking.
Since that time I have received various e-mails where folks have expressed other concerns with five of those issues (highlighted above). I have already -in my commentary mentioned above- covered #7 and #8 (International Travel with the hidden Domestic travel controls as well, not mentioned by Juvenile Justice).
Shortly, before 7-13-2010 (end of comment period) I will address the others in newer commentaries. As folks study these NEW SG, each person sees something from a different perspective, and thats GOOD. What we need to do is let all folks know of those different perspectives to help them make informed decisions on, what and how, to comment, or not to comment on a particular issue.
So, at Regulations.gov, comment wisely, remember:MANDATORY: OAG Docket No. 134:
This must be the first thing in your comments area, this is mandatory, without this your comment will be ignored.
WHERE TO POST COMMENTS:
OK, now have your comments ready, here is where you go:
http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#docketDetail?R=OJP-2010-0001 Look on the lower left where it says "Comment Due 7-13-10 11:59 PM" just click on that and enter what you have prepared beforehand.
So, for now, have a great day & a better tomorrow.
eAdvocate
PS: Regulations.gov will be back up and running at midnight 5-31-2010 they were down for maintenance over this past weekend.
1 comment:
I had read the New Supplemental guidelines and really did not object to what I had read.
Example: "3) Gives jurisdictions discretion to modify the retroactive registration requirement to apply to new felony convictions only."
As a person who is no longer on the registry this discretion seems acceptable to me as Colorado may use that discretion in my favor, as I did not have a felony conviction, and this new guideline may not harm people who have been free of the state for years if not decades.
Not having a legal background I have no idea what I might be missing in this particular guideline.
What is there in this guideline just noted that I should be concerned about, and should comment on?
Post a Comment