Now-legal acts could force people onto sex offender registry

10-10-15 Nevada:

LAS VEGAS (KSNV News3LV) – It’s a law that’s bringing Nevada's controversial history and the people it touched back to light.

Criminals-no-longer would be criminals again under the Adam Walsh Law, named after the son of the host and founder of “America's Most Wanted,” John Walsh.

Under the federal law, states have to expand their sex offender registry. Everyone prosecuted for a sex crime dating back to 1956 would be categorized into three tiers and registered as sex offenders for 15 years to life.

The idea is to keep tabs on dangerous predators and keep kids safe. But there’s a big problem.

Until 1993, Nevada had a sodomy law that prevented certain sex acts and made it illegal for people of the same sex to have sexual relationships.

Until 2013, Nevada had what’s called the infamous “Crimes Against Nature,” law, which meant sex between two consenting men could land a person in prison.

Although homosexual sex isn't illegal anymore, if Nevada adopts the Adam Walsh Law, anyone convicted of it for the past 60 years would have to register as a sex offender.

“That person is now outed, and everyone can say, ‘Oh, look at this.’ Your employer knows. Your coworker knows family and friends know and it frankly wasn’t their business to know,” said Tod Story of the American Civil Liberties Union.

Story says the group is working on reaching out to the people now at risk for being called a predator. ..Source.. by John Treanor

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Arkansas list on sex offenders has gaps

It never ceases to amaze me how many Lawmakers are not capable of logical thought processes. Dollars and cents alone shows the registry is a losing proposition and thats not considering other welfare costs because the registry ruins lives. Registries make society a loser..

8-13-15 Arkansas:

Arkansas is not in full compliance with a federal law on sex offender registration and monitoring, state officials said Wednesday.

At a meeting of the Criminal Justice Oversight Task Force, a risk assessment administrator and a psychologist said Arkansas is one of 33 states that fail to meet all of the requirements of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act -- federal legislation that became law in 2006. The act aims to create a comprehensive standard in how states keep track of sex offenders.

Brad Cazort, the head of the Arkansas Crime Information Center's sex offender registry, said the Adam Walsh Act has 14 requirements for states to meet to be eligible for some federal grant money.

Presently, Cazort said, Arkansas doesn't meet three of them.

The state's registry does not make public all sex offenders, just those with higher risks of re-offending; it doesn't automatically add to its public website the names of youths found guilty of the most serious sex crimes; and it allows more offenders than federal law does to petition the court to be removed from the registry after 15 years.

To meet all of the federal requirements, Arkansas' laws on sex offenders would have to be amended, officials said.

Sheri Flynn, an administrator with the state's Sex Offender Screening and Risk Assessment program, said recidivism rates for most sex offenders are about the same as for other convicted criminals.

She said that except for the most dangerous sex offenders, such as pedophiles, the recidivism rates range from 6 percent to 10 percent.

Flynn said research shows that low-level sex offenders are more likely to re-offend if they're put under the same heightened scrutiny and monitoring as high-risk offenders.

"Treating them the same as you do higher-risk offenders, there is research showing that we're making them worse," she said.

Flynn said after Wednesday's meeting that listing every sex offender on the public website would mean that people would have to wade through a lot of names to identify those who are potentially dangerous in their neighborhoods.

And Mike Wood, a state prison psychologist, cited a 2008 study from the Justice Policy Institute -- a New York-based nonprofit that researches criminal justice matters -- in saying that the cost of making the state changes to meet the federal standards could be as high as $4.6 million.

But Cazort said he wasn't aware of any additional costs the state would face. He said the Arkansas Crime Information Center already has the tools and information to comply with the federal standards. It's merely a matter of legislators changing the law, he said.

States that do not comply with the Adam Walsh Act automatically lose 10 percent of any grant funding available to law enforcement agencies and courts through a program administered by the Department of Justice.

The Justice Policy Institute's study estimated that Arkansas forfeits about $218,000 in grant money but saves millions by not meeting the federal standards.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Matt Shepherd, R-El Dorado, said he doubts that making the changes to comply with the standards would be cost-prohibitive.

"I've heard people make the claim it will cost more. I'm not certain. I'm just not sure whether that's going to be the case," said Shepherd, who serves as the task force's co-chairman. "When you're talking about something that Congress passed and federal funds are tied to, it's something we need to look at, and it needs to be considered."

During this year's Arkansas legislative session, Shepherd co-sponsored a bill with Sen. David Sanders, R-Little Rock, that would have allowed the state to meet all of the federal requirements, but Senate Bill 467 died in committee.

Wood and Flynn said some sex-offender cases have extenuating circumstances, and publicly listing the offenders in those cases would lump minor offenders in with more serious offenders, painting them all with the same broad brush.

"Just like anything to do with human nature, it's never simple," Flynn said. "Every case is different."

Wood and Flynn also said youths convicted of sex crimes are unlikely to re-offend, and that it's important to get them treatment and return them to school so they can rejoin society.

If a youth's past was plastered all over the Internet via a sex-offender website, Flynn said, the teen would be stigmatized for the rest of his life.

"There is no one in the world that thinks that's a good idea, in terms of rehabilitation, re-entry, and allowing juveniles to become decent people," Flynn said.

Flynn also said that two of the 17 states currently in compliance with the federal law are considering changing their laws because the federal standards are too onerous.

Shepherd said giving people more information about their safety trumps other worries in regard to the sex offenders.

"I'm more concerned about protecting the public as opposed to some of the other things brought up" in Wednesday's meeting, Shepherd said.

"We take these matters very seriously. We need to ... make decisions that are in the best interest of our state and protecting the citizens of our state." ..Source.. by Spencer Willems

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Missouri Bill Would Loosen Sex Offender Registry Requirements

MIssouri is a SORNA compliant state today, but, with these changes will they remain compliant?

2-26-2013 Missouri:

A Missouri House bill would loosen the requirements on registration for sex offenders.

More than one thousand registered sex offenders could be taken off the Missouri registry under the legislation.

The bill would separate offenders into three tiers, from the first tier being the least severe by allowing offenders to petition off the registry after ten years, to the third tier keeping the most severe offenders on the list for life.

J.D. Rees is manager of the Mo. sex offender registry for the Missouri Highway Patrol. He said there are currently 13,779 non-incarcerated sex offenders on the Missouri registry. If the bill became law approximately 1,111 could immediately petition removal from it because their ten years have passed.

The Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, referred to as SORNA, is a federal program that provides sex offender registration and notification requirements. The U.S. Department of Justice lists Missouri as one of the 19 states currently compliant with the law. This means the compliant states must meet the requirements from SORNA for registering sex offenders by collecting extensive information from the offenders including DNA and criminal history.

According to Rees, Missouri is one of the strictest states in terms of sex offenders laws in the nation, and the bill would let us meet minimum SORNA requirements.

Lawmakers heard opposition from Dr. Brian Oliver who said he has a P.h.D in criminal justice.

“There is no research that is shown that adopting this bill will reduce recidivism rates, but there is some research that has suggested that if we become SORNA compliant, sexual recidivism rates may go up,” said Oliver.

Oliver is currently registered on the state’s sex offender registry for multiple offenses against males under the age of 10.

While still retaining their status as sex offenders, the bill would remove all 114 juveniles from public websites. ..Source.. by Christine Roto

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Registration of a Sex Offender When Traveling Under PA's Adam Walsh Act

1-22-2013 Pennsylvania:

Effective December 20, 2012, those offenders who are designated as Tier I, II or III registrants must register at an approved registration site when traveling for leisure, either at home or abroad, or for employment purposes.  An "approved registration site" is defined as follows:

"Approved registration site." A site in this Commonwealth approved by the Pennsylvania State Police at which individuals subject to this subchapter may comply with this subchapter.  42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9799.12.

Under the new Act a "residence" is defined as follows:

"Residence." A location where an individual resides or is domiciled or intends to be domiciled for 30 consecutive days or more during a calendar year. The term includes a residence which is mobile, including a houseboat, mobile home, trailer or recreational vehicle. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9799.12.

However, one need not be a permanent resident to be required to register.  It also impacts those who are obtaining "temporary lodging" as defined in the statute:

"Temporary lodging." The specific location, including street address, where a sexual offender is staying when away from the sexual offender's residence for seven or more days. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9799.12.

42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9799.15(g), provides that upon commencement of such "temporary lodging", the registrant must notify the State Police of their length of stay, dates of travel and location.

A commencement of temporary lodging, a change in temporary lodging or a termination of temporary lodging. In order to fulfill the requirements of this paragraph, the individual must provide the specific length of time and the dates during which the individual will be temporarily lodged.

A registrant must also notify the State Police when they anticipate travel outside the Country.  This must be done 21 days prior to travel.  A "foreign country" is later defined.

(i) International travel.--In addition to the periodic in-person appearance required in subsection (e), an individual specified in section 9799.13 shall appear in person at an approved registration site no less than 21 days in advance of traveling outside of the United States. The individual shall provide the following information: (1) Dates of travel, including date of return to the United States. (2) Destinations. (3) Temporary lodging.

"Foreign country." Includes Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand and a foreign country where the United States Department of State in the Country Reports on Human Rights Practices has concluded that an independent judiciary enforced the right to a fair trial in that country during the calendar year in which the individual's conviction occurred. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9799.12.

Finally, travel for leisure and travel for work, both require that the registrant notify the State Police at an approved registration site of their itinerary.  "Employed" is further defined by the Act.

"Employed." Includes a vocation or employment that is full time or part time for a period of time exceeding four days during a seven-day period or for an aggregate period of time exceeding 14 days during any calendar year, whether self-employed, volunteered, financially compensated, pursuant to a contract or for the purpose of governmental or educational benefit.  42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9799.12.

..Source.. by t Shaffer & Engle Law Offices, LLC

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Pennsylvania ups the ante on sexual offender registration

1-3-2013 Pennsylvania:

Stricter measures targeting sexual offenders in Pennsylvania recently went into effect as part of a final push to comply with a federal law named in memory of Adam Walsh, a murdered 6-year-old boy whose father became a fierce advocate for child abuse prevention laws.

In late December, Pennsylvania became one of several states to adhere to the requirements of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, federal legislation named after the son of "America's Most Wanted" host John Walsh.

Enacted in 2006, the legislation built upon previous federal laws that mainly required convicted sex offenders to register their personal information in publicly accessible state databases tracking their whereabouts so that communities can feel safer knowing who they are and where they live.

The Adam Walsh Act took further steps to eliminate a patchwork of state sex offender registration laws - commonly known as Megan's laws - to establish baseline requirements.

In Pennsylvania, state and local officials had been working to comply with the law by Dec. 20. They say they've met the deadline.

"It's a huge change, and it's definitely having a lot of impact," said state police Cpl. Steve Vesnaver of the agency's Megan's Law division.

Among the changes, convicted sex offenders must register immediately after they are sentenced by a judge. Before, they registered after fully serving out their sentence or after they were released from prison.

In Lackawanna County, convicted sexual offenders will be registered within 48 hours of sentencing at the county courthouse in Scranton, Assistant District Attorney Patricia Lafferty said.

"It's just to make sure everybody gets right into the system," she said.

In the county, four registration sites are now ready to go, including at the state police barracks in Dunmore and the Scranton Police Department, Ms. Lafferty said, which have been loaded with new software to better link with the national sex offender database maintained by the U.S. Department of ...continued... by steve mcconnell (staff writer)

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Move to digitize Iowa sex offender mug shots raises privacy concerns

12-16-2012 Iowa:

All of Iowa's more than 5,600 registered sex offenders could soon have their mug shots digitized and saved to a database that law enforcement officials could match to photos from an array of other sources, such as security cameras and Facebook, with a few mouse clicks.

The Iowa Department of Public Safety is in the middle of a program to equip every Iowa sheriff’s department with an electronic signature pad, laptop computer and digital camera that can support the high-resolution data to feed through facial recognition software.

“Biometrics is really coming up to play a big part in law enforcement and investigations and things like that,” said Terry Cowman, special agent in charge of the state’s sex offender registry program. “What’s interesting about facial rec is, it is kind of the future of where we’re at.”

He has about $110,000 to pay for the hardware through a federal grant. Now he’s seeking another $180,000 to pay for the software and training that would allow the state to digitize roughly 10,000 photos, but he won’t receive word on that grant until spring.

The move to digitize and analyze faces of sex offenders has some concerned about what comes next.

“You always start with sex offenders because nobody is going to stick up for sex offenders,” said Rep. Chip Baltimore, R-Boone, a lawyer who chairs the House Judiciary committee. “The question is where it goes from there.”

PRIVACY CONCERNS

Facial recognition software is a key part of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s $1 billion Next Generation Identification program and the reason Facebook can suggest a photo ID on a mobile phone upload.

More than a decade ago, the city of Tampa, Fla., piloted a facial recognition system that scanned faces of people in crowds and compared them to photos of criminals in their database. The program ran for about two years and was scrapped in 2003.

“Sex offenders don’t have the same rights as other people because they already have been convicted of a crime,” said Ben Stone, executive director of the Iowa branch of the American Civil Liberties Union.

Dealing with convicts makes it easier for government to get around civil liberties concerns than if it, say, wanted to run a recognition scan on everyone who had their picture taken for a driver’s license or other form of state photo identification, Stone said.

Chris Sumner, co-founder and secretary of the U.K.-based Online Privacy Foundation, focuses most of his work on the type of data people voluntarily share online with companies through applications such as Facebook and Twitter and how that data is repackaged and sold.

But, he said, some of the concerns are the same.

“There’s this gradual reduction of this right to privacy that doesn’t seem to be debated,” he said. “We need to have an informed discussion on what is possible. People on the street just don’t have the knowledge.”

WHAT IS POSSIBLE?

Two weeks ago, Black Hawk County Sheriff Tony Thompson and Drew Collins traveled to Des Moines for a state sheriff’s association meeting. Drew is the father of Elizabeth, an 8-year-old girl whose body was discovered in a wooded area in rural Bremer County on Dec. 5, months after she and her cousin, 10-year-old Lyric Cook-Morrissey, disappeared after going on a bike ride in Evansdale. Lyric’s body was found in the same area.

Drew had a printout all the sex offenders in the state who have not kept authorities up to date on their whereabouts as the law requires.

“He wanted to share that information with them,” Thompson said. “It was something that we hoped they could pass around and share with their officers.”

Thompson says he can see the advantage of facial recognition tools, but he doesn’t think it would have helped in the case of the missing cousins.

“We had hours and hours of surveillance tape,” Thompson said. “Nothing.”

Scott County Sheriff Detective Peter Bawden oversees that county’s sexual offender registry. On any given day, he has 600 or so people on the list. He said more and more of his time is now devoted to making sure registered sex offenders aren’t contacting people through social media applications. He recently caught one, he said, who was using a fake name to reach out to a former victim through Facebook.

He sees facial recognition as the next step, and an appropriate one. He thinks the privacy concerns are overblown.

“I’m just speaking for myself and not on the behalf of the department,” Bawden said. “These are the same things they probably heard back when fingerprints came out, it’s the same arguments I remember hearing in the '90s when DNA started coming out; it’s the same argument now.”

Cowen acknowledges that if the department is able to get the software for the sex offender program, it’s quite possible it would grow.

“We could not say this couldn’t be moved to mug shots or other information databases because that could only enhance the tool for detectives,” he wrote in an email response to a question on privacy concerns. “This software would not be used for general use or civil priorities but only to give detectives an additional tool to use to further investigations. The information gleaned from a template match could be used to further leads in many types of criminal cases.” ..Source.. by MIKE WISER

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

More sex offenders to be on Centre County books when new law takes effect in December

10-25-2012 Pennsylvania:

BELLEFONTE — Centre County officials are moving to update the county’s system for registering sexual offenders ahead of a new state law set to take effect in December.

The bill, signed into law in December 2011 by Gov. Tom Corbett, will bring Pennsylvania in compliance with the federal Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006.

The act is named after Adam Walsh, who was abducted from a Florida shopping mall and later found murdered. After his death, Walsh’s father, John Walsh, became an advocate for the victims of violent crimes, hosting the television show “America’s Most Wanted.”

The bill will result in a greater number of registered offenders in Pennsylvania and will require some offenders to report in more often, county commissioners heard at a meeting Tuesday morning.

“It’s a revamp of Megan’s Law,” said Andy Andrews, the county’s central booking coordinator. “They are adding more information, making more public information available and broadening the number of people who need to register.”

Andrews said there are about 23,000 registered sexual offenders in the commonwealth. The number is expected to jump to 84,000 under the new system.

The new bill closes loopholes in Megan’s Law regarding homeless and out-of-state offenders. It also requires some juvenile offenders to register for the first time, Andrews said.

County officials will also be processing some existing offenders more often. The bill calls for a three-tier system. The most serious offenders must report in every four months, while others must report every six months or once a year, Andrews said.

The county’s central booking center is in the Centre County Correctional Facility. The booking center has been, and will continue to be under the new law, where sexual offenders register in the county.

The county is seeking a $1,598 grant to purchase a new computer, digital signature pad and webcam to facilitate the system upgrades.

Commissioners Chairman Steve Dershem said the existing booking center is largely funded by fees collected through criminal proceedings. ..Source.. by centredaily.com

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

State, feds still disagree over sex offender law

10-8-2012 Maine:

Aid could be cut 10 percent if accord can't be reached

AUGUSTA -- Lawmakers changed the state's sex offender registry law earlier this year, but it still falls short of the minimum federal requirements, which means a federal grant tied to the law will again be reduced by 10 percent.

Last year the total grants to the state under the program were more than $1.3 million, and the state was allowed to use the 10 percent penalty money for work on improving the registry, said Matt Ruel, with the State Bureau of Identification, which oversees Maine's registry.

Ruel said that the state will ask if the same can be done this year "so I can't say what the penalty will be."

Ruel said the federal program was funded for the first six months of the federal budget year that started Oct. 1, and could be significantly reduced in the second half of the year as part of deficit reduction legislation.

The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, instituted in 2006, was named after a Florida boy who was killed 30 years ago by a sex offender. The law requires states to develop registries that will feed data into a national sex offender data base, and those were supposed to be complete by July 2011.

The fact that it requires juvenile offenders to be on a registry has been a non-starter for Maine lawmakers.

"We are headed down the path that is the best for Maine," said Rep. Gary Plummer, R-Windham, co-chairman of the legislature's Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee. "There are some areas that our committee has very much objected to around juveniles and juvenile sex offenders."

He said the requirement that states maintain a registry for juveniles has run into opposition from both parties.

He agrees with those that believe juveniles should be treated differently than adults in all types of crimes.

Plummer said Maine is not the only state to reject the strict requirements under the federal law. Only 16 states have met the requirements as interpreted by the Justice Department.

Five states have rejected the law and are losing the 10 percent penalty money. Those states -- Arizona, Arkansas, California, Nebraska and Texas -- find it cheaper to forego the federal money than administer the program, the Associated Press reported last week.

Maine is finding the same thing with regards to the juvenile requirement.

"From what we were told in committee, it would cost us far more to implement a registry with juveniles than the penalty we are getting in lost federal funds," Plummer said.

Sen. Stan Gerzofsky, D-Brunswick, former co-chair of the committee, agrees with Plummer.

"We were told it would cost a lot not only to create a new registry, it would cost a lot to maintain it," he said.

"What we are doing now, the adult offenders, is what we should be doing and not expanding it to kids."

Gerzofsky said the law was the result of years of work by committee members to find one that would work for Maine. Both Gerzofsky and Plummer expect changes to be proposed in the new Legislature, as they have been proposed in every session for a decade.

The state supreme court is considering a case that challenges the registry law, arguing it violates the rights of plaintiffs who were convicted before the law requiring them to register as sex offenders existed.

That lawsuit does not apply to the new registry law, which separates offenders into three categories: those who must register and send address changes to the state for 10 years, those that must register for 25 years and a group that must register and update their whereabouts for life.

Ruel hopes Congress will make changes to the law and abolish the penalty for states not meeting every requirement of the law. The House passed re-authorization measure for the law eliminates the juvenile registry requirement that offenders register for life. It also creates a new grant program to help the states treat juvenile sex offenders.

But, the Senate has taken no action on the bill except to refer it to the Senate Judiciary Committee, which does not meet again until after the November elections. ..Source.. by MAL LEARY, Capitol News Service

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Scarlet letter for sex offenders?

This article is a push to enact a law that has proven to be harmful, to the state, to the public and the registrants. So far, and we doubt we will ever see, proof that registries enhance public safety. The focus here is to "get it done" no matter what the collateral consequences are. Registries result in vigilantism at a level that society has never before seen. It is highly unlikely that any registrant can say, they have never suffered any kind of vigilantism. Vigilantism is rampart today, with subtle to severe forms.

9-26-2012 North Carolina:

Sheriff, attorney general say N.C. should comply with federal law; more information would be added to public registries

More information about registered sex offenders — including where they work and the cars they drive — will be added to North Carolina’s online offender registry if lawmakers comply with new federal rules.

North Carolina is among 35 states that have not adopted standards in the federal Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, passed in 2006. State Attorney General Roy Cooper is urging lawmakers to pass the reforms.

“Tracking sex offenders nationally can make communities safer and better protect people, especially our children,” Cooper said in a statement to The Wilson Times. “North Carolina risks being left behind if it fails to strengthen the sex offender registry, and legislators should do what’s necessary to protect the public.”

Wilson County Sheriff Calvin Woodard said SORNA would give residents more information about sex offenders in their communities and set harsh public penalties for serious sex crimes.

“It’s public awareness,” Woodard said. “It tells people, ‘If you do this, it’s going to be like The Scarlet Letter.’ They’re going to have an “S” and “O” for sex offender on their chest. It keeps them in check.”

SORNA enjoys broad support from law enforcement, but the measure has faced high legislative hurdles in Raleigh. A bill to study the federal law’s implementation introduced more than a year ago remains stalled in the Senate’s Judiciary II committee, which Republican Sen. E.S. “Buck” Newton of Wilson co-chairs.

Newton said lawmakers will study the federal law carefully and determine whether North Carolina’s registry system should be changed. He said no one from the N.C. Department of Justice or other law enforcement agencies had contacted him about SORNA.

“We’re not too enthusiastic about being told what to do by the Justice Department,” Newton said. “We’ll make sure we do what’s right for the citizens of North Carolina.” ...continued... by Corey Friedman

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Indiana sex-offender registry laws fall short of stricter national standards

8-21-2012 Indiana:

Indiana, along with 34 other states, is out of compliance with a federal law that requires states to adopt strict standards for registering sex offenders and monitoring their whereabouts.

The federal law was passed in 2006, in response to a series of heinous crimes committed by fugitive sex offenders, including Joseph Edward Duncan III, a serial child molester on the federal death row in Terre Haute for the 2005 kidnap, torture and killing of a 9-year-old boy.

The law was supposed to launch an aggressive 50-state effort to keep better track of offenders like Duncan, who was a registered sex offender in one state, while out on bond on a child molesting charge in another state, when he was committing sex crimes and murder in a third state.

But that effort has been slowed down by questions about the costs of its implementation, concerns that the federal law trumps state policies and practices already in place, and fears that states will face an avalanche of lawsuits if they follow the federal rules.

An Indiana legislative study committee is taking up the issue this summer, in part because of questions about the accuracy of the state’s Sex and Violent Offender Registry, which contains more than 9,000 sex offenders. It’s on the agenda for the Aug. 23 meeting of the Criminal Law and Sentencing Policy Study Committee.

“There are some policy issues involved that only the legislature can address,” said Steve Luce, executive director of the Indiana Sheriff’s Association, which manages the registry’s public website with support from the Indiana Department of Corrections.

Late last year, Indiana — along with many states — was penalized by the U.S. Department of Justice for its failure to “substantially implement” the federal law, known as the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, or SORNA.

The penalty was the loss of about $165,000 in federal funds for state law enforcement. Indiana got the money back this year, but it can only be used to move toward implementing SORNA. States can be penalized for every year they don’t meet SORNA standards.

SORNA is part of the 2006 Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, which made it a federal crime for a registered sex offender to move to another state without re-registering with that new home state. The law also set out uniform standards for state sex offender registries — who goes on them, how long they stay on, and when, if ever, they come off. ..continued.. by MAUREEN HAYDEN

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

The US House has passed the Adam Walsh Reauthorization ACt of 2012, and two other bills

8-2-2012 Washington DC AFTERNOON:

The U.S. House has considered the three bills we were all concerned about on 7-31-2012 (w/Amendments) and again on 8-1-2012 which I am about to tell folks about.

Apparently on 7-31 most lawmakers had already gone home so there were not enough of them left to form a Quorum (2/3 rds of the members, needed to pass a bill), so thyey brought the bills up again on 8-1-2012 and all passed as amended (amendments to AWA HR-3796 I earlier described HERE).

The House record for 8-1-2012 each bill (nos. #77 #80 and #82) ends as follows:

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the question on suspending the rules and passing the bill (nos & titles inserted here) ...
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

There it is folks, "suspend the rules" and "voice vote" (see actual bills for proof of this) so no one can see who voted and how, then their constituents cannot pick at them. i.e., another form of Behind Closed Doors (Using methods to prevent the public from knowing who said or did, what).

So the bills now go on to the Senate.

Now is the time to STEP UP the pressures. Folks need to WRITE letters, and CALL ALL the Senators' offices; write multiple letters each telling a different reason why the Adam Walsh Act (HR-3796) should not pass (be civil). The Child Protection Act (HR-6063) also contains some bad, if not illegal language (See Rep. Scott's comments on 7-31-2012), this too should not pass into law. As for the Byrne Grant bill (HR 6062), well I have no problems with that one, there are bad guys out there who need to be taken down.

If you have forgotten the easy procedure for writing letters, it is HERE and to find Senators PHONE numbers that is HERE.

Thats all for today. For now have a great day and a better tomorrow.
eAdvocate

PS: A few folks have asked what some of the strange terms used by Lawmakers, mean: See Glossary HERE. The old glossary which I think is better, is HERE, but it is no longer updated and I don't know if there are changes to it. Now there is one other, see HERE this gets into other phrases used around DC. All in all, you'll find an answer in one of them.

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

The US House has considered the Adam Walsh Reauthorization Act of 2012 bill and two others

See HERE for an UPDATE to this post.

8-2-2012 Washington DC MORNING:

The U.S. House has considered the three bills (see below) we were all concerned about on 7-31-2012. The outcome of which is rather odd, so here is exactly what was said for each bill:

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, (Bill Numbers go here), as amended.

The question was taken.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this question will be postponed.

The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.

It appears there weren't enough Lawmakers available to vote on the bills. Now if you look at each bill, none of them show any vote taken. So although there were amendments made it appears we are waiting till there are enough Lawmakers to vote.

For those of you that want to read exactly what transpired see the following for each bill. All three bills can be accessed from the House Record for 7-31-2012. Lawmaker comments are within the links below. I have picked portions of their comments (in green) to further comment on.

---

No 46: ADAM WALSH REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2012 (HR 3796)

Mr. SMITH of Texas comments:

The Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, or SORNA, created a more uniform system of sex offender registries throughout the country by providing minimum standards that each State must meet.

In addition to SORNA, the Adam Walsh Act made the U.S. Marshals Service responsible for the apprehension of both Federal and State fugitive sex offenders, as well as for the investigation of sex offender registry violations. The Marshals Service apprehended over 11,000 fugitive sex offenders in 2010 alone.

As to his comment about a "more uniform system of SO registries" he is sadly mistaken. Because the states were provided Guidelines, a list of parameters to pick and chose from, the end result is no different than before SORNA. State registries are not more uniform, some are drastically fractured (Alabama for one).

As for the no. of RSO's apprehended, this is not what is reported by the US Marshalls. Every one of their reports have been numbers very low (2 digits). Someone needs to have Mr SMITH provide proof of his claim.

Mr SCOTT of Virginia comments:

I am concerned about what is missing from H.R. 3796. Unfortunately, the bill fails to address the many problems that the States and Indian tribes have encountered in implementing the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, known as SORNA, which is one of the provisions of the original Adam Walsh Act. So far, only 15 States have been found by the Attorney General to be in compliance.

Mr Scott gets to the heart of the problem, nobody wants this law, 15 out of 50, what happened to majority rules.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER comments (I'm only going to point to one thing:

The Adam Walsh Act has already been a public safety success. To date, the Justice Department has deemed 50 jurisdictions substantially compliant with the SORNA requirements, with two Indian tribes meeting this goal in just the 2 weeks since the Judiciary Committee considered H.R. 3796 at markup.

We live by very different dictionaries. I have a real problem calling unemployment, homelessness, living under bridges, getting evicted, being harassed victimized and some murdered because of the registry, and much more, as success.

---

No. 50 CHILD PROTECTION ACT OF 2012 (HR 6063)

Here getting to the Lawmakers' comments is a little different. When you click on the bill you will see FOUR sections (links) each has to be read to get everything that was said, and some sections overlap the previous one, can't help the way Congress keeps its records.

Mr. SMITH of Texas comments:

Internet child pornography may be the fastest-growing crime in America, increasing by an average of 150 percent per year. Every day, online criminals prey on America's children with virtual anonymity, and according to recent estimates there are as many as 100,000 fugitive sex offenders in the U.S. Congress has taken important steps to combat child exploitation, including the passage of the Adam Walsh Act in 2006 and the PROTECT Our Children Act in 2008.

Here we go with that fictitious factoid number used to pass legislation. Rather than waste space here please read THIS.

Unlike the other 300 Federal administrative subpoena powers, which are used at the beginning of a criminal investigation, a marshal's use of subpoena authority under this bill will occur only after, and only after, these actions occur:

The fugitive is arrested pursuant to a judge-issued warrant, indicted for committing a sex offense, convicted by proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and sentenced in a court of law;
The fugitive is required to register as a sex offender;
The fugitive pleas or otherwise violates their registration requirements; and
A State or Federal arrest warrant is issued for violation of the registration requirements.
This narrow subpoena authority is critical to help take convicted sex offenders off the streets.

According to SMITH these administrative subpoenas will only be used AFTER a person is arrested for a registry violation. He needs to read the bill, that is not what it says. And, "registry violation" means what? How broad are the types of "registry violations," failure to sign a form, dotting eyes crossing ttttts. Overbroad!

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia comments:

A further problem with H.R. 6063 is that it would give U.S. marshals the authority to issue administrative subpoenas to investigate unregistered sex offenders. I'm not convinced that extending this extraordinary ex parte judicial authority is appropriate.

Research has clearly shown that registered sex offenders who may not be compliant with the law are actually no more apt to commit a criminal offense than those who are compliant. So there is no compelling reason to create a special authority for U.S. marshals in the case of registered or unregistered sex offenders. There's no urgent or imminent threat context in rounding up alleged noncompliant sex offenders which, as we said, are no more likely to commit a crime than those who are compliant with all of the technicalities of the law.

So, this bill will allow the US Marshalls to issue a administrative subpeona for someone who is no longer required to register, for a fishing expedition. Again we see another Overbroad provision violating someone's rights.

---

No. 52 EDWARD BYRNE MEMORIAL JUSTICE ASSISTANCE GRANT PROGRAM REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2012 (HR 6062)

There isn't much that can be said here, other than I'm blown away by the amounts mentioned. Much of this money is to stimulate law enforcement jobs.

---

Yes, there was much more I could have commented about, but I hit the main points. Well there it is, everyone judge for themselves. Now since the bills -technically- still have not been voted on, keep contacting your Lawmakers in Washington DC. Make sure your voices are heard!

For now have a great day and a better tomorrow.
eAdvocate

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

the Adam Walsh Re-authorization Act (AWRA) and Why It Should Not Become Law!

7-20-2012 National:

In my earlier Commentary I gave folks a chance to see the US House amendments that were proposed to be included in this Reauthorization of the Adam Walsh Act. There I didn't want to cloud folks thinking as to why AWRA should not become law.

There we saw Rep Bobby Scott's amendments that were passed, and they will chip away at the harmful effects of the Adam Walsh Act. Rep Scott knows all to well how harmful the Act really is. He is one of a handful of lawmakers trying to do something about this harmful law.

OK, so what does the underlying AWRA (HR 3796) actually want to do:

SEC. 2. SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE (SOMA) PROGRAM REAUTHORIZATION.

Section 126(d) of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 (42 U.S.C. 16926(d)) is amended to read as follows:

`(d) Authorization of Appropriations- There are authorized to be appropriated to the Attorney General $20,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2013 through 2017, to be available only for--

`(1) the SOMA program; and
`(2) the Jessica Lunsford Address Verification Grant Program established under section 631.'.

SEC. 3. REAUTHORIZATION OF FEDERAL ASSISTANCE WITH RESPECT TO VIOLATIONS OF REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS.

Section 142(b) of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 (42 U.S.C. 16941(b)) is amended by striking `such sums as may be necessary for fiscal years 2007 through 2009' and inserting `$46,200,000 for each of the fiscal years 2013 through 2017'.

SEC. 4. DURATION OF SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTAIN JUVENILES.

Subparagraph (B) of section 115(b)(2) of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 (42 U.S.C. 16915(b)(2)) is amended by striking `25 years' and inserting `15 years'.

Three things:

• 1) Extend grants to states so they can enact SORNA;
• 2) Extend grants to find folks who haven't properly registered;
• 3) Change the term of registration for juveniles.

This is 2012, six years after the enactment of AWA/SORNA, only 15 states are in compliance. Isn't that enough of a signal that the majority of the states DO NOT want this law? Appropriating 20 million more, for the next five years, does not address why the states do not want to comply!

I'm going to jump to changing the term of registration for juveniles, from 25 years to 15 years. Putting juveniles on the registry has already ruined their lives and changing how long they have to register is not going to restore their lives. Assuming 18 + 15 = 32 years old, the better part of their lives are gone, their earning potential is destroyed on day one. The registry is a living hell for anyone, and psychologically affecting juveniles is cruel and unusual.

Now lets look at the 46.2 million per year to find folks who have not PROPERLY registered. Read Sec. 3 "REAUTHORIZATION OF FEDERAL ASSISTANCE WITH RESPECT TO VIOLATIONS OF REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS."

"Violations of Registration Requirements," it looks like Congress wants to send a Task Force out for any possible reason that violates registration laws, not just those who fail to register. Here we are talking about TECHNICAL VIOLATIONS, right?

Here is a typical address check in Georgia: "More than 40 law enforcement officers from multiple agencies hit the streets to track down 182 registered sex offenders. The Cherokee County Sheriff's Office does these big checks twice a year. ... "You want to make sure where they say they are living they are actually living there," Perkins said. "We verify the offenders five to six times a year and take a new picture and fingerprints once a year."

40 police officers rolling up to the front door of every registered offender. This has got to put the fear of God in the rest of his/her neighbors. Is this sane, all they want is an address, or to verify the address?

Excepting technical violations, which now seem to be included, the only way to violate SORNA or any state registry is, to fail to provide a proper address. Federal money, $46.2 million just for the Federal agents that go along on these address checks. This is unbelievable!

According to NCMEC National Sex Offender Map there are 747,408 registered former offenders. Congress, through this AWRA bill will be spending roughly $62.00 per registrant, per year, in Federal money alone, just to baby sit local police when they check an address. If ever there was a sign of insanity, this is it!

Please remember, U.S. Marshals or other Federal officials do not have jurisdiction to perform state address checks, and cannot act until there is a violation of law:

(42 USC 16941) SEC. 142. FEDERAL ASSISTANCE WITH RESPECT TO VIOLATIONS OF REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS.

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Attorney General shall use the resources of Federal law enforcement, including the United States Marshals Service, to assist jurisdictions in locating and apprehending sex offenders who violate sex offender registration requirements. For the purposes of section 566(e)(1)(B) of title 28, United States Code, a sex offender who violates a sex offender registration requirement shall be deemed a fugitive.

(b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary for fiscal years 2007 through 2009 to implement this section.

So, until local police tell them there is a violation of law, U.S. Marshals are expensive babysitters, or should be if they are following law! They are using taxpayer funds at a time when taxpayers need it just to live day by day.

Lets wrap this up, while I do feel the changes presented by Rep. Bobby Scott are needed, I do not feel the spending of money as shown above is warranted. Thats my opinion, and I would vote NO on this bill to reauthorize the Adam Walsh Act. It is a failed law, and harmful to society in general.

Its time for folks to have their voices heard, contact your folks in Washington.

For now have a great day and a better tomorrow.
eAdvocate

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

PA SORNA Has Been Recently Amended to Define Who Must Register

7-11-2012 Pennsylvania:

This is from a PA Law Firm: Shaffer & Engle Law Offices, LLC

Certain offenders that would have had to register under SORNA as of December 20, 2012 have now been excluded by House Bill 75, passed on July 5, 2012. It takes the retroactivity out of the Law for many would-be registrants. by Attorney Elisabeth K.H. Pasqualini, Megan's Law/SORNA Attorney, Harrisburg, PA

Note: The question that remains is, which offenders? Contact the lawyer to have that answered.

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Following Mark Up on the 18th, the US House voted to pass the Adam Walsh Reauthorization Act of 2012 (AWRA)

7-20-2012 Washington DC:

Folks may remember that on Wednesday the 18th the U.S. House Judiciary Committee Marked Up the Adam Walsh Re-authorization Act (AWRA) (HR 3796) -and- the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program Reauthorization Act of 2012 (HR 6062).

As to AWRA certain amendments were presented which can be found HERE (under HR 3796) but only FOUR of them were approved and will become part of the full AWA (If the Senate also accepts them when they get the bill). The four accepted amendments were presented by Rep. Bobby Scott of Virginia, and are:

• 1) JUVENILE SEX OFFENDER TREATMENT GRANTS REAUTHORIZATION.
• 2) PUBLIC ACCESS TO JUVENILE SEX OFFENDER INFORMATION.
• 3) COMPREHENSIVE EXAMINATION OF SEX OFFENDER ISSUES.
• 4) PROTECTION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS FROM STATE NONCOMPLIANCE PENALTY UNDER SORNA.

As best I interpret the four here is what each does:

1) Reduces the Grant money for "Juvenile sex offender treatment programs" (42 USC 3797-EE-1) from $10,000,000 to $2,979,000 for each fiscal year 2013 through 2017. I'd say that is NOT GOOD, but have no idea why a reduction is warranted.

2) Adds this new section making it MANDATORY to EXEMPT from the Public Registry "any information about a sex offender for whom the offense giving rise to the duty to register was an offense for which the offender was adjudicated delinquent (or otherwise convicted) as a juvenile." That sounds GOOD, apparently some states were still showing these juvenile sex offenders publicly.

3) Under section 634 "COMPREHENSIVE EXAMINATION OF SEX OFFENDER ISSUES" Congress wants to add a new report, in addition to the reports already listed. The NEW report "Not later than one year after the date of enactment of the Adam Walsh Reauthorization Act of 2011 (AWRA), the National Institute of Justice shall submit to Congress a report on the public safety impact, recidivism, and collateral consequences of long-term registration of juvenile sex offenders, based on the information collected for the study under subsection (a) and any other information the National Institute of Justice determines necessary for such report."

.

Folks may remember I did address Section 634 in my Commentary "PART-III: Behind Closed Doors: The Adam Walsh Act Way, now the States are following?. This new report covering juveniles SOUNDS GOOD, but I do have a concern about interpreting "public safety impact." Will that be construed to INCLUDE "effects on the registrant and family, if any" and if not it should. Now because I see some other differences in the reporting between juveniles and adults, and not wanting to muddy the waters here, I will do a separate Commentary addressing those differences within a few days.

.

4) This one is odd, best explained by looking at this from the point when the state gets Byrne Grant Money. When states get funding through the Byrne Grant there is a statute (42 USC 3755) which tells them how to disburse the money to their local governments, and what portion the state keeps.

So this amendment is saying, if a state chooses NOT to come into compliance with SORNA, that the state "shall return to the Attorney General (for reallocation in accordance with subsection (c))" its Byrne Grant portion less what was already given to local governments. In essence Congress does not want to penalize local governments since local governments have no say in whether the state complies w/SORNA or not.

This is my best understanding of these amendments (links to the four are above). Any other interpretations are welcomed, please comment so other folks can see your comments.

So, right now is the time to act, and that means to contact your Senators in Washington DC. Tell them to vote NO on this bill. You can also contact them on Facebook, Twitter and every other site they have listed on their Home pages (see HERE to learn how).

For now have a great day and a better tomorrow.
eAdvocate

PS: For a legal interpretation of these amendments see a lawyer, above is just my read of the amendments.

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Petitions: An Effort to STOP the Adam Walsh Re-authorization Act of 2012 and the Child Protection Act

7-15-2012 Washington DC:

Vicki Henry of Women Against Registry has created THREE Petitions in an effort to get Congress not to pass the Adam Walsh Re-authorization Act and the Child Protection Act. Below shows when Congress is set to act on those bills. If you have not yet signed the Petitions please do so now. Also ask your family members to sign supporting a NO vote when Congress acts on them next. The Petitions are:

Congress Wants to Pass the Adam Walsh Re-authorization Act of 2012: Ask Your U.S. Lawmakers In Washington To Vote NO!

U.S. House of Representatives: Do Not Ruin Anymore Families By Passing the Child Protection Act of 2012

U.S. Senate: Do Not Ruin Anymore Families By Passing the Child Protection Act of 2012

Grassroots movements succeed because people like you are willing to spread the word!

Women Against Registry

---

Note: The Child Protection Act was Marked Up on July 10 and is awaiting a House Vote.

Wednesday, July 18, 2012 2:00 p.m. 2141 Rayburn House Office Building

Full Committee Markup of:

• H.R. 3796, the "Adam Walsh Reauthorization Act of 2012";
• H.R. 6062, To reauthorize the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program through fiscal year 2017;
• H.R. 3803, the "District of Columbia Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act"

See House Judiciary page:

Time to make contact with ALL Congressmen in Washington asking them to VOTE NO on the Adam Walsh Act and the Child Protection Act!

Have a great day and a better tomorrow.
eAdvocate

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Wednesday July 18 -Markup- of the Adam Walsh Reauthorization Act of 2012 and Byrne Grants

7-11-2012 Washington DC:

Wednesday, July 18, 2012 2:00 p.m. 2141 Rayburn House Office Building

Full Committee Markup of:

• H.R. 3796, the "Adam Walsh Reauthorization Act of 2012";
• H.R. 6062, To reauthorize the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program through fiscal year 2017;
• H.R. 3803, the "District of Columbia Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act"

See House Judiciary page:

Time to make contact with ALL Congressmen in Washington asking them to VOTE NO on the Adam Walsh Act!

For now have a great day and a better tomorrow.
eAdvocate

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Tuesday July 10 -Markup- of the Adam Walsh Reauthorization Act of 2012 and Other Bills

7-11-2012 Washington DC:

Folks may remember my reminder of this MarkUp hearing on Tuesday 6-10.

Now today the Video and Testimony is available HERE Lawmakers did nothing on the Adam Walsh Act reauthorization, but did pass on a Voice Vote HR 6063. There is significant information in the video starting about 50 minutes into the video. See Rep. Conyers and Rep. Scott's comments.

Apparently Chairman Lamar Smith made a few incorrect statement which I would hope folks take note of and contact him to correct him. See phone numbers at the very bottom of his website. Or, on his Facebook or Twitter accounts also on his website page.

---

Tuesday, July 10, 2012 10:00 a.m. 2141 Rayburn House Office Building

Full Committee Markup of:

• H.R. 3796, the "Adam Walsh Reauthorization Act of 2012";
• H.R. 6063, To amend title 18, United States Code, with respect to child pornography and child exploitation offenses;
• H.R. 6062, To reauthorize the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program through fiscal year 2017;
• Other Bills:
• H.R. 4362, the "Stopping Tax Offenders and Prosecuting Identity Theft Act of 2012";
• H.R. 6029, To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide for increased penalties for foreign and economic espionage, and for other purposes;
• *H.R. ____, the "Intellectual Property Attaché Act";
• H.R. 1950, To enact title 54, United States Code, "National Park System", as positive law;
• *H.R. ____, To make improvements in the enactment of title 41, United States Code, into a positive law title and to improve the Code; and,
• H.R. 3803, the "District of Columbia Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act"

See House Judiciary page:

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Tuesday June 10 -Markup- of the Adam Walsh Reauthorization Act of 2012 and Other Bills

7-6-2012 Washington DC:

Tuesday, July 10, 2012 10:00 a.m. 2141 Rayburn House Office Building

Full Committee Markup of:

• H.R. 3796, the "Adam Walsh Reauthorization Act of 2012";
• H.R. 6063, To amend title 18, United States Code, with respect to child pornography and child exploitation offenses;
• H.R. 6062, To reauthorize the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program through fiscal year 2017;
• Other Bills:
• H.R. 4362, the "Stopping Tax Offenders and Prosecuting Identity Theft Act of 2012";
• H.R. 6029, To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide for increased penalties for foreign and economic espionage, and for other purposes;
• *H.R. ____, the "Intellectual Property Attaché Act";
• H.R. 1950, To enact title 54, United States Code, "National Park System", as positive law;
• *H.R. ____, To make improvements in the enactment of title 41, United States Code, into a positive law title and to improve the Code; and,
• H.R. 3803, the "District of Columbia Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act"

See House Judiciary page:

---

What does Markup Mean?

The process of marking up bills and resolutions in committees of the House of Representatives generally resembles, but does not perfectly replicate, the process of amending measures on the House floor.

At the beginning of a markup, committee members often make opening statements, usually not exceeding five minutes apiece. The first reading of the text of the bill to be marked up can be waived, either by unanimous consent or by adopting a nondebatable motion. The bill then is read for amendment, one section at a time, with committee members offering their amendments to each section after it is read but before the next section is read. By unanimous consent only, the committee may agree to dispense with the reading of each section, or to consider a bill for amendment by titles or chapters instead of by sections. Also by unanimous consent, the committee may consider the entire bill as having been read and open to amendment at any point.

Each amendment must be read in full unless the committee waives that reading by unanimous consent. Committees debate amendments under the five-minute rule. A committee can end the debate on an amendment by ordering the previous question on it, or by agreeing to a motion to close debate on it. A committee also can order the previous question or close debate on the entire bill, once it has been read or that reading has been waived by unanimous consent. However, the committee can only close debate, not order the previous question, on individual sections (titles, chapters) of the bill. The various kinds of amendments, as well as most of the other motions, that are in order on the House floor are in order in committee as well.

Committees do not actually change the texts of the bills they mark up. Instead, committees vote on amendments that their members want to recommend that the House adopt when it considers the bill on the floor. The committee concludes a markup not by voting on the bill as a whole, but by voting on a motion to order the bill reported to the House with whatever amendments the committee has approved. A majority of the committee must be present when this final vote occurs. For all other stages of markups, committees may set their own quorum requirements, so long as that quorum is at least one-third of the committee's membership.

Like the Speaker of the House, committee chairs are responsible for maintaining order and for enforcing proper procedure, either at their own initiative or by ruling on points of order that other committee members make. Chairs also frequently respond to questions about procedure in the form of parliamentary inquiries.

A committee may report a bill back to the House without amendment, with several amendments, or with an amendment in the nature of a substitute that proposes an entirely different text for the bill. Alternatively, a committee may report a new or "clean" bill on the same subject as the bill (or other text) that it has marked up. ..Source..

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

The Adam Walsh Act Parasite has Infected Michigan Lawmakers...

11-5-2010 Michigan:

The AWA parasite has crept into Michigan, likely carried by the SMART Guidelines (they really do exist, although named by someone who obviously wanted to play a joke on registrants) for the Adam Walsh Act; the parasite has infected the minds of lawmakers and turned on the insanity switch.

Two bills have been introduced outlining the changes Michigan lawmakers WILL MAKE and they will be effective 4-1-2011. No this is not a April Fools joke, unless lawmakers chose that date to say, "here we stick it to registrants again," and they WILL get away with it, again.

The bills are: S-1560 (The meat of the changes are in this one) and S-1559 (this has to do with the Petitions some folks [only certain folks were eligible] used to be able to use to get off the registry).

Why do I use the word INSANE? Well, because it is well known, that the AWA is to be interpreted as the floor and not the ceiling, meaning States must do the minimum AWA requires, but are also allowed to go beyond AWA requirements. Michigan is somewhere in outer space with their new requirements.

Before reviewing the bills, mainly S-1560 the meat, here are some terms that are critically important:

When considering the following, think about what one does in a normal day, then think about being a registrant and having to worry about how officials will construe, or misconstrue, some of the following:

"immediately" which is defined as within 3 business days, but, business days are not defined nor are they listed anywhere. Defining "business days" is important because, if left undefined, and in the hands of a rouge official, it could mean what they want, just to get a registrant back in jail.

"to be used" this is the insidious one, used in many ways. ex: A registrant wants to offer their opinion on a news story or blog, most folks know that, when one signs up as some sites require, before being allowed to comment, registrants will have to give their REAL e-mail address. Then when they actually enter their comment, they are allowed to chose a any Internet ID or Anonymous is used as default. So, what does a registrant chose? If anonymous, then everywhere on the Internet that "anonymous" is used, it is a registered sex offender speaking. Does this example show Lawmakers know nothing about the Internet or how it works? Or, are they using the idiosyncrasies of the Internet to entrap registrants. The latter is more likely, and especially true in the hands of a rouge official, there are many. "to be used" is used in several places, and each leaves one with thinking about entrapment.

Another example of "to be used," is with respect to residences. Here I think (am assuming, grrr) that they are speaking about homeless folks, it says, "information under this subsection shall identify the location or area used -or- to be used by the individual in lieu of a residence." Here I will take a pot-shot, Thomas Pauli homeless and rejected from shelters in the dead of winter (temperatures below zero), he looked for anywhere to get out of the cold, he found a junkyard. Could he have predicted beforehand (i.e. to be used) that he would take up residence there? He froze to death there, and this bill does NOTHING to handle such circumstances. NOTHING! Is insanity an incorrect word for me to use about this bill?

Note: The Michigan Supreme court anounced on 11-4-2010 that they will hear the case about Michigan's homeless folks, up from a lower court.

Another example of "to be used," and this one is a Prosecutor's dream provision:

(E) THE NAME AND ADDRESS OF ANY PLACE OF TEMPORARY LODGING USED OR TO BE USED BY THE INDIVIDUAL DURING ANY PERIOD IN WHICH THE INDIVIDUAL IS AWAY, OR IS EXPECTED TO BE AWAY, FROM HIS OR HER RESIDENCE. INFORMATION UNDER THIS SUBDIVISION SHALL INCLUDE THE DATES THE LODGING IS USED OR TO BE USED.

Is there any doubt that is a entrapment provision? And this information must be provided when the registrant FIRST registers (that is how the bill is worded).

"routinely used" Again "routinely used" is not defined, and leaving such open allows it to be construed several ways. Routinely used is also used with respect to Internet restrictions. By the way, how does one register "part of a telephone number" read it closely? Maybe a 7 or 10 digit phone number, but what if one must first dial a "1" is that part of the phone number? The bill refuses to be precise allowing for misconstructions.

(H) ALL TELEPHONE NUMBERS REGISTERED IN WHOLE OR IN PART TO THE INDIVIDUAL OR ROUTINELY USED BY THE INDIVIDUAL.

"alleged social security number" Now, this is again, undefined. How does one use an "alleged SS number," I cannot think of a circumstance. If they meant a fictitious one, or one that is not assigned by Social Security Administration then there is a way to describe such, but left undefined who knows how that will be interpreted, especially for women who get married or have changed theirs because of domestic violence circumstances.

I could write a book on where this bill is open for misconstruction, but I am ending with this one:

(11) THE REGISTRATION PERIODS UNDER THIS SECTION EXCLUDE ANY PERIOD OF INCARCERATION FOR COMMITTING A CRIME AND ANY PERIOD OF CIVIL COMMITMENT.

Everyone has complained about AWA being applied retroactively, but here is Michigan's latest trick: The "Registration Term" does not BEGIN until the sentence (including any parole or probation period) has been completed. Clearly they got the idea from how civil commitment works, following a sentence. And why is Michigan even mentioning "civil commitment" when they do not have such in their laws, YET?

Finally, not one word on how to handle folks who are disabled and cannot follow registry requirements. Folks do get old and become infirm, and some do wind up only having a short time to live; the registry requirements are not relaxed even then. Plain insane!

For now, have a great day and a better tomorrow.
eAdvocate

PS: I may do a Part-2 on this bill as I see more egregious things in it.

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...